International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior

Transformational Leadership and Positive Work Outcomes: A Framework Exploring the Role of LMX and
Distributive Justice.
Ankur Nandedkar, Roger S Brown,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ankur Nandedkar, Roger S Brown, "Transformational Leadership and Positive Work Outcomes: A Framework Exploring
the Role of LMX and Distributive Justice.", International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJOTB-09-2018-0105
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-09-2018-0105
Downloaded on: 27 September 2018, At: 07:40 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:464870 []
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Transformational Leadership and Positive Work Outcomes: A Framework
Exploring the Role of LMX and Distributive Justice.

ABSTRACT. A significant amount of research has examined the relationship between

transformational leadership and positive follower outcomes such as organizational citizenship
behavior and task performance. Building on the social exchange theory and referent cognitions
theory, this paper explores the propositions that transformational leadership, organizational
citizenship behavior, and task performance relationship is mediated by leader member exchange
and distributive justice. The purpose of this study is to explore the underlying mechanism that
has a potential to influence the transformational leadership and follower outcomes relationship.
We also discuss the implications for management theory and practice.
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

INTRODUCTION

Effective leadership is crucial for organizations to remain competitive in the business world.
Researchers and practitioners alike have been interested in understanding the phenomenon of
leadership. Several leadership theories have been proposed in the mainstream organizational
behavior research. Especially, the transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985) has received
widespread scholarly attention in the last two decades (Bono & Judge, 2003; Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramanium, 1996; Wang, Oh, Courtright, Colbert, 2011). Transformational leaders search
for best ways to achieve their goals, actively look for new opportunities, and challenge the status
quo (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2013), thereby helping to foster innovation in the organization
(Paulsen, Callan, Ayoko, & Saunders, 2013). The impact of transformational leadership has been
investigated on a number of work out comes such as job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, turnover intention, organizational development, organizational justice, task
performance, and organizational citizenship behavior ( e.g, Medley & Larochelle, 1995; Pillai,
Schreisheim, & Williams, 1999; Asgari, Silong, Ahmad, & Samah, 2008 etc).
In particular, employee task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors are frequently
recognized in the literature as critical precursors to organizational performance and productivity
(Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Bergeron, Ostroff, Schroeder, & Block, 2014). Therefore, studies
investigating the link between transformational leadership, citizenship behavior and task
performance continue to grow. While exploring this relationship, researchers have called for
understanding of underlying process through which transformational leaders influence followers
to exhibit positive work outcomes (Bono & Judge, 2003; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen,
2005). To decipher the complexity of underlying process, a frame of reference utilizing one
leadership model is not sufficient for two reasons. First, transformational leadership is a
leadership-focused theory that assumes an implicit relationship between leader and follower that
is crucial for connecting the leader behavior to follower response (Bass 1985, Dvir, Eden,
Avolio, & Shamir, 2002). However, the focus of the implicit leader-follower relationship hasn’t
 been adequately able to answer the questions regarding difference in follower performance for
different leaders (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). Second, research emphasizing another
leadership framework--leader member exchange (LMX)--pays limited attention on specific
behaviors that leaders use to develop a relationship with followers (Graen & Scandura, 1987;
Graen & Uhl-bien, 1995; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). Thus, integrating these leadership
models is likely to yield an explanation regarding how the leadership behavior affects follower
performance based on the bond shared by the leader and the follower.
The notion of social exchange (Blau, 1964) is critical for understanding the union of
these leadership models. The social exchange (SE) perspective is consistent with the fact that
domain of leadership actually includes the leader, the follower, and the leader-follower
relationship, where the focus is on the leader and the follower (Grean & Uhl-Bien 1995; Yukl,
2007). According to Blau (1964), SE theory stresses that “individuals’ voluntary actions are
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

