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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-8269.htm

Affective
The effects of transformational commitment
leadership on organisational
citizenship behaviour: the role of
organisational justice and 381

affective commitment Received 20 July 2019

Revised 24 January 2020
29 May 2020
Peter Khaola Accepted 2 August 2020
Department of Business Administration,
National University of Lesotho, Roma, Lesotho, and
Patient Rambe
Faculty of Management Sciences,
Central University of Technology, Bloemfontein, South Africa

Abstract
Purpose – Even though the influence of transformational leadership on organisational citizenship
behaviour (OCB) has been extensively studied in human resource management, evidence on the mechanisms
through which transformational leadership affects OCB is only beginning to emerge. In view of the
ambivalence about strategies of advancing OCB, this paper aims to establish whether and the extent to which
the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB was mediated by organisational justice and
affective commitment.
Design/methodology/approach – The study was based on a random survey of 300 employees from a
medium-sized public university, and 122 employees from public and private sector organisations in Lesotho.
Partial least squares structural equation modelling and process macro techniques were used to analyse data.
Findings – The results confirmed significant paths between transformational leadership and organisational
justice; organisational justice and affective commitment; and affective commitment and OCB. The results
further suggested that perceived justice and affective commitment were significant serial mediators between
transformational leadership and OCB.
Practical implications – Elucidation of the nature of mediating factors between leadership and OCB
would leverage organisations’ level of understanding of why transformational leadership is critical to
promoting OCB, and hence encourage them to design programmes that would equip supervisors with skills
necessary to enhance it.
Originality/value – This is one of the few theory-driven primary studies that examine the serial mediating
roles of organisational justice and affective commitment in the transformational leadership – OCB
relationship.
Keywords Transformational leadership, Human resource management,
Organisational citizenship behaviour, Affective commitment, Organisational justice, Serial mediation
Paper type Research paper

