Moderating Role of supervisor organizational citizenship behavior toward subordinates (SOCBI)

Although, regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998) suggests that individual who wants to achieve
for the benefit of the greater good, view the world through promotion focus that guided by the ideals and
sets the expectations that a maximal goal will be pursued vigorously. The promotion frame sets
expectations of a close, cooperative relationship where both parties are more likely to exhibit positive
behaviours that are beyond the written contract, where each party perceives and keep relational
obligations and expectations with each other. Moreover, promotion focus is more concerned with higher
level of advancement and accomplishment and linked with subjective history of past success that
“psyched” individual to work hard (Higgins et al, 2001). Therefore, an individual show more eagerness to
achieve maximal goals in a given situation. However, what will happen when an individual get failed to
accomplish maximum expectations? In this regard, expectancy violation theory (EVT; Jussim, Coleman,
& Lerch, 1987; Burgoon, 1993; Bettencourt, Dill, Greathouse, Charlton, & Mulholland, 1997) addresses
the effects of violating or meeting these expectations.

Although, EVT explains, how individuals perceive and respond to the unanticipated violations of
expectations (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). However, expectation serving as a social norm not only represents
an individual’s appropriate behaviour but also serve as judgmental criteria by which to assess their
behaviour (Burgoon, 1993, 1995). On the other hand, unexpected e.g. violating behaviour, as a motivation
trigger cognitive arousal, that causes an individual to reinterpret the violating behaviour, the violators and
their relationship with them (Kim, 2014; Burgoon & Hale, 1988; Afifi & Metts, 1998). Therefore,
cognitive arousal triggers and amplifies the perception of discrepancy of expectancies. Scholars, defined
it as, transgression, may cause serious conflict in a given relationship (Roloff & Cloven, 1994). That
might cause an individual’s perception of psychological contract breach (Fediuk, Coombs, & Botero,
2010), because, individuals look for the signals that their inducement will produce gains and results in the
achievement of their goals (Lambert, 2011). Indeed, if expectations are not met, then the violation is
especially harmful, creating a stronger perception of contract breach.

Since, in the history of organizational behaviour research, the leader-follower relationship has been paid
huge attention by scholars to provide optimal solutions to the dynamic of organizational practices. To the
account for the fact that the leader-followers relationship is a two-way process both are interdependent
(e.g. keep transactional and relational obligations) and influence on each other (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995;
Lo et al, 2006). Therefore, establish expectancy by engaging in interpersonal relationship (Burgoon,
1993, 1995). However, in the history of leadership, empirical research highly encourages and suggested
the transformational inducements (e.g. transformational, servant and charismatic leadership) as a
discretionary behaviour, the leader willing to make for the benefit of the greater good. In this regard,
literature paid increased attention to leader self-sacrifice (leader’s extra-role behaviour) and proposed
effects of this behaviour (Avolio & Locke, 2002; Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998, 1999; de Cremer, 2002; de
Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2002; Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999). Evidently, these researchers were
inspired by theories of transformational, servant and charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio,
1993; Greenleaf, 1977; Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1998; House, 1977; Shamir et al., 1993). It is not,
therefore, surprising that several researchers have suggested extra-role behaviour e.g. helping and giving
their time to subordinates to solve their problems beyond leader’s job descriptions as a typical example of
a charismatic, servant and transformational leadership behaviour (Bass, 1985; Greenleaf, 1977; Choi &
Mai-Dalton, 1998; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House & Shamir, 1993; Jacobson & House, 2001).

Indeed, being helping and showing greater concern with followers is probably one of the direct ways for a
leader to frame promotion focus and state ultimate expectations for contribution beyond the follower’s
job descriptions. These leaders, for instance, show their group mindedness by making more references to
the collective history, the collective identity and interest, and collective efficacy than non-charismatic and
non-transformational leaders do (Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994; Shamir et al., 1993). Since, the
leader’s discretionary behaviour is the basic premise of a great leader, that determine leader’s
effectiveness who sacrifice their personal time to solve problems of their followers in the expectation that
followers will reciprocate in the same way, to contribute to the effectiveness of a leader. Other, well
known and common, SOCBI behaviour include, for instance, a supervisor’s willingness to take on a big
part of the workload, to forgo the right to a stylish and spacious office, or to give up a day off in favour of
subordinates, accommodate employees’ requests for time off and share the personal property with
followers to help their work. However, the leader’s engagement in discretionary behaviour e.g. OCBI is
often seen as unconventional and extraordinary behaviour, that leader show in the expectation to
accomplish maximal goals. And it seems to play an important part in team development (Prapavessis &
Carron, 1992). As a result, the leader attributes and expects more from followers in reciprocation to being
more effective, as every leader’s ultimate concern is to be effective at the highest level. Moreover,
reciprocity norms prescribe that people showing extra-role behaviour expects more in response in a given
situation. That may operate as a behavioural rule to present and expect in ongoing relationships so that
helps in keeping them stable (Gouldner, 1960; Greenberg & Folger, 1983). Hence, in exchange, the leader
expects and value follower’s good citizenship because these behaviours do not only benefit the follower’s
colleagues, but they also indirectly contribute to the leader and the entire organizational effectiveness.
Therefore, follower’s OCB facilitate the leader’s tasks such as supporting the team, managing conflict,
mentoring and delegating (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). And improve the overall organizational
performance (Nielsen, Hrivnak, & Shaw, 2009). For example, when followers voluntarily assist each
other with a heavy workload and help them to facilitate their tasks or goals, they prevent the occurrence
of work-related problems, which facilitate the leaders in performing their tasks or goals. However, when
leaders want to get down to the very root of leadership effectiveness, one wants to know the effects of
leader’s discretionary behaviour on follower’s contribution beyond their job descriptions. Therefore,
leaders with high OCBI, thus clearly prescribe what kind of behaviour is expected and appreciated in light
of the common cause- as Mason Coolely stated and cited in Andrews, Biggs, & Seidel, 1996 “self-
sacrifice usually contains an unspoken demand for payment”. Hence, naturally, in the lens of social
exchange, norms of reciprocity, and regulatory focus theory, leaders with high discretionary behaviour
keep a higher level of the psychological contract (high expectations) with followers to get a higher level
of contribution for the leadership and organizational effectiveness. As Higgins and his colleagues have
found in several experiments that a promotion focus inclines individuals to approach matches to desired
ends.

