Leadership Styles and Group Organization

Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. (2007)

Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.496
Leadership styles and group

organizational citizenship behavior
across cultures
MARTIN C. EUWEMA1*, HEIN WENDT2 AND HETTY VAN EMMERIK3
1
Department of Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
2
Hay Group b.v., Zeist, The Netherlands
3
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Summary This study investigates (a) the effects of societal culture on group organizational citizenship
behavior (GOCB), and (b) the moderating role of culture on the relationship between directive
and supportive leadership and GOCB. Data were collected from 20 336 managers and 95 893
corresponding team members in 33 countries. Multi-level analysis was used to test the
hypotheses, and culture was operationalized using two dimensions of Hofstede (2001) and
GLOBE (2004): Individualism (IDV) and power distance (PD). There was no direct relation-
ship between these cultural dimensions and GOCB. Directive leadership had a negative
relation, and supportive leadership a positive relation with GOCB. Culture moderated
this relationship: Directive leadership was more negatively, and supportive behavior less
positively, related to GOCB in individualistic compared to collectivistic societies.
The moderating effects of societal PD were explained by societal IDV. Copyright # 2007
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
There is growing recognition in the organizational behavior literature for the relations between societal
culture, leadership, and cooperation in teams (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007). The aim of this article is
to contribute to our knowledge of these relations, by focusing on two questions: (a) what is the direct
relation between societal culture and the level of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in teams,
and (b) what is the moderating effect of societal culture on the relation between leadership and OCB in
teams?
With the increased attention to groups and teamwork in organizations, the relationship between OCB
and team performance has become increasingly important (Cummings & Worley, 2001; Van der Vegt,
Van de Vliert, & Oosterhof, 2003). Focusing on teams, citizenship behaviors need to be defined and
* Correspondence to: Martin C. Euwema, Department of Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, 3000
Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: Martin.Euwema@psy.kuleuven.be
Received 21 October 2004

Revised 9 October 2006
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 14 May 2007
M. C. EUWEMA ET AL.
investigated at the group level as well as the individual level (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Karam &
Kwantes, 2006; Naumann & Ehrhart, 2005; Schnake & Dumler, 2003).
Both individual and group organizational citizenship behaviors (GOCBs) are thought to be strongly
related to leadership. Many studies have demonstrated for example the positive impact of supportive
leadership on the deployment of (individual) OCB by subordinates (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002;
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bacharach, 2000). Ehrhart and Naumann (2004) also emphasize the
importance of leadership behaviors for the development of OCB norms and practices in groups. Few
studies so far have empirically investigated this relation (Pearce & Herbik, 2004). Investigating the
influence of leadership on OCB at the group level (referred to here as GOCB), therefore seems a natural
step to take (Naumann & Ehrhart, 2005).
Although the cultural context of OCB and GOCB has increasingly been recognized as highly
relevant, it has received little attention in empirical studies so far (Podsakoff et al., 2000). There are
some indications that the meaning of OCB and the antecedents of OCB vary across cultures (Gelfand
et al., 2007). The importance and functioning of groups and group processes on the other hand are at the
core of societal differences. Particularly, the literature on IDV and collectivism (IC) gives a central
place to the meaning of groups in everyday life, including the work place (Gelfand, Bhawuk, Nishii, &
Bechtold, 2004; Hofstede, 2001). Therefore, exploring the impact of societal culture on GOCB is filling
a gap in our current knowledge of organizational group processes.
Societal culture is related to, and includes, norms about leadership behavior, and leadership
effectiveness (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). The relation between leadership
behaviors and group processes such as GOCB, might also be moderated by societal cultural
differences. In this study we investigate the influence of societal culture on GOCB and its relationship
with leadership. Three questions will be addressed: (a) what is the effect of leadership on GOCB; (b)
does societal culture influence the level of GOCB, and (c) does societal culture moderate the
relationship between leadership and GOCB? These questions are explored using data collected by a
multinational consultancy firm in more than 60 countries around the world, with surveys among both
managers and their direct reports. The measurements do have some limitations, as will be explained in
the method section. The data however offer an excellent opportunity to explore and validate theoretical
notions developed with other instruments in national samples. We will first elaborate the concept of
GOCB, then discuss the relation between leadership and GOCB, followed by the impact of societal
culture on GOCB and the relation between leadership and GOCB.
GOCB
The classic definition of organizational citizenship refers to individual behavior, not directly or
explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, which promotes the effective functioning of the
organization (Organ, 1988). OCB has been studied extensively over the last 20 years (Organ,
Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000). The majority of OCB research has been
conducted at the individual level of analysis. Recently, several authors have shifted the focus from
individual OCB to OCB at the group level, using different terms, such as unit-level OCB, team
citizenship behavior or team OCB, or collective citizenship behavior (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004;
Karam & Kwantes, 2006; Koys, 2001; Pearce & Herbik, 2004; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie,
1997; Schnake & Dumler, 2003). Chen, Lam, Schaubroeck, and Naumann (2002) introduced GOCB.
This term will be used in our present study. According to Ehrhart and Naumann (2004), there is a lack in
understanding the conditions under which high levels of GOCB are likely to form. The aim of this study
is to explore two of those conditions: leadership style and societal culture.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND GOCB ACROSS CULTURES
Chen et al. (2002) have elaborated the construct of Group OCB (GOCB). They conceptualize GOCB
as a distinct group-level phenomenon concerning the extent to which the work group as a whole
engages in OCB within the team.1 Behaviors such as taking constructive initiatives and helping each
other are voluntary, but at the same time important to the success of the group. Salam, Cox, and Sims
(1996) argue that OCB is really interactive and ‘social’ in nature, and should therefore also be viewed
as an element of team culture. Recognizing this value, OCB research at the group or unit level of
analysis is beginning to accumulate (Ehrhart, 2004; Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Pearce & Herbik,
2004; Schnake & Dumler, 2003). Schnake and Dumler (2003) emphasize the need to study OCB
at group levels. They argue that team and organizational effectiveness typically depends on the
collective levels of OCB, or GOCB: ‘The OCB construct itself is a multi-level construct. . . .
Theoretically, it is OCB in the aggregate, and not individual instances of OCB, which impact
organizational effectiveness’ (p. 295), and they continue: ‘It is theorized, . . .that aggregate or
group-level OCB contributes to organizational effectiveness. . ..Other group-level phenomena which
may impact group-level OCB include group-cohesiveness, group norms, and leadership. . .’ (p. 296).
GOCB is therefore defined here as a group-level variable, and should be considered separate from
individual level models of OCB.
Antecedents of GOCB
Defined at the group level, GOCB is facilitated primarily by characteristics of the group and factors that
impinge on the group, for example, leadership. This is an important difference with models of
individual OCB. For example, in a recent study Bachrach, Powell, Collins, and Richey (2006)
demonstrated the effect of task structure (a group variable) on the level of OCB in working groups. At a
more general level, Chen et al. (2002) and Ehrhart and Naumann (2004) argued that GOCB is likely to
be the result of inter-individual and intra-group level characteristics, such as interdependence of team
members, perceived similarity with other group members, status of group members employing OCB,
and identification and attraction to the group. All these factors contribute to the development of norms
in relation to OCB in the group (Chen et al., 2002; Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004).
GOCB facilitates coordination among group members, and fosters group efficiency and efficacy
(George & Bettenhausen, 1990; George & Jones, 1997). GOCB is associated with group-cohesiveness,
and is related to pro-social and helping behaviors in groups (Naumann & Ehrhart, 2005; Salam et al.,
1996). Studies by Koys (2001), Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter (1990), and Podsakoff et al.
(1997), all support the positive relation between GOCB and performance at the team level. The level of
GOCB within a team, representing collective team behavior, is most likely influencing team
performance (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Schnake & Dumler, 2003).
Leadership and GOCB

