• No results found

Investigating the relationship between leadership quality and employees’ interpersonal conflict and organizational citizenship behavior O RIGINAL A RTICLE

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "Investigating the relationship between leadership quality and employees’ interpersonal conflict and organizational citizenship behavior O RIGINAL A RTICLE"

Copied!
12
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

This is a refereed journal and all articles are professionally screened and reviewed ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Corresponding Author

Akram Parizi Nejad, MA Student of public administration at Islamic Azad University, Rafsanjan Branch,

E-mail: akram22.p@gmail.com

Investigating the relationship between leadership quality and employees’ interpersonal conflict and organizational citizenship behavior

1Mohamad Ziaaddini (Ph.D), 2Hamid Taboli (Ph.D) and 3Akram Parizi Nejad

1Assistant Professor, Islamic Azad University- Rafsanjan Branch

2Assistant Professor, Payam-e-Noor University-Kerman

3MA Student of Public Administration, Islamic Azad University- Rafsanjan Branch

Mohamad Ziaaddini (Ph.D), Hamid Taboli (Ph.D) and Akram Parizi Nejad: Investigating the relationship between leadership quality and employees’ interpersonal conflict and organizational citizenship behavior

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between leadership quality and employees’

interpersonal conflict and organizational citizenship behavior. The population of this study comprised of all employees of Rafsanjan township’s administrative organizations. With the help of Cochran formula, 314 participants from the population were selected to comprise the study sample. Measurement instruments included leadership quality, interpersonal conflict, and organizational citizenship behavior questionnaires, whose validity indexes were 0.90, 0.92, and 0.96 respectively. The reliability indexes for the same instruments were 0.86, 0.95, and 0.90 respectively. Spearman and Kendall statistical tests were used to describe the collected data, and Kolmogorov Smirnov indexes were used to test the variables’ normality of distribution. Collected data were analyzed using SPSS software package. The results of this study indicated that there was no relationship between leadership quality and interpersonal conflict; however, a significant relationship was observed between leadership quality and organizational citizenship behavior. The results also verified the relationship between interpersonal conflict and organizational citizenship behavior. Therefore, it is suggested that, through their appropriate behaviors and the culture they promote, leaders prepare the grounds for the increase of discretionary and voluntary behavior on the part of employees. Also, it appears that the reduction of conflicts and disputes between employees and organizations would increase positive and voluntary work behaviors.

Key words: leadership quality, interpersonal conflict, organizational citizenship behavior Introduction

Conflict is an inevitable phenomenon in human life and a precondition for social life; and organization, with its particular nature, is a fertile environment for the growth of various kinds of conflicts and disputes. People might have disputes over understanding different topics such as organizational issues, administrative and organizational hierarchy, motives and needs, personality, environment, attitudes, etc., and this may result in conflict [18]. Unconventional conflicts within the organization leads to a waste of employees’ energy and talents; and the production crew and human resources, instead of working with a right and sensible combination towards achieving the goals of organization, stagnate and cause a waste of natural and human resources. In fact, conflict is a phenomenon which has positive and negative effects on personnel performance in the organization [2]. On the other hand, leadership is essential for the

successful performance of any organization.

Researchers are trying to understand what leads to leadership and organizational success [34].

Leadership is exemplary for others to follow.

Exemplary means providing a superior standard for others while the leader motivates them, encourages them to follow him/her, and fires their enthusiasm [7]. Most of the studies concerning organizational leadership show that negligence in paying attention to consequences of leadership is one of the problems which most of organizations are dealing with [6].

According to Harris et al., understanding and identifying organizational leadership, due to rapid changes in technology, cultural diversity, communications and globalization, is vital and essential for success in the modern world (Harris et al., as cited in [7]. Organ [20] considers citizenship organizational behavior as useful behaviors which are not mentioned in the duties, but the staff exhibit these behaviors obviously to help others in performing their duties. One of the reasons why large

(2)

organizations are so successful is that they have employed staffs who are working beyond their official duties. Such a behavior is called organizational citizenship behavior [8].

Organizational citizenship behavior is new subject in organizational behavior issues which is acquiring more significance. A good organizational citizen is an idea which is comprised of various staffs’

behaviors such as accepting and undertaking extra duties and responsibilities, following the regulations and procedures of the organization, adopting and developing a positive attitude, showing patience and tolerance for dissatisfaction and difficulties. Based on organizational theories, organizational citizenship behavior contributes substantially to competition in the organization and its performance, as well as efficiency and effectiveness of organizations through resource development, innovation, and adaptability [38]. The current researches show that the personnel who perform beyond their duties and exhibit organizational citizenship behavior belong to an occupational and organizational group who has both maximum efficiency and quality in doing their jobs [40]. According to what was mentioned above, the fundamental questions, which the present study is going to find answers for, are as the following:

1. Is there a relationship between leadership quality and employees’ interpersonal conflict in the population under study?

