The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0955-534X.htm

“My leader’s group is my group”. My leader’s

group is my
Leader-member exchange and group

employees’ behaviours
Muhammad Nawaz Khan and Muhammad Faisal Malik 551
Faculty of Management Sciences, Riphah International University,
Islamabad, Pakistan Received 12 January 2016
Revised 11 August 2016
Accepted 23 November 2016

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to check the mediating role of work engagement (WE) between
leader – member exchange and extra-role behaviours (ERBs) like organizational citizenship behaviour,
knowledge sharing behaviour and innovative work behaviour.
Design/methodology/approach – Hypothetical deductive method was used. Longitudinal, time-lagged
approach (three times) was used to collect the data using structured questionnaire.
Findings – It has been found that the WE plays its mediating role between leader – member exchange,
organizational citizenship behaviour and innovative work behaviour but not for knowledge sharing
behaviour.
Research limitations/implications – Data related to dependent variables, specifically and for the
whole model generally, was collected through self-reported questionnaire, which leads toward self-serving
bias at respondents’ end, as exaggeration/manipulation in responses is highly expected. Second mediating
role of WE between leader – member exchange and knowledge sharing behaviour has not been proven, but
same mediating role has been found in case of organizational citizenship behaviour and innovative work
behaviour which is beyond understanding, as all dependent variables are actually different facets of ERBs.
Lastly, data for the study variable has been collected from research and development and IT-related
organizations only, which can question the generalization of the survey results to other sectors/organizations.
Practical implications – The study concluded that leader’s exchange plays a vital role for under
commands’ ERBs, and WE vitally predicts ERBs; organizational leaders need to pay attention to this part, in
Pakistan, being a poor/developing country fulfilling necessary psychological needs can result in better
engagement at employees end. Study findings have importance with the view of training, as while conducting
training, strategies through which leaders/supervisors may be trained about how they can build good
exchange with their subordinates must be incorporated. This study has significance for policy makers, while
making policies, as they consider deviant work behaviours as dangerous phenomena, at the same time they
need to recognize the importance of ERBs.
Originality/value – Early mechanism of work performance did not cover full range of behaviours, so now
it has been changed from fixed tasks written in employee’s job description (in-role) to broader terms (extra-
role) due to uncertain and dynamic work requirements. Extra-role behaviours are more important for the
organization as compared to in-role performance. So, a pathway of WE has been established through which
ERBs can be expected. Current study was an attempt to explore that how leader can play his role in this
situation.
Keywords Innovative work behaviour, Organizational citizenship behaviour, Work engagement,
Knowledge sharing behaviour, Leader member exchange, Extra-role behaviours
Paper type Research paper

European Business Review

Introduction Vol. 29 No. 5, 2017
pp. 551-571
The relationship between leaders (supervisors) and subordinates (members) plays an © Emerald Publishing Limited
0955-534X
important role for healthy work environment, which leads to rapid organizational success. DOI 10.1108/EBR-01-2016-0013
EBR And that’s why this area has gained extensive interest for research (Gerstner and Day, 1997;
29,5 Ilies et al., 2007). Representing this relationship, through leader – member exchange (LMX)
theory (initially proposed as Vertical Dyadic Linkage theory) Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995),
Gerstner and Day (1997) argued that each supervisor has a unique relationship (Low or High
LMX) with his under command(s). LMX theory has been described by Gerstner & Day
(1997), Liden & Maslyn (1998) as a “process, focusing on the relationship between a leader
552 and follower”. According to this theory, leader forms differential relationships with different
subordinates at their workplace (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Liden & Graen, 1980), which
results in a differentiated workgroup. This differentiated workgroup is composed of
subordinates with the high and low quality of exchange. High-quality relationships, based
on reciprocity/social exchange of mutual liking, trust, obligation and respect along with
formal monetary exchange. Based on the intensity of the relationship, Dansereau et al.
(1975), Dienesch and Liden (1986), Liden and Maslyn (1998) classified employees as “trusted
subordinates” or “in-group” employees. According to Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), Graen and
Scandura (1987) low-quality LMX, based on the only monetary exchange between leader
and employee, a transaction takes place in exchange of time and money, where employees
are considered as “hired hands”, or “out-group” employees.
These variations in quality of LMX differently affect the employees’ capabilities and
performance behaviours at workplace which also predict the leader’s efficiency and
effectiveness indirectly, as contended by Van Knippenberg et al. (2004), Graen and Uhl-Bien
(1995), Lo et al. (2015). Every discipline has defined employees’ behaviour in its way due to
its diverse perspectives. As per our concern, Zhu (2013) define the behaviour of the employee
as “a series of dynamic reactions of the employee, as a member of the organization, to the
internal and the external environmental stimulates”. Katz (1964), in his book titled
“The Social Psychology of Organizations”, and Organ (1988), in his research, further
elaborate and divide these behaviours into in-role and extra-role behaviours (ERBs), which
open new ways for research on employee behaviours and its antecedents (Farh et al., 1990;
Settoon et al., 1996). Tompson and Werner (1997) differentiate these behaviours as “core
behaviour” and the “arbitrary behaviour”. Katz (1964) elaborated in-role behaviour as the
necessary or the expected behaviour for the accomplishment of job duties stated in work
statement. ERBs have been defined by Rotundo and Sackett’s (2002, p. 67) as “group of
activities that are not necessarily task-related, but that contribute to the organization in a
positive way”. ERBs can be described as the collection of a series of actions that are not
included in the work statement (Job Description), even don’t have any direct concern with
employee’s position or role in the organization. Yee et al. (2015) claim that ERBs are more
difficult/complex to perform, as these behaviours are not written or describe in employees’
job descriptions but at the same time, Katz (1964, p. 132) claims that these behaviours
(ERBs) are more important for the organization as compared to in-role performance
behaviours as the author concluded, “an organization that depends solely upon its
blueprints (Job Descriptions) of prescribed behaviour is a very fragile social system” (Italic
added). Researchers claim that early mechanism of work performance did not cover full
range of behaviours, so now it has been changed from fixed tasks written in employee’s job
description (in-role) to broader terms (extra-role) due to uncertain and dynamic work
requirements (Campbell et al., 1993; Murphy and Jackson, 1999; Katz, 1964). Dominating
facets fall in ERBs’ category which are being addressed in this study are Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour (OCB; Vandyne et al., 1995), Knowledge Sharing Behaviour (KSB;
Olowodunoye, 2015; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998) and Innovative Work Behaviour (IWB;
Basu and Green, 1997).
 Many researchers claim that LMX has a direct influence on employee in-role and extra- My leader’s
role behaviours (Li et al., 2012; Martin et al., 2016), but at the same time some studies like group is my
Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) reported non-significant relationship between LMX and
employee outcomes, which offers a broad venue for mediating path between LMX and job
group
outcomes. Although same venue has been addressed by Harris et al. (2009) by using job
embeddedness and Moss et al. (2009) by using feedback avoidance behaviour as mediator,
but still further gap was identified by Li et al. (2012), stating that emotional states like
“willingness to go extra mile” can be tested as a path through which LMX can motivate
553
employees to exert extra efforts towards their work and organization. Work engagement
(WE) by its definition fulfils the requirement of research call by Li and colleague. WE has
emerged from the research on job or employee burnout in 1970, which explains the negative
aspects of workplace job engagement (Maslach et al., 2001). Maslach and Leiter (1997)
expanded their revelation towards positive aspects of WE and explored its positive aspects.
Robinson et al. (2004) defined WE as:
[. . .] a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organization and its value. An engaged
employee is aware of business context and works with colleagues to improve performance within
the job for the benefit of the institution. The organization must work to develop and nurture
engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between employer and employee.
Similarly, Schaufeli et al. (2002, p. 74) defined WE as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state
of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption”.
Macey and Schneider (2008, pp. 3-4) have also pointed out that “the relationships among
potential antecedents and consequences of engagement [. . .] have not been rigorously
conceptualized, much less studied”. Similarly, Chen et al. (2011) argued that it is doubtful that
employee without engaging himself in work can exhibit extra behaviours (e.g. OCB, KSB and
IWB). Saks (2006) stated that it can be said that for exhibiting ERBs, employee WE is
predecessor because, if a person is not supposed to be engaged in formal job descriptions
(WE) it is unlikely that he will perform something extra beyond his job descriptions. Chen
and Chiu (2009) argued that WE is both personal energy as well as one’s own ability and
how they express their honesty in their tasks and organization, which means that
expression of loyalty through extra work is essential for WE. Similarly, Simpson (2009), Zhu
et al. (2009) also suggested the mediating role of WE for ERBs. Coming back to this research,
WE (a combine construct of emotional state and dispositions of a worker) is assumed to be a
mediator between LMX and ERBs. Although some studies mentioned below have tested
WE as mediator but with other different outcomes. Most of the studies are conducted in
Western settings, but as Truss et al. (2013) in their book “Employee engagement in theory
and practice” claims that WE should be treated as “etic” term (Universal term) but as “emic”
term (culturally bound). While referring to collectivist societies, Lu et al. (2011) argued that
mastery of a family is a main source of strength and sense of pride for an individual, which
can result in positive psychological experience and well-being leading towards high
engagement.
This study sample comprised employees of Research and Development (R&D) and IT
Sector of Pakistan. Service and production sector of Pakistan is in generous need of highly
WE by its workers, as economic life cycle is in its growth stage being developing economy.
Gallup (2013) reported that only 13 per cent of workforce in Pakistan is actually engaged in
their work, which is almost 50 per cent less, as compared to developed countries like the
USA and Canada. As per Hewitt Quarterly studies, “Organizations with high engagement
rates are 78 per cent more productive & 40 per cent more profitable than those organizations
with low levels of engagement”. This study is an attempt to establish a link that whether
EBR and how leadership attributes can play any role for engaging their under commands in their
29,5 work in Collectivist culture. Moreover, Pakistan as an under-developed country is under-
researched also as it is at a stage of development and refinement of institutional rules and
policies. This study will provide insight into management practice and will be helpful for
developing long-term and reliable organizational values and policies in Pakistan.