OCB is strongly related to both, informal and formal leadership. In this study we concentrate on the
effects of formal leadership behavior on the group. In their extensive review, Podsakoff et al. (2000)
present results from meta-analytic studies of different leadership styles in relation with OCB.
Podsakoff’s review (2000) indicates that directive leadership is negatively related, and supportive
leadership is positively related to OCB. Organ et al. (2006) report also positive relations between
1
Chen, Lam, Naumann, and Schaubroeck (2005) later transferred this concept into group citizenship behavior, defined as the
behavior of the group towards other groups in the organization.
DOI: 10.1002/job
M. C. EUWEMA ET AL.
supportive leadership and different forms of OCB. In addition, transformational leadership (Podsakoff
et al., 2000), charismatic leadership (Deluga, 1995), and quality of leader–member exchange (Wayne
& Green, 1993) all promote OCB. Particularly transformational leadership has received a lot of
attention (Podsakoff et al., 2000). In this study we focus on directive and supportive leadership styles.
These styles might be seen as one of the most classical and parsimonious leadership models, a model
which has already been used in several cross-cultural studies.
Many leadership models differentiate two main types of leadership behaviors: task-oriented and
relationship-oriented behavior, also referred to as initiating structure and consideration (Judge, Piccolo,
& Ilies, 2004), or as directive and supportive leadership (Northouse, 2004). These two leadership
dimensions have received considerable attention in cross-cultural studies (Peterson & Hunt, 1997).
Dorfman (2004, p. 286) concludes: ‘findings from a number of cross-cultural studies have supported
the importance of the task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership dimensions that were
originally conceptualized in the United States’. Dorfman (2004, p. 287) further concludes: ‘in general,
cross-cultural studies support the importance of considerate leadership in increasing subordinates’
satisfaction with supervision’. Leadership theory has developed beyond the two dimensional model of
task and relationship-oriented behavior. This does not mean that using this model is outdated. Judge
et al. (2004) advocate to include initiating structure (directive) and consideration (supportive) as
leadership styles in contemporary research. This view is shared by other authors (Northouse, 2004;
Yukl, 2002). We therefore believe that the concepts of directive and supportive behavior are among the
most robust leadership concepts. They have been used in research (including cross-cultural research)
for over 30 years. These dimensions therefore offer a good starting point for exploring the effects of
leadership on group processes, or more specifically on GOCB across cultures.
Few studies have addressed the relation between leadership and GOCB (Ehrhart, 2004; Pearce &
Herbik, 2004). In one of these studies, Ehrhart (2004) reports strong relations between supportive
(called servant) leadership and GOCB. More general, the relevance of leader behaviors for many team
processes is evident (Yukl, 2002). West and Hirst (2005) for example, summarizing empirical support
on team leader research, show that both facilitative leadership and task leadership are important for
group effectiveness. Directive and supportive leadership are important correlates to team effectiveness,
productivity, and team learning (Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas, & Halpin, 2006).
Directive and supportive leadership