motivated by the returns they are expected to bring, and do in fact bring in from others” (p. 91).
The dyadic nature of LMX makes SE perspective particularly effective for LMX explanation.
The central tenet of LMX theory is that leaders do not treat each follower the same, establish
high-quality relationships with certain group members but not others. This results in some
members receiving frequent pay raise, higher performance ratings, and other job related benefits;
however, relationship with other members is merely restricted to the formal job contracts
(Sparrowe & Liden, 1997).
Two points are crucial when conceptualizing LMX from an SE perspective. First, SE
theory specifies that the nature of this exchange process is reciprocal and dynamic, and it is
highly susceptible to withdrawal in the absence of reciprocations (Blau, 1964). Second, SE
theory suggests that one of the contributing factors to LMX is the justice attributed to leaders by
the followers (Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor,
2000). In case of LMX, preferential treatment is a crucial factor, so there will be a difference in
rewards. Difference in reward allocation clearly specifies that not only LMX but also distributive
justice should play a vital role in overall leader-follower relationship (Scandura, 1999; Yukl,
2007). Distributive justice refers to the fairness of outcomes received and is typically thought of
in terms of equity (Adams, 1965). Distributive justice or outcomes (reward) fairness is critical
for fostering LMX relationships when leaders have complete control over rewards (Erdogan,
Liden, & Kraimer, 2006).
To date, a few studies have used transformational leadership and LMX framework to
explain work outcomes such task performance, OCB, turnover intentions, and creative behaviors
etc (Wang et al., 2005; Hughes, Avey, & Nixon, 2010; Piccolo & Coloquitt; 2006; Tse, Huang,
& Lam, 2013); however, the role of distributive justice hasn’t been investigated. Since research
has shown the impact of distributive justice on work outcomes (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993; Liao
& Rupp, 2005; Nadiri & Tanova, 2010), distributive justice has a potential to provide insights
into understanding an organizational phenomenon driven by transformational leadership and
LMX. Moreover, when leaders control rewards, distributive justice becomes an important
feature characterizing the exchange relationship and outcomes. Therefore, to gain a better
understanding of the impact of transformational leaders on followers, it is imperative to
concurrently study the role of LMX and distributive justice. To this end, the primary purpose of
this study is to investigate the underlying dynamics of transformational leadership and follower
performance relationship using LMX and distributive justice.
 THEORY AND PROPOSITIONS
Transformational Leadership and LMX
Transformational leadership is based on four important leader behaviors: idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation.
These include leaders articulating an appealing vision, inspiring followers to work towards that
vision, providing individualized support and help to the followers (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987).
Such follower experiences can serve as a precursor for the development of high quality LMX
(Anand, Hu, Liden, & Vidyarthi, 2011; Wang et al., 2005). Followers tend to respond positively
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

to the leaders who inspire and motivate them (Judge & Piccolo, 2004), and this positive reaction
may evoke the followers’ need to attempt forming high quality relationship with the leaders
(Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001). Also, Carter, Jones-Farmer, Armenakis, Fields, & Svyantek (2009)
reported a positive impact of transformational leadership on LMX. Consistent with these
arguments, we propose
P1. Transformational leadership will be positively related to leader member exchange.
Transformational Leadership and Distributive Justice
We believe that transformational leadership is likely to have a positive impact on
distributive justice. Idealized influence involves creating an ethical vision and setting high
ethical standards to achieve this vision. The leaders convey these high ethical standards to the
followers by implementing those standards in their actions (Bass & Steildmier, 1999). The
integrity in the leader behavior can lead to a follower having trust in the leader. Transformational
leaders go beyond their self-interest and are aware of moral and ethical consequences of their
actions (Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2002). This is the reason transformational leaders, possessing
values and ethical standards, are perceived to be fair by the followers. The fairness can be in the
process of making important organizational policies, allocating of resources and rewards,
allowing followers a chance to participate in decision making.
Individualized consideration can also lead to fairness. Transformational leaders are
known to provide individualized attention to followers and their needs, which results in increased
motivation and satisfaction with the work (Bacha & Walker, 2013). This consideration extends
on important organizational outcomes such as distribution of rewards, and giving employees an
opportunity to provide their input on decisions related to rewards. Such leaders are more likely
to be perceived as fair by the employees (Bacha & Walker, 2013).
Transformational leaders allow followers to make their own decisions about right or
wrong (Victor & Cullen, 1988). The leader encourages followers to re-examine assumptions that
inhibit creativity and innovation and to use new and creative approaches to solve old problems
(Banerji & Krishnan, 2000; Odom & Green, 2003); it conveys an implicit message to the
followers that the leader has demonstrated a high degree of trust in them. This empowerment
increases the perceptions of fairness because followers feel that leaders involve them in
organizational decision making within the realm of their authority. Some evidence of a positive
link exists between transformational leadership and distributive justice. For instance, Gillet,
 Fouquereau, Antignac, Mokounkolo, & Colombat (2013) found that distributive justice mediated
the relationship between transformational leadership and quality of work. This leads to
P2. Transformational leadership will be positively related to distributive justice.
LMX and Distributive justice
LMX theory has been conceptualized as a dyadic process focusing on the leader and
follower (Dansereau, Grean, & Haga, 1975). In our study, we argue that the relationship between
LMX and distributive justice will be reciprocal instead of consequential. The rationale behind
our reasoning is as follows: First, based on the findings in the literature that LMX develops
quickly (Bauer & Green 1996; Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell,
1993), it is logical to assume that perceptions of distributive justice develops later in the
relationship. A review of literature related to LMX has shown that the majority of the studies
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

