Leadership, Citizenship Behavior, Performance and Organizational Commitment: the Mediating Role of Organizational Politics

Full text

(1)

ISSN 1818-4952

© IDOSI Publications, 2012

DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2012.19.11.2093

Corresponding Author: Talat Islam, Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development,

Leadership, Citizenship Behavior, Performance and Organizational

Commitment: the Mediating Role of Organizational Politics

Talat Islam, Saif ur Rehman Khan, Azam Shafiq

1 1 2

and Ungku Norulkamar Ungku Ahmad1

Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development,

1

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Campus, Malaysia

Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

2

Abstract: Lots of studies have been conducted on organizational politics but how employee’s perceptions of politics impact between the relationship of leadership styles and their behavioral outcomes is still a point to discuss. This study is an attempt to explore the mediating role of organizational politics between leadership and employees behavioral outcomes. The multifactor questionnaire was distributed among the public employees of Pakistan. They were asked about perceptions of politics, leadership style, commitment, performance and citizenship behaviors. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with structure equation modeling and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted for intra structure of the leadership variables. Two models were examined first with the mediation role and second without the mediation role. A partial mediation of leadership style was found with commitment and OCB. Organizational politics was found to be negatively related with the behavioral outcomes (i.e. commitment, in-role performance and OCB).

Key words: Leadership, OCB, Commitment, Performance, Organizational politics, Behavioral outcomes

INTRODUCTION with the overall organizational desired outcomes [15]. Leadership has a major influence on management, image in the eyes of the organizational members Along employee’s performance, commitment and organizational with this several other studies have correlated citizenship behavior (OCB) [1]. Theories of leadership organizational politics with the theory of justice, fairness have tried to define leadership styles and relate them with and equity [8, 16, 17]. While some other studies elucidate the different aspects of organizations outcomes [2, 3]. organizational politics as a power game and influence Most of the researchers have focused mainly on two plans intended to attain the best outcomes for the addict leadership styles i.e. transactional and transformational [18, 19].

[4, 5]. The theories on leadership suggests that The present study is based on the two models as the transformational leadership style has much greater impact relationship between leadership styles, commitment, on the employees job related behaviors and this ultimately organizational politics, performance and OCB. This study affect their work performance as compared to the will contribute a lot in the existing theory of politics as transactional leadership style. well as organizational citizenship behavior [20-22] because Organizational politics has been discussed as here organizational politics has been used as mediating antecedent of employees performance, citizenship and variable between leadership styles on one hand and OCB, commitment through different approaches by the performance and commitment on other hand. Most of the researchers [6-14]. The majority of the studies have relied studies have linked organizational politics with the one on the definition of organizational politics as behavior variable i.e. performance. But in this study by taking the tactically designed to maximize self interest and in conflict idea of [23] three outcomes are being examined together. Thus this perspective (maximize self-interest) has negative

(2)

Literature Review Under such influence (i.e. transactional leadership) Leadership at Work Place: In a study [24] presented a employees act in according to their leaders because they past review of the study of leadership and the theories of thought that they will be benefitted more by doing that. leadership. According to their assessment leadership has On the other hand, the second leadership style is the been studied in quite a few guidelines, but two emotional excitement. Burns called this leadership style approaches dominate the literature i.e. (1) the first “transformational or charismatic”. The base of this approach focused on the behavioral characteristics of the leadership style is relationship between leader and leaders and (2) the second approach focused on the employee, in actual these leadership styles breaks the different styles of leaders. They define the leadership influencing relationship of leaders on employees and based on the definition of [25], who suggests that motivate them to go for the challenging goals. leadership is behavior “…that gives idea, sense and Transformational leaders not only raise the hopes of the direction to collectivities by articulating a communal employees, but also raise them in the hierarchy of needs visualization that appeals to ideological values, motives by changing their values and beliefs. [5] Argues that and self-perceptions of followers…” in addition to this, he hierarchy of need is the base of transformational process. further suggest that this behavior results awareness of Thus, transformational leadership is a consequence of the the organizational values, efforts and the preceding of the leader’s ability to express a convincing vision.

self interest for the good of the communal. A research was conducted by [28] on 78 managers, Most of the studies of this era debate on the point which were asked about the leadership styles through that organizational leadership is the aptitude to influence open questionnaires to explain the most astonishing people in order to accomplish their tasks using certain characteristics of leaders who had influenced them motivational methods instead of using their powers and personally. This study was an extension of the [29] model authorities [26, 27]. This definition of the leadership and was called “full range leadership model” by Avolio allows subordinates to do tasks according to their choice and Bass because here they studied about eight and will. While doing so they are largely allowed to reject leadership styles. This model includes:

the powers, coercive actions of the managers who are

considered “leaders”. Such type of definition clearly Transformational leadership style makes difference between coercive rules and leadership. Transactional leadership style and However, it relates leadership with the lesser formal Laissez-faire leadership style authority and more informal influence and power, which

encompass the political environment in the organization. The above leadership styles are according to the A question occur when the people perform out of extent of their usefulness and activities. In this model, obedience of their authorities that, whether they are doing transformational leadership style was given the first rank, it by their will or because of having no fear of been followed by the transactional leadership style and punished by their supervisors. Hence the present theories laissez-faire leadership style. The essential idea of “full of leadership focus more on transformational leadership range of leadership model” was to find the different style instead of transactional or any other leadership style leadership characteristics in every leader. Same theory

[1]. was tested by [30] on Dutch managers and found only

However, the existing theories on leadership also three leadership characteristics in them that were, focus on the transactional leadership and transformational transformational leadership, transactional leadership and leadership as central concept in this field. A study by [5] Laissez-faire leadership style. Again transformational firstly introduces these concepts and to cover the “full leadership style was found to be a dominant leadership range model of leadership” Bass and Avolio further style in Dutch managers.

developed the same concepts time and again [4, 28, 29].