Directive leadership is usually defined as task-oriented behavior, with a strong tendency to control
discussions, dominate interactions, and personally direct task completion (Cruz, Henningson, & Smith,
1999). In addition, time management, pressure to realize targets, and close supervision on details are
seen as characteristic of this style (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992). In this study, we define directive leadership
as task-oriented behavior, with a strong focus on targets, close supervision, and control of subordinate
actions. Directive leadership seems to be negatively related to GOCB. Podsakoff et al. (2000) find in
their meta-analyses that leader specification of procedures, a form of directive leadership, is generally
not promoting OCB and even inhibiting helping behaviors. When managers are controlling strongly,
initiative by employees is easily seen as inappropriate, risky behavior, or even insubordination (Paine &
Organ, 2000). In line with these studies on OCB, Salam et al. (1996) report a negative direct impact of
directive (authoritarian) leadership on GOCB. Directive leader behavior puts the team members in a
dependent role, facilitating them to wait for the manager before acting, showing less initiative and
fewer extra activities. Studies on team communication also demonstrate the often negative effect of
directive leadership (Cruz et al., 1999). The overall conclusion is clearly that directive leadership is
negatively related to GOCB.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Supportive leadership has been defined and used since the 50s of the 20th century. Definitions
usually include sensitivity to team member needs (House, 1971). In this study supportive leadership
includes sensitivity to individual and group needs, care for group tensions, and focus on harmonic
working relations. In their meta-analysis, Podsakoff and colleagues (2000) report consistent positive
relations between supportive leadership and different aspects of OCB. This is in line with findings from
Organ et al. (2006). Looking more specifically at the team level, Chen et al. (2002) find a strong positive
relation between supportive leadership and GOCB. Supportive leadership creates a team climate in
which members feel empowered to act and collaborate with each other. Trust and support by the
manager helps team members to take initiative, reciprocate the behavior by supporting team members,
and overcome fears of criticism.
Hypothesis 1. Directive leadership is negatively related to GOCB.
Hypothesis 2. Supportive leadership is positively related to GOCB.
Culture and GOCB
Though recognized as highly relevant, surprisingly little attention has been given so far to the cultural
context of OCB (Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000). There are some indications that culture
influences the meaning of the construct of OCB. Farh, Earley, and Lin (1997) for example developed a
specific Chinese OCB scale. Civic virtue, altruism, and conscientiousness are present in both western
and Chinese OCB scales, whereas protecting company resources seems a typical Chinese form of OCB.
Paine and Organ (2000) argue that both the perception of OCB and the likelihood of demonstrating
OCB are influenced by cultural dimensions, such as IDV–collectivism and power distance (PD), and in
recent years the academic interest in the influence of culture on OCB is growing (Gelfand et al., 2007;
Karam & Kwantes, 2006).
Cross-cultural research has long been dominated by the constructs of IC. IC has been studied widely
in organizational research (Dickson, Den Hartog, & Mitchel, 2003). Different definitions,
operationalizations, and measurements of IC exist; underscoring the relevance and importance of
this cultural dimension (Gelfand et al., 2004; Oyserman, Coon & Kemmermeier, 2002). Gelfand, Erez
and Aycan (2007) conclude in their recent review that current cross-cultural research is focused too
much on IC, and future research needs to explore other constructs and cultural dimensions as well.
In this study we use two models dominating the field of cross-cultural organizational studies;
Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) work and the GLOBE project (House et al., 2004). Recognized as mile stone
projects, the pros and cons of both approaches are still under debate (Earley, 2006; Hofstede, 2006;
Javidan, House, Dorfman, Hanges, & Sully de Luque, 2006; Smith, 2006). We explore the effects of
two cultural dimensions which are present in both theoretical models, that is IC and PD. These
dimensions seem particularly relevant for the study of leadership in relation with GOCB. We decided
not to take an explorative approach, including all dimensions of Hofstede and GLOBE. Though one
might find arguments to relate each different dimension to group processes and leadership, we prefer a
parsimonious approach, dealing with these two dimensions. The most obvious culture dimension for
studying the importance of groups seems collectivism, and the most obvious culture variable for
hierarchy-related issues is PD. These two dimensions are not independent. In Hofstede’s study as well
as in the GLOBE project, IDVand PD are rather strongly related; more collectivistic societies also have
more PD. Therefore, we thought it relevant to include both dimensions in this study, to prevent biased
conclusions based on one cultural dimension (Smith, 2006). (An overview of the definitions of all
DOI: 10.1002/job
M. C. EUWEMA ET AL.
dimensions by Hofstede and GLOBE is available from the authors). Before exploring the effects of IC
and PD more in depth, we briefly discuss the Hofstede and GLOBE models here, as we use the country
level data collected by Hofstede (2001) and GLOBE (House et al., 2004).
Hofstede collected his data mostly in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Peterson (2003) concludes that
these data will continue to be controversial, given the measures used, given that the data collection took
place in one company only, and the time since data collection. Hofstede (2001) argues that national
cultures are stable over time, though even Hofstede recognizes cultural changes. The 2001 scores of
Hofstede were cross-validated with other world wide databases and theories such as Schwartz (1994),
Trompenaars (1993), and Inglehart (1997). Though criticized, Hofstede’s model is still recognized as
highly influential in the field of cross-cultural leadership (Peterson, 2003, 2004; Smith, 2006). IC is
probably the most documented and recognized dimension of Hofstede (Smith et al., 2002; Triandis,
2001). In addition to IC, PD is widely recognized as a cultural dimension with important implications
for leadership, and group processes (Hiller, Day, & Vance, 2006; Hofstede, 2001).
In the GLOBE study nine cultural dimensions are distinguished, based on an extensive data
collection in 64 countries. As Peterson (2004, p. 641) states: ‘The project seeks to refine Hofstede’s
societal culture dimensions and link the projects’ new measures to organizational culture and
leadership’. The GLOBE project offers an important contribution to our understanding of cultural
influences on leadership and organizational practices. A limitation of the GLOBE study however is that
both leadership and organizational practices are primarily assessed with self reported surveys among
managers, asking managers what is effective in their society (Earley, 2006; Peterson, 2004; Smith,
2006). A more reliable picture of actual leader behavior and descriptive group practices might be
received when subordinates are asked to describe the actual behavior of their managers.
IC is generally defined as the degree to which people in a country prefer to act as individuals rather
than as members of groups. As Oyserman et al. (2002, p. 5) summarizes: ‘These definitions all
conceptualize IDV as a worldview that centralizes the personal—personal goals, personal uniqueness,
and personal control, and peripheralizes the social’. In collectivist cultures individuals define their
needs more in terms of relations within groups and sacrifice personal needs for the sake of the group. IC
is in the GLOBE project divided into two (sub) dimensions, institutional and in-group collectivism
(IGC). IGC shows most commonalities with Hofstede’s IC (Smith, 2006). The GLOBE project defines
IGC as ‘the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations
or families’ (House et al., 2004, p. 12).
Given the central place of group values, IC is relevant to relate to GOCB. A number of studies have
shown that people in collectivistic cultures tend to have a stronger attachment to their organizations and
tend to subordinate their individual goals to group goals, compared with employees in individualistic
cultures (Jung & Avolio, 1999; Triandis, 1995). Paine and Organ (2000) therefore expect a positive
relation between collectivism and OCB. This corresponds with findings by Moorman and Blakely
(1995). Gelfand et al. (2004, p. 456) conclude, based on their literature review, that ‘all in all, these
findings illustrate that there is an emphasis on cooperative team processes in collectivistic cultures’.
Based on these theoretical and empirical arguments we expect a negative relation between IDV at
societal level, and GOCB in organizations within these societies.
PD is defined as ‘the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations
within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally’ (Hofstede, 2001, p. 98). The
GLOBE definition is almost identical: ‘the degree to which members of an organization of society
expect and agree that power should be shared unequally’ (Carl, Gupta, & Javidan, 2004; p. 517).
Hofstede (2001) emphasizes PD as an important factor influencing team relationships. In societies with
high PD, organizations are more centrally organized, team organization is less common, and
employees are not expected to take initiative, or participate in decision making. Hiller et al. (2006)
studied the effects of PD on team relations, and demonstrate that shared leadership occurs more under
DOI: 10.1002/job
low PD conditions. Shared leadership in the team can be seen as an expression of GOCB, in which team
members take responsibility for the group processes. As Carl et al. (2004, p. 560) conclude: ‘. . .people
in these societies do not expect the leaders to allow for participation or to be accountable for results’.
This might influence GOCB, as team members in high PD cultures are less encouraged to take
initiative, are more expected to be obedient and are less independent, therefore will be acting within
their formal role. Carl et al. (2004, p. 599) see here a possible limitation to innovation: ‘One element of
high PD is clearly dysfunctional as it preempts the society from questioning, learning, and adapting as
there is little opportunity for debate and voicing of divergent views. Asking questions may be
interpreted or regarded as criticizing and blaming, and therefore may be prohibited’. GOCB as typical
extra-role behavior therefore also might be inhibited in cultures with high PD.
Hypothesis 3. Societal culture is related to GOCB, more specifically GOCB will be higher in (a)
more collectivistic societies, (b) societies with lower PD.
Culture, leadership, and GOCB

Previously, we argued that directive leadership has a negative relation with GOCB (H1), whereas
supportive leadership has a positive relation with GOCB (H2). We now explore the possible moderating
role of culture on this relationship. So far, we are not aware of empirical studies addressing this
moderating role. There is ample evidence however for the impact of culture on leadership behaviors
and leadership effectiveness (Dorfman, 2004; House et al., 2004). Also, culture moderates the
relationship between leadership and different employees’ outcomes, such as satisfaction and turnover,
as well as work unit productivity (Gelfand et al., 2007). Therefore, we presume culture also moderates
the relation between leadership and GOCB.
The moderating role of culture on the relation between leadership and group behavior can work
through different processes. First, some cultures might perceive and evaluate leadership and its effects
as more important than other cultures. Dorfman (2004) argues that in the US the role of leadership is
overvalued, and most likely is seen as more important than in other societies. This might imply that in
the US, and possibly in other cultures where leadership is similarly highly valued, the impact of leader
behavior on team processes is stronger, than in cultures that do focus less on the importance of leaders.
When employees are strongly oriented towards leader behavior, the evaluation of this behavior will
influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors more than it will foremployees who are not so much
focused on their leader. This holds also for the development of group norms, and group behaviors. In
general one might expect that cultural norms emphasizing team efforts, might moderate the influence of
leadership behaviors. Such norms are represented in IC. If the societal norm is more in favor of team
work, one might expect that the specific leadership behaviors are relatively less important in facilitating
GOCB. Employees act according to the norm, even when the managers’ behavior is not facilitating this
behavior.
In individualistic cultures, employees will regulate their investments more in relation to their direct
benefits. In these cultures, employees are supposed to act as ‘economic men’, whereas in collectivist
cultures they are more likely to act in the interest of their in-group rather than their self-interest
(Hofstede, 2001, p. 244). In individualistic cultures, employees focus probably more on the leader. If
the leader invests in the individual employee, and in the team, paying attention to the team climate and
individual needs, helping and supporting team members, employees will feel rewarded. In effect, they
will reciprocate towards other team members in the same way. The implication is that GOCB in
individualistic cultures is more related to managerial directive or supportive behavior, than in
collectivistic cultures.
DOI: 10.1002/job
M. C. EUWEMA ET AL.
A second process through which culture might moderate is the evaluation of the leader behavior in
line with specific cultural norms (House et al., 2004). If a leader acts as expected from a leader, this
behavior will evoke more positive responses by team members, including GOCB behaviors. We
explore this for directive and supportive leadership.
Directive behavior is more accepted in collectivistic societies, and particularly—almost by
definition—in societies with high PD, compared with individualistic or low PD societies. In high PD
societies directive leadership is seen more as appropriate and effective behavior (2004), and the same is
true for collectivistic societies (Gelfand et al., 2004; Hofstede, 2001). Directive behavior is also used
considerably more in collectivistic societies, and societies with high PD (Wendt, Euwema, & Van de
Vliert, 2003). This is not surprising, as collectivism and high PD do correlate positively (Hofstede,
2001). When directive leader behavior is accepted and seen as effective, the expected negative effects
on team processes, such as GOCB, might be less prevalent. Employees in individualistic cultures might
not evaluate directive behavior as effective, nor personally stimulating, and therefore reduce their own
efforts and investments to achieve team goals. In other words, exhibit less GOCB. Even more so, in low
PD societies, directive leadership might be evaluated as dominating, and limiting learning and own
initiatives by employees.
In conclusion, we expect a moderating role of IC and PD on the relationship between leadership and
GOCB.
Hypothesis 4a. The negative relation between directive leadership and GOCB is stronger in
individualistic societies.
Hypothesis 4b. The negative relation between directive leadership and GOCB is stronger in societies
with low PD.
Hypothesis 5a. The positive relation between supportive leadership and GOCB is stronger in
individualistic societies.
Hypothesis 5b. The positive relation between supportive leadership and GOCB is stronger in
societies with low power distance.
Method
Population and sample
This study used data from the database of a worldwide operating consulting firm (Hay Group). The
original dataset contains multi-actor data of managers and their subordinates within 473 organizations
for a wide range of industries and services, both public and private. Data collection was part of the
assessment of management training programs within each of the organizations and this guaranteed a
response rate of approximately 100 per cent. For the present study we selected only those countries that
were rated by the Hofstede (2001) and the GLOBE (House et al., 2004) studies, and all respondents
with missing data were excluded. After these selections, the information concerning the leadership
styles of 20 336 managers as rated by 95 893 of their direct reports (the team members) was available.
This implies an average of five assessments of leadership styles by team members directly supervised
by each manager in this study. For the measurement of GOCB we aggregated scores from each manager
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 1. Sample size and mean scores on the main variables per country
# of managers # team members Directive leadership Supportive leadership GOCB
Argentina 31 128 3.24 4.33 4.94

