Research Article | Open Access

Teachers’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior Working Under Different Leadership Styles

    Usma Ali

    National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Shaista Waqar

    National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

23 Jun, 2009
20 Nov, 2013
31 Dec, 2013

The present research aimed to study organizational citizenship behavior in relation to different leadership styles among school teachers. Teachers working under three types of leadership styles, i.e., transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership were also compared for their organizational citizenship behavior. Sample of the study included 129 individuals having 120 school teachers and 9 school heads. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) was used to measure teachers’ organizational citizenship behavior and Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1985) was used to assess the leadership style of school heads. Correlation and ANOVA along with post hoc analysis were conducted on the data. The results indicated that organizational citizenship behavior of school teachers was significantly related to leadership style. Transformational leadership style was found to be related with high citizenship behaviors followed by transactional leadership style of school head. School teachers working under laissez-faire leadership exhibited the least organizational citizenship behavior.

New realities of organizational success are emerging with the changing times. Non tasks behaviors are one of such significant factors for an organizational survival. In today’s competitive world, successful organizations are those whose employees perform duties beyond their formal contract. These altruistic acts are not part of any formal contract and neither have they received any reward for this, yet, these acts are essential for smooth functioning of organizations maximizing their effectiveness (Jahangir et al. as cited in Davoudi, 2012).

Organ (1988) defines organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) 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” (p.4). There are different forms and behavioral manifestations of organizational citizenship behavior. Altruism (e.g., helping and offering time to co-workers), conscientiousness (e.g., well-organized utilization of time and going further than bare minimum expectations), sportsmanship (e.g., avoids complaining and whining), courtesy (e.g., prior notices, reminders, and communicating proper information) and civic virtue (e.g., helping on committees and willingly attending functions) are the most agreed dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior.

There is agreement among researchers on findings that organizational citizenship behaviors are significant for organizational enterprises (Barbuto, Brown, Wilhite, & Wheeler, 2001). Organizational citizenship behavior facilitates an organizational performance and helps it to attain competitive edge (Bolino, 1999). Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) have also suggested that OCB enhances coworkers productivity, increases managerial productivity, free resources for productive purposes and reduce the need to allocate resources for discipline functions. Further, it may serve as effective means of coordinating activities across work groups, enhances stability of organizational performance and enhances the ability of organization to adapt to environmental changes.

Regarding the factors related to OCB, Bolino (1999) suggested that good organizational citizens perform the acts of citizenship behavior due to their personality traits; or to manage their impressions and in expectations to receive recognition and reward in return. Whereas, Podsakoff et al. (1990) and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996) argued that follower’s selfless behaviors and organizational citizenship acts are influenced by the leadership style. Later on, Podsakoff et al. (2000) empirically found that leadership and characteristics of work environment affect organizational citizenship behavior more than worker’s personality. They concluded that supervisor’ productive styles of leadership end in an increased frequency of organizational citizenship behavior. Vondey (2008) presented a model on leadership style and organizational citizenship behavior. He illustrated that organizational citizenship behavior is influenced by leadership styles with mediating roles of follower’s self concept, follower perception of leader’s behavior, and follower self-determination.

Barbuto and Scholl (1999) portrayed leaders as sources of motivation while studying a leader’s influence tactics. The behaviors executed by a leader must be captivating enough to ensure its followership. As one can suggest the more charisma a leader holds, the more he will be on the minds of his followers. The more leaders execute charismatic behaviors, the more its followers will demonstrate organizational citizenship behaviors and feeling of meaningfulness in work and lives increases (Miner, 2005). Therefore, research evidence of significant role of leadership qualities in eliciting OCB by employees is well-documented.

Bass (2003) proposed that leaders can acquire the best performance from their followers through building relationships with them. He talked about three leadership styles. Further, Bass (2003) emphasized that transformational leadership is characterized by actions and behaviors that are above and beyond the employment contract. Transactional leadership is characterized by a mutual exchange between follower and leader of what they both need; while laissez-faire leadership refers to a leader who has negligent, hands-off approach, towards the performance of its followers. Transformational leaders give a combination of feelings i.e., dependence and empowerment which satisfy employees’ need to be guided as well as give them enough autonomy to own their work and organization (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). Employees accept the feeling of dependence because of their personal identification with transformational leader, while they extract sense of empowerment due to their social identification (Miner, 2005). Podsakoff et al. (1996) explored the relative contributions of transformational leader behaviors on employee attitudes and performance. Findings of the study about the effect of transformational leadership on each of the five citizenship behaviors suggests that, with the exception of employee trust, one generally loses little explanatory value by excluding the effects of variation caused by transformational leadership behaviors. Researchers have also suggested that transformational leader build trust which leads to increased levels of organizational citizenship behavior (Hoy & Miskel, 2005).