Introduction Management Research Review

In the past three decades, there has been a proliferation of research on discretionary work Vol. 44 No. 3, 2021
pp. 381-398
behaviours that fall outside the domain of task performance. These behaviours have become © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8269
increasingly important in competitive business environments that require employees to DOI 10.1108/MRR-07-2019-0323
MRR transcend the call of duty for the benefit of their organisations (Hoffman et al., 2007; Khaola
44,3 and Coldwell, 2019; LePine et al., 2002). Of these behaviours, the most rigorously researched
is organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) (Podsakoff et al., 2009).
Organ (1988, p. 4) defines OCB, as “the behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or
explicitly recognised by the formal reward system and that in the aggregate promotes the
effective functioning of the organisation”. OCBs could involve working additional hours
382 beyond those officially sanctioned by the organisation, promoting the goodwill and image of
the organisation through wearing company regalia, avoiding wasteful expenditures,
conformance to company rules and maintaining good work ethics (LePine et al., 2002).
Because of its vital contribution to the social and psychological environments in which
core or technical activities unfold (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997), OCB remains one of the
most widely published citizenship behaviours (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Podsakoff et al., 2009).
Despite the overarching prominence of OCB in the organisational behaviour literature in
developed countries (Yen and Niehoff, 2004), studies targeting emerging resource-
constrained organisational environments such as those of Lesotho’s services sector are yet
to emerge. In fact, literature warns against the transposition of Western-designed studies
into resource-poor contexts without adequate contextualisation and critical questioning of
their suitability and relevance to such contexts (Farh et al., 2004). More specifically, although
scholars widely acknowledge that culture and economic institutional stage in development
may condition the nature, meaning and importance of OCBs (Farh et al., 1997; Farh et al.,
2004; Yen and Niehoff, 2004), there is a paucity of research on how transformational
leadership influences OCBs within the context of Lesotho.
Transformational leadership is described as a process in which a leader plays an
idealised role model; stimulate employee creative behaviours; support and mentor
employees; and provide inspirational motivation to employees to achieve shared vision and
goals (Afsar and Umrani, 2019; Bass and Avolio, 1995).
Even though transformational leadership has previously been confirmed as a
correlate of OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000), only recently has the research literature called
for the social and psychological mechanisms through which this form of leadership
influences OCBs and other performance outcomes (Avolio et al., 2009; Ng, 2017; Wang
et al., 2011). Such mechanisms are perceived to illuminate various ways through which
transformational leadership affects desired outcomes (Ng, 2017). Thus, despite earlier
findings indicating the positive relationships between transformational leadership and
OCB, what remains underexplored in organisational behaviour literature is the explicit
mechanism through which transformational leadership relates to OCB. Ng (2017) and
Wang et al. (2011) have called upon researchers to explore various mechanisms through
which transformational leadership affects OCBs. We focus on the relationship between
transformational leadership and OCB for two other reasons. Firstly, transformational
leadership is one of the most extensively researched types of leadership, evidenced
mostly by studies and citations on this style of leadership (Ng, 2017). Secondly, there is
robust evidence that transformational leaders influence the performance of individuals,
teams and organisations, including measures of extra-role performance such as OCB
(Ng, 2017; Wang et al., 2011).
The purpose of the present study was, therefore, to develop and test a model that links
transformational leadership to OCBs through the successive mediating roles of
organisational justice and affective commitment. Although an under-theorised area of study,
there is a growing body of literature pointing to the capacity of organisational justice and
affective commitment to mediate the relationships between transformational leadership and
OCB (Khaola and Coldwell, 2019; Ng, 2017; Wang et al., 2011). The examination of the
mechanisms through which transformational leadership influences extra-role behaviours Affective
such as OCBs need to be investigated because studies suggest equivocal results between commitment
transformational leadership and extra-role behaviours such as innovative work behaviours
(Afsar and Umrani, 2019; Khaola and Coldwell, 2019).
The study contributes to organisational behaviour literature in substantial ways. The
study proposes organisational justice and affective commitment as successive mediators
between transformational leadership and OCB. Despite previous calls to evaluate
explanatory factors between transformational leadership and performance criteria (Avolio 383
et al., 2009; Ng, 2017; Wang et al., 2011), little work has been directed towards this line of
research, particularly in organisational contexts where OCB is defined as a performance
criterion. The current study fills that gap. Through examining the relationships amongst the
focal constructs, we sought to suggest the nomological network amongst the studied
variables. To our knowledge, this will be the first time such a model is proposed and tested.
If confirmed, the model has the potential to advance theoretical knowledge in this area,
especially as few studies have to date tested a two-step mediation model in this line of
research. The model is especially important because it provides a novel and different way in
which transformational leadership can influence OCBs. Specifically, knowing that
organisational justice and affective commitment mediate (explain) the relationship between
transformational leadership and OCB is important in that it can equip practitioners with
knowledge relating to different paths through which they can influence employee OCBs.
From a practical standpoint, based on the knowledge of the espoused relationships,
managers could develop specific interventions that could increase employee engagement in
behaviours that go beyond their call of duty. For instance, if organisational justice and
affective commitment mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and
OCB as postulated, it would provide greater clarity on how transformational leadership
affects OCB and necessitate managerial training in these constructs to boost employees’
extra-role performance.
The article unfolds as follows. The next section focusses on literature review and
development of hypotheses, followed by research method, data analysis and presentation of
results, discussion of results and implications, respectively. The final section concludes the
paper.

Literature review and hypotheses

The extant literature suggests that transformational leadership is one of the main antecedents
of OCB (Organ and Ryan, 1995; Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000). This notwithstanding,
there have been calls to examine mechanisms through which transformational leadership
relates to OCB (Wang et al., 2011). Moreover, there has been a concern that existing mediators
between transformational leadership and outcomes are disjointed and lack an underlying
theoretical framework (Van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013). To address this void in the
literature, Ng’s (2017) recent meta-analytic study identified five theory-driven mediating
mechanisms through which transformational leadership influences employees’ job
performance, namely, social exchange theory (represented by perceived organisational support
and leader-member exchange); justice enhancement mechanism (represented by distributive
and procedural justice); an affective mechanism (represented by job satisfaction and affective
commitment); a motivational mechanism (represented by self-efficacy and work engagement)
and identification mechanism (represented by identification with the leader and the
organisation).
According to social exchange theory, people engage in interdependent and contingent
actions that generate reciprocal exchange obligations and resources between two or more
MRR parties (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Thus, an employee can reciprocate good leadership
44,3 by engaging in outcomes such as OCB, which may benefit the leader and the organisation.
According to group value model of justice (Tyler, 1989), a fair leader signals to employees
that they are important members of an organisation and this motivates employees to engage
in behaviours that benefit the organisation. Enunciated from affective events theory (Weiss
and Cropanzano, 1996), affective mechanism suggests that effective leaders engender
384 positive effect in employees, which, in turn, influences employees’ performance positively.
Predicated on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), the motivational mechanism suggests
that employees strive to be agentic at work, which results in positive job performance.
Finally, according to the identification mechanism (Ashforth and Mael, 1989), employees
who identify with the values of their leaders and organisations perform well to benefit their
leaders.
In spite of the theory-driven focus of Ng’s (2017) study, what remains unclear in
literature is whether and the extent to which organisational justice and affective
commitment mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB.
Thus, although informative, the meta-analytic study by Ng (2017) did not directly
address the proposed relationship, hence the need for primary studies like the current one
to elucidate this relationship. Our study is in line with Wang et al.’s (2011) view that there
is a need for more empirical research targeting the role of mediating factors to explain the
relationship between transformational leadership and OCB. We build on the work of Ng
(2017) in proposing the model in which the relationship between transformational
leadership and OCB is explained (mediated) successively by organisational justice and
affective commitment.