Australia 1834 9164 2.83 3.91 4.69
Brazil 369 1863 3.60 4.10 4.52
Canada 157 918 2.76 4.03 5.00
China 159 728 3.21 3.89 4.53
Colombia 61 323 3.67 3.96 4.82
Denmark 8 38 3.15 3.24 4.61
France 255 1327 3.21 3.74 4.41
Germany 124 621 2.79 3.86 4.71
Greece 70 231 3.50 3.95 4.59
Hong Kong 234 923 3.37 3.81 4.39
India 72 454 3.06 4.12 4.73
Indonesia 108 312 3.73 3.99 4.62
Ireland 340 1147 2.85 3.87 4.45
Italy 36 214 2.99 3.99 4.52
Japan 146 839 2.98 3.94 4.54
Malaysia 1196 3506 3.43 3.97 4.28
Mexico 223 957 3.46 3.92 4.72
Netherlands 569 1987 2.94 3.73 4.65
New Zealand 251 1387 2.98 3.88 4.66
Philippines 224 1090 3.01 3.78 4.66
Qatar 15 34 3.60 3.68 4.47
Singapore 384 1286 3.17 3.89 4.43
South Africa 38 146 3.04 4.12 4.61
South Korea 23 129 3.27 4.13 4.56
Spain 540 2494 3.61 4.20 4.65
Sweden 14 90 2.65 3.99 4.95
Taiwan 38 172 3.32 4.21 4.53
Thailand 33 93 3.69 4.30 4.34
Turkey 29 125 3.76 4.12 4.47
UK 1952 8791 2.74 3.97 4.74
US 10 703 54 026 2.81 4.00 4.83
Venezuela 100 380 3.65 4.39 5.01
Total 20 336 95 893
and his/her team members (see also data analysis). Seventy percent of these managers were male and
30 per cent female. Average age of the participating managers was 41.5 years, and seniority differs over
all levels of management. The final dataset used in the present study included 33 countries. The number
of managers in each country varied largely (see Table 1).2 Table 1 presents the number of managers and
the number of team members that rated the managers per country. This table also shows the means for
leadership styles and GOCB per country.
2
In the present study we used multilevel analyses, which controls for large differences in sample size at country level (Hox, 2002).
However, the minimum number of cases at the country level is under discussion (Maas & Hox, 2001; Muthen, 2005). Therefore,
as an extra check, we also ran the analyses without countries with less than 100 measurement points. The results remained the
same.
DOI: 10.1002/job
M. C. EUWEMA ET AL.
Measurements
GOCB
GOCB was measured with five items that were developed by the consultancy firm especially for this
study. Each item consists of a six-point scale, ranging from A to F, with contrasting statements on the
poles of the scale. The first item is shown with both alternatives: ‘The people in my workgroup
are always willing to provide help in getting the work done’ (A), versus ‘The people in my workgroup
are seldom willing to provide help in getting the work done’ (F). The other items, constructed in the
same bi-polar way, are: ’People in my work group. . ..(2) ‘are willing to put in extra time on the job’; (3)
‘will usually go out of their way to make the work group successful’; (4) ‘.are willing to make sacrifices
to get the job done; (5) ‘will gladly take on other’s responsibilities in an emergency’. Because the items
were developed by the consultancy firm, they do not directly align with the multidimensional measures
of OCB used in other studies (Organ et al., 2006). Instead, the items form a general measure of GOCB
that includes items that are consistent with the interpersonal facilitation dimension (items 1 and 5) and
the job dedication dimension (items 2, 3, and 4) of Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s (1996) measure of
contextual performance. Organ (1997) suggests that contextual performance captures many of the
helping and cooperating elements of OCB, such as volunteering to carry out task activities that are not
formally part of the job; persisting with extra enthusiasm when necessary to complete own task
activities successfully, and helping and cooperating with others (Van Scotter, Motowidlo, & Cross,
2000).
Cronbach’s alpha of the GOCB scale was .83. The alpha coefficients varied across countries, as can
be expected, however only in three countries the alpha was below .70. These countries were excluded,
also based on the analysis mentioned in note 2 (where we repeated the analysis with countries where we
had at least 100 cases).
Note that the content of the GOCB items refer to behaviors at the group level. According to Ehrhart
and Naumann (2004) there are no clear guidelines nor consensus on the best way of measuring OCB at
the group level. We followed the suggestion by Kozlowski and Klein (2000) to employ measures
consistent with the conceptualization of the construct. GOCB is defined as a group phenomenon, and
therefore should preferably be measured at that level. Furthermore, the items were descriptive more
than evaluative. According to Klein, Conn, Smith, and Sorra (2001) the use of group descriptive items
increases within-group agreement. The alternative would be, to use individual or self-referenced items,
and aggregate those to the team level. Measuring at the group level offers a more direct measure of the
behavior in the group as a whole. When team members show an acceptable level of agreement on
GOCB this indeed is a valid measure. A well established procedure to assess the consistency within
groups is the intraclass correlation coefficient (Peterson & Castro, 2006). The ICC for GOCB was .69,
which is acceptable indeed (Bliese, 2000).
Directive and supportive leadership

The two leadership styles were measured with the original scales of Litwin and Stringer (1968),
documented in Hay/McBer (2000). Exploratory factor analysis of these items resulted in two factors
(see Table 2).
Directive leadership was measured with 7 items (a ¼ .80), and also supportive leadership was
measured with 7 items (a ¼ .87). For the directive scale there were nine countries with an alpha
reliability coefficient less than .7. These countries were excluded in our previously discussed analysis
performed on the countries with a substantial sample size, except Spain (n ¼ 540), with an alpha of .68.
For the supportive scale, alphas for all countries were above .7. The items of both scales were measured
using bi-polar (six-point) scales, with two opposing responses on both ends in the same format as
GOCB (see Table 2 for the items of both styles). Since this is a measurement of leadership style, the
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 2. Results of explorative factor analysis of leadership items