2. Is there a relationship between leadership quality and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior in the population under study?

3. Is there a relationship between interpersonal conflict and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior in the population under study?

Theoretical framework and literature review:

Leadership quality:

Leadership is a topic that has attracted researchers for long. This term refers implicitly to the powerful and dynamic. Perhaps this attraction is due to fact that leadership is a mysterious process existing in everybody’s life [30]. Leadership, throughout history, is regarded as one of the pillars of human societies, and its existence and presence depends on mastering some skills which can be regarded as leadership ways and styles for achieving certain goals [4]. Leadership ability of an individual is in influencing, motivating, and enabling others to contribute to the effectiveness and success of the organizations they are members of [27].

Leadership quality components:

Ghorbani and Mirkhorsandi [9] have made a list of leadership quality components as follows:

Organizational leadership competency: The leader of the organization has enough knowledge relevant to the organization's success, and his knowledge is updated.

Organizational leadership status: The organization leader understands others deeply and encounters their problems because s/he wants to promote herself/himself, and this often is due to a direct personal experience. S/he is also committed to her/his own duties.

Organizational leadership values: The organization leader sees social responsibilities beyond the organization and keeps the organization values alive.

Organizational leadership viewpoint:

Organizational leadership possesses a thought-out plan a clear vision and organizational viewpoint and orientation.

Emotional commitment to organizational leadership: The organization leader rules over the heart and feelings of the employees, and s/he generates a desire for supremacy among the employees.

Organizational leadership decisiveness: The organization leader has a risk-taking power to achieve great results and defines the limits.

Leader’s perception of individuals: The organization leader addresses himself / herself to recognize, respect and value for others and endeavors to help individuals become successful and develop in achieving the maximum potential.

Organizational leadership team building: The organization leader assists individuals in enabling them to achieve results and creates group commitments to achieving collective goals.

Organizational leadership effectiveness: The organization leader invests on both strengths and weaknesses and utilizes well the priorities and time management tools.

Personal conflict:

Mary Parker Follet is one of the leading researchers and experts on conflict who believes that the existing conflict and dispute in the world is inevitable, therefore we had better exploit it, and instead of condemning, it must be arranged so that we can utilize it [19]. Robbins [25] recognizes conflict as a procedure in which the individual deliberately tries to thwart the attempts of the other one through a sort of inhibition, and this will result in a failure in achieving her / his goals and pursuing his interests. Richard Daft knows the word conflict as a process in which one party (individual or group) finds that its interests have been met with opposition or negative reactions of the other party [26].

Interpersonal conflict:

(3)

This conflict occurs between two or more persons who are different in their values, ambitions, communication styles and attitudes. Individuals with interpersonal conflicts do not speak with each other, disregard each other, gossip about each other, and consciously reject and undermine each other [33].

Components of conflict:

Differences in personality: These are a collection of emotional, behavioral and character traits and characteristics that represent for the individual in typical situations, and they are relatively stable and predictable for each individual.

Pressures of the role: Conditions that appear under the influence of a person's occupational status and deviate her / him from a normal action [21].

Failure: Failure can be defined as a failure in satisfying the needs, desires, dreams, and in achieving our goals [39].

Arrogance: Arrogance means fancying oneself big and important because of the perfection a person sees in oneself, whether s/he has such a perfection or not, and that what s/he has conceived of as perfection is really a perfection or not [35].

Misunderstanding: Judging other people [11].

Perception: A process by which individuals regulate and interpret their assumptions and perceptions of their own environment, and hereby give meaning to them.

Attitude: Allport defines attitude as “a mental and neural state of readiness organized through experience exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual's response to all objects and situations with which it is related.”[1]

Insufficient communication: Personal barriers or obstacles that may be associated with human factors and may encounter a slow down, complexity or even a block.

Organizational citizenship behavior:

Bateman and Organ [3] were the first to coin the term Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), and they defined it as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization”. After Organ et al. developed the concept, over the past two decades, different experts using concepts such as extra-role behavior, pro-social organizational behavior, organizational spontaneity, and contextual performance have addressed this issue [24]. Additionally, the employees’ tendency to perform behaviors that are beyond the formal requirements of the role and status is known as one of the basic elements of organizational citizenship behavior [36].

OCB components:

Vares et al. [38] have offered some dimensions and components of organizational citizenship behavior:

Altruism: Assisting other organization members with their problems and related duties.

Conscientiousness: This is that kind of discretionary behavior that exceeds the minimum requirements of the role; e.g., someone who works more than usual.