554 Literature review

leader – member exchange and extra-role behaviours
LMX has been reported as one of the important antecedents of ERBs (Basu and Green, 1997).
For instance, Gerstner and Day (1997) and Shusha (2013) claim that LMX has the significant
impact on ERBs. Similarly, Hackett et al. (2003) also reported the correlation of 0.32 for the
same relationship.
Moving towards the first facet mentioned above of ERBs, OCB has been defined by
Organ (1988, p. 4) as:
[. . .] individual’s behaviour 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. By discretionary, mean that the behaviour is not an enforceable requirement of
the role or the job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s employment
contract with the organization; the behaviour is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its
omission is not generally understood as punishable.
The author further offers its five dimensions (Civic Virtue, Conscientiousness, Altruism,
Courtesy and Sportsmanship). While taking the relationship between LMX and OCB into
the consideration, it has been found by Duong (2011) that leader/supervisor’s high-level
quality of LMX with subordinates lead to increase in OCB. The same relation has been
positively reported in the meta-analysis by Rockstuhl et al. (2012) and Dulebohn et al. (2012).
While interpreting the reasoning, Michael (2011, p. 2) argued that:
Supervisors have been shown to confer favorable treatment upon subordinates with whom they
have high-quality LMX relationships, in return, aides have been shown to reciprocate favorable
treatment upon their behaviours and extra task effort.
Dienesch and Liden (1986) added that high quality of LMX means high level of trust, formal
and informal support, interaction and rewards (material and non-material) beyond
employee’s job description and authority (Liden et al., 1997; Liden and Graen, 1980). In
return, in the light of Social Exchange Theory (SET) by Blau (1964) to reciprocate this
relation, it is expected that employees/under-commands will perform beyond in-role
behaviour and engage in extra-role to maintain an equilibrium or justifiable social exchange.
Hackett et al. (2003) also posited that high-quality LMX should increase OCB on the part of
subordinates. By above-cited work and in view of SET, following hypothesis can be drawn:
H1. The high quality of LMX has significant positive relation with OCB of the employees.

Moving towards second ERBs’ facet, KSB, has been defined by Connelly and Kevin
Kelloway (2003, p. 1) as “a set of behaviours that involve the exchange of information or
assistance to others [. . .] knowledge sharing contains an element of reciprocity; information
sharing can be unidirectional and unrequested”. According to this definition, individuals’
willingness, intention or propensity to share knowledge at the workplace is a complicated
task, and voluntarism of the individual is the primary condition. Employees cannot be
bound to share knowledge; however, they can be encouraged to do so (Ardichvili et al., 2003);
therefore, KSB has also been recognized as discretionary, voluntary and volitional
behaviour (Hansen and Avital, 2005; Lam and Lambermont-Ford, 2010). Wasko and Faraj My leader’s
(2005, p. 39) in their study noted that “in order to share knowledge, individuals must group is my
perceive that sharing it would be worth the effort to others” also supported by Lin (2007a).
Similarly, it is also added by Cabrera and Canrera (2005) that sense of competence,
group
confidence and self-efficacy lead to share more knowledge. The knowledge sharing domain
studies conducted by Thomas-Hunt, Ogden and Neale (2003), Bock et al. (2005), Lu et al.
(2006) and Lin (2007b) established the relation of self-efficacy with KSB. In a study of 50
private sector organizations, Lin (2007a) found that self-efficacy significantly correlated 555
with employee’s knowledge sharing attitudes and behaviour. Self-efficacy is self-awareness
which refers to the confidence about the successful completion of the task by using internal
or external resources or tools (Eden and Sulimani, 2002). Olowodunoye (2015) has also
provided support for this relation, as he reported ß = 0.37, p < 0.001.
Individuals weigh the psychological returns and benefits before getting involved in
sharing their knowledge. In high LMX, substantial exchange of resources, psychological
support by the leader on behalf of organization creates a sense of obligation, confidence and
competence and it is considered by the under commands as a psychological return of their
knowledge sharing, which leads them towards adoption of KSB. On the basis of the above
assertion and evidence, following hypothesis can be developed:
H2. High quality of LMX has significant positive relation with KSB of the employees.