Factor 1 Factor 2
Directive leadership (a ¼ .80)

Expects employees to follow his/her instructions precisely 0.26 0.67
Motivates employees by letting them know what will happen to them if 0.04 0.57
their work is unsatisfactory
Requires employees to submit detailed reports of their activities 0.08 0.69
Makes most decisions for employees 0.26 0.68
Supervises employees very closely 0.14 0.76
Supervisor has to lay out goals and guidelines, otherwise subordinates 0.11 0.68
will be passive and get nothing accomplished
Expects employees to carry out instructions immediately 0.14 0.66
Supportive leadership (a ¼ .87)
Works hard to ease tensions whenever they arise in work group 0.69 0.02
Encourages employees to talk to him/her about personal problems 0.72 0.07
Devotes a great deal of time to employees’ job security and fringe benefits 0.68 0.06
Works to develop close personal relationships with employees 0.77 0.05
Relies on what he/she learns through personal contact with employees to 0.79 0.07
use each person’s talent most effectively
Frequently demonstrates concern for employees 0.79 0.21
‘Believes subordinates’ feelings are as important as the task at hand 0.71 0.27
Eigenvalue 4.59 2.73
% variance explained 32.78 19.47
scores from the managers themselves were omitted, and only the scores of the employees were used, to
avoid self-serving biases. The ICC for directive leadership was .70, and for supportive leadership .63,
both acceptable scores.
Language issues are always a major concern in cross-cultural studies. Accordingly, the items were all
translated from English into the languages of the participating countries by native speakers, using the
so-called application mode of translation (Van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2004). With this method, it is
implicitly assumed that the underlying construct is appropriate for each cultural group and that a
simple, straightforward translation will suffice to get an instrument that adequately measures the same
construct in the target group. The translators (consultants) were trained in the concepts, and familiar
with the societies’ culture, which should improve the chance that their translations do represent the
concepts indeed.
Measurement equivalence
In cross-national studies, measurement equivalence is both important and difficult to achieve. There
are different techniques to check for measurement equivalence (Peterson, et al., 1995; Scandura,
Williams, & Hamilton, 2001; Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). A structural analysis was conducted to
prove that the instruments have a stable structure over cultures. This procedure is recommended by
several authors (Peterson et al., 1995; Reise, Widaman, & Pugh, 1993; Scandura et al., 2001). We used
Confirmatory Factor Analysis to verify that the leadership model is equivalent across countries. We
used AMOS 7 (Arbuckle, 2006) to contrast the two leadership styles in a multi-group analysis.
The instrument was designed in the US, and therefore we contrasted the US data with countries
where we had at least 100 cases (Byrne, 2001). The goal of this test is to check if the same factor model
DOI: 10.1002/job
M. C. EUWEMA ET AL.
holds for both populations, by constraining parameters to be equal for the groups. A model where the
structure was constrained to be equal could meet the threshold; we found evidence for equivalence,
indicating that the construct has the same meaning in both countries (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The
average RMSEA was .053, CFI .902, and NFI .899, which is acceptable. Arbuckle (2006) indicates an
RMSEA lower than .08 is acceptable, and Browne and Cudeck (1993) even use as a rule of thumb an
RMSEA lower that .1. The weakest RMSEA was in a multi-group analysis with US and Malaysia: .060
(CFI .870, NFI .867).
The multi-group factor analysis for GOCB also gave evidence that we can use and can compare
results from this instrument across cultures. The average RMSEA was .044, CFI .975, and NFI .974.
Only the multi-group model with Malaysia again was relatively poor, with an RMSEA .090, CFI .905,
and NFI .904.3 Overall, we conclude that almost all countries meet the criteria for measurement
equivalence. Malaysia has the weakest score in this respect, but is still acceptable for the current
research purposes, as we analyze cultural dimensions, and not individual countries.
Cultural dimensions
Two types of operationalization of the cultural dimensions were used; Hofstede’s (2001) and GLOBE
(House et al., 2004). Smith (2006, p. 917), commenting on the debate between Hofstede and the
GLOBE researchers, concludes ‘if our focus is upon the most basic and normative aspects of culture,
then the Hofstede and GLOBE procedures are equally appropriate’. We used the original country
means for individualism (IDV) and the PD index (PDI), reported by Hofstede (2001), and IGC and PD,
as reported by House et al. (2004). GLOBE offers dimension scores for values (‘should be’) and
practices (‘as is’). In this study the practices are used, as these reflect more the theoretical approach of
Hofstede (2001), aiming to describe actual cultural differences (Hofstede, 2006; Smith, 2006).
Data analysis
To test our hypotheses, multi-level analysis is most appropriate, given the different levels in this study:
team level and country level (Bliese & Jex, 1999; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). At team level (that is
level 1), leadership styles (aggregated scores from the team members) and GOCB (aggregated scores
from manager and his/her team members) were measured. At the country level (that is level 2),
Hofstede’s and GLOBE dimension scores were used. Data analysis was performed using HLM 6.0
(Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2005).
Results
Table 3 presents descriptive statistics and correlations for the measures at team level. Directive and
supportive leadership styleS are negatively associated with each other (r ¼ .22). As expected, GOCB
3
We skipped a check for measurement invariance using item response theory techniques (Scandura et al., 2001), because the
scales of our instruments are six point-scales, and in this case item response theory and structural equation modeling are
equivalent (Glöckner-Rist & Hoijting, 2003).
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables at team level
Mean SD 1 2
1 GOCB 4.72 0.54

2 Directive leadership 2.94 0.63 .25
3 Supportive leadership 3.97 0.67 .29 .22
Notes: N ¼ 20.336 for the measures at team level.

p < .01.
is negatively related with directive leadership behavior (r ¼ .25) and positively related with
supportive behavior (r ¼ .29).
Table 4 presents the correlations among the study variables at country level. There are no
significant correlations between GOCB and the cultural dimensions. Directive leadership is
related with all four cultural dimensions, and supportive leadership is related with IGC and
GLOBE’s PD. Further, there is a conspicuously high negative association between Hofstede’s IDV
and Hofstede’s PD (r ¼ .88, p < .01). This is paralleled by the high correlation of GLOBE’s IGC and
GLOBE’s PD (r ¼ .66, p < .01). These correlations are in line with the reported strong correlation
between IC and PD by Hofstede (2001). IDVand PD are by no means independent cultural dimensions;
individualistic societies tend to have lower PD, and collectivistic societies tend to have high PD. This
has implications for our hypothesis testing as well. Please note that Hofstede’s IDV is highly negatively
correlated with the GLOBE IGC (r ¼ .91), comparable with the correlation reported by Gelfand et al.
(2004).
Hypotheses testing
Analysis of variance for GOCB by country showed that 9 per cent of the variance is at country level
( p < .001); that is, 9 per cent of the variance is explained by the grouping structure in the population,
and therefore, multi-level analysis is required. At the managerial or team level (i.e., level 1), the
directive and supportive leadership styles and GOCB were used. At the country level (i.e., level 2), the
measures of Hofstede and GLOBE were used. To test the hypotheses, we first centered the level 2
variables (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998) and built interaction terms (see Aiken & West, 1991). The
Table 4. Correlations among the study variables at country level

1 2 3 4 5 6
1 GOCB
2 Directive leadership .32
3 Supportive leadership .25 .28
4 Hofstede’s IDV .28 .76 .32
5 Hofstede’s PD .32 .63 .23 .77
6 GLOBE’s IGC .28 .66 .42 .82 .82
7 GLOBE’s PD .04 .41 .73 .47 .46 .66
Notes: N ¼ 33 for measures at country level. The team level measures are aggregated at the country level.