have included it as a construct leading to distributive justice (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer
& Ferris, 2012).
Justice perceptions based on high quality or low quality status are supported by equity
theory (Adams, 1965) and referent cognitions theory (Folger, 1986). Equity theory emphasizes
that individuals compare their input-outcome ratios to that referent others in the workplace to
determine the levels of fairness. Perceptions of fairness prevail when individuals find their input-
outcome ratios is equal to the referent other; if the ratios is less than that of the referent other, it
results in inequity.
Referent cognitions theory (RCT) purports that when people generate referent cognitions
about their outcomes, they judge these outcomes on the basis of what might have been under
different circumstances and conditions, such as fair procedures (Cropanzano & Folgar, 1989).
Perceptions of injustice are maximized when people think that their outcomes would have been
better if the decision maker would have used a fair approach. Fair methods in the context of
RCT include bias suppression, ethics, representativeness, accuracy, and process control
(Leventhal, 1980; Lind & Tyler, 1988). LMX relationship results in differential treatment
towards the in-group members (Grean & Uhl-Bien, 1995). As a result, we anticipate high LMX
relationships lead to higher levels of distributive justice perceptions (Erdogan & Bauer, 2010).
However, out-group members may perceive this as an injustice due to the process used by the
leaders and the outcomes allocated.
Conversely, it can be argued about LMX - distributive justice relationship that follower
who receive the rewards, and perceive the distribution of the rewards to be fair, will develop a
high degree of trust and respect for their leaders, which in turn, is an indication of high quality
exchange (high LMX). Also, the SE theory (Blau, 1964), emphasizes the importance of justice in
LMX relationships (Masterson et al., 2000). This reasoning implies that distributive justice is one
of the contributors to the LMX relationships. Some studies have found distributive justice to be
related to LMX (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng,
2001). Subordinates are disinclined to have high LMX if they perceive the leader to be unfair
with allocation of rewards. Based on the above arguments, the following can be proposed
P3. There will be a reciprocal relationship between leader member exchange and
distributive justice.
 LMX and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
A distinguishing feature of high-quality LMX relationships is that agreement between
leaders and followers are implicit; no objective criteria are present to measure the favors and
contributions (Blau, 1964). High-quality LMX relationships are likely to fuel organizational
citizenship behaviors because these behaviors can serve as a means for reciprocation, as these
behaviors are most often not recognized by job descriptions or formal reward system within the
organization (Organ, 1988). Clearly, subordinates that are a part of an in-group, which is
characterized by high-quality LMX relationships, use citizenship behaviors targeted towards
organization or other individuals in the work setting as a vehicle in social exchange relationship
with the leader (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne., 1997; Settoon, Bennett & Liden, 1996). Moreover,
in high-quality exchanges, leaders inspire followers to direct efforts for the long term interest of
the collective instead of short term self-interest (Grean & Uhl-Bien, 1995). An individual’s
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

