2013, World of Researches Publication. Am. J. Life. Sci. Res. Vol. 1, Issue 3, , 2013

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "2013, World of Researches Publication. Am. J. Life. Sci. Res. Vol. 1, Issue 3, , 2013"

Hollie Copeland
6 years ago
Views:

2013, World of Researches Publication Am. J. Life. Sci. Res. Vol. 1, Issue 3, 93-101, 2013 American Journal of Life Science Researches www.worldofresearches.

Dehghani 1* and Mostafa Dehghani 2 1. Department of Psychology, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran 2.

com Abstract: The purpose of this study was predicted job performance (in-roll behavior (IRB) and organization citizenship behavior (OCB)) of employees and organizational commitment (OC) of managers

1 2013, World of Researches Publication Am. J. Life. Sci. Res. Vol. 1, Issue 3, , 2013 American Journal of Life Science Researches Predicting of Job Performance (in-roll behavior and organizational citizenship behavior) of Employees, Organizational Commitment of Managers Basis on Dysfunctional Leader-member Exchange Yosef Dehghani 1* and Mostafa Dehghani 2 1. Department of Psychology, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran 2. Young Researchers Club, Bushehr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran *Corresponding Author: ydehghani@yahoo.com Abstract: The purpose of this study was predicted job performance (in-roll behavior (IRB) and organization citizenship behavior (OCB)) of employees and organizational commitment (OC) of managers based on the dysfunctional leader member exchange (DLMX). For this purpose, 45 managers and 263 subordinates of them selected with the simple randomized sampling manner. They answered to the Williams and Anderson's OCB, the Allen and Meyer's OC, and the Levine's DLMX. In this research, the data analyzed with the SPSS statistical software version 16. The Pearson correlation and multiple linear regressions were used to examine relationships. The finding argued that: the dominating disorder related with IRB, and organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the organization (OCBO), and also self-sacrificing disorder related with organizational citizenship behavior directed toward individuals (OCBI), (p<0.05). The significant negative multiple correlations (p<0.01), were observed between the withdrawing disorder with managers continuous OC, employees IRB and OCBO. Keywords: Task performance, Organizational citizenship behavior, Organizational commitment, Dysfunctional leader member exchange INTRODUCTION The subject of leadership has been greatly covered by scholars, academicians and consultants and seems the trait personality approach one of the best ways to understanding work-related behavior and performance. There is growing interest in the personality of leaders ( normal and dark side of leadership personality) 1. For example, a recent meta-analysis into the trait-leadership relationship found leadership to be positively correlated with extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and negatively related to neuroticism 2. Leader-Member- Exchange (LMX) attempts to define the quality of a dyadic relationship between a leader and member of his or her work group. In other words, a leader can develop July,

2 Dehghani and Dehghani, 2013 qualitatively different relationships with different work group members 3. Those members who perceive high quality relationships with the leader often receive preferential treatment including higher levels of decision latitude 4, greater growth opportunities 5 and higher levels of support 6. The study of DLMX has an important role in helping organizations identify those with the potential for derailment, deviant behaviors, and poor work performance 7, 8. Within this literature, a relationship between job performance (task performance and organization citizenship behavior) of employees, organizational commitment of manager's basis on dysfunctional leader-member exchange has often been alluded to 9 (yet there is limited empirical research investigating this relationship. Several classifications have been proposed for DLMX 10, 11 but Hogan et al., 12 developed a main approach to the research according to Horney s 13 model of flawed interpersonal tendencies: ( 1) moving away from people (Excitable, Cautious, Skeptical, Reserved and Leisurely, Suspicious and distrustful), reflecting those who are insecure and move away from people to manage this (withdrawing disorder); (2) moving against people (Bold, Mischievous, Colorful and Imaginative), reflecting those who are competitive and confident, and move against others through intimidation and manipulation in order to manage their insecurities (dominating disorder); and (3) moving towards people (Inflexible, Low self-esteem, Diligent and Dutiful), reflecting those who are conformist and obedient, who move towards others to gain approval in order to manage their insecurities (self-sacrificing disorder). Managers that involved the DLMX induce often the incorrect perceptions and expectations to their subordinates. They may possess special abilities, but they cannot properly use these features to advance their organization's goals. In fact, DLMX affect on the decisions and organizational outputs 14, like; decision to turnover, Subordinates quality of performance, commitment and job satisfaction 15, 16, 17. Based on investigations and existing theoretical principles, in this research we try to discuss relationship among DLMX and job performance (in-roll behavior (IRB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)) of employees, organizational commitment (OC) of managers. In general, the main purpose of the research is to investigate the relationship between DLMX with the IRB and OCB of employees and OC of managers. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1: DLMX and job performance (IRB, OCBI and OCBO) have the multiple relationships. H2: DLMX and OC (AC, CC and NC) have the multiple relationships. July