According to this theory, there are two ways to influence Relationship between Leadership, Performance, on the subordinate by the leaders i.e., first influence Commitment and OCB: Considerable scholarly attention comes by the leader’s understanding which he creates a has been received by the relationship between leadership cost-benefit interaction in his community. Such type of performance, commitment and OCB. But most of the influence is called as transactional leadership by [5]. studies conducted on transactional leadership style,

(3)

organizational commitment, organizational performance Organizational Politics: An extensive bank of OCB given the disappointed results to the researchers. information is been generated by the researchers in recent However, when the multifactor questionnaire was used by days about organizational politics and its relationship [29], a high correlation was found between with the organizational commitment, OCB and transformational leadership style, organizational performance of an organization. Most of the studies have performance and citizenship behavior. This relationship of focused the employee’s perception about the transformational leadership and performance was much organizational politics, defined by [20, 15] as “behavior higher as the relationship of transactional leadership and intentionally designed to maximize self-interests and performance. Later on researchers found a varied therefore gainsay the collective organizational relationship between transactional leadership, desired outcomes or the interests of other individuals”. organizational commitment and OCB. Furthermore some of [40, 45] discusses the organizational politics as the the researchers have found negative relationship between unconstructive process and argued, “If I told you, transactional leadership style and performance [31-36]. you were a very political person; you would take it According to [29], employees decide to perform tasks either as an insult or at best as a mixed blessing”. out of recognition with the leader or with the organization. When people are asked about the organizational politics, This relationship results in the employee’s basic they start listing those activities, which were not agreement with the norms to which they are mandatory to according to their interest or not perceived positively perform. According to Bass transformational leadership by them [9, 11]. Many other studies that develop the same can create recognition with the internationalization of concept found that the employees perceived workplace pleasing values, as opposed to the imperfect aim of politics as self-serving behavior to achieve benefits, transactional leadership to create an obedient workforce. advantages and self-interests at the expense of others A study was conducted by [36] in the public and sometimes opposing to the interest of the whole organizations about the leadership styles, innovation and organization [8, 17, 46-50]. This behavior was often related efficiency of the organizations and concluded that with exploitation, subversiveness, offense and illegal transformations leadership enable employees of an ways of using power to achieve one’s objectives beyond organization to work with efficiently and it also brings their authorities [18].

innovations among them. For this [1], suggested a leader It was suggested by [15] that the scale of perception member exchange theory [37] and argued that there is of organizational politics is a good indicator of relationship between leadership styles, OCB and organizational performance and organizational performance (especially transformational leadership style commitment. Moreover, [8, 16] argued that the perception has much more relationship with performance and OCB). of organizational politics is inversely related to the equity, In most of the contexts this leader member exchange justice and fairness. Politics and fairness both the theory resembled with the other theories like exchange variables are related to each other but the present study theory [38] and expectancy theory [39] that call for a distinguish them properly. The studies of [51, 52] argued stronger balance between employees and managers. that procedural justice theory of organizational politics According to these theories, employees can betterly is related to the effectiveness of human resources, perform when there is good and healthy relationship leader member exchange and decision making behavior of between managers and employees and on the other hand the employees. One of the reasons of organizational all the managers treat its employees on the basis of politics might be the lack of organizational justice which

equality. ultimately affect the organizational commitment and

Another study also found a significant relationship performance level of the employees. All the studies on between transformational leadership and performance organizational politics are based on the point that [7, 6, 40-43] Pointed out that to maintain an effective “people response to their perception of reality, not what business operation leaders have to apply new methods the reality is in actual” [26]. Thus politics in the and techniques in the organization. Therefore they have organization should be viewed what people think of it to work with different leadership styles, only in this why rather than its actual meaning. Similarly most of the the performance and commitment level of the employees researchers revealed that politics is due to the perceptions could be increased. It was noted by [44] that the influence of fairness and justice in the organization [49, 53]. These of transformational leadership style on performance is ideas were replicated widely and supported in many more as compared to transactional leadership style. studies [8, 15-17, 51, 54, 55].

(4)

OCB In-role Performance Organizational Commitment Transformational leadership Organizational Politics Transactional leadership Fig. 1: Research Model

Leadership, Organizational Politics and Organizational relationship between transformational leadership and Citizenship Behaviors: The research model in the organizational citizenship behavior. Conversely, [34] Figure 1 describes the relationship among leadership studied on the transactional and transformational styles (i.e. transactional and transformational), leadership’s impact on the performance of marketing perceptions of organizational politics, organizational personals in the insurance company. He found greater commitment, in-role performance and organizational influence of transformational leadership style on citizenship behaviors. The basic idea was given by [24, performance as compared to the transactional leadership 56] to build a political theory of leadership in the style. In addition to this many researchers concluded that organizations. Same idea to build a political theory has transformational leadership style positively influence on been used in the present study. organizational commitment [32, 33, 59-62]. All these The model examines the perception of organizational findings reveal that transformational leadership style has politics as the mediator between transformational and greater influence on the performance, commitment and transactional leadership styles on one hand and citizenship behaviors as compared to the transactional performance, organizational citizenship behaviors and leadership style.