Transformational leadership and organisational citizenship behaviour

Leadership, particularly transformational leadership, is expected to influence OCB
positively because this form of leadership influences followers to achieve performance
“beyond expectations” (Bass, 1985; Purvanova et al., 2006). We argue that all behaviours
targeted at exceeding superior performance denote OCB. There is a general consensus that
transformational leaders have an ability to encourage employees to transcend narrow self-
interest in pursuance of the common mission (Khaola and Coldwell, 2019) with implication
for superlative performance for the organisation. Furthermore, drawing on the social
exchange theory, it is conceivable that a typical employee can readily reciprocate quality
leadership by engaging in OCB. The argument is that employees who are sensitive to
leaders’ leadership styles tend to respond with personal behaviours which are consistent
with the way they are treated by leadership.
Prior empirical research has also found positive relationships between transformational
leadership and OCB. These relationships have been confirmed in individual empirical
studies (MacKenzie et al., 2001; Purvanova et al., 2006) and meta-analyses on OCB (Ilies et al.,
2007; Organ and Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2011). For instance,
Podsakoff et al. (2000) found that leadership is a strong predictor of OCB, and Wang et al.
(2011) reported positive relationships between transformational leadership and individual-
level follower performances across different criterion types, including contextual
performance (OCB). Based on the above-documented theory and evidence, it is plausible to
hypothesise as follows:

H1. There is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and OCB.

Indirect relationships between transformational leadership and organisational citizenship Affective
behaviours commitment
Despite previous calls to examine attitudinal factors that explain the relationship between
transformational leadership and OCB (Wang et al., 2011), somewhat surprisingly, there has
been little focus on this stream of research. As early as 1990, Podsakoff et al. (1990) indicated
that the aggregate effects of leadership behaviours on OCBs were indirect, rather than
direct. Both Wang et al. (2011) and Ng (2017) have also recommended the investigation of
mediating factors between transformational leadership and different performance criteria, 385
including OCB. In the sections that follow, we provide theoretical and empirical bases for
this thinking and extend it by examining the theoretical bases for serial mediation of
organisational justice and affective commitment in this regard.