3 Predicting of Job Performance (in-roll behavior and organizational citizenship behavior) of MATERIALS AND METHODS The participants for this study were 396 people (66 managers and 330 subordinates of them) that worked in Entekhab Group (an Iranian producer of household appliances company). The participants selected with the simple randomized sampling manner and ask them to voluntarily participate in this study. The subordinates answered to the Williams and Anderson's OCB and the Levine's DLMX, and the managers answered to the Allen and Meyer's OC. Finally, 335 employees (45 manager and 263 subordinates of them) fully completed their questionnaires and returned it. All of the participants were male and the mean age was 38.3 years (SD = 9.64). The average length of participants work experience was 15.7 years (SD = 9.6(. The organizational commitment questionnaire used in this study was developed by Allen and Meyer 18. This scale is known as a standard organizational commitment scale and has been used by many researchers 19. It contains 18 questions examining the relationship of employees to the organization. Strong evidence for the reliability and validity of the OC scale has been reported 20. A fivepoint Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) was used. The three factors identified were: (a) AC; (b) CC; and (c) NC. The organizational citizenship behavior questionnaire used in this study was developed by Williams et al. 21, used in this study, which contains 21 questions examining the relationship of employees to the organization. A five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) was used. The three factors identified were: (a) IRB; (b) OCBI; and (c) OCBO. Researchers reported reliability coefficient of IRB subscale as 0.85, OCBI subscale as 0.87 and OCBO subscale as For measuring job performance variable we used Persian version of Williams and Anderson s OCBQ. A 21-item Leader-Member-Exchange scale 14 was employed to measure the subordinates perception of the quality of relationships with their supervisors. We used Persian version of this inventory. The Levin s 21-item LMX inventory is composed of items indicating the (a) withdrawing disorder (b) dominating disorder (c) self-sacrificing disorder. Each item was rated using a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach s alpha for the complete scale reported 0.87, in previous studies 14. We used mean index, standard deviation, and correlation matrix for analyzing collected information. Multiple regression analyses were used to explain and predict criterion variable by the use of predictor variables. For assessing significance of model in regression model we used F test, and statistical T test was used to determine significance of Beta coefficient. All of the statistical calculations were done by the use of SPSS statistical software version 16. RESULTS As it was mentioned, we assessed self-sacrificing disorder, dominating disorder and withdrawing disorder as the predictor variables. Mean descriptive

4 Dehghani and Dehghani, 2013 index and standard deviation of each variable are presented on table 1. As it is shown, the dominating disorder has the higher score of DLMX (mean= 22.53), OCBO has a most rate of job performance (mean= 29.07) and AC has the higher score of organizational commitment (mean= 43.38) in this organization. The Pearson s correlation of under study variables are presented in table 2. Based on table 2, self-sacrificing disorder has significant and positive correlation with OCBI and OCBO, dominating disorder has a significant and negative correlation with NC. Withdrawing disorder also has significant and negative correlation with IRB, OCBI, OCBO and CC. The research purpose shows a significant relationship between DLMX with the IRB and OCB of employees and OC of managers. Accordingly, we used self-sacrificing, dominating and withdrawing disorders as the predictor variables into the models under stud. IRB, OCBI, OCBO, AC, CC and NC used also as criterion variables of each model (T.3 and T.4). After analyzing regression on research data, we observed the model 2 (see T.3) explains about 3.7 percent of CC. We used statistical test of variance analysis to determine significance of R2, in which F= is statistically significant (P < 0.05). In models, 1 and 3, F wasn t statistically significant (P > 0.05). We used also, statistical T test to calculate significance of the calculated beta coefficients of every predictor variable of each model. The results show that withdrawing disorder with beta is a negative predictor of managers CC. However, self-sacrificing, dominating cannot predict managers CC. According to models 4, 5 and 6, these models are statistically significant (see T.4). In other words, the model 4 explains about 5.3 percent of IRB (F= 4.58, P < 0.01), the model 5 explains about 5.9 percent of OCBI (F= 5.158, P < 0.01) and model 6 explains about 7 percent of OCBO (F= 6.211, P < 0.001). The results show that self- sacrificing disorder (beta= 0.154) is a positive predictor of subordinates OCBI. The dominating disorder is also a positive predictor of subordinates IRB (beta= 0.141) and OCBI (beta= 0.155). As well as, the withdrawing disorder is the negative predictor of subordinates IRB (beta= ) and OCBO (beta= ). Table1. Mean and standard deviation of predictor and criterion variables Variable IRB OCBI OCBO AC CC NC Mean SD N = self-sacrificing disorder, =dominating disorder, = withdrawing disorder Table2. The Pearson s correlation of predictor variables and criterion variable Variable IRB OCBI OCBO AC CC NC ** 0.127* * ** * ** ** = self-sacrificing disorder, =dominating disorder, = withdrawing disorder. **P<0.01, *P<0.05. July