organizational commitment on other hand. The underlying Most of the past studies concluded that principle of this model is based on several theories i.e. the transformational leadership style has much greater impact social exchange theory [38], leader-member exchange on the performance [32, 63], commitment [31, 33, 59, 60] theory [1, 37] and expectation theory [39]. All these and citizenship behaviors of employees as compared to theories pointed out leaders in a sense that it is the the transactional leadership style [34, 36, 58, 62]. This also responsibility of the leader to create healthy and fair shows that transactional leadership style has relatively atmosphere in the organization that fulfills expectations low relationship with these variables. From the results of and requirements of the individuals. A fair and balance past studies, transformational leadership style seems to relationship of leaders with the individuals is essential for be more effective than transactional leadership.

the betterment of organization. Level of organizational Leaders having transformational style can teach, politics in an organization might be reduced by Enhancing educate and train employees better. These leaders also fair social exchange relations, which ultimately influence help and encourage them to achieve their goals by on citizenship behaviors, performance and commitment motivating and stretching themselves. The same idea was with the organizations in a positive manner. suggested by [37] in leader-member exchange (LMX) Many researchers have used the same thinking in theory. Some of the researchers have also found a their studies. For instance, [57] pointed that employees positive and significant relationship between job perceptions are been influenced by the leadership transactional leadership style, performance, organizational behaviors which then impact on the employees citizenship behavior [34] and organizational commitment performance and attitudes towards job. Thus, employee’s [64]. Thus, following hypothesis is suggested:

perception of the workplace, i.e. perception of politics may

mediate the leadership and performance. In his study [58] H1:Transformational leadership style is positively studied on the relationship between both of the related with in-role performance, organizational leadership styles (i.e. transformational and transactional), commitment and OCB.

organizational justice (i.e. procedural and distributive), H2:Transactional leadership style is positively related trust in organization, organizational citizenship behavior with in-role performance, organizational commitment and satisfaction. He argued that there is indirect and OCB.

(5)

The relationship of transactional and and organizational outcomes like; low level of trust, lack transformational leadership styles also differ with the of satisfaction and low level of organizational commitment perceptions of organizational politics. As that [8, 10, 51, 54, 55, 66, 69], (b) perceptions of organizational transformational leaders offer a vision, mission and plan politics were also found to be negatively related with the to achieve the goals, so, they may decrease the employees behaviors such as turnover, absenteeism, perceptions of politics in the organization [4]. He/she neglecting each other’s work and holding of information may reduce the vagueness and professional insecurity on [17], (c) and finally perception of organizational politics the basis of justice and fairness. Transformational style also damage the social unity and it also augmented the also underlies managerial strategy of ethical values trend to act in one’s personal interest, even if they are reducing perceptions of politics and creating sense of anomalous with the organizational interest [8, 13, 15, 16, fairness and justice at work [16, 65]. Thus transformational 34, 36, 54, 52, 58, 66, 67 70].

leaders create a positive organizational environment that In another study [71] see the moderating role of results in reducing the perceptions of organizational emotional intelligence between organizational politics on

politics. one hand and absenteeism, commitment on the other

In addition to this, the decision making and strategy hand. He concluded that emotional intelligence is a making transparent policies by transformational leaders moderator between politics and commitment. Furthermore also strengthen the relation that leaders and organization perceptions of organizational politics have negative is trustworthy and reduces the perception of relation with the emotional commitment. [72, 73] tested a organizational politics [8, 15, 16, 36, 54, 52, 58, 66, 67]. model containing organizational politics and employees In summing up transformational leadership has behaviors. Their results revealed that perceptions of characteristics to treat all on the basis of justice and organizational politics are negatively related to the OCB fairness at the workplace this can reduce the perceptions and affective commitment [74]. Argued that perception of of organizational politics. Here third hypothesis is organizational politics negatively effect on the

suggested: performance and commitment level of the employees.

H3:Transformational leadership style is negatively organizational politics and performance by taking the related to the perceptions of organizational politics. moderating effect of impression management and argued On the other hand transactional leadership style is employees perform better and vice versa. So it is characterized with negotiation skills and encourages predictable that perception of organizational politics is interest based decisions between employer/employee negatively related to in-role performance, OCB and relations, which suits to a political environment. This style organizational commitment. Thus:

also encourages employee to negotiate and promote their

personal interests beyond the resources of the H5: Perception of organizational politics is negatively organization. [68] conducted a study about perceptions of related with organizational commitment.

politics among the employees of public sector and he

found that transactional leadership style was positively H6: Perception of organizational politics is negatively related with the perception of organizational politics. related with organizational citizenship behaviors. Thus third hypothesis is suggested:

H4:Transactional leadership style is positively related to related with in-role job performance.

the perceptions of organizational politics. Many researchers have studied the relationship Past studies have found the relationship between OCB with the mediating role of several variables. As [58], politics, performance, organizational commitment and studied on the relationship between trust, justice, OCB, OCB. Strong perception of organizational politics may leadership and satisfaction. He found trust, distributive damage the organizational commitment, performance and and procedural justice as a mediator between OCB, citizenship behavior of the employees in several ways i.e., leadership styles and satisfaction. While [34] found (a) they are related to the negative job related attitudes ambiguity and trust as mediators between OCB, While [41] examine the complexities between

that when the perceptions of politics are less than

H7: Perception of organizational politics is negatively

(6)

leadership, commitment and in-role job performance. Measures Similarly, [36] found organizational climate as the mediator

between leadership and performance. Recently [68] found that perceptions of organizational politics are a partial mediator between leadership styles (i.e. transactional and transformational), in-role performance and OCB. Thus a hypothesis is suggested:

H8: Perception of organizational politics is a mediator between transformational leadership style on one hand and in-role performance, organizational commitment and OCB on other hand.