In the educational settings, research on OCB is a recent trend. As psychologists have assumed that to meet the new standards that have been set for schools, school personnel must go out of bounds of minimum performance standards of their duties. It is clearly evident that study of organizational citizenship behavior in academicians and in educational institutions is of high value and certainly needs attentions (Farooqui, 2012). According to Yucel (2008), teachers play a significant role in improving schools and students. Teachers with high OCB have more value as compared to others because quality of academic institution is dependent on them. Teacher’s relationship with students is strong in high achieving schools as compared to lower achieving schools (Shann, 1998). Researchers have also found that teachers’ citizenship behavior positively predicted students’ academic achievement (Allison, Voss, & Dryer, 2001; Khalid, Jusoff, Othman, Ismail, & Rehman, 2010). Therefore, it can be inferred that OCB is practiced more in high achieving schools than the low achieving schools.

DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2001) have confirmed a strong relationship of collegial leadership style of educational leaders and teachers’ organizational citizenship behavior. Therefore, the school principals need to be more innovative to fit in different circumstances. Researchers have found in a study on school principals that transformational leaders are higher on innovation than non-transformational (Leithwood & SteinBach, 1991). Oplatka (2006) recommended that a principal should be encouraged to establish school environments that promote organizational citizenship behavior among teachers, which is in the best interest of institution as well better impartment of knowledge to students.

While narrating the leadership required at educational institutes, Bass (2000) highlighted that leaders needs to be genuine in their efforts to inspire teachers and students, to intellectually stimulate them, and to show their individualized considerations to teachers, students and parents. But at the same time, they need to be aware of teachers and students’ need of rewards contingent on performance. They need to be more proactive rather than reactive. They should act as change agents for dealing with diversity of problems faced by schools in the recent times.

With reference to Pakistan, research about OCB in academic institutes has caught some researchers’ attention. Farooqui (2012) investigated OCB among university teachers in Lahore as an outcome of organizational climate and found a significant positive relationship among these variables. Shehzad, Rehman, and Abbas (2010) reported nonsignificant relationship between OCB and transformational leadership among university teachers in public and private universities. On the other hand, Saeed and Ahmad (2012) investigated the same relationship among administrative staff of Punjab University. They found positive relationship of transformational leadership and the core components of OCB i.e., altruism, courtesy, and conscientiousness. Similarly, Shehzad (2011) focused on developing a model for OCB among University teachers. Among many other predictors, this research also focused on role of leadership style in OCB among university teachers. He concentrated on only transformational leadership style and found that this leadership style has direct effect on OCB among university teachers. In addition to this, Kashif, Khan, and Rafi (2011) explored the relationship between leadership behaviors with OCB among employees in telecom sector, also provided the evidence of positive relationship between these variables. Thus, indigenous research literature provides an ample evidence of significant relationship between leadership styles and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior.

While reviewing the current research trends in Pakistan on this topic, it was realized that researches have focused on overall relationship between OCB and leadership styles. The detailed understanding of how specific dimensions of leadership styles are related with OCB components is lacking in empirical research. Hence, it was realized that research is needed for this in-depth understanding to know more about the construct of OCB. In addition to this, Gautam, Dick, Wagner, Upadhyay, and Davis (2005) suggested that the organizational citizenship may vary from organization to organization and culture to culture. So, it was also felt important to investigate that whether this construct has same relationship in our culture as we find in Western literature.

In this scenario, this research was undertaken to fill in the identified knowledge gap. It was aimed to get an in depth understanding about how different leadership styles with their specific components are related with overall OCB and its dimensions in schools of our society. The study caters three leadership styles naming transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership as no previous Pakistani research has included these three styles with reference to OCB among teachers. Bambale, Shamsudin, and Subramaniam (2011) also highlighted the lack of research evidence focusing on laissez-faire leadership in stimulating OCB among employees.