Similar to OCB and KSB, researchers in past also identified employee’s IWB as a
(discretionary) ERB (Katz and Kahn, 1978) because creativity and innovativeness are
eventually required to be started at employees end (Amabile, 1988; Zhou and Shalley, 2008).
Messmann et al. (2010) comprehensively defined IWB as:
[. . .] the sum of all physical or cognitive work activities employees carry out solitarily or in a
social setting in order to generate, promote, and realize ideas that are new and applicable to their
specific work context.
Similarly, Podsakoff et al. (2006) defined it as:
[. . .] the sum of the individual’s intentional actions which are aimed at generation, promotion and
realization of new ideas within a work role, group or organization, to benefit role performance, the
group or the organization.
IWB is a construct through which employee’s creativity took place, claimed by Scott and
Bruce (1994), Yuan and Woodman (2010). Further, De Jong and Den Hartog (2007) have
divided IWB into two stages. First one is idea creation to solve the problem, and second
stage is the practical implementation of that innovative idea. For the first stage, i.e. idea
creation, the presence of a problem is required (Janssen, 2000), while for implementation of
that creative idea (second stage), moral, ethical, financial and appraising support is essential
(Kanter, 1988). According to De Jong and Den Hartog (2007), IWB has remained the focus of
researchers, and many of them suggested leadership exchanges with subordinate as a key
driving force for employee IWB (Mumford et al., 2002; Scott and Bruce, 1994; Tierney et al.,
1999). Previous studies adopted LMX as one of the predictors of subordinates’ creative and
innovative behaviours. For example, positive association between LMX and IWB for
assorted sample, i.e. for R&D professionals (Lee, 2008), for bank professional staff (El
Akremi et al., 2011) and for manufacturing sector managers (Pan et al., 2012). Moreover,
researchers (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Mumford et al., 2002; Yuan and
Woodman, 2010) and recently Len et al. (2017) on the LMX and IWB supported a positive
relationship between these two phenomena.
EBR The concept of LMX theory is known as the exchange of resource between managers and
29,5 subordinates (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Such exchange manifested via extra support like
financial or non-financial resources (Graen & Scandura, 1987), opportunities for risk-taking
(Graen & Cashman, 1975), moral support for innovation (Amabile, 1988) along with highly
frequent interaction and trust (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). These extra supports are essential
requirements for creativity and employees’ innovativeness (Kanter, 1988). Similarly,
556 connecting innovation with rewards, Janssen (2000) found that employees would response
more innovatively towards organizational problems when they feel that their efforts
towards novelty are being appraised fairly. Employees who perceive a fair balance between
supervisor’s inducements about their work efforts will respond with more IWB. Keeping
above contentions in view, following hypothesis can be developed:
H3. High quality of LMX has significant positive relation with IWB of the employees.

leader – member exchange and work engagement

Employee engagement has gained extensive interest of researchers and practitioners across
the world (Shuck & Wollard 2010) because of its huge contribution to financial returns,
productivity and overall organizational reputations (Saks, 2006; Shuck et al., 2011).
Extensive research has defined its antecedents and found co-worker/supervisor support and
supportive organizational climate (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Halbesleben, 2010), job control
(Mauno et al., 2007), as a strong predictor of WE. Similarly, recent research carried out by
Karanges (2014) found that Perceived Leader/Supervisor Support ( b = 0.70, at p < 0.001),
Organizational Identification ( b = 0.84, at p < 0.001) and Internal organization
communication ( b = 0.48 at p < 0.001) as strong antecedents of WE. Hume and Leonard
(2013) found that relationship with supervisor or leader and their communication
(commonly referred to as social exchange relationships) as one of the important predictor of
WE. Meng and Wu (2015) also supported this relation with b = 0.301, p < 0.01. Macey and
Schneider (2008); Zhang et al. (2012) explained that leaders/supervisors play a critical role in
WE of the under commands, as they (leader/supervisors) have control over job-related
resources. On the other hand, as explained above concerning LMX theory, the employees
who have good exchange with their leaders (in-group employees) enjoy distinct advantages,
which may create a sense of responsibility to repay to their leader and thus employees feel
the energy, mental resilience and more willingness to remain engaged in their work. Prior
studies established that employees will greatly engage themselves in their work when their
basic needs are met by their supervisor/organization as stated by Harter et al. (2002).
Pakistan currently has huge score on the poverty line and according to Asian Develpoment
Bank’s report (April 2016). Pakistan has employment-to-population ratio of 50.7 per cent,
which means basic fulfilling of basic needs of families is one of the core objectives of current
employees/workforce. Insuring fulfilment of these requirements and provision of resources
to the followers is one of the important features of LMX. So, keeping above-cited work and
arguments, following hypotheses can be drawn:
H4. High quality of LMX positively relates to WE of the employee.

Work engagement and extra-role behaviours

The Job Demands – Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004) is a very comprehensive model, which explains that how job demands (physical or
psychological effort) or job strain (burnout) and job resources (autonomy, support, feedback,
person’s self-efficacy, resilience) influence employees outcomes/well-beings and extra-role
performance like commitment, creativity, OCB, KSB, IWB and financial outcomes. This My leader’s
model also explains that how job demands exhaust employees’ physical and mental group is my
resources, and how job resources boost employees’ morale and well-being and increase
positive utilization of physical or psychological strengths. To continue this stream of
group
research, researchers like Borman and dan Motowidlo (1997) further explored how
employees’ positive and negative behaviours result in overall organizational performance
directly or indirectly. Researchers like Rotundo and Sackett (2002) and Martin et al. (2016)
claim that these behaviours are the functions of contextual behaviours (ERBs) such as OCB, 557
KSB, IWB and CWB. To perform these behaviours, employees are required to be highly
motivated and engaged by focusing on their physical as well as cognitive and emotional
endeavour towards their work (Kahn, 1990; Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995; Salanova et al.,
2011). Further research on these triggers, carried out by different researchers like Kompaso
and Sridevi (2010) and Ariani (2013), found that WE is significantly linked with OCB at r =
0.312, p < 0.01 and with IWB at b = 0.26, p < 0.01 found by Agarwal (2014).
Bakker and Demerouti (2008) explained that engaged employees experience more
optimistic and pleasant emotions, and they have joy in their work; thus, they can easily
adopt proactive behaviour (OCB). Similarly, engaged employees experience good physical
and psychological health so they can use optimum level of their abilities and mental
resources to exercise ERBs (IWB). Additionally, they are supposed to be good in
transferring their abilities and knowledge to other colleagues as well (KSB). There is
evidence in which WE contributes to (ERBs) OCB, KSB and IWB (Hakanen et al., 2008). This
engagement-ERBs (OCB, KSB, IWB) relation has been tested on a sample of 245 firefighters
and found positive by Rich et al. (2010). On the basis of previous research and in light of JD-R
Model, following hypothesis can be proposed:
H5. WE positively relates to OCB of the employees.
H6. WE positively relates to KSB of the employees.
H7. WE positively relates to IWB of the employees.

