Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

The concept of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was first used in reference to the ‘employees of an organization display[ing] volunteer behaviors that were more than their expected responsibilities, which led to the further benefit of the organization’ (Bateman & Organ, 1983). The concept of organizational citizenship is seen to be closely related to the attitude toward a fair cognitive appraisal of employees of an organization. This perspective is related to equity theory (Adams, 1965). Equity theory explains the employee ’s contributions to the organization—that is, the conscious comparison of outputs they gain from the organization (Eren, 2001).

In early studies on organizational citizenship (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), altruism and adaptation were the two main headings examined; however, in the studies that followed (Organ, 1988), the concept was understood according to five dimensions:

  1. 1.

    Altruism: to volunteer their help to fellow colleagues and to make efforts to reduce their workload.

  2. 2.

    Conscientiousness: for the employee to surpass the minimum qualities required by the job description and to contribute more to the organization, e.g., by using time more efficiently or producing on a higher level, and for leaders to delegate authority to their followers (Boerner, Eisenbeiss, & Griesser, 2007).

  3. 3.

    Sportsmanship: according to Organ (1988), behaviors that contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization as a result of an increase of resistance in employees toward emerging negative situations and the ability to combat problems without creating tension or providing constructive opinions. By displaying high performance, the excessive waste of energy and time can be prevented.

  4. 4.

    Courtesy: behaviors that include gestures such as informing persons who will be affected by a particular task or behavior before it takes place (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

  5. 5.

    Civic Virtue: explains the behavior that supports the professional and social functions of an organization by considering the highest interests of the organization, willingly joining the organization and taking an interest in the organization (Allison, Voss, & Dryer, 2001).

Despite Organ’s five-dimensional approach, there is no consensus on OCB dimensions in the literature (Oğuz, 2011). In their study, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) identified 30 different OCB dimensions. There are also studies that investigate the concept of OCB in two dimensions such as OCB for the benefit of individuals and organizations (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Studies that examine the various dimensions of OCB are considered variations of the five dimensions established by Organ (1988).

In the initial studies of OCB, the dimensions and assumptions of OCB were examined. In studies that followed, the organizational outputs of OCB were considered (Köse, Kartal, & Kayalı, 2003; Gürbüz, 2006). In addition to the OCB studies conducted, the concept was also discussed in terms of education by DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2001), who adapted Organ’s OCB concept (Organ, 1988; Organ & Ryan, 1995) to state schools (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005).

It has been stated that OCB is an effective and important determining factor of leadership behaviors and that OCB positively affects organizational performance in various dimensions (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Investigations of the relationship between leadership and OCB may provide effective approaches for organizations with a desire to gain further success. The research findings in this field and their effective application will make it possible to ensure employees gain OCB in multi-cultural and multi-national organizations of the future.

In recent studies conducted on leadership , the relationship between the various leadership approaches /styles and OCB was examined. A review of the findings showed that there was a medium-level relationship between OCB and transformational leadership (Dominguez, Enache, Sallan, & Simo, 2013; Felfe & Heinitz, 2010; Gilmore, Hu, Wei, Tetrick, & Zaccaro, 2013; Humphrey, 2012; Jiao, Richards, & Zhang, 2011; Kent & Chelladurai, 2001; Khan & Rashid, 2012; Li, Chiaburu, Kirkman, & Xie, 2013; Lian & Tui, 2012; Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2007; Oğuz, 2011; Omar, Zainal, Omar, & Khairudin, 2009; Park, Song, Yoon, & Kim, 2013; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bornmer, 1996; Purvarova, Bono, & Dzieweczynski, 2006; Salam, Cox, & Sims, 1996; Schlechter & Engelbrecht, 2006; Subrahmanian, 2013; Tai, Chang, Hong, & Chen 2012; Twigg, 2008; Twigg, Fuller, & Hester, 2008; Vigoda-Gadot & Beeri, 2011; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005), transactional leadership (Lian & Tui, 2012; Morçin & Morçin, 2013; Walumbwa, Wu, & Orwa, 2008), spiritual leadership (Chin & Chin, 2012), Shared Leadership (Bostancı, 2013), servant leadership (Ehrhart, 2004; Zehir, Akyüz, Eren, & Turhan, 2013), Paternalistic leadership (Çalışkan, 2010; Ersoy, Born, Derous, & Molen, 2012; Hongyu, Mingjian, Qiang, & Liqun, 2012), general leadership (Alabi, 2012; Al-sharafi & Rajiani, 2013; Britt, McKibben, Greene-Shortridge, Odle-Dusseau, & Herleman, 2012; Dijke, Cremer, Mayer, & Quaquebeke, 2012; Euwema, Wendt, & Emmerik, 2007; Moideenkutty & Schmidt, 2011; Pearce & Herbik, 2004; Rubin, Bommer, & Bachrach, 2010; Shing-Ko, Hsiao-Chi, & Sung-Yi, 2007; Zhang & Chen, 2013), ethical leadership (Ruiz-Palomino, Ruiz-Amaya, & Knörr, 2011; Shin, 2012; Zhang, Walumbwa, Aryee, & Chen, 2013), charismatic leadership (Aoyagi, Cox, & McGuire, 2008; Aslan, 2009; Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2010; Boerner, Dütschke, & Wied, 2008; Cho & Dansereau, 2010), and authentic leadership (Tonkin, 2013; Valsania, Leon, Alonso, & Cantisano, 2012).