Education sector was chosen for the study as the education is the back one of any nation which can make one nation rise. As Burner and Carpenter (2008) argued that in educational setting, a leader is an agent of change and can make its teachers to perform the acts of citizenship behavior which leaves a positive effect on students’ achievement. A blend of effective leadership characteristics can help the teachers and students to learn to be adaptable for new world of globalism and information age. Such leadership can create mandates and problems in challenges and opportunities (Bass, 2000). It is also necessary, as well, to explore newly emerging concepts in our cultural contexts and find out indigenous manifestations, in order to gain competitive edge and create our place as nation in developing organizations of 21st century. The broader objectives of the study were to assess the leadership styles of school heads. It was also intended to study how organizational citizenship behavior among school teachers is related to transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire styles of leadership of school heads and to compare teachers’ organizational citizenship behavior working under different leadership styles.


The dimensions of transformational leadership (charismatic leadership, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, idealized influence, and intellectual stimulation) are positively related with OCB dimensions (conscientiousness, civic virtue, altruism, sportsmanship, and courtesy)
Transactional leadership is positively related with OCB among school teachers
School teachers working under transformational leadership style will exhibit more organizational citizenship behavior as compared to those working under transactional and laissez-faire leadership


A single school system operating nationwide was chosen for the study. Nine branches of this school system located in Rawalpindi were included in the sample. Among these schools, 2 were Montessori level, 3 were secondary level, and 4 were primary level branches. Total sample of the study comprised of 9 school heads and 120 teachers. The age range of teachers was from 21-36 years with a mean age of 26.52 (SD = 4.85). The age range of school heads was from 28-42 years with a mean age of 32.42 (SD = 6.44). Educational qualification of the teachers ranged from B.A to M.Phil. Average teaching experience of the respondents was 3 years (SD = 2.1). Marital status of 93% teachers in the sample was single. Total number of female teachers in the sample was 104 while male teachers were only 16. All of the nine school heads in the data were females.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1985) consisted of 36 items which assesses three leadership styles, i.e., transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. There are 20 items, four for each dimension to assess five dimensions of transformational leadership. These five dimensions include: charismatic leadership (measuring how much the leader inculcate pride and faith in followers), individualized (measuring how much leader communicates personal respect to followers by recognizing their individual needs), inspirational motivation (assessing how much leader inspires the followers), idealized influence (measuring social and behavioral charismatic influence of leader), and intellectual stimulation (measuring how much leader articulates new ideas to make followers to think in non-traditional ways). Transformational leadership style has been assessed with 12 items for the respective three dimensions of the transactional leadership; that is, contingent rewards (referring to promising and delivering rewards to followers contingent on performance), management by exception-active (meaning leader take corrective action while anticipating problem), and management by exception-passive (meaning the leader takes corrective action when things go wrong). Laissez-faire leadership style is appraised with 4 items without any specific dimension.

MLQ is a Likert-type questionnaire with a 5-point response format. The response categories range between frequently if not always (5) to not at all (1). Reliability indices reported in earlier indigenous studies for MLQ has ranged from .77 (Riaz, 2009), .78 (Zahra, 2007), to .95 (Khan, 2009). In the present study, alpha co-efficient of MLQ total turned out to be .84 and subscales ranged from .47 - .83.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (originally developed by Podsakoff et al., 1990 and adapted by Niazi, 2005) is used in the present study. It has 24 items measuring the five traits of organizational citizenship behavior: sportsmanship behavior (5 items) referring to avoiding negative behavior at workplace; civic virtue (5 items) referring to participating responsibly in organizational political life; conscientiousness (5 items) measuring organized working behavior better than group norms; courtesy (4 items) measuring being mindful for other people rights; and altruism (5 items) referring to helping behaviors. The responses are acquired on 5-point rating scale ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). The alpha coefficient of .75 has been reported for the adapted version (Niazi, 2005); whereas in the present study alpha coefficient of .76 is achieved.

As a first step, a single school system and its branches in Rawalpindi were selected to control the confounding variables. To verify whether school heads could be considered as leaders, a meeting was held by the researcher with the head of school system. It was ensured that school heads were given enough autonomy and in the rules and duties that they could act as a ‘leader’. MLQ was administered on the school heads while OCB questionnaire was filled by the school teachers. The consent of the teachers as well as leaders was taken before administration. The researcher approached all the participants individually so that truthfulness of data collection was guaranteed. Participants were assured that the provided information would be used only for research purposes. The response rate was 45% because of busy schedule of the school teachers.