being a “good citizen” promotes the welfare of the larger group (Wang et al., 2005). As such,
LMX should be positively related to organizational citizenship behavior. A support for this
relationship was found by Ilies, Nahrgang, and Morgeson (2007) in a meta-analysis that utilized
50 independent samples and found a mean correlation of .37 between LMX and Organizational
citizenship behavior. Individuals who belong to the in-group in the LMX situation we believe
are more likely to be rated higher on OCB behaviors by their supervisors than those in the out-
groups. We intend to have the supervisors rate the prospective employees and classify them as
in-group or out-group. Thus, we propose
P4a. Leader-member exchange is positively related to Organizational Citizenship
Behavior (OCB) in that those belonging to the in-group will have a higher OCB rating.
LMX and Task performance
The quality of LMX relationship is contingent upon how the two parties behave with
each other. When the leader observes average job performance and allocates standard benefits,
the relationship is more often a low-quality LMX that is limited to the job contract. On the other
hand, high-quality LMX is characterized by mutual trust & respect, liking, and obligation (Graen
& Uhl-Bien, 1995). In return for the extraordinary performance the follower often receives more
career enhancing opportunities such as job autonomy, challenging assignments and access to
personal information. As such, follower task performance is the driving force for the social
exchange and serves a platform for reciprocating to the leader. According to Liden & Maslyn
(1998), positive affect, loyalty and respect are built due to the favorable treatment by the leader,
and the follower reciprocates by exerting extra-efforts in their jobs, which results in higher task
performance. Research conducted by Gerstner and Day (1997) demonstrated meta-analytically-
derived correlations of 0.31 between LMX and supervisor ratings of performance, and 0.11
between LMX and objective measure of employee performance. In other words, we propose that
employees classified in the in-group of LMX classification are more likely to receive higher
ratings for task performance than those in the out-group. As mentioned before we plan to have
supervisors classify employees as in-group or out-group.
Thus, we suggest
P4b: LMX is positively related to task performance in that employees classified as in-
group will have a higher ratings than those classified as out-groups.
 Organizational citizenship behaviors relate to behaviors beyond the job description that
employees do for the organization. The more positive a state of mind they have, the more likely
they will perform organizational citizenship behaviors (Williams, Pitre, & Zainuba, 2002).
Distributive justice relates to how employees perceive fairness in the distribution of rewards,
resources and costs (Forsyth, 2006). An employee’s belief regarding the existence of distributive
justice in the workplace is important; lack of distributive justice will enhance the perceptions of
unfairness and biases in the workplace, which may result in employees doing the bare minimum
work. While employees who feel the organization is behaving in a just manner are more likely to
go beyond their job descriptions (Karriker & Williams, 2009; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).
It is important for employees to have a positive state of mind when doing their tasks. In
accordance with equity theory (Adams, 1965), employees tend to compare their work inputs with
their peers, and expect fair award allocation. If perceptions of fair treatment exists, they are more
inclined to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors when compared to unfair workplace
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

conditions (Ucho & Atime, 2013; Guangling, 2011; Organ & Moorman, 1993; Lee, 1995).
Organizational justice research has focused more on procedural and interactional justice and its
relationship to organizational citizenship behavior. This is in keeping with the work of Organ
and Moorman (1993); and Cropanzano and Byrne (2000) who found distributive justice to have
the weakest relationship with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) out of the three
organizational justice types. We will focus on this theoretically weaker relationship of
distributive justice and OCB because in the big picture we theorize a reciprocal relationship
between Distributive justice and LMX.
P4c: Distributive Justice will be positively related to organizational citizenship behavior.
Employees who perceive themselves being fairly treated by the organization are more
likely to demonstrate desired work outcomes such as overall better job performance (Kanfer,
Sawyer, Early, & Lind, 1987). Another outcome that we will focus on in this paper is task
performance, which is a narrow view of job performance (Devonish & Greenidge, 2010).
Specifically, we will be discussing the relationship of distributive justice and task performance.
Task performance is the efficiency in which personnel execute activities that supplement the
company’s technical core (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Employees who have the perception
that they are being fairly treated based on the rewards they have received are more likely to make
a greater effort to be efficient and to complete tasks related to the core of the organization
because they realize it will lead to desirable rewards. Employees who do not perceive they are
being fairly treated are less likely to put in the effort to be more efficient and may exhibit some
counterproductive work behaviors. Devonish & Greenidge (2010) found some support for a
positive relationship between distributive justice and task performance in their study of a variety
of organizations in Barbados and we intend to replicate that study in a US context.
P5a: Distributive Justice is positively related to task performance.
Task performance refers to the job requirements which include undertakings that are
directly linked to the organization’s technical principal mission (Nasir, Mohamaddi, Wan
Shahrazad, Fatimah, Khairuddin, & Halim, 2011). Task performance can also be seen as the
ability for employees to complete an assigned activities successfully with specific resources
made available (Jamal, 2007).
For an organization to thrive, employees should be willing to do more than the minimal
indicated procedural aspects of their job (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). This additional task
 beyond the formal tasks is OCB. According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach
(2000), many scholars believe that OCB contributes to general organizational efficiency. The
extra efforts of employees that highlights OCB demonstrate the employee’s dedication to the job
(Coleman & Borman, 2000).
Nasir et al. (2011) also went on to theorize that if employees conduct OCB, they may be
looked on favorably by the manager and the organization as a whole. The manager may in turn
reciprocate by being fair to the employee and give favorable job evaluations (Organ, Podsakoff,
& MacKenzie, 2006). On one hand, Cropanzano, Rupp, and Birne (2003) stated that research
has demonstrated a significant relationship between task performance and OCB. Employees who
are dedicated and “willing to go the extra mile” are more likely to complete their assigned tasks;
while on the other, Nielson, Carlson, and Lankau (2001) found that OCB did not correlate with
individual performance, but it did with the team performance. Overall, the research has had
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