5 Predicting of Job Performance (in-roll behavior and organizational citizenship behavior) of Table3. Amount of F, R 2, B, β, T and significance test in under study models 1, 2 & 3 (relationship between DLMX and managers OC) Variable Sig. t β B R 2 Sig. F AC (model 1) CC (model 2) NC (model3) = self-sacrificing disorder, =dominating disorder, = withdrawing disorder Table4. Amount of F, R 2, B, β, T and significance test in under study models 4, 5 & 6 (relationship between DLMX and subordinates job performance) Variable Sig. T β B R 2 Sig. F IRB (model 4) OCBI (model 5) OCBO (model 6) = self-sacrificing disorder, =dominating disorder, = withdrawing disorder DISCUSSION The first hypothesis of this research is about the relationship between DLMX and managers' commitment. As it was mentioned in finding section, statistical analysis showed withdrawing disorder was a negative predictor of managers CC. In other words, high level of the managers withdrawing is caused to less their CC.

6 Dehghani and Dehghani, 2013 These managers are discouraged. Because of the low-risk and fear of rejection and negative evaluation by others, they are very cautious 12. Organizations undergo serious consequences of managers withdrawing, because they don t care about organizational problems, perspective and purposes because and do not follow the organization set policies. The researches of Steyrer et al. 22 and Cichy et al. 23, Cogliser et al. 24 and Morrow 25 also supported these findings. The second hypothesis of this research is about the relationship between DLMX and subordinates' job performance. Based on finding, self-sacrificing disorder is a positive predictor of subordinates OCBI. OCBI involves voluntarily behaviors that immediately benefit specific individuals and indirectly contribute to the organization (for example, helps others who have been absent, takes a personal interest in other employees) 26. According to Spector 27, this behavior can be contagious. Thus, it seems the helping behavior of self-sacrificing managers spread into their group. Oregon and his colleagues 28, into their research also have been noted the role of employee attitudes and leadership tendencies and supportiveness, in OCB. The finding shows that domination disorder is a positive predictor of IRB and OCBI. The dominated managers, heavily control the organizational financial resources and these resources only provided to subordinate who incontestable support the demands, projects and actions to the manager. At first sight, this maybe seems benevolently in order to subordinates' achievement; however, it may ultimately destroy the creativity of employees, and they make them too dependent on the Managers 29. The researches of Smith and his colleagues 30, Appelbaum et al. 31 and Cogliser et al. 24 didn t support these findings. However, Armeli et al. 32 reported finding compatible with it. They believed that there is a relationship between perceived social support and performance. Hence, high level leader supportiveness may partially improve performance of some employees. Finally, as for finding withdrawing disorder is a negative predictor of IRB and OCBO. These findings can be explained as follows: Podsakuf et al. 33, argued that leadership behaviors (e.g.; Transformational Leadership, Articulating a Vision, providing an appropriate Model, Fostering the Acceptance of Group Goals, highperformance expectations, Intellectual Stimulation 34, 35 and interactive behavior, including reward and punishment behaviors 36, Leader Role Clarification 35, and LMX 37, 38 are one effective factors on OCB. Managers with withdrawing behavior by avoid and lack of interest towards problems of their subordinates leaves them alone in solving business problems. Hence, the subordinates are confused and cannot perform their duties well. Leaders withdrawing behavior brings aggressive climate to organization and disrupts the cooperation and teamwork mood. Thus, these have a negative impact July