Correlation coefficients were computed to find the relationship between leadership dimensions and organizational citizenship behavior. ANOVA with post hoc test was done to find out the differences in execution of citizenship behavior by employees under transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership style. To assess the leadership style of the school head, z-scores were calculated on the sum scores of the three dimensions on MLQ. On the basis of comparison between these z-scores, it was determined that the school head holds which style of leadership i.e., transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire.

Table 1:
Frequency and Percentage of Leadership Styles among
School Heads (N=9)

Table 1 show that equal number of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leaders is present in the sample. The leadership style of a school head was determined by calculating z-scores of the raw scores obtained as described before.

Table 2:
Correlation Matrix between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Leadership Styles with Dimensions
(N = 87)

Note. Spm = Sportsmanship; Cv = Civic virtue; Cons = Conscientiousness; Cour = Courtesy; Alt = Altruism; OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behavior; Tf-Ch = Transformational-Charismatic; Tf-Ind = Transformational- Individualized Consideration; Tf-Ins = Transformational-Inspirational Motivation; Tf-Ideal = Transformational-Idealized Influence; Tf-Intel = Transformational-Intellectual Stimulation; Ts-CR = Transactional-Contingent Reward; Ts-MBA = Transactional-Management by Exception Active; Ts-MBP = Transactional-Management by Exception Passive
*p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01

Table 2 shows the correlation among OCB dimensions showed by school teachers and their respective school heads’ transformational and transactional leadership dimensions. The Table shows that all dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior are significantly positively related with all the dimensions of MLQ, except inspirational motivation which has non significant correlation with conscientiousness and altruism. This Table also shows that transactional leadership dimensions including contingent reward and management by exceptions have significant positive correlation with all dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior and overall OCB. Non significant correlation between management by exception-passive and over all OCB and all of its dimensions have also been observed.

Table 3:
Group-wise Differences on OCB and its Subscales among School Teachers Working Under Three Leadership Styles
(N = 120)

Note. Group 1 = Teachers Working Under Transformational Leadership; Group 2 = Teachers Working Under Transactional Leadership; Group 3 = Teachers Working Under Laissez-faire Leadership; OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behavior; Spm = Sportsmanship; Cv = Civic virtue; Cons = Conscientiousness; Cour = Courtesy; Alt = Altruism; Tf = Transformational Leadership; Ts = Transactional Leadership, Lf = Laissez-Faire Leadership
Between group df = 2, within group df =117; group total df =119
*p  ≤  .05, **p  ≤ .01

Table 3 shows differences in the organizational citizenship behavior elicited by the teachers under transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership.

The results presented in Table 3 indicated highly significant differences in the level of citizenship behavior executed by the teachers under different styles of leadership. The Table clearly indicates that mean scores of teachers under transformational leadership style (101.64) is very high as compared to transactional (93.70) and laissez-faire (87.97). Teachers working under transformational leadership scored significantly higher on all the dimensions of OCB. On civic virtue and altruism, there is nonsignificant difference among teachers under transformational and transactional leaders. On the other hand, teachers working under laissez-faire have exhibited lowest scores on OCB and all its dimensions.


This study was intended to study organizational citizenship behavior in relation to different leadership styles. Three styles of leadership i.e. transformational, transactional and laissez-faire were studied in relation to organizational citizenship behavior. The data contained three leaders on each style of leadership.

Correlation coefficients have been computed between dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior and dimensions of transformational leadership. The results show that significant positive correlations exist between all dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior with transformational leadership dimensions. Another study also determined that transformational leadership behavior has significant and regular positive correlations with altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Positive correlations of transformational leadership style with organizational citizenship behavior found in the present study are consistent with past researches (Chen & Farh, 1999; Ferres, Travaglione, & Connell, 2002; Goodwin, Wofford, & Whittington, 2001; Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Kim, 2009; Lian & Tui, 2012; Mackenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001; Moorman, 1991; Schlechter & Engelbrecht, 2006; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005). Individualized consideration is positively found to be positively related to altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue and negatively related to employees’ perception of role conflict (Podsakoff et al., 1996). It is also maintained that intellectual stimulation has positive effects on high performance expectations and on courtesy (Podsakoff et al., 1996). Nguni, Sleegers, and Denessen (2006) in their study on Tanzanian primary school teachers concluded that all dimensions of transformational leadership are positively related with OCB.