H9: Perception of organizational politics is a mediator between transactional leadership style on one hand and in-role performance, organizational commitment and OCB on other hand.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sample and Procedure: The present study was based on the survey of University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. The university comprises of 620 permanent faculty members, 5 campuses, 9 colleges and 13 departments (www.pu.edu.pk). To meet the time constraints multi stage sampling technique was used. At the first stage Quaid-e-Azam Campus of the university was selected. The main reason to choose this campus was that this campus contains many faculties and at the second stage four faculties were selected (i.e. faculty of commerce, faculty of management and human resource, faculty of engineering and faculty of sociology). In the third stage 350 questionnaires were handed over the permanent and visiting staff members of the selected faculties on the basis of simple random sampling technique. Out of these questionnaires, 271 responded back, with the response rate of 77.4%. First of all permission was obtained for the head of departments. Secondly respondents were requested to be very fair and honest with their responses and they were assured that their responses will be kept secret and confidential and will be used for research purpose only.

The average age of the respondents was 30 years. Out of the total 78.4% were male and 81.7% of them were married. Most importantly more than 60 percent of them were with the same organization for more than five years. 70% of them were holding the M.Phil degrees and the average income of the respondents was Rs. 50,000 (i.e. $ 543).

Leadership Styles: To measure the full range leadership styles multi-factor leadership questionnaires (MLQ) were used on the basis of five point Likert scale, ranging from “1- never to 5- always”. These questionnaires were firstly introduced by [4] and later on modified by the [29]. In the present study a shorter version of the questionnaires were used to get the responses which were modified by [29]. Questionnaires comprise of 32 items in all, 12 questions were to measure the transactional leadership style and the rest 20 questions were to measure the transformational leadership style with the slight change in the arrangement. A sample items were:

“My dean focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions and deviations from standards” “My dean keeps track of all mistakes”

“My dean expresses confidence that goals will be achieved”

“My dean suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assigned tasks”

Reliability of the transformational leadership style was found to be 0.94 and for transactional leadership style it was 0.86.

Perceive Organizational Politics: To measure the perception of organizational politics at the work place six-item scale was used. This scale was developed by [74] and modified by [75] on five points Likert scale ranging. from 1- strongly disagree to 5- strongly agreed. Sample items were:

“There is a lot of self-serving behavior going on.” “People do what's best for them, not what's best for the university.”

“Individuals are stabbing each other in the back to look good in front of others.”

Reliability of the instrument was found to be 0.88. In-Role Performance, Organizational Commitment and OCB:To measure the organizational citizenship behavior 4 items were used from 6 item scale developed by [76], on five points Likert scale ranging from 1- strongly disagree to 5- strongly agreed. The main reason to choose the 4 items was the reliability of the questions. Two questions with the least reliability were excluded from the study. The items with the highest factor loading were used. Sample items were:

(7)

“I take on extra responsibilities in order to help (Quiet) Significantly high correlation between in-role co-workers when things get demanding at work.” performance and OCB was found (r = 0.69; p < 0.01). “I assist co-workers with heavy workloads even Anyhow this finding is not exceptional because a though it is not part of my job.” correlation of (r =0.77; p < 0.01) was found by Wang et al., The reliability of the questions was measured to be relationship between organizational commitment and OCB 0.82. To measure the organizational commitment scale of was found (r = 0.57; p < 0.01). Similarly the relationship [77] was used. This scale was consisted of 6 items. The between organizational commitment and in-role reliability of the scale was measured at 0.93. Finally to performance was found to be positive (r = 0.51; p < 0.01). measure the in-role performance of the employees [78] These values indicate that organizational commitment, scale was used. And the reliability of the scale was 0.91. in-role performance and OCB are positively and strongly RESULTS Secondly strong negative relationship was found Table 1 represents the values like mean, standard styles (r = -0.59; p < 0.01). This result is because deviation (S.D), Pearson’s correlation and reliabilities of transactional and transformation leaders are differing in all the variables (i.e. transactional leadership, characteristics which were supported in the literature by transformational leadership, perceived organizational theory [34]. Another researchers [68] also found a politics, organizational commitment, in-role performance negative correlation between these two leadership styles and organizational citizenship behavior). The Mean score and found the value of (r = -0.60; p < 0.01).

of all the variables shows mixed results such as, in-role In addition transformational leadership style was performance (M=4.21), organizational commitment found to be positively related with organizational (M=3.88), OCB (M=3.75) and transformational leadership commitment (r = 0.28; p < 0.01), in-role performance (M=3.41) demonstrate that respondents were near to (r = 0.23; p < 0.01) and OCB (r = 0.29; p < 0.01). While agree about these variables. On the other hand the, transformational leadership style was found to be transactional leadership (M=2.20) and organizational negatively related with the perceptions of organizational politics (M= 2.43) demonstrate that respondents were near politics (r = -0.62; p < 0.01). As far as concern with the

to disagree. transactional leadership style, was found to be negatively

[1], between the same variables. Another strong

related to each other.

between transactional and transformational leadership

Table 1: Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation:

Variables Mean S.D 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Transactional Leadership 2.20 0.76 (0.86) 2. Transformational Leadership 3.41 0.65 -0.59** (0.94) 3. Organizational Politics 2.43 0.75 0.51** -0.62** (0.88) 4. Organizational Commitment 3.88 0.77 -0.18** 0.28** -0.26** (0.93) 5. In-role Performance 4.21 0.71 -0.25** 0.23** -0.21** 0.51** (0.91) 6. OCB 3.75 0.61 -0.21** 0.29** -0.19* 0.57** 0.69** (0.82)

Note: all the values are significant at ** p<0.01 and * p<0.05 (all 2 tail) Table 2: Represent the fit indices model

Model df X2 X2/df RMSR GFI AGFI NFI NNFI CFI RMSEA ECVI

Model 1:

Perceptions of organizational

politics mediate the relationship between organizational

commitment, In-role performance and OCB 4 4.72 1.16 0 0.98 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 0.04 0.11 Model 2:

Perceptions of organizational politics does not mediate the

relationship between organizational commitment, In-role performance

(8)

Transformation al leadership Transactional leadership OCB In-role performance Organizational commitment Perceived organizational politics -.34 .45 -.28 -.31 -.34 Transformatio nal leadership Transactional leadership OCB In-role performance Organizationa l commitment Perceived organizational politics .24 NS .33 NS NS .26

related with organizational commitment (r = -0.18; p < The second test was between X and the number of 0.01), in-role performance (r = -0.25; p < 0.01) and OCB degree of freedom. For the good model the value of ratios (r = -0.21; p < 0.01). But, positively related to the should be 2.00 or less than this. Here is the model 1 the perceptions of organizational politics (r = 0.51; p < 0.01). value of (X =1.16) and in the model 2 the value was And finally perceptions of organizational politics even lesser than the first one (X =0.17) i.e. both the were found to be negatively related with the models fulfill this requirement. Furthermore the value organizational commitment (r = -0.26; p < 0.01), in-role of RMSR should be less than 0.5 and the value of GFI, performance (r = -0.21; p < 0.01) and OCB (r = -0.19; p < AGFI, NFI, NNFI and CFI should be closer to the 1 for the 0.05). All these findings support the literature and fit. In both of the models the value of RMSR was zero suggested hypothesis. which is less than 0.05 and the value of GFI is 1 in the Model Evaluation: In this study perception of 1 in the second model and the value of NNFI in the first organizational politics is measured as mediation between model was closer to one i.e. 0.98, while in the second leadership styles on one hand and in-role performance, model this value (1.06) was more than the required organizational commitment and OCB on other hand. value. As far as concern with the value of CFI, this To support the hypothesis structural equation model value in both the models was exactly 1. The value of (SEM) has been used as suggested by [45, 79, 80, 81, 82]. RMSEA is to test the model fit for null hypothesis and In this way two models have been developed. First this value should be less than 0.05. Here in the first represent the mediation role of perceived organizational model this value was 0.04 which is higher than the value politics and second is without the mediation effect. Fit “0” found in the second model. The ECVI scale examines indices and path coefficient are used. the rank of inappropriateness between the variances in The first test to evaluate the model’s fit is the the sample compared to any other indistinguishable chai-square (X ) test. Significant and the small value of2 sample. The value of ECVI is inversely related to the the scale denote the model fit. In the model 1 the value of level of fit. This means that smaller the value of ECVI, (X =4.72) which was very high as compared to the2 the better the level of fit is. In alternative model the value value of (X =0.32) in the model 2. This value denotes2 of ECVI was 0.14, a bit higher than the value in model 1 that model 1 was better as compared to the model 2. (i.e. 0.11).

2

2/df

2/df

second model, the value of AGFI was (0.97) more closer to

Model 1: Perceived organizational politics mediates the relationship between commitment, performance and OCB

Model 2: Perceived organizational politics does not mediates the relationship between commitment, performance and OCB

(9)

Coefficient paths were also examined for the model meet the theoretical requirements. These findings are the 1 and all the paths were found to be significant and in line same as discussed by [57] who found the perceptions of with the suggested hypothesis. Transformational workplace mediates the relationship between leadership leadership style was found to be negatively related with and performance of the employees.

the organizational politics (-0.34; p < 0.01), while Some past studies also argued that different transactional leadership style was found to be positively situational variables mediate the relationship between related with the organizational politics (0.45; p < 0.01). leadership styles and performance [34, 36, 58, 68]. Based While perceived organizational politics, on these arguments as well as the leader-member organizational commitment, in-role performance and exchange theory [1], the present study tries to support the OCB were found to be negatively related to each other i.e. hypothesis that perception of organizational politics (-0.34; p<0.01), (-0.31; p<0.05) and (-0.28; p<0.01) mediates the leadership styles and performance, respectively, which support our suggested hypothesis as commitment on the other side. Our findings are mixed here

well. because the organisational politics mediate some

Model 2 signifies only three significant paths while relationships.

other paths were not found to be significant 1.e. [58] argued that the relationship between leadership A positive relationship between transformational some extent; the mediating effect of the present study leadership style and organizational commitment was supported that arguments. The difference is that, [58] found (0.24; p<0.05). found procedural justice, trust and distributive justice as Transformational leadership style and OCB were also the mediator but here perceptions of organizational found to be positively and significantly related i.e. politics were found to be mediator. Trust, justice and (0.33; p<0.05). organizational politics are different occurrence at the Finally transactional leadership style and OCB were workplace [46] but still they are strongly related with one also found to be significant (0.26; p<0.05), while all another. Moreover the theory on one of them helps in other relationships were found to be non significant. understanding the other variable [8, 16, 68]. It was pointed So, from the results of coefficient path it is concluded indicator of perception of organizational politics and that model 1(perceived organizational politics mediate the based on the same level of thinking the present study was relationship) is better one as compared to the model 2. conducted.