Mediating role of work engagement

The verdict and definition of WE by Robinson et al. (2004) mentioned above, supported by
Institute of Employment Studies, clarifies that WE is mainly a result of two-way employee –
employer relation and things are to be done by both the parties. Robinson’s comprehensive
definition also triggers outcomes of WE that elaborated that engaged employees are more
likely to go and perform beyond his in-role performance as they are much concerned about
organizational performance (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997).
Mediating role of WE between different contextual/dispositional predictors other than
LMX and employee ERBs has been tested; for example, Xanthopoulou et al. (2008) found
that the significant relation turned to non-significant (t = 1.76, p = 0.08, z = 2.24, p = 0.05)
when WE has been entered as mediating between self-efficacy and employee in-role
behaviours. Moreover, leader’s interactive and supportive behaviour has been identified as a
key factor to develop and form a context for knowledge sharing at followers end (as cited by
Hassanzadeh, 2014). Sulea et al. (2012) has also supported that WE mediate between
organizational/supervisor support and OCB (ERBs). Another study carried out by Salanova
et al. (2011) on the directions provided by Zhu et al. (2009) found a full mediating role of WE
between transformational leadership style and subordinate’s ERBs. Their study was carried
out on a paired sample composed of nurses and their supervisors (supervisors were 17 and
nurses were 364). Similarly, research conducted by Hoon Song et al. (2012) on
EBR Transformational Leadership and KSB concluded mediating role of WE (SPC = 0.75, t =
29,5 1.96) between Transformational Leadership and KSB. Leadership style, specifically
transformational style, and our proposed predictor, i.e. LMX, are neighbouring/overlapping
concepts as both are leader’s attributes (Yukl, 1999), so it can be suggested that WE is likely
to play mediating role in our case, as it was found by Salanova et al. (2011). The mediating
role of WE between LMX and employee’s ERBs has been found, or in some cases, it has been
558 found only for in-role performance behaviours as in above-cited studies. So, to generalize
those findings and to test WE as the mediator between LMX and ERBs, this attempt is being
carried out.
As stated above, that employees with high LMX gain more perks/privileges, support,
feedback and encourage; thus, they are supposed to take greater responsibility with high
probability to experience greater WE, which result in increased contributions to
organization in the form of positive ERBs. It is proposed that employees with high WE will
share more knowledge. In this support, the reasons were explained by Chen et al. (2011) that
typically engaged employees are more dedicated towards their work and gain more
professional knowledge and share it with their co-workers. The second reason is that,
individual’s self-efficacy is strongly required for KSB, if the individual is confident about his
sharing and consider it worthwhile for others he will share his knowledge fearlessly. Third,
when an individual feels energetic and enthusiastic about his work, he will improve his
work through his experience and likely go an extra mile. On the other hand, Robinson et al.
(2004) pointed that for better WE there must be leader or supervisor’s support (resources þ
moral) so the employee shows his willingness to go an extra mile (ERBs). While moving
towards IWB, it has been well researched that that engaged employees feel more compelled/
bound to strive to accomplish comparatively more challenging goals, and essential parts of
their WE, i.e. energy and focus, motivate them to exert extra work effort (Leiter and Bakker,
2010). On the other hand, engaged employees have high LMX with their leader and have
access to additional resources, support for innovativeness and positive emotions along with
trust as claimed by Graen and Scandura (1987), Harter et al. (2002), Graen and Cashman
(1975), which ultimately lead employees towards innovativeness. Additionally, in the light
of Conservation of Resources Theory, Halbesleben and Wheeler (2011) claim that employees
with provision of high level of work-related resources are expected to go an extra mile. Rich
et al. (2010) and Christian et al. (2011) also supported Halbesleben and Wheeler’s arguments.
So, on the basis of above-mentioned calls by Simpson (2009), Zhu et al. (2009), Macey and
Schneider (2008), Chen et al. (2011) for mediating role of WE and on the basis of above
assertions, following hypothesis for mediation of WE can be drawn:
H8. WE mediates between LMX and OCB of the employees.
H9. WE mediates between LMX and KSB of the employees.
H10. WE mediates between LMX and IWB of the employees.

Methodology
The study is an causal research to check the hypotheses, and so, the hypothetical deductive
method was used to analyse the data (Figure 1). Data were collected on printed
questionnaires using time-lagged design, in three different phases with a gap of two months
between each phase. The population for proposed study was employees of various
organizations including 3  private IT (Information Technology) related, 2  banks and 2 
R&D related organizations of Pakistan. Unit of analysis of this study was individuals/
employees of different growing organizations specifically those are working in R&D and IT
 Organizational My leader’s
Citizenship
Behaviour
group is my
group

Knowledge
Leader-
Member Work Engagement
Sharing
Behaviour
559
Exchange

Innovative
Work
Figure 1.
Behaviour Research framework

sector of Pakistan. The main reason for selection of this population is as day-by-day
innovativeness is required by employees of these areas. Secondly, as working in IT and
R&D sector is usually on assignment/project based, sometimes workers have to work for
extra hours after office timings; on the other hand, this sector offers more flexible work
arrangements (flex time, flex place like virtual networks), so employees have open option to
perform beyond their job descriptions. Convenience sampling technique was used
because the sampling frame covered a vast number of suitable respondents, as
respondents were chosen on their ease to access the base. Data related to LMX
(independent variable) were collected in phase one. Data related to WE (Mediator) were
collected in the second phase, while data related to all dependent variables (OCB, KSB
and IWB) were collected in the third phase. Total 511 questionnaires were distributed
in three episodes. The cumulative response rate was 72 per cent. Apart from written
covering letter of the questionnaire submitted to the respondents, author of the thesis or
some representative on the behalf of the author was present during distribution and
filling of the questionnaires to explain the purpose of the study and to answer queries
raised by the respondents. Respondents have been also ensured that their personal
information/affiliation provided through questionnaire will remain confidential and
will not be shared with anyone at any cost. They were also taken in confidence that if
they wanted to withdraw their response/duly filled questionnaire, they are authorized
to do so within two months after their submission. The descriptive analysis shows that
majority (65.2 per cent) of the respondents were male. Most of the respondents were
master degree holders (46.3 per cent). Dominating age ranged between 31 and 40 years
(41 per cent). More than 29 per cent of the respondents were having 5 to 10 years of job
experience. Measuring scales used in the study and their details are as under:
 LMX was measured using six items; five-point Likert scale developed by Graen
et al. (1982 & 1995) was used. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale is 0.865. A sample
question is “My supervisor understands my problems and needs”.
 WE was measured with 17 items, five-point Likert scale by Schaufeli et al. (2002)
was used. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale is 0.718. A sample question of this
scale is “At my job, I feel strong and energetic”.
 OCB was measured with nine items, five-point Likert scale developed by Lee and
Allen (2002). The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale is 0.732. Sample question of this
scale is “I express loyalty toward the organization”.
EBR  KSB was measured with the help of five-point Likert scale developed by Bock and
29,5 Kim (2002). The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale is 0.677. Sample question of this scale
is “I share my report templates and models with members of my group/
organization”.
 IWB was measured with the help of scale developed by Scott and Bruce (1994) by
using five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 represents “Very
560 Ineffective” and 5 represents “Very Effective”. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale is
0.801. Sample question of this scale is “Tackling unsolved problems”.

Results and analysis

Correlation analysis
Results of correlation analysis presented in Table I revealed that independent
variable LMX is significantly positively correlated with first dependent variable, OCB
(r = 0.368**, p # 0.01). This provides initial support to H1, which is “Leader-Member
Exchange has a positive relationship with Organizational Citizenship Behaviour of
the Employees”. LMX was significantly positively correlated with second dependent
variable, KSB (r = 0.756**, p # 0.01). This provides initial support to H2, which is
“Leader-Member Exchange has a positive relationship with Knowledge Sharing
Behaviour of the Employees”. LMX has been found significantly positively correlated
to the third dependent variable, IWB (r = 0.255**, p # 0.01). This provides initial
support to H3, which is LMX has a positive relationship with IWB of the Employees.
Results also revealed that LMX is significantly positively correlated to the mediator,
WE (r = 0.668**, p # 0.01), which provides initial support to H4, which is “Leader-
Member Exchange has a positive relationship with Work Engagement of the
Employees”. Similarly, WE has been found significantly positively correlated to first
dependent variable OCB (r = 0.226**, p # 0.01), which provides initial support to H5,