Sportsmanship: A willingness on the part of the employee that signifies the employee’s tolerance of less-than-ideal organizational circumstances without complaining.

Courtesy: It aims at preventing work-related stress and conflicts with others.

Civil Virtue: This dimension encompasses the employee’s to involve in the life of the organization and to present a good image of the organization.

Most studies on organizational leadership indicate that negligence in caring for the consequences of leadership is one of the problems that many organizations are grappling with [6].

Lajvardi [16] has addressed the emotional intelligence and organizational leadership. In this study, s/he confirmed that successful managers can be diagnosed on the basis of emotional competence.

It was observed that the managers with a higher level of performance can obtain more efficiency in the organization. Kivipold and Ahonen [15] in another study, “Evidence of relationship between organizational leadership quality and job satisfaction”, mentioned that studying leadership at the individual level is not sufficient. It is important that leadership be investigated at the organizational level; therefore, they studied its impact on job satisfaction. Job satisfaction data was collected through interviews, and the data on organizational leadership quality was collected through questionnaires. The results confirmed a positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational leadership quality.

In a test of studying the relationship between conflict and organizational citizenship behavior, Turner et al. [37] found that intra-group conflict, which involves pursuing the interests of ingroup against the interests of outgroup, is more effective.

His research results that contradict a negative relationship between perceptions of organizational citizenship behavior are realistic. In their studies, Bertjan Doosje and Russell Spears found a negative relationship between perception of a realistic conflict and proportion of organizational citizenship behavior. When the group members make an effort to preserve and maintain the values by increasing intragroup favoritism and reducing outgroup adverse factors, they have a weak tendency for behaviors that are hindering the development of the conflict outside the group. Ingroup members, who have found outgroup members in a competition for exploiting

(4)

scarce resources, are less likely to assist the outgroup members to obtain these resources [27].

Development of the hypotheses:

Khoshbakhti et al. [13] studied the relationship between leadership styles on employees' quality of working life and the effectiveness of college principals and physical education groups nationwide.

The results of the analysis revealed that there is a significant difference between the principals’ favorite leadership styles and their effectiveness; although they observed differences between leadership style and the employees’ working life quality, they were not significant. Also, there is a significant relationship between employees’ working life quality and the principals’ effectiveness.

Saadati [29] is a research studying the relationship between dimensions of organizational leadership quality and proportion of creativity in Maneh and Samalghan high-schools. It is revealed that organizational leadership variables, including organizational leadership competency, status, values, effectiveness, emotional commitment, decisiveness, perception of individuals, team building, and viewpoint, each have a positive and significant relationship with the teachers’ creativity.

Sillamäe and Kivipõld [32], in a study, examined the dynamics of organizational leadership quality as a regulator to strike a strategic balance between the organization and its surroundings.

Results showed that the quality and the dynamic leadership procedure has been combined and integrated with financial service organizations in Estonia.

Gonin et al. [10] studied the role of innovation in leadership development. This study was conducted with some senior managers of 111 companies in human resources, training, and organizational development sectors of the international corporations’ headquarters in Europe and the United States in 2008 and 2009. Results showed that factors such as training, learning tasks, networking, customer insight, and using special technology were among the factors that were effective in the development of leadership in the companies under study.

Lotfali Foroozan [17]in her master's thesis entitled “an investigation of conflict resolution styles of managers in the organization and its relationship with the managers’ personality” which was conducted in Wagon Pars Company obtained the following results: 1. There exists a significant relationship between the application of conflict resolution styles and the managers’ personalities. 2.

Managers with personality type A resort more to styles such as collaboration and then avoiding compromise, competition, and tolerance; however, managers with personality type B often make use of collaboration and then compromise. 3. Ninety

percent of the population under study had type A personality that has a major impact on conflict outbreak in the organization.

The research conducted by Loomis suggests that conflict brings about an improvement in the groups’

performance. Comparing six major decisions taken during the presidency of four American presidents reveals that conflicts can influence the political decisions. After these decisions were studied upon and examined, it was clarified that in cases where there was consensus and compromise between presidential advisers, very poor decisions were being taken. Whenever there was a conflict, brilliant ideas were being developed and great decisions were being taken. The research conducted by Williams has confirmed this view that conflict between members of the group causes an encouragement for creativity, initiative, and an increase in production. I her/his study, decision making in groups that experienced conflicts was 73% better than groups who did not have any disputes.

Karnai and Spitzberg conducted a study to examine the relationship between individual competency and conflict management. The obtained results revealed that the methods which were on the basis of creating collaboration were positively related to individual competency. By and large, the methods based on avoidance and division (compromise) were negatively associated with individual competency.