Results also showed correlation between contingent rewards, management by exception active, and management by exception passive. As found in a review of literature that when leaders administer rewards contingent upon performance, organizational citizenship behavior increases (Podsakoff et al., 2000); while altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue are more significantly related with contingent rewards than management by exception dimensions. These findings led to the conclusion that employees value organizational rewards and believe that their leaders administer rewards contingent on performance, they engage in citizenship behavior as a means of obtaining rewards. This interpretation of results is consistent with Morrison (1994) concluded that employees often view organizational citizenship behavior as estimated part of their work. Allen and Rush (1998) also maintained that leaders administer rewards contingent upon performance. Results of the present study also show that management by exception is not significantly correlated with any dimension of organizational citizenship behavior. Former evidence reported that two forms of transactional leader behavior are significantly related to altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue; one positively i.e., contingent reward behavior and one negatively punishment behavior (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Koh et al. (1995) also found a nonsignificant relationship between management by exception passive and organizational citizenship behavior. In discussing the overall pattern of results, this research suggest that transformational leadership does in fact has considerable add-on effects on transactional leadership in prediction of organizational citizenship behavior. Nguni et al. (2006) also had the same findings for their research on Tanzanian primary school teachers.

An interesting finding evident from the results regarding relationship between transactional and transformational dimensions and organizational citizenship behavior is that the strongest relationship for overall citizenship behavior is coming from contingent reward dimension of transactional leadership. It refers that school teachers show highest level of overall citizenship behavior when they see that they are getting the promised rewards on the basis of their performance. This factor has left all other dimensions behind. This finding is majorly supported by previous researches (Kim, 2009; Rubin, Bommer, & Bachrach, 2010; Walumbwa, Wu, & Orwa, 2008) which also found positive relationship between contingent rewards component and OCB. It is reflecting either they perceive that they can exert influence in getting rewards on the basis of their extra role performance or if they are getting rewards on the basis of their performance then it is also significantly affecting their informal behavior too. Moreover, Bass (2000) argued that contingent rewards meet the material needs of the employees which can motivate them to show non task behaviors.

ANOVA with post hoc test has revealed that there exists a highly significant difference in the citizenship behavior elicited by the employees under these styles. Teachers working under transformational leaders showed much higher OCB as compared to transactional style and laissez-fair; hence supporting the assumption that transformational leaders make their employees to go beyond their formal role requirements. It is expected from a transformational leader, because the spirit of transformational leadership is the ability to get a hold on employees to perform above expectations (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Thus this extra effort by the leader can be demonstrated in the form of citizenship behavior. Similar findings of several studies have been reported in meta-analysis (Podsakoff et al., 1996). DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2001) have found that a transformational leadership style leads towards execution of organizational citizenship behavior by the teachers. Arora and Krishan (2008) found the same relationship between transformational leadership and citizenship behavior.

Another finding revealed that transactional leadership style leads to organizational citizenship behavior at lower level than transformational. Hence it can be inferred that transactional is one step less effective than transformational style. These findings are in harmony with another empirical study on teachers in school settings. The researchers found significant differences that transformational leadership factors have positive add-on effects to transactional leadership factors in predicting organizational citizenship behavior (Koh et al., 1995). According to the most probable reasons a transformational leader practice individualized consideration to followers as compared to the transactional leader’s use of negotiation (Bass, 1985). Similarly, school teachers working under laissez-faire leaders showed the lowest level of OCB. Nguni et al. (2006) also found negative relationship between laissez-faire and OCB. As stated by Bass (2003), avoidant leaders like laissez-faire are perceived by subordinates as being unsuccessful and therefore these behaviors are counterproductive in enhancing subordinates’ motivation.

Results also revealed that there are significant differences among teachers working under different leadership styles vary along all dimensions of OCB, too. Teachers under transformational leaders showed higher levels of sportsmanship, civic virtue, conscientiousness, courtesy and altruism more than teachers under laissez-faire leaders. This is in accordance with Sosik, Veronic, and Godshalk (2000) suggestion that leaders should refrain from laissez-faire behaviors and to demonstrate transformational behavior for increased subordinates’ citizenship behaviors. In comparison to teachers under transactional leaders, teachers under transformational leader elicited higher levels of sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and courtesy. Bass (2000) emphasized the role of transformational as superior to transactional especially in educational sector. On altruism and civic virtue, nonsignificant differences among teachers under transformational and transactional leaders have been observed. It can be inferred from this result that transformational and transactional leadership styles are both important for OCB in their own way.