DISCUSSION employees will improve their OCB, commitment and level The present study is an attempt to enhance the treating them fairly with justice. In contrast, organizational knowledge about leadership styles, organizational politics negatively affect the OCB, commitment and commitment, organizational citizenship and performance performance of the employees because they are due to the of the employees. This study is followed by the study of unprofessional and unfair behaviors of the leaders. [68] many other researchers [31, 33, 34, 36, 58, 1]. But required believed that this situation is because of the transactional to enlarge them in light of suggestions by [56, 24, 68] to leadership style and the employees perform according to create a political theory of leadership. In this regard the rewards they receive. Unfair reward system can reduce perception of organizational politics as mediation. The the level of commitment, OCB and performance among the present study also tried to enhance the knowledge about employees [34, 36, 19].

organizational politics [8, 54, 51, 52, 16, 13, 70, 66, 67] and By examining the different leadership styles, another organizational citizenship behavior [21, 83, 78]. interesting finding arise i.e. transformational leadership In this present study it was examined that weather the style is negatively related to the perceptions of relationship between leadership styles, performance, organizational politics and transactional leadership commitment and OCB was direct or indirect. style is positively related to the organizational politics. Organizational politics was also examined as a mediator The correlation results and path coefficient model also between leadership styles on one side and performance, support the same findings. Thus it is confirmed that organizational commitment and OCB on other side. transformational leadership style characterized with the The results of model fit revealed that mediating model friendly environment, supportive attitude and positive styles, performance and commitment is mediated up to

by [15] that trust and organizational justice are good

The developing theory given by [21] suggested that, of performance till they believe that their organization is

(10)

attitude reduces perceptions of organizational politics in (LMX) theory [37, 1] supported the need for a more the organization. While transactional leadership style who impartial relationship between leaders and members and has influencing characteristics enhance the political the idea of fair treatment of the individual. The present environment in the organization [84, 58]. study is examined the relationship between leadership Many past studies support our hypothesis that styles, performance, organizational commitment and OCB organizational politics has negative influence on in the presence of organizational politics. The findings of organizational commitment, OCB and performance of the the study revealed that organizational politics is a employees [69, 17]. These results have so much mediator between leadership styles on one hand and implications e.g. low level of citizenship behavior can commitment, performance and OCB on other hand beyond damage the ability of the organization to perform better the direct relationship between leadership styles and services for the citizens. That is why all the organizations other variables as discussed previously in literature. that are economically not much strong for its employees According to this study, transformational leadership benefit its employees by applying transformational may structure an environment that is less political and this leadership styles in order to reduce the levels of ultimately have a positive effect on the performance, organization politics. Such leadership may increase the citizenship and commitment level of the employees. Such employee’s commitment, performance and OCB towards an environment motivates the employees for better their organizations. performance, more commitment towards their organization Research Limitations and Implications: This study

contributes a lot as well as having lots of limitations. REFERENCES First of all the study is conducted on perceptions of

organizational politics, questions regarding this variable 1. Wang, H., K.S. Law, R.D. Hackett, D. Wang and have been answered by the employees themselves not on Z.X. Chen, 2005. Leader-member exchange as a actual practical procedure. Secondly some specific mediator of the relationship between transformational organizational characteristics limit the external validity of leadership and followers’ performance and the study i.e. employees of the organization are relatively organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of young having little job experience and the organization Management Journal, 48: 420-32.

demand excellent performance from them. These 2. Blake, J.J. and J.S. Mouton, 1964. The Managerial employees may deal with the ambiguous and uncertain Grid, Gulf Publications: Houston, TX.

situations as well. Thus to increase the external validity of 3. Lewin, K., R. Lippit and R.K. White, 1939. Patterns of the present study the research should also be conducted aggressive behavior in experimentally created social in other countries as well. cultures. Journal of Social Psychology, 10: 271-99.

As far as concern with the methodological portion, 4. Bass, B.M., 1985. Leadership and Performance this study was conducted by distributing the beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York: NY. questionnaire to individual employees. But to judge the 5. Burns, J.M., 1978. Leadership, Harper and Row, performance level and politics at the work place New York, NY. G.F. Cavanagh, D.J. Moberg and observations and personal interview method should also M. Velasquez, 1981. The ethics of organizational

be kept in mind. politics. Academy of Management Review, 6: 363-74.

CONCLUSION P.A. Renwick and B.T. Mayes, 1979. Organizational In a research [5] identifies two leadership styles California Management Review, 22: 77-83.

as interaction with the employees. 1)- transactional 7. Adams, G.L., A.P. Ammeter, D.C. Treadway, leadership style which is characterized with the G.R. Ferris, W.A. Hochwarter and R.W. Kolodinsky, influencing, punishing and rewarding attitude and 2)- 2002. Perceptions of organizational politics: transformational leadership style which is characterized additional thoughts, reactions and multi-level issues. with the positive and cooperative attitude, helping his Research in Multi-Level Issues, 1: 287-94.

subordinates in achieving the organizational desired 8. Ferris, G.R. and K.M. Kacmar, 1992. Perceptions of outcomes. The social exchange theory [38], the organizational politics. Journal of Management, expectancy theory [39] and the leader-member exchange 18: 93-116.

and citizenship behaviors.

6. Allen, R.W., D.L. Madison, L.W. Porter, politics tactics and characteristics of its actors.

(11)

9. Gandz, J. and V.V. Murray, 1980. The experience of 23. Morrison, W.E., 1994. Role definition and workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal, organizational citizenship behavior: the importance of

23: 237-251. employees’ perspective. Academy of Management

10. Kacmar, K.M. and R.A. Baron, 1999. Organizational Journal, 37: 1543-67.

politics: the state of the field, links to related 24. House, R.J. and R.N. Aditya, 1997. The social processes and an agenda for future research. scientific study of leadership: quo vadis?. Journal of Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 23: 409-473.

Management, 17: 1-39. 25. House, R.J., 1995. Leadership in the twenty-first 11. Madison, D.L., R.W. Allen, L.W. Porter, century. In: A. Howard, (Ed.), The Changing Nature P.A. Renwick and B.T. Mayes, 1980. Organizational of Work, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA: 411-450. politics: an exploration of managers’ perceptions. 26. Kotter, J.P., 1996. Leading Change, Harvard Business

Human Relations, 33: 79-100. School Press, Cambridge, MA.