Zanganeh [41] in a meta-analytic review studied the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and factors affecting it. The results highlight the fact that four of these factors have been emphasized in the conducted researches: 1. Personal characteristics, 2. Occupational characteristics, 3.

Organizational characteristics, 4. Leadership characteristics. Early studies in this field done by Organ et al. primarily focus on the employees’

attitudes, tendencies, and leadership support. The later studies on leadership conducted by Podsakoff et al. have extended the scope of leadership behaviors to a variety of interactive and transformational leadership behaviors.

Bienstock et al. investigated the relationship between citizenship behavior and service quality in 49 reputable restaurants. This study confirms that the critical part in any organization is service providers, especially staff who are in direct contact with customers. The results of the present work, compared with other studies, demonstrated a less conspicuous impact of the citizenship behavior on service quality, since more and more emphasis has been put on citizenship behavior, and it has been more taken into consideration.

Philip et al. [22] in a study entitled “the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational justice in the workplace”

obtained some results indicating that the employees exhibit the maximum organizational citizenship behavior and increase their effectiveness when they

(5)

feel organizational justice has been being done about them.

In the present study, leadership quality as a predictor variable, organizational citizenship behavior as the criterion variable, and interpersonal conflict as both a predictor and a criterion variable are investigated.

According to the conceptual model of the research, the hypotheses are as follows:

1. There is a positive and significant relationship between leadership quality and employees’

organizational citizenship behavior.

2. There is a positive and significant relationship between leadership quality and employees’

interpersonal conflict.

3. There is a relationship between interpersonal conflict and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior.

Materials and Methods

Conceptual model of the research:

Research design:

In terms of data collection methods, nature, and methodology, this study is a descriptive one with a correlational design.

The population is comprised of 1737 employees in the organizations, agencies, institutions and government centers in Rafsanjan. Based on the information from the Rafsanjan government in 2012, 63 organizations, institutions and governmental centers are there in the city. The Cochran formula was used to determine the sample size. According to this formula, an optimal sample size would be 314 participants. In this study, a proportional stratified random sampling technique was used.

Questionnaires were distributed by the researchers themselves visiting the employees on a random basis, and they were given back to the researcher on the same day. In this study, the data collection instrument was questionnaire.

Questionnaire is a structured technique for collecting data in which all respondents are asked the same set

of questions [31]. To collect the required data in the present study, three questionnaires were used.

Content validity of the questionnaires in this study has already been assessed in previous empirical researches. Validity of the questionnaire for leadership quality has been determined by Roasaii [27] to be 0.90. To measure interpersonal conflict a questionnaire which is designed by Pirmoradi [23]

and has been approved by a factor of 0.92 was used.

Citizenship behavior questionnaire used by Majidi showed 0.96 validity.

In this study, Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the reliability of the instruments. This reliability analysis method is used to measure the instrument’s internal consistency. Leadership quality questionnaire had a coefficient of 0.86, interpersonal conflict questionnaire 0.95, and citizenship behavior questionnaire 0.90.

To describe the collected data in this study, various statistical indexes including frequency and figures have been used. Independency test and Pearson-Kendall’s correlation were the statistical

(6)

tests to determine the correlation coefficient. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software package.

Results and Data Analysis:

Subjects:

According to the analyzed data, 224 male subjects constituted 73 % of our sample, and 83 female subjects constituted 27 % of the sample. 249 married subjects constituted 81.9 % of our sample, and 55 single subjects constituted 18.1% of the sample. 58 subjects with high-school diploma constituted 19.1 % of our sample, 193 subjects (63.7

%) had BA degrees, 51 subjects or 16.8 % had MA, and 1 subject (0.3 %) had a PhD. 76 subjects (25.1

%) had less than 10 years of related work experience, 145 subjects (47.9 %) had around 10-20 years of experience, and 82 (27.1 %) had worked for more

than 20 year. Based on the analyzed data, 51 subjects (18.6 %) were under the age of 30, 160 subjects (52.3

%) were at the age range of 31-40, and 89 (29.1 %) were over 40.

Variables of the study:

The scores for leadership quality variable have been calculated through the sum of the scores related to each question in the leadership quality questionnaire. To describe this variable, we divided the scores into a range five categories of strongly disagree (too low), disagree (low), neutral (middle), agree (high) and strongly agree (too high). Out of 314 subjects in the sample, 2 subjects (0.6 %) believe that the leadership quality score is low, 85 (27.1 %) were neutral, 222 (70.7 %) were high, and 5 (1.6%) believed that its score is too high. A total of 227 subjects (72.3 %) believed that the leadership quality score is high and too high.