The study concluded that school teachers working under transformational leaders are found to elicit higher level of citizenship behaviors as compared to transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles. Laissez-faire leadership is found to be the least effective style to elicit organizational citizenship behavior and thus to lead an educational institution. Highly significant and positive correlations are found between all sub-dimensions of transformational leadership with the dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior. Contingent reward and management by exception active (dimensions of transactional leadership) exhibited significant positive correlations with citizenship behaviors, while management by exception passive is found to be nonsignificantly correlated with organizational citizenship behavior dimensions.

Hence, leadership should be given considerable importance in educational institutes to make environment more conducive, effective, and productive place to work and impart knowledge.


The study has some potential limitations. First of all, the data was all self-reported which may have validity issues. Different methodology would be used in future studies. Leadership style of school head was assessed only by the leader’s self-reporting that may contradict with teachers’ perceptions. In future, data would also be collected from teachers about their leaders’ style so as to enhance the generalizability of the findings. Moreover, it has not been established that whether transformational leadership lead to higher organizational citizenship behavior or the other way round. Therefore, future explorations should focus on the predictive relationship between these variables. Beside this, only one school system was taken as sample, future research should take variety of school systems to understand this phenomenon.


The study emphasizes the importance of leadership in educational institutions. Trainings can be provided to school heads so that they can attempt to have more adaptive leadership to inculcate a profound sense of responsibility and good citizenship behavior among their faculty members. The study provides an insight about the particular components of leadership which are critical for motivating employees for showing citizenship acts. All the stakeholders i.e. management, faculty and students can also be made aware of the importance of citizenship behavior to function in more productive environment.