However, on the other hand, the expectation violating behaviour as a motivation triggers a leader’s
cognitive arousal that causes a leader to reinterpret the violating behaviour, and the relationship with
followers. Therefore, leaders who invest more discretionary efforts, expect more from followers to
contribute for the greater good, consequently, we expect that leaders with high expectations will be more
sensitive to the lack of OCB from followers, resulting in increased levels of perception of contribution
breach. Indeed, research has revealed that followers who do not engage in OCB go against the leader’s
goals and expectations who might appraise this situation as an obstacle (Lazarus, 1991; Scherer, Shorr, &
Johnstone, 2001). Therefore, expectancy violation was found as a transgressor (Roloff & Cloven, 1994).
That, therefore, engenders the leader’s perception of contribution breach. Particularly, such follower’s
behaviours (e.g. less reciprocation and expectation violation from followers) results in less valuable
resources for the leader (Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003). Because a leader’s goals and expectations of
employee’s commitment toward leader are thwarted by follower’s lack of OCB that constitutes a negative
exchange, as a result, leaders perceive a breach of expected contribution against their inducements e.g.
leader’s OCBI. Therefore, a high level of discretionary behaviour may allow leaders to perceive more
contribution breaches as they experience a lack of OCB from followers. In contrast, supervisory-leaders
with low discretionary inducements (e.g. low level of leader’s OCBI) expects less OCB from followers
and, thus, are less likely to perceive contribution breach.
In sum, we expect that a leader’s higher level of extra-role behaviours (e.g. citizenship behaviour)
toward followers will intensify the positive influence of follower’s lack of OCB on leader’s perception of
contribution breach than lower.
Apart from the scientific fact, unfortunately, literature is still silent about the expectancy violation by
followers when followers get failed to reciprocate to contribute to their expected obligations by their
leader, in response to their discretionary behaviour.
Yet, as far as we know, there is no study that focuses on the question of whether leaders’ discretionary
behaviours e.g. OCBI may indeed lead to a leader’s own expectation breach. Also given the important
insights into leader-member relationship-enhancing factors for organizational practices, therefore, we
aimed to test the hypothesis that leaders with higher OCBI expect more contribution from followers than
leaders with lower OCBI, consequently leader’s regulatory focus and followers’ expectancy violation will
lead to the leaders’ perception of contribution breach. Thus, the leader’s level of OCBI moderates the
relationship between lack of OCB and the leader’s perception of contract breach in such a way that the
relationship will be strengthened with a higher leader’s OCBI than lower.
Theoretical framework
Supervisor’s level of OCBI

Lack of OCB Supervisor perception of contribution breach

Measurement of “Supervisor perception of contribution breach” published in Journal of

management.

1. In general, I have kept my obligations to my organization

2. I have honored the obligations/commitments I have made to my organization

3. I have delivered all the things I have committed to my organization when I was hired

4. I have fulfilled my obligations to my organization

We can modify it to supervisor rating as..

1. In general, This employee kept his/her obligations to the organization

2. This employee has honored the obligations/commitments he/she made to the organization

3. This employee delivered all the things he/she has committed to the organization when he/she was
hired

4. This employee fulfilled obligations to the organization

References
Andrews, R., Biggs, M., & Seidel, M. (Eds.). (1996). The Columbia world of quotations. Columbia
University Press.
Avolio, B. J., & Locke, E. E. (2002). Contrasting different philosophies of leader motivation: Altruism
versus egoism. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 169-191.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Collier Macmillan.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques.
Bettencourt, B. A., Dill, K. E., Greathouse, S. A., Charlton, K., & Mulholland, A. 1997. Evaluations of
ingroup and out group members: The role of category-based expectancy violation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 33: 244–275.
Burgoon, J. K. (1995). Cross-cultural and intercultural applications of expectancy violations theory.
Burgoon, J. K. 1993. Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12: 30–48.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and
application to immediacy behaviors. Communications Monographs, 55(1), 58-79.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hubbard, A. E. (2005). Cross-cultural and intercultural applications of expectancy
violations theory and interaction adaptation theory. Theorizing about intercultural
communication, 149-171.
Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Zhong, L. (2008). Reactions to psychological contract breach: A dual
perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial,
Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(5), 527-548.
Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. The Leadership
Quarterly, 9(4), 475-501.
Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1999). The model of followers' responses to self-sacrificial leadership: An
empirical test. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 397-421.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in
organizational settings. Academy of management review, 12(4), 637-647.
Cremer, D. D. (2002). Charismatic Leadership and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Matter of
Transforming Motives? 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(5), 997-1016.
De Cremer, D., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of
charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 858.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American sociological
review, 161-178.
Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups
and organizations. In Basic group processes (pp. 235-256). Springer, New York, NY.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American psychologist, 52(12), 1280.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1-46). Academic Press.
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001).
Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention
pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3-23.
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001).
Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention
pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3-23.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and
personality. American psychologist, 49(6), 493.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. H. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary
theories.