This study investigated the effect of leadership on organizational citizenship behavior. Further, the (1) sample group of studies, (2) their year of publication and (3) leadership styles were determined as moderators thought to affect the effect size of leadership . In light of previous studies and these variables, the following hypotheses were tested:

H1 :

Leadership has a positive effect on organizational citizenship .

H2 :

The sample group /sector is a moderator of the positive effect of leadership on organizational citizenship behavior.

H3 :

The year of publication is a moderator of the positive effect of leadership on organizational citizenship behavior.

H4 :

Leadership style is a moderator of the positive effect of leadership on organizational citizenship behavior.

2 Method

2.1 Study Design

In this study, the effect of leadership on organizational citizenship was tested with the meta-analysis design.

2.2 Review Strategy and Criteria for Inclusion/Exclusion

To determine the research studies to include in the meta-analysis, the Science-Direct , Proquest and Ebsco academic databases were used to conduct a literature review. For this process , the terms leadership and organizational citizenship included in the titles of the studies were used to screen the research studies. The end date for the research studies included in the research was identified as March 2014. Doctoral dissertations and peer-reviewed journals were included in the study.

Many strategies were used to identify the research studies that were appropriate for the meta-analysis of the study. First, a research study pool (74 research studies) was established of all studies with leadership and job satisfaction in their titles. The abstracts of these studies were reviewed, and all were found to be appropriate to include in the study. In the second stage, all research studies in the pool were examined in detail. Fifty-five of the research studies in the pool were appropriate, and 19 were not found to be suitable. The descriptive statistics of the 55 research studies included in the analysis are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis
Full size table

The criteria for inclusion of the research studies in the analysis study were identified as follows:

  • To have the statistical information necessary for correlational meta-analysis (n and r, or R 2 values)

  • To be a study measuring the correlation between leadership and organizational citizenship

Reasons for not including a research study in the meta-analysis:

  • Having no quantitative data (qualitative research)

  • Not having a correlation coefficient

  • Not focusing on organizational citizenship

  • Not focusing on leadership

2.3 Coding Process

The coding process is essentially a data sorting process used to ascertain which of the complex data in studies are clear and suitable for the study. In this scope, a coding form was developed before the statistical analysis was conducted, and the coding was conducted according to the form. The main aim was to develop a specific coding system that allowed the study to see the entirety of the research studies in general and that would not miss any characteristics of each individual research study. The coding form developed in the study was comprised of:

  • References for the research

  • Sample information

  • Sample group /sector

  • Leadership style /approach

  • Data collection tool(s)

  • Quantitative values

2.4 Statistical Processes

The effect size acquired in a meta-analysis is a standard measure value used in the determination of the strength and direction of the relationship in the study (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was determined to be the effect size in this study. Because the correlation coefficient has a value between +1 and −1, the r value calculated was evaluated by converting this value into the value as it appears in the z table (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Provided that more than one correlation value is given between the same structure categories in correlational meta-analysis studies, two different approaches were used in the determination of the one to be used in the meta-analysis (Borenstein et al., 2009; Kulinskaya, Morgenthaler, & Staudte, 2008). For this study, (1) first, if the correlations were independent, all the related correlations were included in the analysis and were considered to be independent studies, and (2) if there were dependent correlations, then the conservative estimation value was accepted. A random effect model was used for the meta-analysis processes in this study. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis program was used in the meta-analysis process .

2.5 Moderator Variables

To determine the statistical significance of the difference between the moderators of the study, only the Q b values were used. Three moderator variables that were expected to play a role in the average effect size were identified in the study. The first of these considered sample group /sector as a moderator of the relationship between organizational citizenship and leadership style /approach. The second, year of the research, was expected to have an effect on the average effect of leadership perceptions and organizational citizenship . The third moderator variable was leadership style /approach.