Predictors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Gender 1
2. Education 0.067 1
3. Age 0.012 0.095 1
4. Experience 0.071 0.088 0.549** 1
5. Organization 0.109* 0.183** 0.094 0.207** 1
6. LMX 0.155** 0.009 0.171** 0.237** 0.062 1
7. WE 0.177** 0.081 0.151** 0.217** 0.094 0.688** 1
8. OCB 0.124* 0.104* 0.111* 0.059 0.026 0.364** 0.226** 1
9. KSB 0.101* 0.012 0.192** 0.274** 0.108* 0.756** 0.744** 0.560** 1
10. IWB 0.091 0.053 0.102* 0.002 0.028 0.255** 0.239** 0.260** 0.319** 1

Notes: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
(two-tailed); n = 376; Gender (1 = Male, 2 = Female); Education (1 = Matric, 2 = Intermediate, 3 =
Graduation, 4 = Masters and 5 = MS/PhD); Age (20 to 30 years = 1, 31 to 40 years = 2, 41 to 50 years = 3, 51
to 60 years = 4, 61 to 70 years = 5); Experience (1 = 0 to 5 years, 2 = 6 to 10 years, 3 = 11 to 15 years, 4 = 16
to 20 years, 5 = to 21 to 30 years); Organization type (1 = Public Organization, 2 = Private Organization);
LMX (Leader-Member Exchange) (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 Strongly
Agree); OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behaviour) KSB (Knowledge Sharing Behaviour) and WE (Work
Engagement) (1 = Never, 2 = Once, 3 = More than Once, 4 = Often and 5 = Always); IWB (Innovative Work
Table I. Behaviour) (1 = Very Ineffective, 2 = Slightly Ineffective, 3 = Somewhat Effective, 4 = Moderately Effective
Correlations and 5 = Extremely Effective)
which is “Work Engagement Positively relates to Organizational Citizenship My leader’s
Behaviour of the Employees”. WE was significantly positively correlated to second group is my
dependent variable KSB (r = 0.744**, p # 0.01), which provided initial support to H6,
which is WE positively relates to KSB of the employees. WE has been found
group
significantly positively correlated to the third dependent variable, IWB (r = 0.239**, p
# 0.05), which provided initial support to H7, which is WE positively relates to IWB
of the employees.
561
Regression analysis
Our model is a meditational model, so we used a nonparametric bootstrapping method with
95 per cent confidence interval presented by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Through this
method, a non-zero value between lower and upper limit concludes that the effect is
significantly different from zero at p < 0.05 (two-tailed). To overcome the shortcomings of
step-wise approach, this bootstrapping method is considered more appropriate (Preacher
and Hayes, 2008). Furthermore, a resampling approach used by this method has also been
examined to be smarter than any other approach. In all, 5,000 bootstrap resamples with 95
per cent confidence intervals were employed in this analysis. Model 4 of PROCESS Macro
for SPSS has been separately performed for each dependent variable to check the direct and
indirect effect on it.
Regression results presented in Table II revealed that LMX has a direct positive
significant relationship with first dependent variable, i.e. OCB. As the analysis shows b =
0.471***, p # 0.001 and t = 8.670, whereas there is non-zero bootstrap range, i.e. from 0.347
to 0.557, so H1 (“Leader-Member Exchange has a positive relationship with Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour of the Employees”) is supported. Regression analysis for H2 (“Leader-
Member Exchange has a positive relationship with Knowledge Sharing Behaviour of the
Employees”) indicates b = 0.714 (ns), and bootstrap between 0.152 and 0.125 (which
contains 0 value), so the hypothesis is not supported. H3 that “Leader-Member Exchange
has a positive and significant relationship with Innovative Work Behaviour of the
Employees” shows its b value at 0.450***, t = 7.2163, with none zero bootstrap value; thus,
it is supported. Besides these three hypotheses between the independent variable (LMX) and
dependent variables (OCB, KSB and IWB), H4 of LMX (IV) with WE (Mediator) was also
tested and supported at b = 0.855*** with t = 60.083. H5 of WE (mediator) to KSB
(dependent 1) that “Work Engagement Positively relates to Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour of the Employees” is supported at b = 0.511*** and t = 8.442 with non-zero in
bootstrap lower and upper range. H6, WE (Mediator) to KSB (Dependent-2) “Work
Engagement Positively relates to Knowledge Sharing Behaviour of the Employees”, is not
supported as b = 0.0103 with t = 0.1589, and bootstrap value also contains 0 value in it.

Effect of IV on Total effect of Direct effect of

M Effect of M on DV IV on DV IV on DV Bootstrap results for
(a path) (b path) (c path) (c’ path) indirect effects
DV B T B T B t B t LL 95% CI UL 95% CI

OCB 0.885*** 60.083 0.511*** 8.442 0.924*** 44.745 0.471*** 8.670 0.347 0.557
KSB 0.885*** 60.083 0.0103 0.1589 0.705 34.241 0.714 11.030 0.152 0.125
IWB 0.885*** 60.083 0.325*** 4.9216 0.739*** 42.690 0.450*** 7.2163 0.173 0.398 Table II.
Mediation analysis
Notes: ***p < 0.001, No. of bootstrap resample = 5,000, *IV = LMX, M = WE results
EBR H7 of WE (mediator) on IWB (dependent 3) that “Work Engagement Positively relates to
29,5 Innovative Work Behaviour of the Employees” is supported at b = 0.325*** and t = 4.9216
with non-zero in bootstrap values.
H8, “Work Engagement mediates between Leader-Member Exchange and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour of the Employees”, was tested, and its b value
was found at 0.924***, p = <0.001, and t = 44.745. Besides, the upper and lower limit
562 confidence were 0.347 and 0.557 which do not contain zero value, effect size ( b ) has
been increased from 0.471*** to 0.924***, due to WE as a mediator so the H8 is
supported. H9, “Work Engagement mediates between Leader-Member Exchange and
Knowledge Sharing Behaviour of the Employees” was tested and its b value was found
at 0.705 (ns), t = 34.241 (earlier b was 0.714,ns) and its bootstrap value contains zero
value as the lower value is -.152 and upper value is 0.125, so the hypothesis is not
supported. H10, “Work Engagement mediates between Leader-Member Exchange and
Innovative Work Behaviour of the Employees” was tested, and its b value has been
increased to 0.739***, p = <0.001, and t = 42.690 (earlier b was 0.450***) with upper
and lower limit confidence between 0.173 and 0.398, so the hypothesis is supported.