7 Predicting of Job Performance (in-roll behavior and organizational citizenship behavior) of on employee performance and OCBO. In general, this research showed that managers withdrawing disorder is very destructive for organizations. The researches of Smith et al. 30, Steyrer et al. 22 and Cogliser et al. 24 also support these findings. Using self-reported questionnaires and absence of women in research can be regarded as two limits of this research. As well as, collected information may be in risk of participant s biases. So in generalizing the results of the research these limits must be considered. It s suggested to study DLMX from the perspective of managers and using the other information sources for evaluation of job performance (managers and colleagues) in the future researches. REFERENCES 1. Khoo, H.S., Burch, G.St.J The dark side of leadership personality and transformational leadership: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M.W Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, Kim, B., Lee, G. & Carlson, K.D An examination of the nature of the relationship between Leader-Member-Exchange (LMX) and turnover intent at different organizational levels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, Liden, R.C., Graen, G Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, Graen, G., Scandura, T.A Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In: Staw, B., Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, Kraimer, M.L., Wayne, S.J., Jaworski, R.A Sources of support and expatriate performance: the mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54 (1), Hogan, R., & Hogan, J Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, Moscoso, S., & Salagdo, J.F Dark side personality styles as predictors of task, contextual, and job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, Fleet, D.D., & Griffin, R.W Dysfunctional Organization Culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, Bing, S Crazy bosses. New York: William Morrow & Co. 11. Larsen, R.J Neuroticism and selective encoding and recall of symptoms: Evidence from a combined concurrent-retrospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, Hogan, R. & Hogn, J Hogan Development Survey manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. 13. Horney, K Neurosis and human growth: The struggle toward selfrealization. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

8 Dehghani and Dehghani, Levine, N.C Leader-Follower dysfunction: Follower responses and organizational consequences. Doctoral Dissertation: Temple University. 15. Gerstner, C.R, & Day, D.V Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (6), Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: ameta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, De Coninck, J.B The effect of Leader member exchange on Turnover among retail buyers. Journal of Business Research, 62 (11), Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. 19. Cheng, Y., Stockdale, M.S The validity of the three-component model of organizational commitment in a Chinese context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, Meyer, J., stonley, D., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of vocational Behavior, 61, Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, Steyrer, J., Schiffinger, M., Lang, L Organizational commitmentmissing link between leadership behavior and organizational performance? Scand Journal of Management, 24, Cichy, R.F., Cha, J. & Kim, S The relationship between organizational commitment and contextual performance among private club leaders. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, Cogliser, C.C., Schriesheim, C.A., Scandura, T.A. & Gardner W.L Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader member exchange: Relationships with performance and work attitudes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, Morrow, P.C Managing organizational commitment: Insights from longitudinal research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, Huang, C.C., You, C.S The three components of organizational commitment on in-role behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors. African Journal of Business Management, 5(28), Spector, P.E Industrial and organizational psychology research and practice. (3th edition). New York. John Willey and sons Publication. 28. Orgun, W.P., Podsakoof, M.P., Mackenzie, B.S Organizational citizenship behavior is natural, antecedents and consequence. A sage publication series. July

9 Predicting of Job Performance (in-roll behavior and organizational citizenship behavior) of 29. Allcorn, S Organizational dynamics and intervention: Tools for changing the workplace. New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc. 30. Smith, J.E., Carson, K.P., & Alexander, R.A Leadership: it can make a difference. Academy of Management Journal, 27, Appelbaum, S.H., & Roy Girard, D Toxins in the workplace :affect on organizations and employees. Corporate Governance, 7 (1), Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., Lynch, P Perceived Organizational Support and Police Performance: The Moderating Influence of Socioemotional Needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. & Bachrach, D.G. 2000, Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research. Journal of Management, 26(3), Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L & Cheng, B. S Affective trust in Chinese leaders: linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, XX( X), xx-xx. 35. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 29(2), Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Bommer, W.H A meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, Deluga, R.J Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role of subordinate supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group & Organization Management, 23, Hui, C., Law, K.S., & Chen, Z.X A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77,

Why Employee Turnover? The influence of Chinese Management and Organizational Justice

Why Employee Turnover? The influence of Chinese Management and Organizational Justice Feng-Hsia Kao National Taiwan University, Taiwan Min-Ping Huang Yuan Ze University, Taiwan Bor-Shiuan Cheng National