p < 0.05; p <0.01.
DOI: 10.1002/job
M. C. EUWEMA ET AL.
Table 5. Multi-level estimates for models predicting GOCB with Hofstede’s measures
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
g g g
Fixed part
Intercept 4.624 4.653 4.634
Directive leadership .070 .047
Supportive leadership .138 .150
Hofstede’s IDV (H-IC) .003 .025
Hofstede’s PD (H-PD) .039 .032
H-IC directive leadership .025
H-IC supportive leadership .011
H-PD directive leadership .007
H-PD supportive leadership .004
Random part
Variance cons (SE) .029 .022 .021
Variance residual (SE) .264 .237 .237
Log likelihood 30 757.100 28 554.000 28 521.070
Notes: After the estimation of the intercept-only model (i.e., Model 1), the variables were entered in two steps. First, the main
effects were entered. Next, the interaction terms were included. The level 1 variables were grand mean centered (Raudenbush &
Bryk, 2002).

p < 0.01.
predicted two-way interaction effects were then tested in two separate analyses for the Hofstede and
GLOBE dimensions. After the estimation of the empty model, variables were entered in two steps.
First, the main effects were entered. Next, the interaction terms were included. The results of the two
analyses are presented in Tables 5 and 6.
Table 6. Multi-level estimates for models predicting GOCB with the GLOBE measures
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
g g g
Fixed part
Intercept 4.624 4.653 4.640
Directive leadership .070 .056
Supportive leadership .138 .148
GLOBE’s IGC (G-IGC) .048 .056
GLOBE’s PD (G-PD) .015 .014
G-IGC directive leadership .028
G-IGC supportive leadership .022
G-PD directive leadership .012
G-PD supportive leadership .010
Random part
Variance cons (SE) .029 .023 .022
Variance Residual (SE) .264 .237 .237
Log likelihood 30 757.100 28 554.290 28 526.880
Notes: After the estimation of the intercept-only model (i.e., Model 1), the variables were entered in two steps. First, the main
effects were entered. Next, the interaction terms were included. The level 1 variables were grand mean centered (Raudenbush &
Bryk, 2002).

p < 0.01.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Leadership styles and GOCB
We expected a negative relation between directive leadership and GOCB (H1), and a positive relation
for supportive leadership and GOCB (H2), and the correlations in Table 2 confirm this. Model 2 in
Table 5 shows the results of the multi-level analysis. Directive leadership has a negative relation with
GOCB (g ¼ .070, SE ¼ .004, p < .01), and supportive leadership has a positive relation with GOCB
(g ¼ .138, SE ¼ .004, p < .01), offering support for both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2.
Cultural dimensions and GOCB

The relationships between IC, PD, and GOCB were separately estimated for the Hofstede and the
GLOBE dimensions. As can be seen from Table 5 Model 2 (Hofstede), and Table 6 Model 2 (GLOBE)
neither IC nor PD is associated with GOCB. Consequently, there is no support for our third hypothesis.
Moderating effects of culture on the relationship between leadership and GOCB
Next, our hypotheses four and five predicted a moderating effect of IC and PD on the relation between
directive and supportive leadership and GOCB. The results for the Hofstede dimensions are presented
in Table 5, Model 3. The results for the GLOBE dimensions are presented in Table 6, Model 3. The
significant interaction for directive behavior is plotted in Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows the moderating role of Hofstede’s IDV–collectivism on the relationship between
directive leadership and GOCB. In collectivistic countries, directive leadership hardly influences the
extent of GOCB, whereas in individualistic countries, more directive leadership signifies a strong
decrease in GOCB (Table 5, Model 3: g ¼ .025, SE ¼ .003, p < .01). This moderating role is also
found for GLOBE’s IGC (Table 6, Model 3: g ¼ .028, SE ¼ .003, p < .01). The results are in line with
our expectation in hypothesis 4a. We expected also that societal PD moderates the relation between
directive behavior and GOCB (H4b). We do not find support for this moderating effect (g ¼ .007, n.s.;
and g ¼ .012, n.s., respectively). It should be noticed however, that in this analysis both dimensions,
IC and PD, are entered simultaneously. In this combination with IC, PD does not have an additional
explaining value. When analyzed separately, PD does have a significant moderating effect, as expected.
4.8
4.7
GOCB
4.6
4.5
4.4
Low High
Directive
Collectivistic Individualistic
Figure 1. Moderating role of Hofstede’s IDV on the relationship between directive leadership and GOCB
DOI: 10.1002/job
M. C. EUWEMA ET AL.
These two cultural dimensions, IC and PD, can however not be seen as independent. Consequences are
further elaborated in our discussion.
Hypotheses 5a and 5b predict a moderating effect of IC and PD on supportive behavior. As Table 5
shows there is no support for these hypotheses based on Hofstede’s dimensions (H-IC: g ¼ .011, n.s.;
H-PD: g ¼ .011, n.s.). We do find a small moderating effect for GLOBE’s IGC (g ¼ .022, SE ¼ .004,
p<.01). The relation between supportive leadership and GOCB is slightly stronger in collectivistic
societies. This is not in line with our Hypothesis 5a. GLOBE’s PD does not moderate the relation
between supportive behavior and GOCB ((g ¼ .010, n.s.). We conclude there is no support for these
hypotheses.
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large scale empirical study that focuses on GOCB in an
international context. Several authors emphasize both the need to study OCB at group or team level
(Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Schnake & Dumler, 2003) and to relate OCB to culture (Gelfand et al.,
2007; Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000). OCBs have been studied mostly at the individual level,
showing the relevance for organizational outcomes, including productivity and well being (Organ et al.,
2006). With an increasing focus on teamwork in current organizations, the importance of OCB at unit
or team level is growing, and there is clearly a need to relate our knowledge at individual levels, to
group phenomena. GOCB might offer a bridge between these two domains (Chen et al., 2002; Ehrhart
& Naumann, 2004; Schnake and Dumler, 2003). A survey assessing both managerial behavior and
GOCB as perceived by a large sample of managers and their subordinates from 33 countries across the
world shows the moderating role of culture on the relationship between managerial behavior and
GOCB, as well as the negative relation between directive leadership and GOCB, and a positive relation
between supportive leadership and GOCB.
Culture and GOCB