12 O’Connor, W.E. and T.G. Morrison, 2001. A 27. Yammarino, F.J. and A.J. Dubinsky, 1994. comparison of situational and dispositional Transformational leadership theory: using levels of predictors of perceptions of organizational politics. analysis to determine boundary condition. Personnel The Journal of Psychology, 135: 301-312. Psychology, 47: 787-811.

13. Parker, C.P., R.L. Dipboye and S.L. Jackson, 1995. 28. Avolio, B.J. and B.M. Bass, 1991. The Full-Range of Perceptions of organizational politics: an Leadership Development, Center for Leadership investigation of antecedents and consequences. Studies, Binghamton: NY.

Journal of Management, 21: 891-912. 29. Bass, B.M. and B.J. Avolio, 1993. Transformational 14. Valle, M. and P.L. Perrewe´, 2000. Do politics leadership theory: a response to critiques. in perceptions relate to political behaviors? Tests of an Chemmers, M.M. and R. Ammons, (Eds), Leadership implicit assumption and expanded model. Human and Research: Perspectives and Direction, California

Relations, 53: 359-86. Academic Press, Los Angeles, CA: 49-80.

15. Ferris, G.R., G.S. Russ and P.M. Fandt, 1989. 30. Den-Hertog, D.N., J.J. Van-Muijen and P.L. Koopman, Politics in organizations. In R.A. Giacalone and P. 1997. Transactional versus transformational Rosenfeld, (Eds), Impression Management in the leadership: an analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Organization, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ: 143-170. Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 16. Kacmar, K.M. and G.R. Ferris, 1991. Perceptions of 70: 19-34.

organizational politics scale (POPS): development 31. Geyer, A.L. and J.M. Steyrer, 1998. Transformational and construct validation. Educational and leadership and objective performance in banks. Psychological Measurement, 51: 193-205. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47: 397-420. 17. Vigoda-Gadot, E., 2003. Developments in 32. Koh, W.L., R.M. Steers and J.R. Terborg, 1995. The

Organizational Politics. Edward Elgar Publishing, effects of transformational leadership on teacher

Cheltenham. attitudes and student performance in Singapore.

18. Kipnis, D., S.M. Schmidt and I. Wilkinson, 1980. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 319-333. Intraorganizational influence tactics: exploration in 33. Lowe, K.B., K.G. Kroeck and N. Sivasubramaniam, getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and

65: 440-52. transactional leadership: a meta-analytical review of

19. Pfeffer, J., 1992. Management with Power, Harvard the literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7: 385-425. Business School Press, Boston, MA. 34. MacKenzie, S.B., P.M. Podssakoff and G.A. Rich, 20. Bateman, T.S. and D.W. Organ, 1983. Job satisfaction 2001. Transformational and transactional leadership and the good soldier: the relationship between affect and salesperson performance. Journal of Academy of and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Marketing Science, 2: 115-34.

Journal, 26: 587-95. 35. Motowidlo, S.J., J.S. Packard and M.A. Manning, 21. Organ, D.W., 1988. Organizational Citizenship 1986. Occupational stress, its causes and Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington consequences for job performance. Journal of

Books, Lexington, MA. Applied Psychology, 71: 618-629.

22. Smith, C.A., D.W. Organ and J.P. Near, 1983. 36. Parry, K.W., 2003. Leadership, culture and Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and performance: the case of the New Zealand public antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychol., 68: 656-63. sector. Journal of Change Management, 4: 376-399.

(12)

37. Graen, G.B., 1976. Role making processes within 51. Ferris, G.R., D.D. Frink, M.C. Galang, J. Zhou, complex organization. In: M.D. Dunnette, (Ed.),

Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand-McNally, Chicago, IL: 1201-1245. 38. Blau, P.M., 1964. Power and Exchange in Social Life,

Wiley, New York: NY.

39. Vroom, V.H., 1964. Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, NY.

40. Block, P., 1988. The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skill at Work. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco: CA.

41. Chen, Y.Y. and W. Fang, 2008. The moderating effect of impression management on the organizational politics-performance relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3): 263-77.

42. Huang, L.S., 2006. Transformational leadership has effect on organizational performance: the organizational culture as an intermediary variable. Unpublished master's thesis, National Taipei University, Taipei, Taiwan.

43. He, Z.Y., 2009. Research on the structural relationship of primary school teachers in the teacher's beliefs, leadership behavior, classroom management strategies and classroom management performance. J. National Taichung University: Education, 23(1): 99-127.

44. Wang, F.J., S. Chich-Jan and T. Mei-Ling, 2010. Effect of leadership style on organizational performance as viewed from human resource management strategy. African Journal of Business Management, 4(18): 3924-3936.

45. Bentler, P.M., 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 238-46.

46. Andrews, M.C. and K.M. Kacmar, 2001. Discriminating among organizational politics, justice and support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2: 347-66.

47. Cropanzano, R.S. and K.M. Kacmar, 1995. Organizational Politics, Justice and Support: Managing The Social Climate of the Workplace. Quorum Books, Westport, CT.

48. Dipboye, R.L. and J.B. Foster, 2002. Multi-level theorizing about perceptions of organizational politics. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 1: 255-70. 49. Drory, A., 1993. Perceived political climate and job

attitudes. Organizational Studies, 14: 59-71.

50. Fedor, D.B., G.R. Ferris, G. Harrell-Cook and G.S. Russ, 1998. The dimensions of politics, perceptions and their organizational and individual predictors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28: 1760-97.