mixed results when examining the correlation between OCB and task performance (Organ et al.,
2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Thus, we propose the following for further investigation -
P5b: Organizational citizenship behavior will be positively linked to task performance.
When transformational leadership exists both the leader and the follower improve their
level of behavior (Krishnan, 2005). Transformational leaders have the ability to get followers to
adopt and concentrate on the overall mission of the organization over personal interests (Asgari,
Silong, Ahmad, & Abu-Sama, 2008). Since the employees think of the collective interests, they
will likely exert more effort in doing their job, thus leading to organizational citizenship
behavior. With the improved behavior that stems from transformational leadership, it should lead
to greater task performance on the part of the employee.
One must consider that there may exist mediating factors in the relationship between
transformational leadership and OCB and transformational leadership and task performance.
According to social exchange theory followers to perceive leaders as high in quality based on
how they are treated by the employees and the quality of social exchange that they have with
their leaders. This brings into play that how the followers perceive their leaders treat them,
impacting their OCB and task performance. Aquino and Boomer (2003) noted that individuals
who received some rewards are more inclined to feel the urge to return the favor. If an employee
feels the rewards received are fair (distributive justice), he is more inclined to go beyond his
specific duties (OCB) and perform the duties admirably (task performance) because he feels the
urge to reciprocate based on the way he is being treated (positive reciprocity). We propose that
distributive justice is a mediating factor for the relationship between transformational leadership
and OCB as well as the relationship between transformational leadership and task performance.
Moreover, if the exchange between the leader and follower is of a good quality, the
followers are more likely go beyond their normal duties (OCB) as well perform the task well
(task performance) to please the leader, while if the quality of relationship is poor, the follower
may only execute mandatory requirements of the job. This argument is supported by research.
For instance, Murry, Sivasubramaniam, & Jacques (2001) stated that positive exchanges between
the leaders and followers usually results in positive outcomes from the followers, and this was
echoed by Deluga (1992) when his study provided empirical support that the positive outcomes
stemming from transformational leadership are a result of the personalized dyadic relationship
that occurs between the leader and follower.
 Based on the norm of reciprocity (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960; Wayne, Shore, Bommer,
Tetrick., 2002) employees who feel indebted to managers due to the rewards are likely to have
good social exchanges with their managers, while managers who have good social exchanges
with their employees are likely to reward those employees. This indicates that there can be
potentially a reciprocal effect between distributive justice and LMX, so the employees who
display high levels of OCB and task performance are likely to have good social exchanges with
supervisors that exhibit transformational leadership. More specifically, we propose that a
reciprocal relationship between leader member exchange and distributive justice will mediate the
relationship between transformational leadership and individual outcomes such as OCB and task
performance.
P6: The reciprocal relationship between distributive justice and leader member exchange
will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and task performance.
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

P7: The reciprocal relationship between distributive justice and leader member exchange
will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship
behavior.

_____________________
Insert Figure 1 here
_____________________

As illustrated in the Figure 1, we theorize that the reciprocal relationship between LMX
and Distributive Justice mediates the relationships between Transformational Leadership and
subordinate work outcomes (OCB and Task performance).

DISCUSSION
This paper attempts to address the call for studies that extend the current research to
examine mediators of the transformational leadership and follower outcomes such as OCB and
task performance relationship. We provide a rationale for the potential relationship between
leader member exchange and distributive justice and formulate propositions that they conjointly
mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and certain aspects of job
performance.
This theory development will provide a launching pad for collecting data, data analysis
and interpretation to garner perceptions into the transformational leadership, distributive justice,
leader member exchange, organizational citizenship behavior and task performance relationship.
A dearth of literature exists on the distributive justice relationship with LMX and we aim to add
to the scant body of work by investigating the variables in the context of transformational
leadership and follower outcomes. We theorize that there will be a joint mediating effect on task
performance and organizational citizenship behavior. With this research, we intend to justify the
 importance of leaders maintaining a positive and fair relationship with all the followers because
the ways in which they treat their followers will have an impact on the follower job performance.
Leaders control the organizational resources and allocation of employee rewards, so the
employees judge the leaders based on their perceptions of fairness in rewards distribution.
Concurrently, the relationship with the leader which is influenced by the social interactions may
facilitate the employee sharing their opinion if their needs are being fulfilled and if they feel they
are being treated fairly. Followers, who are in the LMX in-group, should feel more comfortable
sharing their feelings with their supervisors. Followers in the out-group will perhaps be less
forthcoming. The interaction with the leader may also influence the allocations of resources or
rewards in favor of the in-group employees. If this holds true, it will influence the employee
OCB and task performance
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