Organisational justice as a mediator between transformational leadership and

organisational citizenship behaviour
Organisational justice refers to one’s perceptions of fairness of outcome distribution (Adams,
1965); fairness of procedures that undergird outcome decision (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut and
Walker, 1975); and fairness of interpersonal treatment including the provision of accurate
information during the execution of procedures (Bies and Moag, 1986). Drawing from justice
enhancement phenomenon (Ng, 2017), particularly the group value model of justice (Tyler,
1989), good leaders make employees feel appreciated members of an organisation and, in turn,
employees engage in OCBs that improve the effectiveness of their organisation. This implies
that leadership influences employee perception of organisational justice, which, in turn,
influences their orientation towards OCBs. Put differently, there is theoretical evidence that
transformational leadership influences OCB indirectly through organisational justice. In fact,
we contend that transformational leadership is an important but insufficient precondition for
OCB to be cultivated as employees always evaluate perceptions of just and fair treatment by
leaders before they engage in OCBs (Van Knippenberg et al., 2007).
Firstly, both in their individual capacity or as agents of their organisations, leaders are
sources of justice in organisations (Nielsen et al., 2018). For instance, most of the Leventhal’s
(1980) procedural justice criteria (consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, ethicality,
representativeness and correctable judgements) are fostered by effective leaders
(Walumbwa et al., 2006). George and Zhou (2007) suggest that supervisors provide a
supportive context for creativity by demonstrating interactional justice. Similarly,
Khazanchi and Masterson (2011) postulate that interactional justice (interpersonal and
informational justice) meted by supervisors creates trust in such supervisors, which has a
positive bearing on employees’ attitudes and behaviours. Therefore, employees engage in
OCBs when they consider their leaders to be treating them fairly and proportionately to the
effort they expend on tasks. Secondly, organisational justice has not only been considered
one of the proximal determinants of OCBs (Colquitt et al., 2013; Lavelle et al., 2009) but also
has sometimes been considered a proxy for social exchange (Schroeder, 2010). Put directly,
fair treatment of employees can cause them to redefine their employment in terms of social
exchange, with OCB as a common exchangeable resource (Colquitt et al., 2013).
Empirically, both Walumbwa et al. (2006) and Ehrhart (2004) found that justice climate
partially mediates the relationship between leadership and OCB. Along similar lines, Niehoff
and Moorman (1993) found that leader monitoring method of observation not only
negatively influenced OCB but also had a positive influence on it as it shaped the perception
of fairness.
In summary, as both leadership and organisational justice are theoretically rooted in
social exchange and justice enhancement theories, justice can mediate relationships between
MRR transformational leadership and employee attitudes and behaviours (Walumbwa et al.,
44,3 2006). Given that employee relations are founded on social exchange, work behaviours are
bound to be shaped by both management and employee’s perception of fair treatment and
prevalence of organisational justice. Based on the aforementioned arguments, we
hypothesise that:

H2. The relationship between transformational leadership and OCB is mediated by

386 organisational justice.

Affective commitment as a mediator between transformational leadership and

organisational citizenship behaviour
In addition to the mediation role of organisational justice between transformational
leadership and OCBs, there is sound theoretical and empirical evidence underpinning the
mediation role of affective commitment between transformational leadership and OCB as
well. Drawing from earlier studies, Wang et al. (2011, p. 251) posited that “transformational
leadership may increase individual-level performance through its effects on follower
motivation and attitudes”.
As affective and identification mechanisms are relevant in explaining the relationship
between transformational leadership and OCB (Ng, 2017), we can infer from Wang et al.’s
(2011) proposition that affective commitment could be a mediator of the transformative
leadership – OCB relationship, for at least two reasons. Firstly, affective mechanism
suggests that effective leaders engender positive affect such as affective commitment in
employees, which, in turn, positively affect employees’ OCBs. Secondly, the identification
mechanism implies that employees who identify with the values of their leaders and
organisations engage in OCBs to benefit their leaders or organisations. Identification and
affective commitment constructs have one common element – identification with values of a
target object (Meyer and Allen, 1991).
Babcock-Roberson and Strickland (2010) found that work engagement fully mediated the
relationship between charismatic leadership and OCB. Park et al. (2013) found that the
relationship between transformational leadership and OCB is not direct, but is fully
mediated by psychological ownership, the concept that is closely related to affective
commitment.
On the basis of the above explanation, we propose affective commitment as a mediating
factor between transformational leadership and OCB:

H3. The relationship between transformational leadership and OCB is mediated by

organisational commitment.