A first surprising result of our study is that there appears no direct relationship between GOCB in
organizations and cultural dimensions at the societal level. We expected to find relations between
arguably the two most relevant cultural dimensions, IC and PD, and the level of GOCB. Evidently, the
direct influence of societal cultural differences on GOCB can be neglected. Several authors (e.g.
Gelfand et al., 2004) emphasize the group orientation at work in collectivist cultures, whereas
individualistic cultures almost by definition emphasize the importance of the individual employee. This
clearly is not reflected in differences in GOCB. Several explanations are possible.
First, several cultural biases and methodological limitations might play a role. For example, the
meaning of the construct of GOCB differs between cultures (Gelfand et al., 2007; Organ et al., 2006).
We measured GOCB with a short, five item scale. This does not permit differentiating between
important dimensions of OCB, such as helping behaviors, or working overtime. These elements
though, can vary across cultures. Further studies therefore require a more differentiated measurement
of GOCB.
A second explanation might be that GOCB has different causes in different cultures. For example,
whereas GOCB in collectivist cultures is facilitated by the cultural group orientation, it might be
inhibited by a lower commitment to the organization as a whole (Hofstede, 2001). These different
DOI: 10.1002/job
processes balance each other, with the result we find in the present study. A final methodological
explanation might be that there is limited variance in GOCB in our study. The mean score worldwide of
4.7 on a scale from 1 to 6. This implies a high level of GOCB worldwide, together with a SD of 0.54,
results might be partly explained by the method used.
Clearly, more work needs to be done to compare in depth team processes in different cultures, and to
better understand which processes facilitate optimal group functioning in differing cultural settings. A
further analysis of company policies, team tasks, team structure, and team composition (West,
Tjosvold, & Smith, 2005), might clarify the overall lack of direct relations between societal cultural
differences and GOCB.
Culture, leadership, and GOCB
The core idea of this paper was to explore the moderating role of culture on the relationship between
directive and supportive leadership and GOCB. The expected negative relation between directive
leadership and GOCB and positive relationship between supportive leadership and GOCB were found.
The relation between supportive leadership and GOCB seems stronger worldwide. In line with
expectations, culture does moderate this relation. Interestingly, this effect is stronger for directive
leadership, than for supportive leadership.
The effects of directive leadership were more negative in individualistic cultures, whereas the
positive relationship between supportive leadership and GOCB was only slightly moderated. This
suggests that the positive effect of supportive leadership on group phenomena is less culturally bound.
These results are in line with findings from the GLOBE project (Den Hartog, House, Hanges,
Ruiz-Quintanilla, & Dorfman, 1999), in which inspirational and team oriented attributes are seen as
important worldwide for effective leaders, while domineering, formal, and willful characteristics vary
widely in their relevance across cultures. Our results are also in line with, and largely extend the
findings by Dorfman, Howell, Hibino, Lee, Tate, and Bautista (1997, p. 262) from their five-country
study on leadership. They conclude that ‘three behaviors (leader supportiveness, contingent reward,
and charismatic) showed universally positive impacts in all five cultures; and three leader behaviors
(participative, directive, and contingent punishment) had positive impact in only two cultures’. The
present study offers further support for the idea that some leadership behaviors are indeed more
universal in their effects, while the effects of other styles are strongly moderated by culture (Gelfand
et al., 2007).
IDV and PD
IDV or IGC is often considered as the most evident and important cultural distinction, and researchers
might be focusing too much on this dimension (Gelfand et al., 2007). Our study underscores the
importance of IC, as IC shows a clear impact on the relation between leadership and GOCB. This is
true, for both ways of testing, using Hofstede’s and GLOBE’s indicators for IC. The GLOBE study
differentiates between IGC and institutional collectivism. We therefore did the same analyses also for
institutional collectivism, with the same effects as IGC. We started this study expecting PD to have a
moderating effect as well. When we analyzed the influence of PD as the only cultural dimension,
significant effects indeed appeared. However, PD is strongly related with collectivism; societies with
high IDV also have a relatively low PD and vice versa. This correlation has implications for many
studies, as there might now be a tendency to study effects of different cultural dimensions separately.
Claims for example of the effect of PD, might be overstated, and we advocate the use of multiple
DOI: 10.1002/job
M. C. EUWEMA ET AL.
dimensions in further research. This corresponds with comments on the problems of multicollinearity
by Smith (2006) for both Hofstede and GLOBE dimensions. In the recent debate on the values of the
Hofstede and GLOBE models, an important issue is the usefulness of many different cultural
dimensions. In relation with leadership and group processes, one might indeed wonder, what the use is
of differentiating theoretically these dimensions, when we do find such strong relations.
Implications for management
The outcomes of this study are relevant for management education, adding extra flavors to the adagio:
think globally, act locally. Thinking globally implies understanding cultural differences, as well as
seeing commonalities. And these commonalities are indeed substantial. Particularly, the stereotypical
image that helping behaviors in teams are more prevalent in collectivistic societies, needs to be
reconsidered. Moreover, managers can strongly contribute to GOCB through supportive behavior, and
this holds true globally. The moderating effects of culture are limited indeed. Managers should not
forget that consideration is indeed the key element in their work. Particularly in individualistic societies
this element might be under pressure, due to rapid career moves, constantly changing organizational
environments, and working teams. Consideration was addressed as a ‘ forgotten’ style in a recent
publication by Judge et al. (2004). We agree with these authors that supportive leadership should have a
central place in management training. We might add that also in selection of management trainees,
personality and competencies for expressing consideration deserve more attention.
Traditionally, western management models are primarily focused on management of individuals.
New organizational structures emphasize team work, which depends––among other elements—on
GOCB. Creating awareness of the concept of GOCB, and how to promote GOCB, is an area for
management that can and should be explored more, both in management training and education, as well
as in applied research. Here again, supportive leadership contributes to different aspects of team
performance, and team learning (Burke et al., 2006).
One of the strengths and at the same time of the limitations of this study is the sample. The
participating organizations and respondents tend to have an international or even Western orientation.
That is, typical local organizations are less likely to hire an international, US based HR consultancy
firm. Though the client group is highly diverse, international firms are over-represented in most
countries. This might cause a response bias, in the sense that these companies might under-represent
the actual national culture they are part of. Even with this sample, however, we find clear main effects of
culture on managerial behavior, as well as on the relationship of directive behavior to team functioning
(GOCB).
A limitation of the current study is the lack of information on the type of tasks, team structure and
level of interdependence, and performance of team members. All of these are highly relevant for team
processes such as GOCB, as well as for the required leadership.
Future studies would benefit from the use of more validated measures of GOCB, differentiating
aspects of (G)OCB such as helping behavior, and taking initiatives. The current general measure might
help scholars evaluate the likelihood that their findings will generalize throughout the world. In
addition, including measurement of other leadership styles, such as coaching, participative and
transformational leadership, would help to understand the effects of directive and supportive leadership
in a broader perspective. However, meeting all the measurement criteria for comparative international
research at this scale is a complicated and demanding challenge. Also, the lack of demographic data for
a large part of our sample is a serious limitation. This will be covered in future research. Finally, it
should be mentioned that there is an under-representation of Eastern European and African countries in
DOI: 10.1002/job
this sample, as has been the case in most cross-cultural databases (Den Hartog et al., 1999; Hofstede,
2001).
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that culture does make a difference in the effects of
managerial behavior on team processes. At the same time, cultural differences should not be
overestimated.
Acknowledgements
We thank Ruth Jacobs, McClelland Research Center, Wolfgang Stroebe, Utrecht University, and Evert
van de Vliert, University of Groningen, for their valuable contributions to this paper. Also, we thank the
continuous support of the Associate Editor, Mark Peterson.
Author biographies
Martin C. Euwema is Professor for Organizational Psychology at Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven,