One of the major limitations of this study is the broad assumption that the leader has
control over the rewards. In the future, we plan to collect data by sending questionnaires to
employees and their supervisors. Our research would be hampered if a significant number of
supervisors did not have a strong influence over the allocation of rewards. It is possible that the
supervisors may be influenced in the distribution of rewards from their bosses. We find the
assumption that the supervisors evaluate the performance of their employees and the
performance evaluation has a strong influence on the allocation of rewards to be reasonable.
Despite being reasonable, in some circumstances, the rewards allocation maybe dictated by
upper management or the HR department; thus, we will need to gather a few more details in the
survey to address this limitation.
Another limitation is that the organizational climate may have an impact on the social
interactions and the perception of distributive justice. Some organizational climates are
accommodating to social interactions at work beyond the scripted leader follower exchanges,
while other climates may not be conducive to social exchanges. This could boil down to the kind
of climate the CEOs wants their organization to have. A company could be going through
fiscally deficient periods or the economy in the particular business may take a downturn and that
could influence the distribution of rewards and leave the employees unsatisfied with their
rewards. In terms of distributive justice, the employee may be looking at what is fair to them and
not necessarily considering the best interest of the organization.
Another limitation of this paper is the focus on distributive justice as opposed to overall
justice being used as a mediator. Utilizing overall justice can perhaps give a general sense of the
justice construct as opposed to focusing on distributive justice alone. According to Ambrose and
Schminke (2009) an overall examination of justice provides a better gage of the justice construct
and provides a more parsimonious approach to examining justice.
In conducting follow up research on the propositions of this paper, the distribution of the
in-group and the out-group employees examined can have an impact on the results. A sample
distribution heavily favored towards out-group employees and very little in-group employees for
example may put limitations on explaining the impact of both in-groups and out-groups on OCB
and task performance given that supervisors tend to give lower ratings for out-groups employees
 in OCB and task performance. The results can be swayed in the opposite directions if the sample
is predominantly consistent of in-group employees and not enough out-group employees.
This paper is conceptual, and the authors hope that the model is empirically tested in the
future to assess its viability. The future research can be carried out across different cultures to
determine if there is a universal truth or if culture impacts the perceptions and the relationships.
This aforementioned research suggesting of collecting data amongst different cultures is just to
access the generalizability of the results. Future research can also establish if there is a link
between organizational tenure, LMX, distributive justice, OCB, and task performance. Research
can also be done using this model to examine the impact on other organizational as well as
personal outcomes that may have not been studied in terms of an indirect relationship with
transformational leadership. Other organizational and personal outcomes that can be studied
using this model are organizational commitment, job satisfaction, organizational culture, and
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

organizational vision.
Perhaps a more in-depth look at transformational leadership in regards to the
aforementioned model can examine which attributes of transformational leadership significantly
impacts leader member exchange and distributive justice which would then have a significant
impact on the outcomes organizational citizenship behavior and task performance.
This paper focuses on the distributive justice and the LMX relationship in terms of
organizational outcomes OCB and task performance. Perhaps in future research this can be
expanded to examine overall justice and not just distributive justice. The other components of
overall justice along with distributive justice are procedural justice and interactive justice. Future
research could examine the impact of overall justice as a whole or focus separately on the other
two parts of overall justice and LMX in regards to organizational outcomes. Concurrently, each
facet of overall justice can be examined separately in regards to OCB and task performance and
the results compared with the other facets of overall justice.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange, In Berkowitz, L. (Ed), Advances in

experimental psychology, 2, 267-299.

Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational
justice research: a test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 491-500.

Anand, S., Hu, J., Liden, R.C., & Vidyarthi, P.R. (2011). Leader-member exchange: Recent
research findings and prospects for the future. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B.
 Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Aquino, K., & Bommer, W. H, (2003). Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates
the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace victimization.
Organizational Science, 14(4), 374-385.

Asgari, A., Silong, A. D., Ahmad, A., & Samah, B. A. (2008). The relationship between
transformational leadership behaviors, organizational justice, leader-member exchange,
perceived organizational support, trust in management and organizational citizenship
behaviors. European Journal of Scientific Research, 23(2), 227-242.