2.6 Publication Bias

A funnel plot for the research studies included in the meta-analysis of the study can be seen in Fig. 1. Evidence for the effect of publication bias in the research studies included in the meta-analysis can be seen in Fig. 1. A serious asymmetry would be expected in the funnel plot if there were a publication bias . The concentration of plots on one side, under the line of the average effect size and particularly in the bottom section of the funnel, suggests the probability of a publication bias . In this study, no evidence of the partiality of the publications was observed in any of the 55 data subjected to the meta-analysis.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Effect size funnel for publication bias

Full size image

Although no partiality in publications was observed in the funnel plot , the results of Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill test, which was applied to determine the effect of partiality in publications acquired with the meta-analysis using the random effect model , are given in Table 2. As is seen in Table 2, there is no difference between the effect observed and the artificial effect size created to fix the effect of the partiality of publications. The research on each side of the center line is symmetrical, and this is the indicator of non-difference. Because there is no evidence indicating lost data on either side of the center line, the difference between the fixed effect size and observed effect size is zero.

Table 2 Duval Tweedie trim-fill test results
Full size table

3 Findings

Table 3 shows the results of the meta-analysis of leadership and organizational citizenship . The findings provided support for H1, which argued that there would be a positive relationship between leadership and the development of organizational citizenship behavior. The effect size of leadership on organizational citizenship was calculated to be 0.36. This result shows that leadership has a medium-level effect on organizational citizenship behavior (see Cohen, 1988).

Table 3 Findings of the correlations between leadership and organizational citizenship : results of meta-analysis
Full size table

The results of the first moderator analysis showed that H2, which expected that the sample group /sector would moderate the positive effect of leadership on organizational citizenship behavior., was supported. In previous studies, it was found that leadership has a medium-level significant effect on the organizational citizenship behaviors of employees of the banking sector [r = 0.578], employees of not-for-profit organizations [r = 0.32], teachers [r = 0.46] and managers [r = 0.409]. With the exception of these four sample groups, the effect of leadership on organizational citizenship behavior was not found to be significant on the other sample group /sectors. The most important finding was that leadership behaviors had the largest effect on employees of the banking sector in regards to organizational citizenship behaviors. Of the effect size on organizational citizenship for various sample groups/sectors, the moderator analysis showed that the difference in the effect size of leadership on organizational citizenship was statistically significant (Q b  = 6.49, p < 0.05).

The findings of the second moderator analysis supported H3, which hypothesized that the year of publication would be a moderator for the positive effect of leadership on organizational citizenship behavior.. The moderator analysis found a statistically significant difference in the effect size for publication year (Q b  = 4.83, p < 0.05). Publications from 1990 to 1999 [r = −0.30] found that leadership had a negative effect on organizational citizenship behavior, and the findings were statistically significant (p > 0.05). However, publications from 2000 to 2009 [r = 0.35] and those of 2010 and beyond [r = 0.40] found that the effect size of leadership was of a medium-significant level (p < 0.05).

The third analysis conducted found that the H4 hypothesis, which predicted that styles of leadership would not have a significant difference in organizational citizenship behaviors when compared with each other, was not supported. Whereas general leadership [r = 0.53], paternalistic leadership [r = 0.63] and transformational leadership [r = 0.26] were found to have a significant effect on organizational citizenship behavior, the effects of other leadership types were not found to be statistically significant. In conclusion, it can be stated that leadership types are significantly different in their effects.

Conclusion

The findings supported H1, which argued that there would be a positive relationship between leadership and organizational citizenship . The results of the moderator analysis showed that H2, which predicted that the sample group /sector would be a moderator for the positive effect of leadership on organizational citizenship behavior, was supported. The findings provided support for H3, which predicted that he year of publication would be a moderator for the positive effect of leadership on organizational citizenship behavior. The findings supported H4, which predicted that leadership style would be a moderator for the positive effect of leadership on organizational citizenship behavior.

It is understandable that displaying leadership behaviors would increase the engagement an organization’s employees experience in their jobs and would lead them to take greater ownership in the organization (Aslan, 2009). It was found in this study that employees of different sectors, such as the banking sector and not-for-profit organizations, are affected by leadership behaviors at differing levels. Findings that support this situation show that leaders or managers of organizations who wish to be successful should display leadership behaviors in a style that is congruent with their employees and that applies to them. In this context, knowing the members of the organization well and displaying behaviors or working styles that match the employees are important for success.

Just as the same leadership style applied to different organizations cannot guarantee success, different leadership styles for the same type of organization also do not guarantee success. This brings to mind the relationship between leader and follower congruence in the literature.

The relationship between leadership and organizational citizenship behavior seem to be connected to the relationship between organization leaders and employees (followers ). This, in turn, is related to how well the leader knows the organization and to the level to which employees accept, understand and take ownership of the leader (Hogg, 2004, cited from Akkoç, 2012).

Although it was found that the effects of the leader on organizational citizenship behaviors are positive on a medium level, detailed studies must be conducted to for further investigation.