Belgium. He received his doctorate from the Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. His current
research interests include leadership, conflict management, and organizational change.
Hein Wendt is consultant and researcher for Hay Group The Netherlands. Mr Wendt mainly works for
clients in Europe and The Middle East. Due to this international orientation, he was confronted with the
impact of cultural differences, leading to his Ph.D. study about Cross-Cultural Leadership, using Hay
Group’s McClelland Research Centre rich database.
Hetty van Emmerik, PhD, Business Administration at Free University, Amsterdam (1991), is an
Associate Professor at the Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University,
The Netherlands. Her research interests broadly include social relationships in the working context
(e.g., mentoring, networking, social support issues) and the association with various career outcomes
(e.g., satisfaction, commitment, burnout, and work engagement). Complementary interests include
gender differences, diversity within the working context, and differential preferences of employees.
She has published in journals such as Career Development International, Work and Stress, Work and
Occupations, Group and Organization Management, and Journal of Managerial Psychology.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression. Newbury Park: Sage.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). AMOS 7.0 User Guide. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Collins, B. J., & Richey, R. G. (2006). Effects of task interdependence on the
relationship between helping behavior and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1396–1405.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggrega-
tion. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
DOI: 10.1002/job
M. C. EUWEMA ET AL.
Bliese, P. D., & Jex, S. M. (1999). Incorporating multiple levels of analysis into occupational stress research. Work
and Stress, 13, 1–6.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.),
Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership
behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288–307.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, basic concepts, applications, and programming.
Kingston: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Carl, D., Gupta, V., & Javidan, M. (2004). Power distance. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W.
Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations (pp. 513–563). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Chen, X. P., Lam, S. S. K., Naumann, S., & Schaubroeck, J. (2005). Group citizenship behaviour: Conceptu-
alization and preliminary test of its antecedents and consequences. Management and Organization Review, 1,
273–300.
Chen, X. P., Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J., & Naumann, S. (2002). Group organizational citizenship behavior: A
conceptualization and preliminary test of its antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management
Proceedings 2002.
Cruz, M. A., Henningson, D. D., & Smith, B. A. (1999). The impact of directive leadership on group information
sampling, decisions, perceptions of the leader. Communication Research, 26, 349–370.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2001). Organizational development and change. Ohio: South-Western College
Publishing.
Deluga, R. J. (1995). The relationship between attributional charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1652–1669.
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W. (1999). Culture specific
and crossculturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are the attributes of charismatic/transformational
leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219–256.
Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2003). Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context:
Making progress, and raising new questions. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 729–768.
Dorfman, P. W. (2004). International and cross-cultural leadership research. In B. J. Punnett, & O. Shenkar (Eds.),
Handbook for international management research (2nd ed., pp. 265–355). Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.
Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in Western and
Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. Leadership
Quarterly, 8, 233–274.
Earley, P. C. (2006). Leading cultural research in the future: A matter of paradigms and taste. Journal of
International Business Studies, 37, 922–931.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational
citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 960–974.
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S.C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational
citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421–444.
Gelfand, M. J., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Nishii, L. H., & Bechtold, D. J. (2004). Individualism and collectivism. In R. J.
House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations
(pp. 437–512). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 479–514.
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A
group level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 629–636.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human Performance, 10, 153–
170.
Glöckner-Rist, A. H., & Hoijting, H. (2003). The best of both worlds: Factor analysis of dichotomous data
using item response theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 544–
565.
Hay/McBer. (2000). The organization climate dimensions. Boston, MA: Hay/McBer.
Hiller, N. J., Day, D. V., & Vance, R. J. (2006). Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: A
field study. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 387–397.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for
research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623–641.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations
across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds. Journal
of International Business Studies, 37, 882–896.
Hox, J. J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–339.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Inglehart, R. J. (1997). Modernization and post-modernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43
societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Sully de Luque, M. (2006). Conceptualizing and
measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative reviews of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches.
Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 897–914.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36–51.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in
group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 208–219.
Karam, C., & Kwantes, C. T. (2006). Cross-cultural, cross-level OCB research: Understanding work behaviour in
context. Paper presented at the 18th IACCP Conference, July, Spetses, Greece.
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of
within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
2–16.
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on
organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54, 101–114.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations:
Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, & W. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship
behavior. A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65.
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2001). Sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Fifth International Conference on Logic
and Methodology. Cologne, Germany, Opladen, RG: Leske þ Budrich Verlag (CD-ROM).
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127–142.
Muthen, L. K. (2005). Minimum number of level-1 units within level-2 units, contribution on discussion forum,
available on http://www.statmodel.com/discussion
Naumann, S. E., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2005). A unit-level perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. In D. L.
Turnipseed (Ed.), Handbook of organizational citizenship behavior (pp. 143–156). NY: Nova Science Publ.
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation
of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10,
85–97.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior. Its nature,
antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paine, J. B., & Organ, D. W. (2000). The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship behavior: Some preliminary
conceptual and empirical observations. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 45–59.
Pearce, C. L., & Herbik, P. A. (2004). Citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis: The effects of team
leadership, team commitment, perceived team support, and team size. Journal of Social Psychology, 144,
293–311.
DOI: 10.1002/job
M. C. EUWEMA ET AL.
Peterson, M. F. (2003). Review of culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Administrative Science Quarterly, 48,
127–132.
Peterson, M. F. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Book review.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 641–647.
Peterson, M. F., & Hunt, J. G. (1997). International perspectives on international leadership. Leadership Quarterly,
8, 203–231.
Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., et al. (1995). Role conflict,
ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 429–452.
Peterson, M. F., & Castro, S. L. (2006). Measurement metrics at aggregate levels of analysis: Implications for
organization culture research and the GLOBE project. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 506–521.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity
and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262–270.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behavior and
their effects on trust, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
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.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models, applications and data analysis methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2005). HLM 6:Hierarchical linear and nonlinear
modeling. Lincolnwood: SSI Scientific Software International.
Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two
approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552–566.
Salam, S., Cox, J., & Sims, H. P. (1996). How to make a team work: Mediating effects of job satisfaction between
leadership and team citizenship. Academy of Management Proceedings 1996.
Scandura, T. A., Williams, E. A., & Hamilton, B. A. (2001). Measuring invariance using confirmatory factor
analysis and item response theory: Perceptions of organizational politics in the United States and the Middle
East. In C. A. Schriesheim, & L. L. Neider (Eds.), Equivalence in measurement (pp. 99–130). Greenwich, CA:
Information Age Publishing.
Schmidt, S. M., & Yeh, R. S. (1992). The structure of leader influence, a cross-national comparison. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 251–264.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C.
Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. H. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and
applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, P. B. (2006). When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: The GLOBE and Hofstede projects. Journal of
International Business Studies, 37, 915–921.
Smith, P. B., Peterson, F., Schwartz, S. H., Ahmad, A. H., Akande, D., Andersen, J. A., et al. (2002). Cultural
values, sources of guidance and their relevance to managerial behavior: A 47 nation study. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 188–208.
Schnake, M. E., & Dumler, M. P. (2003). Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship
behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 283–301.
Triandis, C. H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CA: Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 96, 907–924.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London:
Economist Books.
Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. Revue
Europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee, 54, 119–135.
Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and organizational
citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification. Academy of Management
Journal, 46, 715–727.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of
contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531.
Van Scotter, J. R., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual performance on
systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 526–535.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and
impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46, 1431–1441.
Wendt, J. H., Euwema, M. C., & Van de Vliert, E. (2003). Effective leadership behavior across the world.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southern Management Association.
West, M. A., & Hirst, G. (2005). Cooperation and teamwork for innovation. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G.
Smith (Eds.), The essentials of team working. International perspectives (pp. 257–279). Sussex, UK: Wiley.
West, M. A., Tjosvold, D., & Smith, K. G. (2005). The essentials of team working. International perspectives.
Sussex, UK: Wiley.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
DOI: 10.1002/job

Leadership Styles and Group Organization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership Styles and Group Organization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. (2007)

Leadership styles and group

Received 21 October 2004

Leadership and GOCB

Directive and supportive leadership

Hypothesis 2. Supportive leadership is positively related to GOCB.

Culture and GOCB

Culture, leadership, and GOCB

Population and sample

Argentina 31 128 3.24 4.33 4.94

Directive and supportive leadership

Table 2. Results of explorative factor analysis of leadership items

Directive leadership (a ¼ .80)

1 GOCB 4.72 0.54

Table 4. Correlations among the study variables at country level

Leadership styles and GOCB

Cultural dimensions and GOCB

Moderating effects of culture on the relationship between leadership and GOCB

Culture and GOCB

Culture, leadership, and GOCB

Implications for management

Martin C. Euwema is Professor for Organizational Psychology at Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven,

You might also like