Fig. 1: Leadership quality questionnaire scores The scores for interpersonal conflict variable have been calculated through the sum of the scores related to each question in the interpersonal conflict questionnaire. To describe this variable, we divided the scores into a range five categories of strongly disagree (too low), disagree (low), neutral (middle), agree (high) and strongly agree (too high). Out of 314 subjects in the sample, 6 subjects (1.9 %) believe that the interpersonal conflict score is too low, 60 (19.1 %) were low, 132 (42 %) were neutral, 111 (35.4 %) were high, and 5 (1.6%) believed that its score is too high. A total of 116 subjects (37 %) believed that the interpersonal conflict score is high and too high.

The scores for citizenship behavior variable have been calculated through the sum of the scores related to each question in the citizenship behavior questionnaire. To describe this variable, we divided the scores into a range five categories of strongly disagree (too low), disagree (low), neutral (middle), agree (high) and strongly agree (too high). Out of 314 subjects in the sample, 4 subjects (1.3 %) believe that the citizenship behavior score is too low, 21 (6.7

%) were low, 127 (40.4 %) were neutral, 139 (44.3

%) were high, and 23 (7.3 %) believed that its score is too high. A total of 162 subjects (51.6 %) believed that the citizenship behavior score is high and too high.

0.60

%

27.10

%

70.70

%

1.60

% 0

% 10

% 20

% 30

% 40

% 50

% 60

% 70

% 80

%

low neutral high too high

Leadership Quality

Frequency

(7)

Fig. 2: Interpersonal conflict questionnaire scores

Fig. 3: Citizenship behavior questionnaire scores

There is a relationship between leadership quality and interpersonal conflict in Rafsanjan administrative organizations.

H0: There is no relationship between leadership quality and interpersonal conflict in Rafsanjan administrative organizations.

H1: There is a relationship between leadership quality and interpersonal conflict in Rafsanjan administrative organizations.

Analysis of the data shows that Kendall and Spearman correlation coefficients between leadership

quality and interpersonal conflict variables in Rafsanjan administrative organizations are – 0.060 and – 0.089 respectively, and with a significant p value of respectively 0.119 and 0.116, they are larger than the significance level of α = 0.05. Therefore, at this level H0 or no relationship is not rejected, and this means that there is no significant relationship between leadership quality and interpersonal conflict in Rafsanjan administrative organizations. The distribution pattern of data points and the fit line orientation in the scatterplot illustrates this fact.

1.91

%

19.11

%

42.04

%

35.35

%

1.59

% 0

% 5

% 10

% 15

% 20

% 25

% 30

% 35

% 40

% 45

%

too low low neutral high too high

Interpersonal Conflict

Frequency

1.27

%

6.69

%

40.45

%

44.27

%

7.32

%

0

% 5

% 10

% 15

% 20

% 25

% 30

% 35

% 40

% 45

% 50

%

too low low neutral high too high

Citizenship Behavior

Frequency

(8)

Fig. 4: Relationship between leadership quality and interpersonal conflict

There is a relationship between leadership quality and citizenship behavior in Rafsanjan administrative organizations.

H0: There is no relationship between leadership quality and citizenship behavior in Rafsanjan administrative organizations.

H1: There is a relationship between leadership quality and citizenship behavior in Rafsanjan administrative organizations.

The analyzed data shows that Kendall and Spearman correlation coefficients between leadership quality and citizenship behavior variables in Rafsanjan administrative organizations are 0.310 and 0.435 respectively, and with a significant p value of respectively 0.000 and 0.000, they are smaller than

the significance level of α = 0.05. Therefore, at this level, H0 or no relationship is rejected, and this means that there is a significant relationship between leadership quality and citizenship behavior in Rafsanjan administrative organizations. The distribution pattern of data points and the fit line orientation in the scatterplot illustrates this fact.

Moreover, the positive correlation coefficients and the slope of the fit line are indicators of a direct relationship between these variables. Coefficient of determination for the variables was calculated to be R2 = 0.211, that is, the variables share 21.1 % of variance, i.e. 21.1 percent of the variance in citizenship behavior is explained by leadership quality.

Fig. 5: Relationship between leadership quality and citizenship behavior

There is a relationship between interpersonal conflict and citizenship behavior in Rafsanjan administrative organizations.

H0: There is no relationship between interpersonal conflict and citizenship behavior in Rafsanjan administrative organizations.

H1: There is a relationship between interpersonal conflict and citizenship behavior in Rafsanjan administrative organizations.

The analyzed data shows that Kendall and Spearman correlation coefficients between interpersonal conflict and citizenship behavior

(9)

variables in Rafsanjan administrative organizations are – 0.205 and – 0.298 respectively, and with a significant p value of respectively 0.000 and 0.000, they are smaller than the significance level of α = 0.05. Therefore, at this level, H0 or no relationship is rejected, and this means that there is a significant relationship between interpersonal conflict and citizenship behavior in Rafsanjan administrative organizations. The distribution pattern of data points

and the fit line orientation in the scatterplot illustrates this fact. Moreover, the negative correlation coefficients and the slope of the fit line are indicators of an indirect relationship between these variables.