Discussion
ERBs are more important than in-role behaviours, Yee et al. (2015), but at the same time,
these ERBs are more difficult or complicated. In this competitive business era, no
organization can grow well without expecting/accomplishing these behaviours by its
employees. To address the gap mentioned above, and to answer the research call by Martin
et al. ( ), the current study was carried out focusing on ERBs of the employees and to explore
how the leader’s role or exchange can positively influence/mold followers/employees’
motivation towards these behaviours.
In H1, H2 and H3, it was hypothesized that LMX has direct and positive influence on
ERBs (H1 for LMX to OCB, H2 for LMX to KSB and H3 for LMX to IWB). Results, on the
basis of data collected for this study from different R&D and IT-related business
organizations, supported first and third hypotheses aligned with previous studies like Basu
and Green (1997), Gerstner and Day (1997), Hackett et al. (2003), Shusha (2013), Rockstuhl
et al. (2012). The strong relationship between leader or manager’s exchange with its
subordinates can be described since SET by Blau (1964). In the light of SET, when a leader/
manager extends his financial, social and moral support towards his subordinates, it creates
a sense of reciprocity among them. To balance out those favours, employees extend their
extra efforts to accomplish organizational goals through performing behaviours which are
even beyond their job descriptions (in-role).
In H4, it was proposed that LMX is positively related to WE of the employees. Data
have supported the same. Previous researchers have also established this link in their
studies in different contexts like Hume and Leonard (2013) and Karanges (2014); more
recently, Meng and Wu (2015) also supported this relation. This relationship may occur
as an outcome of LMX theory itself, that employees who have a good exchange with
their leaders (also called in-group employees) enjoy distinct advantages. Employees feel
the energy and mental resilience which leads them towards willingness to remain
engaged in their work. On the other hand, as argued in the light of JDR-Model, Harter et
al. (2002) argued that for engagement of employee, there are some essential resources,
and provision of those resources is on leader’s end, so it can be concluded that provision
of better resources (mental, social, safety and financial) may result in better
engagement of under commands.
 Next three hypotheses (H5, H6 and H7) proposed that employees’ WE has positive My leader’s
relationship with ERBs (OCB, KSB and IWB), out of which H5 and H7 have been supported group is my
through data analysis in this study, as previously it was concluded by Bakker and Demerouti
(2008); Hakanen et al. (2008); Rich, et al. (2010) in different contexts and population. Engaged
group
employees feel more pleasant and experience more optimism and pleasant emotions, as they
feel joy in their work and have pleasant and positive feelings about their work and
organization, thus they are more expected to perform more proactively.
Moving further towards the hypotheses of mediation, H8, H9 and H10, i.e. WE mediate 563
between LMX and ERBs (OCB, KSB and IWB), H8 and H10 are supported, and H9 (KSB)
was not supported. Our results in respect of H8 and H10 are aligned with previous studies
like Robinson et al. (2004), Salanova et al. (2011), Sulea et al. (2012) and Hassanzadeh (2014).
One major reason can be that for creativity and innovativeness, both external and internal
resources support, and energies are required at the same time. Second, when a person
remains engaged in his/her work, he/she will gain expertise and experience day-by-day,
which may lead him to continuous improvements in his work and results in creativeness
which leads towards innovative behaviour. Third, to be creative, one should know pros and
cons of the work tasks, so for learning about those pros and cons one’s engagement in his/
her work task is essential. When we talk about mediating role of WE, this research attempts
to fill the gap cited by Saks (2006), Chen and Chiu (2009), Chen et al. (2011) in which they
claimed that it is doubtful or unrealistic for a person without engaging himself in his core
required job activities to exhibit something extra.
Moving towards the H3 and H9, which have been not supported, it can be evidenced (as
narrated above) that KSB is dominantly dependent on personal willingness and motivation
of the individual, so, it may be possible that person besides having all other real
characteristics may not share his expertise and knowledge with his colleagues. Second, more
than 65 per cent of study population is male, and it has been well established in literature
that men are more concerned about their success and have stronger concept of edge taking
over to other colleagues while women more socialized to be more expressive, having strong
“ethic of care” and to be more interdependent, compassionate, nurturing, cooperative and
helpful in caregiving roles (Lu et al., 2006; Gilligan, 1982). So, it can be concluded that male
respondents may hide their knowledge and expertise considering them as their own
property and a source of competitive edge over other office colleagues. On the other hand,
when team members perceived a leader’s favourable treatment with some specific (in-group)
person(s), this variability may create a relational problem between team members which
may lead all the co-workers towards disrespect, knowledge hiding and poor communication
(Hooper & Martin, 2008) and this differential treatment with subordinates by a particular
leader may create ambiguity and doubt about the leader’s integrity (Lind & Tyler 1992). In
this situation, it is highly likely that employees deliberately stop putting effort towards their
work which may stop sharing his or her knowledge.
Next and final hypothesis (H10), i.e. WE mediate between LMX and IWB, has been
supported/full mediation has been found. Our results are aligned with previous studies like
Robinson et al. (2004), Salanova et al. (2011), Sulea et al. (2012) and Hassanzadeh (2014). One
major reason could be that for creativity and innovativeness, both external and internal
resources, support and energies, are required at the same time. Second, when a person
remains engaged in his/her work, he/she will improve day by day in expertise and
experience, which may lead him to continuous improvements in his/her work and results in
creativeness which leads towards innovative behaviour. Third, to be creative, one should
know pros and cons of the work tasks, so for learning about those pros and cons one’s
engagement in his/her work is essential.
EBR Managerial implications
29,5 The focus of this study was WE and ERBs, which are critical to organizational
success, as Katz (1964) claims that organizations depending on only in-role
performance (job description) are not supposed to be successful in their future. ERBs
are assumed as an important and crucial pathway towards organizational
performance and success, but at the same time, these behaviours are much difficult to
564 be performed by the employees, as these require many resources, support and efforts
by organization and leaders/managers. Leader’s exchange (LMX) has been studied as
a predictor of ERBs of the under commands/employees. The study concluded that
leader’s interactional style and his personal attentions towards subordinates’
personal, social and work life plays very critical role in moulding their behaviours. It
has been found through this research attempt that leaders act as role models for
employees and set an example for their subordinates and signalled them how they are
supposed to act and behave in their workplace. Moreover, WE vitally predict ERBs;
organizational leaders need to pay attention to this part despite whatever the industry
is and whatever the leadership style is there in the organization, and Pakistan, being a
poor/developing country fulfilling necessary psychological needs, can result in better
engagement and employees end. Study findings have importance with the view of
training and development, as while conducting supervisor’s training or succession
planning/training, organizational managers/trainers must incorporate strategies/
lessons through which leaders/managers/supervisors may be trained about how they
have to build good relations with their subordinates. Second, this study carried
significance for policy makers that while making policies for organizations, as they
consider Deviant Work Behaviours as dangerous phenomena, they need to recognize
the importance of ERBs, and there must be appropriate rewarding policies for
employees who perform these behaviours.

Limitations of the study

Like other studies, this study also has some limitations. Data related to dependent
variables (OCB, KSB and IWB), specifically and for the whole model generally, were
collected through self-reported questionnaire, which leads towards self-serving bias
at respondent’s end, as exaggeration/manipulation in responses is highly expected,
which may lead towards wrong statistical support for the study. Second, the most
considerable theoretical limitation of the study is the mediating role of WE between
LMX, and KSB has not been proven, but same mediating role has been found in case of
OCB and IWB which is beyond understanding, as all dependent variables are actually
different facets of ERBs. Lastly, data for the study variable has been collected from
R&D and IT-related organizations only, which can question the generalizability of the
survey to other sectors/organizations.

Directions for future research

Limitations mentioned above suggest directions for future research, so keeping above
limitations in view, the first direction is that the extended time limit for the study on the
same model may give some different results especially in the case of mediation of WE.
Second, paired data (supervisor and supervisee/under-commands rated) can be a suitable
and appropriate way to answer this type of research questions. Third, a study on ample
sample size is required to investigate the non-significant role of WE between LMX and KSB,
as this has been established for two other ERBs (OCB and IWB), the reasoning behind this
rejection given above, is needed empirical evidence. Fourth, the sample from other types of
organizations may result in a change in conclusions. Lastly, most of the research on LMX My leader’s
has been conducted concerning job outcomes of in-group employees; there is a generous group is my
need to check the job outcomes (like ostracism, deviant work behaviours, cynicism) of out-
group employees.
group

Notes
1. Words like “boss”, “manager” and “supervisor” are used as substitute words for “leader”.
565
2. Words like “Employee(s)” and “under command” are used as substitute words for “member”.