Bacha, E. & Walker, S. (2013). The Relationship between Transformational Leadership and
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

Followers' Perceptions of Fairness, Journal of Business Ethics, 116 (3), 667- 679.

Banerji, P. and Krishnan, V.R. (2000), ``Ethical preferences of transformational leaders: an

empirical investigation’’, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21
No. 8, pp. 405-13

Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership Behavior, Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal

test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538-1567.

Bergeron, D., Ostroff, C., Schroeder, T., & Block, C. (2014). The dual effects of organizational
citizenship behavior: Relationships to research productivity and career outcomes in
academe. Human Performance, 27(2), 99-128.

Blau, P.M., (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational
effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 554-571.

Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1997) Task performance and contextual performance. The
meaning of personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99-109

Carter, M., Jones-Farmer, A., Armenakis, A., Field, H., & Svyantek, D. (2009). Transformational
Leadership and Follower performance: Joint mediating effects of Leader member exchange
and interactional justice. Academy of Management Proceedings

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321
 Coleman, V.I. and Borman, W.C. (2000). Investigating the Underlying Structure of the
Citizenship Performance Domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 25–44.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at
the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 425-445.
Cropanzano, R., & Byrne, Z. S. (2000). Workplace justice and the dilemma of organizational
citizenship. In Van Vugt, M., Snyder, M., Tyler, T. R. & Biel, A. (Eds.), Cooperation in
modern society (pp. 142-161): Routledge.

Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. (1989). Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: Beyond
equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 293-299.
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to
distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organizational Management,
27: 324-351.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E., & Byrne, Z.S. (2003) The relationship of emotional exhaustion to
work attitudes, job performance and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88: 160-169.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership
within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 46-
78.

Deluga, R.J., (1992). The relationship of leader–member exchange with laissez faire,
transactional, transformational leadership in naval environments. In: K.E. Clark, M.B.
Clark and D.P. Campbell, eds. Impact of leadership. Greensboro, NC: Centre of Creative
Leadership, 237–247.

Devonish, D. & Greenidge, D. (2010). The effect of Organizational Justice on Contextual

Performance, Counter Productive Work Behaviors and Task Performance: Investigating
the moderating role of ability-based emotional intelligence. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 18:75-86

Dulebohn, J.H., Bommer, W.H., Liden, R.C., Brouer, R.L., & Ferris, G.R. (2012). Meta-analysis
of LMX antecedents and consequences: Integrating the past with an eye toward the
future, Journal of Management. 38(6). 1715- 1759

Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2013). A meta-analysis of transformational and
transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and
extension. In Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead 10th
Anniversary Edition (pp. 39-70). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Dvir, T., Eden, D, Avolio, B., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower
development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal. 45 (4),
735-744.
 Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Justice and leader-member exchange: The
moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 395-
406.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2010). Differentiated leader-member exchanges (LMX): The
buffering role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1104–1120.

Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model In H. M. Bierhoff, R.

L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 145-162). New York:
Plenum.

Forsyth, D. R. (2006). Conflict. In Forsyth, D. R., Group Dynamics (5th Ed.) (P. 388 - 389)
Belmont: CA, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory
of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership
Quarterly, 6: 219–247.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader– member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.

Gillet, N., Fouquereau, E., Bonnaud-Antignac, A., Mokounkolo, R., & Colombat, P. (2013). The
mediating role of organizational justice in the relationship between transformational
leadership and nurses’ quality of work life: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey.
International journal of nursing studies, 50(10), 1359-1367.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 25, 161–178

Guangling‚ W. (2011). The study on relationship between employees’ sense of organizational

justice and organizational citizenship behaviour in private enterprises. Energy Procedia,
5, 2030-2034.

Howell, J., & Hall-Merenda (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange,
transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 84 (5), 680-694.

Hughes, L. W., Avey, J. B., & Nixon, D. R. (2010). Relationships between leadership and
followers' quitting intentions and job search behaviors. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 17, 351–362.

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P., (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship
behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 92:269–77
 Jamal, M. (2007). Job stress and job performance controversy revisited: an empirical
examination in two countries. International Job Stress Management, 14: 175-187

Judge, T.A., & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.

Kanfer, R., Sawyer, J., Earley, P. C., & Lind, E. A. (1987). Fairness and participation in
evaluation procedures: Effects on task attitudes and performance. Social Justice
Research. 1, 235- 249.