Coefficient of determination for the variables was also calculated to be R2 = 0.12, that is, the variables share 12 % of variance, i.e. 12 percent of the variance in citizenship behavior is explained by interpersonal conflict.

Fig. 6: Relationship between interpersonal conflict and citizenship behavior Discussion and Conclusion:

Although, it was hypothesized that there is a relationship between leadership quality and interpersonal conflict in the administrative organizations of Rafsanjan, the results show that there is no significant relationship between these variables. Leadership, with a key role in the organization and the culture s/he promotes, is able to resolve the conflict in the organization. Results obtained from other studies suggest that there is a relationship between these two variables. Jafari and Naini [12], in their study, assessed the effect of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles on interpersonal conflict at workplace. They found that a leader can influence the conflict through the leadership style s/he selects.

Results suggest that a significant relationship exists between leadership quality and citizenship behavior in the administrative organizations of Rafsanjan. Leadership style and leaders’ behavior have an effect on employees’ positive behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior. Citizenship behaviors in the organization are influenced by leadership style and leaders’ behavior pattern. In the present study, we have also achieved the same results reported by the previous researchers and experts. To institutionalize organizational citizenship behavior, managers and leaders should be pioneers. They should be a manifestation of organizational citizenship. Managers should always think over their

performance and try to avoid any misunderstandings through performance assessment [36].

Results suggest that there is a significant relationship between interpersonal conflict and citizenship behavior in the administrative organizations of Rafsanjan. Turner et al. [37], investigating the relationship between conflict and organizational citizenship behavior, found that conflict, which involves pursuing the interests of ingroup against the interests of outgroup, is more effective. Bertjan Doosje and Russell Spears found a negative relationship between perception of a realistic conflict and proportion of organizational citizenship behavior. When the group members make an effort to preserve and maintain the values by increasing intragroup favoritism and reducing outgroup adverse factors, they have a weak tendency for behaviors that are hindering the development of the conflict outside the group. Ingroup members, who have found outgroup members in a competition for exploiting scarce resources, are less likely to assist the outgroup members to obtain these resources [25].

Conclusion:

Results of the present research suggest that no significant relationship has been established between interpersonal conflict and leadership quality.

Although, the researchers of this study did not expect this, the results obtained from the collected data corroborate these findings. As the relationship type is

(10)

not clearly identified, the researchers refused to offer any implications or suggestions. Results suggest that a relationship exists between leadership quality and citizenship behavior; therefore, organizational leaders who have a tendency towards behaviors underlined in this study may be able to contribute to the exhibition of such organizational citizenship behaviors. If organizational leadership quality, status, values, viewpoint, emotional commitment, decisiveness, effectiveness, perception of individuals, and team building are appropriate to the members of the organization, it will facilitate the exhibition of discretionary and voluntary behaviors, and the employees will have a tendency to exhibit behaviors like altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy , civil virtue

A suggestion for the further research:

Investigating the relationship between leadership quality and organizational citizenship behaviors of employees in non-governmental organization Limitations of the study:

Some limitations of this study are as follows:

1. Data collection instruments have some inherent limitations, because the questionnaires may not be reflect the respondents’ attitudes properly and clearly.

2. The researchers had access to limited information resources and researches conducted on leadership quality.

3. Respondents usually disregard such surveys.

4. Organizations and their managers usually refuse to cooperate with researchers to distribute and collect the questionnaires.

References

1. Aftab., 2012. Negaresh va tarze talaghi [Attitude and way of thinking]. Retrieved August 1, 2013 from http://www.aftabir.com/dictionaries/word.

2. Astarki, M., 2005. “Ta’aroz ra beshnasim va modiriat konim” [Understanding and managing conflict]. Etla Resanie Modiriat,103 and 104.

3. Bateman, T.S., and D.W. Organ, 1983. Job Satisfaction and Good Solider: The Relationship between Affect and Employee Citizenship.

Academy of Management Journal, 26: 587-595.

4. Bennett, N., & L. Anderson, 2003. Rethinking Educational leadership. London: Sage Publication.

5. Bienstock, C.C., C.W. Demoranville, & R.K.

Smith, 2003. Organizational citizenship behavior and service quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(4): 357-378.

6. Bradshaw ., A., 2007. organizational leadership and its relationship to outcomes in residential

treatment, Indiana Wesleyan university, Department of Gradate Studies in Leadership, pp: 7.