  1. Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 247-260.
  2. Allison, B. J., Voss, R. S., & Dryer, S. (2001). Student classroom and career success: The role of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Education for Business, 76, 282-288.
  3. Arora, P., & Krishan, V. R. (2008). Determinants of transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Asia-Pacific Business Review, 4(1), 34-43.
  4. Bambale, A. J., Shamsudin, F. M., & Subramaniam, C. (2011). Stimulating organizational citizenship behavior research for theory development: Exploration of leadership paradigms. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 1, Special Issue, 48-69.
  5. Barbuto, E. K., Brown, L. L., Wilhite, S. M., & Wheeler, W. D. (2001). Testing the underlying motives of organizational citizenship behaviors: A field study of agricultural co-op workers. 28th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference, New Orleans, Los Angeles, USA.
  6. Barbuto, J. E., & Scholl, R. W. (1999). Leader’s motivation and perception of follower’s motivation as predictors of influence tactics used. Psychological Report, 84, 1087-1098.
  7. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.
  8. Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18-40.
  9. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1985). Transformational leadership development manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  10. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.
  11. Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 12, 82-98.
  12. Burner, T., & Carpenter, J. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior and students’ achievement. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 51-58.
  13. Chen, X. P., & Farh, J. (1999). The effectiveness of transactional and transformational leader behaviors in Chinese organizations: Evidence from Taiwan. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, USA.
  14. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
  15. Davoudi, S. M. (2012). A comprehensive study of organizational citizenship behavior: Introducing the term, clarifying its consequences and identifying its antecedents. Journal of Economics and Management, 1(2), 73-85.
  16. DiPaola, M. F., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Organizational citizenship behavior in school and its relation to school climate. Journal of School Leadership, 11, 424-447.
  17. Farooqui, M. R. (2012). Measuring organizational citizenship behavior as a consequence of organizational climate. Asian Journal of Business Management, 4(3), 294-302.
  18. Ferres, N., Travaglione, T., & Connell, J. (2002). Trust: A precursor to the potential mediating effect of transformational leadership. International Journal of Organizational Behavior, 5, 242-263.
  19. Gautam, T., Dick, R., Wagner, U., Upadhyay, N., & Davis, A. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment in Nepal. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 305-314.
  20. Goodwin, V. L., Wofford, J. C., & Whittington, R. (2001). A theoretical and empirical extension to the transformational leadership construct. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 22, 759-774.
  21. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2005). Educational administration. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  22. Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246-255.
  23. Kashif, M., Khan, Y., & Rafi, M. (2011). An exploration of determinants of organizational behavior in telecommunication sector of Pakistan. Asian Journal of Business Management 3(2), 91-97.
  24. Kim., H. M. A. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership of Athletic Directors and their impact on organizational outcomes perceived by Head Coaches at NCAA Division II Intercollegiate Institutions. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, USA.
  25. Khalid, S. A., Jusoff, H. K., Othman, M., Ismail, M., & Rehman, N. A. (2010). Organizational citizenship behavior as a predictor of student academic achievement. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 2(1), 65-71.
  26. Khan, M. J. (2009). Relationship between leadership styles and innovative work behavior. Unpublished M. Sc. Research Report, National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
  27. Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 16(4), 319-333.
  28. Lian, L. M., & Tui, L. G. (2012). Leadership styles and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating effect of subordinates’ competence and downward influence tactics. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 13(2), 59-96.
  29. Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1991). Indicators of transformational leadership in every day problem solving of school administrators. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4, 221-243.
  30. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. R. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 29(2), 115-134.
  31. Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational behavior: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. Bangalore, India: Prentice-Hall.
  32. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied psychology, 76, 845-855.
  33. Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: the importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403-419.
  34. Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177.
  35. Niazi, M. F (2005). Exploring organizational citizenship behavior in government and non-government organizations. Unpublished M. Sc. Research Report, National Institute of Psychology, Quiad-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
  36. Oplatka, I. (2006). Going beyond role expectations: Toward an understanding of the determinants and components of teacher organizational citizenship behavior. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(3), 385-423.
  37. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
  38. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.
  39. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, M. P., McKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. London: Sage Publications.
  40. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259-298.
  41. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
  42. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bacharach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.
  43. Riaz, M. N. (2009). Leadership styles as predictors of decision making styles. Unpublished M. PhilDissertation, National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
  44. Rubin, R. B., Bommer, W. H., & Bachrach, D. G. (2010). Operant leadership and employee citizenship: A question of trust? Leadership Quarterly, 21, 400-408.
  45. Saeed, A., & Ahmad, S. (2012). Perceived transformational leadership style and organizational citizenship behavior: A case study of administrative staff of university of Punjab. European Journal of Business and Management, 4(121).
  46. Schlechter, A. F., & Engelbrecht, A. S. (2006). The relationship between transformational leadership, meaning, and organizational citizenship behavior. Management Dynamics, 15(4), 2-16.
  47. Shann, M. H. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle schools. Journal of Educational Research, 92(2), 67-73.
  48. Shehzad, K. (2011). Development of a model of organizational behavior: A comparative study of university teachers from a developing and a developed country. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Management and Social Sciences, Mohammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
  49. Shehzad, K., Rehman, K., & Abbas, M. (2010). HR practices and leadership styles as predictors of employee attitudes and behavior: Evidence from Pakistan. European Journal of Business Management. 14(3).
  50. Sosik, J. J., Veronic, M., & Godshalk. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress: A conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 365-390
  51. Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C., & Orwa, B. (2008). Contingent reward transactional leadership, work attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of procedural justice climate perceptions and strength. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 251-265.
  52. Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. H. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420-432.
  53. Vondey, M. (2008). Follower-focused leadership: Effect of follower self-concept and self-determination on organizational citizenship behavior. Emerging Leadership Journeys (1), 52-61.
  54. Yucel, C. (2008). Teacher burnout and organizational citizenship behavior in Turkish elementary schools. Educational Planning, 7(1), 27-43.
  55. Zahra, S. (2007). Gender differences in transformational and transactional leadership and decision making styles among students. Unpublished M. Sc. Research Report, National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

How to Cite this paper?

APA-7 Style
Ali, U., Waqar, S. (2013). Teachers’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior Working Under Different Leadership Styles. Pak. J. Psychol. Res, 28(2), 297-316.

ACS Style
Ali, U.; Waqar, S. Teachers’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior Working Under Different Leadership Styles. Pak. J. Psychol. Res 2013, 28, 297-316.

AMA Style
Ali U, Waqar S. Teachers’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior Working Under Different Leadership Styles. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research. 2013; 28(2): 297-316.

Chicago/Turabian Style
Ali, Usma, and Shaista Waqar. 2013. "Teachers’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior Working Under Different Leadership Styles" Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research 28, no. 2: 297-316.