Karriker, J. H., & Williams, M. L. (2009). Organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behavior: A mediated multifoci model? Journal of Management, 35, 112–135
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

Krishnan, V. R. (2005). Leader–member exchange, transformational leadership, and value

system. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 10(1), 14–21.

Kuhnert, R., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A

constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12, 648–657.

Lee, C. (1995) Prosocial Organizational behaviors: The roles of workplace justice, achievement
striving and pay satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10 (2): 197-206

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study
of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis
(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-54). New York: Plenum.

Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work
outcomes: a cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied psychology, 90, 242.
Liden, R., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An
empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, vol. 24 no. 1
43-72
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T, & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past
and potential for the future. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human
resource management (Vol. 15, pp. 47-119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development
of leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York:
Plenum.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature. The leadership quarterly, 7(3), 385-425
 Maslyn, J.M. & Uhl-Bien, M., (2001), “Leader-Member Exchange and Its Dimensions: Effects
of Self-Effort and Other’s Effort on Relationship Quality”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 4, s. 697-708.
Masterson, S.S.; Lewis, K.; Goldman, B.M.; and Taylor, M.S. (2000). Integrating justice and
social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work
relationships, Academy of Management, 43, 738-748.
Medley, F., & Larochelle, D. R. (1995). Transformational leadership and job satisfaction.
Nursing management, 26(9), 64JJ-64LL.

Murry, D.W., Sivasubramaniam, N., and Jacques, P.H., (2001). Supervisory support, social
exchange relationship, and sexual harassment consequences: a test of competing models.
The leadership quarterly, 12, 1–29.
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

Nadiri, H., & Tanova, C. (2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job
satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry. International
journal of hospitality management, 29(1), 33-41.

Nasir, R., Mohamaddi, M.S., Wan Shahrazad, W.S., Fatimah, O., Khairudin, R., & Halim, F.
(2011). Relationship between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Task
Performance. The Social Sciences, 6 (4) 307-312.

Nielson, T.R., Carlson, D.S. & Lankau, M.J. (2001). The supportive mentor as a means of
reducing work family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59: 364-381.

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management
journal, 36(3), 527-556.

Odom, L., & Green, M. T. (2003). Law and the ethics of transformational leadership. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 24(2), 62-69.

Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
Organ, D. W., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Fairness and organizational citizenship behavior: What
are the connections? Social Justice Research, 6, 5-18.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B., (2006). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.

Parry, K.W. & Proctor-Thomson, S.B. (2001), “Leadership, culture and performance: the case
study of the New Zealand public sector”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 376-9.
 Paulsen, N., Callan, V. J., Ayoko, O., & Saunders, D. (2013). Transformational leadership and
innovation in an R&D organization experiencing major change. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 26(3), 595-610.

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The
mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy Of Management Journal, 49:327-340.
Pilliai, R., Schriesheim, C., & Williams, E. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for
transformational and transactional leadership: A two sample study. Journal of Management. 25,
897 -933.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, 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.
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: a policy-capturing
approach. Journal of applied psychology, 87(1), 66.

Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinking leader member exchange: An organizational justice

perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 25-40.

Settoon, R., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived
organizational support, leader–member exchange and employee reciprocity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 219–227
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. & Near, J.P. (1983) Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 653-663

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader member exchange.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 522–552.
Tse, H., Huang, X., Lam, W. (2013). Why does Transformational Leadership matter for
employee turnover? A Multi foci Social Exchange Perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 24,
763-776.
Ucho, A. & Atime, E.T. (2013) Distributive Justice, Age and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior among Non-teaching staff at Benue State University. International Journal of
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 3 (4): 77-85

Victor, B. and J. Cullen: (1987). ‘A Theory and Measure of Ethical Climate in Organizations’, in
W. C. Fredrick and L. Preston (eds.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and
Policy (JAI, London), pp. 51–71.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (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.
 Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and
performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research.
Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223-270.

Wayne, S.J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L.E. (2002). The role of fair treatment
and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 590–598.

Williams, S., Pitre, R., & Zainuba, M., (2002). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior
intentions: fair rewards versus fair treatment. The Journal of social Psychology Feb; 142
(1), 33-44

Yukl, G. (2007). Best practices in the use of proactive influence tactics by leaders. In J. Conger
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

& R. Riggio (Eds.), The practice of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 109-128
 Appendix

Figure 1
Downloaded by University of Western Cape At 07:40 27 September 2018 (PT)

Organizational
Figure 1 Citizenship Behavior

Transformational Leader Member Distributive Justice

Leadership Exchange

Task Performance