7. Dadkhahi Asl, F., 2012. Organisational leadership. Retrieved August 1, 2013 from http://www.donya-e-

eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=247477.

8. Ehsani Moghadam, N., 2010. “Daramadi bar raftare shahrvandie sazmani” [An introduction to organizational citizenship behavior]. Modiriat Journal, 15.

9. Ghorbani, M. & A. Mirkhorsandi, 2006. Arzyabie shayestegie fardi [Evaluation of individual competence]. Pajoheshe toos Publications, Iran, pp: 152-156.

10. Gonin, D., U. Napiersky, & J. Thorsell, 2011.

Innovation in leadership development. In William H. Mobley, Ming Li, Ying Wang (ed.) Advances in Global Leadership (Advances in Global Leadership, Volme 6), Emerald Grop Pblishing Limited, pp: 155-215.

11. Hasan Pour, A., A. Divandari, & A. Vafaaii, 2007. “Tarahi va ejraye systeme sanjeshe rezayate karkonan dar bank Mellat ba hadafe erteghaye raftarhaye shahrvand-sazmani”

[Design and implementation of an employee satisfaction measurement system in Mellat bank with the objective of improving citizen- organization behavior]. In the Proceedings of the 1st national conference on management of citizen-organization behavior, Tehran, Iran.

12. Jafari, H., & H. Naini, 2010. Rahbari va Ta’aroz [Leadership and Conflict]. Iran University of Science and Technology.

13. Khoshbakhti, J., M. Ehsani, A. Kazem Nejad, &

H. Asadi, 2009. “Barresie rabeteye beine sabkhaye rahbari va keifiate zendegi [An investigation of the relationship between leadership styles and life quality]. Abstract retrieved August 1, 2013 from http://journals.ut.ac.ir/page/article-

frame.html?articleId=2761.

14. Kim, S., 2006. Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea, International Journal of Manpower, 27(8):722- 740.

15. Kivipold, K. & M. Ahonen, 2011. Evidence of relationship between organizational leadership quality and job satisfaction: The case of it service organization in Estonia. In the Proceedings of an International Conference in Tart, Estonia, pp: 2.

16. Lajvardi, J., 2008. “barresie hooshe atefi va rahbarie sazmani” [An investigation of emotional intelligence and organizational leadership]. Chasmandaz Modiryat Quarterly, 27: 41-57.

17. Lotfali Foroozan, M., 2006. “Barresie sabkhaye halle ta’arozate sazmani va ertebate an ba shakhsiate modiran” [An investigation of

(11)

conflict resolution styles of managers in the organization and its relationship with the managers’ personality]. Unpublished MA thesis for educational management, Al-Zahra University, Tehran, Iran.

18. Moshabaki, A., 2006. Modiryate raftare sazmani:

tahlile karbordi arzeshi az raftare sazmani [Organizational behavior management: Applied and value analysis of organizational behavior].

Termeh Publication, Tehran: Iran.

19. Najafbeigi, R., 2000. Sazman va modiryat [Organization and management (1st ed.)]. Islamic Azad University Press,Tehran: Iran.

20. Organ, D.W., 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington book.

21. Parvaz, K.h., 2007. “Taarife shakhsiat” [The definitions of personality]. Retrieved August 1,

2013 from http://www.pajoohe.com/fa/index.php?Page=def

inition&UID=32712.

22. Philip, P.J., R. Kumar, N. Choudhary, 2012.

Relationship between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Organizational Justice at Work Place. In the Proceedings of the Ninth AIMS International Conference on Management, January, 1-4: 1215-1221.

23. Pirmoradi Bezenjani, N., 2007. “barresi rabeteye beine vijegihaye shakhsiatie karkonan va ta’aroze sazmani (Interpersonal) dar sazmanhaye dolatie shahre kerman” [Investigating the relationship between employees’ personality characteristics and organizational conflict (Interpersonal) in Kerman administrative organizations]. Unpublished masters’ thesis for public administration, Islamic Azad University, Rafsanjan branch.

24. Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, J.B. Paine, &

D.G. Bachrach, 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26:

513-563.

25. Rezaee, V., 2012. Raftare shahrvandi-sazmani [Citizen-organization behavior]. Retrieved August 1, 2013 from http://valirezaee.blogfa.com/post-5.aspx.

26. Rezaeeian, A., 2003. Modiryate taaroz va mozakere: modiryate rafter sazmanie pishrafte [Conflict and negotiation management:

Advanced organizational behavior management]. SAMT Publications, Tehran: Iran.

27. Roasaii, F., 2012. “Barresie rabeteye beine hooshe ejtemaiie modiran va keifiate rahbarie sazmani dar dastgah haye ejraiie shahre Yazd”

[An investigation of the relationship between social intelligence level of the managers and organizational leadership quality in Yazd administrative organizations]. Unpublished MA

thesis, Islamic Azad University, Rafsanjan branch.