References
Agarwal, U.A. (2014), “Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 41-73.
Amabile, T.M. (1988), “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, Research in
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 123-167.
Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentling, T. (2003), “Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual
knowledge-sharing communities of practice”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 64-77.
Ariani, D.W. (2013), “The relationship between employee engagement, organizational citizenship
behaviour, and counterproductive work behaviour”, International Journal of Business
Administration, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 46.
Ashforth, B.E. and Humphrey, R.H. (1995), “Emotion in the workplace: a reappraisal”, Human
Relations, Vol. 48, pp. 97-125.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”, Career Development
International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 209-223.
Basu, R. and Green, S.G. (1997), “Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: an
empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads”, Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 477-499.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bock, G.W. and Kim, Y.G. (2002), “Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of attitudes
about knowledge sharing”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 14-21.
Bock, G., Zmud, R., Young-Gul, K. and Jae-Nam, L. (2005), “Behavioural intention formation in
knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and
organizational climate”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Borman, W.C. and dan Motowidlo, S.J. (1997), “Task performance and contextual performance: the
meaning for personnel selection research”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 99-109.
Cabrera, E.F. and Canrera, A. (2005), “Fostering knowledge sharing through people management
practices”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 5,
pp. 720-735.
Campbell, J.P., McCloy, R.A., Oppler, S.H. and Sager, C.E. (1993), “A theory of performance”, Personnel
Selection in Organizations, Sage Publication, London, p. 3570.
Chen, C.C. and Chiu, S.F. (2009), “The mediating role of job involvement in the relationship between job
characteristics and organizational citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 149,
pp. 474-494.
Chen, Z.J., Zhang, X. and Vogel, D. (2011), “Exploring the underlying processes between conflict and
knowledge sharing: a work-engagement perspective1”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 1005-1033.
EBR Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: a quantitative review and
test of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1,
29,5 pp. 89-136.
Connelly, C.E. and Kevin Kelloway, E. (2003), “Predictors of employees’ perceptions of knowledge
sharing cultures”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 294-301.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. and Haga, W.J. (1975), “A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within
566 formal organizations: a longitudinal investigation of the role making process”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 46-78.
De Jong, J.P. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2007), “How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-64.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job demands-resources
model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 499.
Dienesch, R.M. and Liden, R.C. (1986), “Leader-member exchange model of leadership: a critique and
further development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 618-634.
Dulebohn, J.H., Bommer, W.H., Liden, R.C., Brouer, R.L. and Liden, G.R. (2012), “A meta-analysis of
antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: integrating the past with an eye
toward the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 1715-1759.
Duong, J. (2011), “Leaders’ conceptions and evaluations of followers as antecedents of leadership style,
leader-member exchange, and employee outcomes”, Unpublished doctoral thesis.
Eden, D. and Sulimani, R. (2002), “Pygmalion training made effective: greater mastery through
augmentation of self-efficacy and means efficacy”, in Avolio, B.J. and Yammarino, F.J. (Eds),
Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead, Emerald Publishing Limited,
pp. 67-91.
El Akremi, A., Akinlade, D. and Liden, R. (2011), “Leader-member exchange and creativity: the role of
creative self-efficacy and power distance”, Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San
Antonio, p. 3.
Farh, J.L., Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1990), “Accounting for organizational citizenship
behaviour: leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction”, Journal of Management, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 705-721.
Gerstner, C.R. and Day, D.V. (1997), “Meta-analytic review of leader-member-exchange theory:
correlates and construct issues”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 827-844.
Gilligan, C. (1982), In a Different Voice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Graen, G.B. and Scandura, T. (1987), “Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing”, in Cummings, L.
and Staw, B. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 9, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 175-208.
Graen, G. and Cashman, J.F. (1975), “A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: a
developmental approach”, Leadership Frontiers, Kent, OH, pp. 143-165.
Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), “Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of
leader – member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective’”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219-247.
Graen, G.B., Liden, R.C. and Hoel, W. (1982), “Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 868-872.
Hackett, R.D., Farh, J.-L., Song, L.J. and Lapierre, L.M. (2003), “LMX and organizational citizenship
behaviour: examining the links within and across Western and Chinese samples”, in Graen, G.
(Ed.), Dealing with Diversity: LMX Leadership the Series, Vol. 1, Greenwich, CT, pp. 219-263.
Hakanen, J.J., Schaufeli, W.B. and Ahola, K. (2008), “The job demands-resources model: a three-year
cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement”, Work & Stress,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 224-241.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2010), “A meta-analysis of work engagement: relationships with burnout, My leader’s
demands, resources and consequences”, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work
Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Vol. 8, Psychology Press, New
group is my
York, NY, pp. 102-117. group
Halbesleben, J.R. and Wheeler, A.R. (2011), “I owe you one: coworker reciprocity as a moderator of the
day-level exhaustion–performance relationship”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32
No. 4, pp. 608-626.
Hansen, S. and Avital, M. (2005), “Share and share alike: the social and technological influences on 567
knowledge sharing behaviour”, Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Environments,
Systems, and Organizations, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Harris, K.J., Wheeler, A.R. and Kacmar, M.K. (2009), “leader – member exchange and empowerment:
direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 371-382.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), “Business-unit-level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 268-279.
Hassanzadeh, J.F. (2014), “Leader-member exchange and creative work involvement: the importance of
knowledge sharing”, Iranian Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 377.
Hoon Song, J., Kolb, J.A., Hee Lee, U. and Kyoung Kim, H. (2012), “Role of transformational leadership
in effective organizational knowledge creation practices: mediating effects of employees’ work
engagement”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 65-101.
Hooper, D.T. and Martin, R. (2008), “Beyond personal leader–member exchange (LMX) quality: the
effects of perceived LMX variability on employee reactions”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 20-30.
Hume, J. and Leonard, A. (2013), “Exploring the strategic potential of internal communication in
international non-governmental organizations”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 294-304.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morlgeson, F.P. (2007), “Leader-member exchange and citizenship
behaviours: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 269-277.
Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 287-302.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Kanter, R. (1988), “When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective, and social conditions for
innovation in organizations”, Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 10, pp. 169-211.
Karanges, E.R. (2014), “Optimizing employee engagement with internal communication: a social
exchange perspective”, Journal of Business Market Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 329-353.
Katz, D. (1964), “The motivational basis of organizational behaviour”, Behavioural Science, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 131-133.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Kompaso, S.M. and Sridevi, M.S. (2010), “Employee engagement: the key to improving performance”,
International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 12.
Lam, A. and Lambermont-Ford, J.P. (2010), “Knowledge sharing in organizational contexts: a
motivation-based perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 51-66.
Lee, J. (2008), “Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on innovativeness”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 670-687.
Lee, K. and Allen, N.J. (2002), “Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: the role of
affect and cognition”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 131-142.
EBR Leiter, M.P. and Bakker, A.B. (Eds) (2010), “Work engagement: introduction”, Work
Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, New
29,5 York, NY, pp. 1-9.
Len, T.S., Aafaqi, R. and Ansari, M. (2017), “Leader-member exchange and employee creativity: the role
of positive emotion”, Conference Paper, Honolulu, HI.
Li, X., Sanders, K. and Frenkel, S. (2012), “How leader – member exchange, work engagement and HRM
568 consistency explain Chinese luxury hotel employees’ job performance”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1059-1066.
Liden, R.C. and Graen, G. (1980), “Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 451-465.