M.K. Kacmar and J.L. Howard, 1996 b. Perceptions of organizational politics: prediction, stress-related implications and outcomes. Human Relations, 49: 233-266.

52. Folger, R., M.A. Konovsky and R. Cropanzano, 1992. A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. In: L. Cummings and B. Staw, (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT: 129-177.

53. Cropanzano, R., J.C. Howes, A.A. Grandey and P. Toth, 1997. The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 159-80.

54. Ferris, G.R., D.D. Frink, D.P.S. Bhawuk and J. Zhou, 1996a. Reactions of diverse groups to politics in the workplace. Journal of Management, 22: 23-44.

55. Vigoda, E., 2002. Stress-related aftermaths to workplace politics: the relationships among politics, job distress and aggressive behavior in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 571-91.

56. Ammeter, A.P., C. Douglas, W.L. Gardner, W.A. Hochwarter and G.R. Ferris, 2002. Toward a political theory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 751-96.

57. Ferris, G.R. and K.M. Rowland, 1981. Leadership, job perceptions and influence: a conceptual integration. Human Relations, 34: 1069-78.

58. Pillai, R., C.A. Schriesheim and E.S. Williams, 1999. Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25: 897-933.

59. Bono, J. and T. Judge, 2003. Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 554-571.

60. Dumdum, U.R., K.B. Lowe and B. Avolio, 2002. A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: an update and extension. In: B.J. Avolio and F.J. Yammarino, (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier Science, 2: 35-66.

61. Organ, D.W., 1990. The subtle significance of job satisfaction. Clinical Laboratory Management Review, 4: 94-98.

(13)

62. Walumbwa, F.O. and J.J. Lawler, 2003. Building 74. Rosen, C.C., K.J. Harris and K.M. Kacmar, effective organizations: transformational leadership,

collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviors in three emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14: 1083-1101.

63. Dvir, T., 1998. The impact of transformational leadership training on follower development and performance: a field experiment. PhD dissertation, Faculty of Management, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

64. Marmaya, N.H., M. Hitam, N.M. Torsiman and B.K. Balakrishnan, 2011. Employees’ perceptions of Malaysian managers’ leadership styles and organizational commitment. African Journal of Business Management, 5(5): 1584-1588.

65. Mintzberg, H., 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row. New York, NY.

66. Vigoda, E., 1999. Organizational politics, job attitudes and work outcomes: exploration and implications for the public sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57: 326-47.

67. Witt, L.A., K.M. Kacmar, V. Carlson and S. Zivnuska, 2002. Interactive effect of personality and organizational politics on contextual performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 911-926. 68. Vigoda-Gadot, E., 2007. Leadership style,

organizational politics and employees’ Performance An empirical examination of two competing models. Personnel Review, 36(5): 661-683.

69. Vigoda, E., 2000. Internal politics in public administration systems: an empirical examination of its relationship with job congruence, organizational citizenship behavior and in-role performance. Public Personnel Management, 29: 185-201.

70. Poon, J.M.L., 2003. Situational antecedents and outcomes of organizational politics perceptions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18: 138-55. 71. Vigoda-Gadot, E. and G. Meisler, 2010. Emotions in

management and the management of emotions: the impact of emotional intelligence and organizational politics on public sector employees. Public Administration Review, 70(1): 72-86.

72. Chang, C.H., C. Rosen and P. Levy, 2009. The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain and behavior: a meta-analytic examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4): 779-801.

73. Graham, J.W., 1986. Organizational citizenship informed by political theory. paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management.

2009. The emotional implications of organizational politics: a process model. Human relations, 62(1): 27-57.

74. Hochwarter, W.A., C. Kacmar, P.L. Perrewé and D. Johnson, 2003. Perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relationship between politics perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63: 438-456.

75. Kacmar, K.M. and D.S. Carlson, 1994. Further validation at the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): a multiple sample investigation. paper presented at Academy of Management meeting, Dallas, TX.

76. Settoon, R.P. and K.W. Mossholder, 2002. Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 255-267.

77. Shore and L.E. Tetrick, 1991. A Construct Validity Study of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychol., 76(5): 637-643.

78. Williams, L.J. and S.E. Anderson, 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17: 601-617. 79. Bentler, P.M. and D.G. Bonett, 1980. Significance test

and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 588-606. 80. Heise, D.R., 1969. Problem in path analysis and causal

inferences. In: E.F. Borgatta and E. Bohrnstedt, (Eds), Sociological Methodology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

81. Joreskog, K.G., 1973. A general method of estimating a linear structural equation system. In: A.S. Goldberger and O.D. Duncan, (Eds), Structural Equation Models in the Social-Sciences, Seminar Press, New York, NY: 85-112.

82. Joreskog, K.G. and D. Sorbom, 1993. Structural Equation Modeling with SIMPLIS Command Language. Scientific Software Inc., Hillsdale, NJ. 83. Podsakoff, P.M., 2000. Organizational citizenship

behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 58: 423-65. 84. Ehrhart, M.G., 2004. Leadership and procedural

justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57: 61-94.

Figure

Fig. 1: Research Model
Fig. 1: Research Model p.4
Table 1 represents the values like mean, standard styles (r = -0.59; p &lt; 0.01). This result is because deviation (S.D), Pearson’s correlation and reliabilities of transactional and transformation leaders are differing in all the  variables  (i.e

Table 1

represents the values like mean, standard styles (r = -0.59; p &lt; 0.01). This result is because deviation (S.D), Pearson’s correlation and reliabilities of transactional and transformation leaders are differing in all the variables (i.e p.7
Table 1: Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation:

Table 1:

Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation: p.7

References

Updating...