28. Robbins, S.P., 2005. Modiriate raftare sazmani [ Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies and applications]. In Farzad Omidvaran (Trans.). Keteb-e-mehraban Publications, Tehran: Iran.

29. Saadati, A., 2010. “Barresie rabeteye bein abaade keifiate rahbarie sazmanie modiran va mizane khalaghiate dabirane dabirestanhaye pesaraneye shahre Mane va Samalghan” [An investigation of the relationship between quality dimentions of managers’ organizational leadership and creativity of high school teachers in Maneh and Samalghan high-schools].

Pajooheshnameye Tarbiati Quarterly, 13(13).

30. Saiidian, N. & M. Moradi, 2009. “Rabeteye sabkhaye rahbarie Bass ba vejdane kari va taahode karye modirane madarese motavaseteye pesaraneye shahre Isfahan” [The connection of Bass’s leadership styles with the conscience and commitment of managers in Isfahan high- schools]. Danesh va Pajoohesh dar Oloome Tarbiati, 6(22): 119-140.

31. Sekaran, U., 2002. Ravesh tahghigh dar modiryat [Research methods for managers]. In Mohammad Saebi and Mahmood Shirazi (Trans.). The Center for Public Administration Education.

32. Sillamäe, J., & K. Kivipõld, 2011. Examining dynamic capabilities in challenging economic context: The perspective of organizational leadership quality. In: Electronical collection of the work-shop papers: 7-th interdisciplinary work-shop on intangibles, intellectual capital and extra-financial information; Warsaw, Poland, September 29-30, 2011. (Eds.)The European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management., 2011.

33. Slocum, J., 2002. Conflict management.

Retrieved August 1, 2013 from www.etu.org.za/toolbox/does/building.

34. Sternberg, R.J., 2003. WICS: A model for leadership in organizations. Academy of Management, Learning and Education, 2: 386.

35. Taboli, H., 2003. Asib shenasie sefate akhlaghi [Pathology of moral traits]. Kerman: Vadiat Publications.

36. Toure, N., 2006. Shenakhte avamele raftare shahrvandi va barresie ertebate an ba amalkarde sazmani [Identification of citizenship behavior factors and their relationship with organizational performance]. Unpublished MA thesis, Tehran University, Qom campus.

37. Turner, J.C., S.A. Haslam, & C. Powell, 2000.

Social identity, self-categorization, and work motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organizational outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49: 319-339.

(12)

38. Vares, H., A. Rastgar, K. Rafa’ati Alashti, & S.

Zera’atkar, 2010. “Rabeteye ertebate farafardi va raftare shahrvandi: Motaleye morediye seda va simaye jomhooriye eslamiye Iran” [The correlation Between the Relationship with God and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (IRIB A case study)]. Journal of Public Administration, 1(3): 135-154.

39. Vista Online Magazine, 2012. “Ellale nakami”

[the causes of failure]. Retrieved August 1,

2013 from http://www.fasleno.com/archives/applied_resea

rch/001244.php?q=print.

40. Yaqoobi, N., M. Moghadami, & A. Keikha, 2010. “Barresie rabeteye beine rahbarie tahavol afarin va raftare shahrvandi sazmanie karkonan” [An investigation of the relationship between transformational leadership and the staffs’ citizenship-organizational behavior].

Pajoheshnameye Modiryate Tahavol, 2(4): 64- 96.

41. Zanganeh, Y., 2012. “Eraeye modele jame’e avamele moasser bar toseeye raftare shahrvandi sazmani” [Offering a comprehensive model of factors affecting the development of organizational citizenship behavior]. Modiryate Dolati, 2(5).

References

Related documents

A description of the features of landscape and tourism flows towards the different areas of Tuscany is provided and, subsequently, an econometric model is estimated to

Increasingly stringent regulations, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), and higher penalties associated with licensing infringements are additional factors that make it more

To cite this article: Melya Dyanasari Sebayang et al 2018

Combination of Multi­Source  Ensemble Systems  •  Goal  –  Limitation of numbers of each ensemble system 

Extracting travel time variability and trip reliability information from a large amount of spatially correlated data from a large-scale network with dramatic variations in

However, it would be difficult to explain how a change in any of these risk factors would increase only the frequency of early stage cases or indolent forms of thyroid cancer

Free drawings of children with AS, aged 7-16 years, were analysed in relation to the clinical picture comprising their difficulties in commu- nication, social behaviour and

 A separate disorder entitled Social Communication Disorder has been added. It is not listed as a Autism Spectrum Disorder..  1.) Persistent deficits in social communication and