Liden, R.C. and Maslyn, J.M. (1998), “Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical
assessment through scale development”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24, pp. 43-72.
Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T. and Wayne, S.J. (1997), “Leader-member exchange theory: the past and
potential for the future”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 15,
pp. 47-119.
Lin, H.F. (2007a), “Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 315-332.
Lin, H.F. (2007b), “Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on employee intentions to share
knowledge”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-149.
Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1992), “A relational model of authority in groups”, Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 115-192.
Lo, M.C., Abang, A.M., Ramayah, T. and Wang, Y.C. (2015), “Examining the effects of leadership,
market orientation and leader-member exchange (LMX) on organisational performance”,
Engineering Economics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 409-421.
Lu, C.Q., Siu, O.L., Chen, W.Q. and Wang, H.J. (2011), “Family mastery enhances work
engagement in Chinese nurses: a cross-lagged analysis”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 100-109.
Lu, L., Leung, K. and Koch, P.T. (2006), “Managerial knowledge sharing: the role of individual,
interpersonal and organizational factors”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 2,
pp. 15-42.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 3-30.
Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A. and Epitropaki, O. (2016), “leader – member
exchange (LMX) and performance: a meta-analytic review”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 69
No. 1, pp. 67-121.
Maslach, C. and Leiter, M.P. (1997), The Truth About Burnout, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 52, pp. 397-422.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U. and Ruokolainen, M. (2007), “Job demands and resources as antecedents of
work engagement: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 70, pp. 149-171.
Meng, F. and Wu, J. (2015), “Merit pay fairness, leader-member exchange, and job engagement evidence
from mainland china”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 47-69.
Messmann, G., Mulder, R.H. and Gruber, H. (2010), “Relations between vocational teachers’
characteristics of professionalism and their innovative work behaviour”, Empirical Research in
Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Michael, D. (2011), “Supportive supervisor communication as an intervening influence in the
relationship between LMX and employee job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and
performance”, Journal of Behavioural Studies in Business, Vol. 4, pp. 1-28.
Moss, S.E., Sanchez, J.I., Brumbaugh, A.M. and Borkowski, N. (2009), “The mediating role of feedback My leader’s
avoidance behaviour in the LMX-performance relationship”, Group & Organization
Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 645-664.
group is my
Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B. and Strange, J.M. (2002), “Leading creative people: orchestrating
group
expertise and relationships”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 705-750.
Murphy, P.R. and Jackson, S.E. (1999), “Managing work-role performance: challenges for 21st century
organizations and employees”, The Changing Nature of Work Performance, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA. 569
Olowodunoye, S.A. (2015), “Knowledge sharing behaviour: the role of self-efficacy, organisational
justice and organisational tenure”, European Scientific Journal, Vol. 11 No. 17.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lanham, MD.
Pan, W., Sun, L.Y. and Chow, I.H.S. (2012), “Leader-member exchange and employee creativity: test of a
multilevel moderated mediation model”, Human Performance, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 432-451.
Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), “Impact of organizational citizenship behaviour on
organizational performance: a review and suggestion for future research”, Human Performance,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 133-151.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Organ, D.W. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Its
Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Sage, Lodnon.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behaviour Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004), The Drivers of Employee Engagement, Institute for
Employment Studies, Brighton.
Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J.H., Ang, S. and Shore, L.M. (2012), “leader – member exchange (LMX) and
culture: a meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 97 No. 6, pp. 1097.
Rotundo, M. and 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, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 66-80.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.
Salanova, M., Lorente, L., Chambel, M.J. and Martínez, I.M. (2011), “Linking transformational leadership
to nurses’ extra-role performance: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work engagement”,
Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 67 No. 10, pp. 2256-2266.
Scandura, T.A. and Pellegrini, E.K. (2008), “Trust and leader-member exchange (LMX): a closer
look at relational vulnerability”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 101-110.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B., Martínez, I., Marqués-Pinto, A., Salanova, M. and Bakker, A. (2002), “Burnout and
engagement in university students: a cross-national study”, Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology,
Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 464-481.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behaviour: a path model of individual
innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 580-607.
EBR Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N. and Liden, R.C. (1996), “Social exchange in organizations: perceived
organizational support, leader – member exchange, and employee reciprocity”, Journal of
29,5 Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 219.
Shuck, B. and Wollard, K. (2010), “Employee engagement and HRD: a seminal review of the
foundations”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 89-110.
Shuck, B., Reio, T.G., Jr. and Rocco, T.S. (2011), “Employee engagement: an examination of
570 antecedent and outcome variables”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 14
No. 4, pp. 427-445.
Shusha, A. (2013), “The mediating role of leader-member exchange in the relationship between
transformational leadership and job performance”, European Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 5 No. 8, pp. 157-164.
Simpson, M.R. (2009), “Engagement at work: a review of the literature”, International Journal of
Nursing Studies, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 1012-1024.
Sulea, C., Virga, D., Maricutoiu, L.P., Schaufeli, W., Zaborila Dumitru, C. and Sava, F.A. (2012), “Work
engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive and negative extra-role
behaviors”, Career Development International, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 188-207.
Thomas-Hunt, M.C., Ogden, T.Y. and Neale, M.A. (2003), “Who’s really sharing? Effects of social and
expert status on knowledge exchange within groups”, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 4,
pp. 464-477.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M. and Graen, G.B. (1999), “An examination of leadership and employee creativity:
the relevance of traits and relationships”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 591-620.
Tompson, H.B. and Werner, J.M. (1997), “The impact of role conflict/facilitation on core and
discretionary behaviours: testing a mediated model”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 583-601.
Truss, C., Alfes, K., Delbridge, R., Shantz, A. and Soane, E. (2013), Employee Engagement in Theory and
Practice, Routledge, Abingdon.
Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and
predictive validity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 108-119.
Vandyne, L., Cummings, L.L. and Parks, J.M. (1995), “Extra-role behaviors-in pursuit of construct and
definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters)”, Research in Organizational Behavior: An
Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, Vol. 17 No. 17, pp. 215-285.
Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D. and Hogg, M.A. (2004), “Leadership,
self, and identity: a review and research agenda”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 825-856.
Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2005), “Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge
contribution in electronic networks of practice”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-57.
Xanthopoulou, D., Baker, A.B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), “Working in the
sky: a diary study on work engagement among flight attendants”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 345.
Yuan, F. and Woodman, R.W. (2010), “Innovative behaviour in the workplace: the role of performance
and image outcome expectations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 323-342.
Yukl, G. (1999), “An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories”, The leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 285-305.
Zhang, Z., Wang, M.O. and Shi, J. (2012), “Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and
work outcomes: the mediating role of leader-member exchange”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 111-130.
Zhou, J. and Shalley, C.E. (2008), “Expanding the scope and impact of organizational creativity
research”, Handbook of Organizational Creativity, Vol. 28, pp. 125-147.
Zhu, Y. (2013), “Individual behaviour: in-role and extra-role”, International Journal of Business My leader’s
Administration, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 23.
group is my
Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2009), “The moderating role of follower characteristics with
transformational leadership and follower work engagement”, Group & Organization group
Management, Vol. 34 No. 5.

Further reading
Pieterse, A.N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M. and Stam, D. (2010), “Transformational and
571
transactional leadership and innovative behavior: the moderating role of psychological
empowerment”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 609-623.

Corresponding author
Muhammad Nawaz Khan can be contacted at: nawaz.riphah@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com