Organisational justice and affective commitment as successive mediators between

transformational leadership and organisational citizenship behaviour
While the previous sub-sections have suggested both organisational justice and affective
commitment as mediating variables in the relationship between transformational leadership
and OCB, they did not resolve which of the two mediators temporally and causally occur
before the other. This section draws from theory and empirical studies to elucidate which of
the two mediators should plausibly come first.
Overall, we propose that the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB
is explained by organisational justice and affective commitment in series (Lehmann-
Willenbrock et al., 2013). According to several authors, social exchange processes can
coalesce into interlinked processes (Colquitt et al., 2013; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Affective
Lavelle et al., 2007; Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013). For instance, in the present case, commitment
leader behaviours can create just environments (Van Knippenberg et al., 2007); and in
response to perceptions of justice, employees can reciprocate by being effectively committed
to their organisations; which can ultimately prompt them (employees) to engage in OCBs.
As indicated in earlier sections, as agents of organisations, leaders are responsible for
creating fairness or unfairness in organisations (Van Knippenberg et al., 2007), which, in
turn, may lead to employee attitudes and behaviours (Ehrhart, 2004; Walumbwa et al., 2006). 387
Consistent with this argument, Van Knippenberg et al. (2007) argue that leaders are
important sources of fairness and unfairness in organisations. Moreover, as elements of
social context in organisations, leadership and justice are closely related (Van Knippenberg
et al., 2007; Zhou and Hoever, 2014). Based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Colquitt
et al., 2013; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), just leaders can prompt employees to
reciprocate by being effectively committed to their organisations and, in turn, committed
employees can engage in OCB as another form of reciprocation. In this vein, several authors
have proposed and confirmed commitment as a mediating factor between organisational
justice and OCB (Colquitt et al., 2013; Lavelle et al., 2009; Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013).
In summary, organisational justice is expected to temporally and causally occur before
affective commitment. This is because justice is both a veritable outcome of leadership (Van
Knippenberg et al., 2007) and the proxy for social exchange (Schroeder, 2010); as much as
affective commitment is amongst the prime indicators of social exchange in organisations
(Colquitt et al., 2013; Lavelle et al., 2009). Based on this logic, which is also corroborated by
literature, it can be hypothesised that:

H4. Organisational justice and affective commitment successively mediate the positive
relationship between transformational leadership and OCB.
The conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.

Method
The current study adopted the descriptive, cross-sectional quantitative research design and
used self-administered questionnaires to collect data.

Sample and procedures

The sample consisted of 300 employees randomly selected from a population of 652
employees from the medium-sized public university, and a convenience sample of 122
employees from two government-owned enterprises and two private sector organisations
head-quartered in Maseru, Lesotho. As the focus was on service-based organisations which
agreed to participate in the study, organisations were selected based on non-probability
sampling. Similarly, as organisations in the private and public sectors were not in a position
to give us sampling frames, we settled for non-probability sampling. The first author was

Jusce Affecve
commitment

Figure 1.
Transformaonal Affecve The conceptual
leadership commitment model
MRR allowed by human resources officers in each organisation to distribute and collect
44,3 questionnaires directly from all respondents. The return rates were 56% and 57%,
respectively. As the ANOVA test did not indicate significant differences across various
variables amongst the studied organisations, the two samples (n = 236) were analysed
together.
Of the respondent sample, 54% were men. In terms of age group, 1.4% were from 18 to
388 20; 28.9% were from 20 to 30; 26.1% were from 31 to 40; 24.3% were from 41 to 50 and
19.3% were above 50 years of age. Overall, the participants had an average tenure of
11.28 years (SD = 6.23). In terms of the highest level of education attained, 25.1% had post-
secondary school diploma; 28.8% had a bachelor’s degree; and 46.1% had post-graduate
degrees (honours, Masters and PhD). While non-academic staff accounted for 60.2%,
academic staff accounted for 39.8% of the respondents. In terms of supervisory
responsibilities, 55.8% did not have any supervisory responsibilities; 19.8% were in lower-
level management (supervisory level); 19.4% were in middle-level management and only
5.1% were in top/executive level management. Overall, the respondents had been in their
current organisation for an average of 8.71 years (SD = 8.02).
As the missing value analysis test indicated that the missing values were few (less than
10%) and random; rather than drop cases with missing values; we adopted an imputation
approach (series mean) to fill in the missing values to preserve all 236 cases (Chen et al.,
2013).

Measures
Transformational leadership. The multifactor leadership questionnaire (Bass and Avolio,
1995) was used to assess transformational leadership. Eight items (two from each of the four
dimensions) were used to measure this construct. Participants were asked to assess the
extent to which the listed statements described the behaviour of their supervisors on a scale
ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently if not always). Some of the sample items were “my
supervisor articulates a compelling vision for the future” and “my supervisor encourages me
to look at problems from different angles”. The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.92.
Organisational justice. The scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) was used to
assess organisational justice. Overall, six items were used to assess this construct. On a
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), participants were asked to
assess the extent to which they agreed with the listed statements. Some of the sample items
were “I think that my level of pay is fair” and “to make job decisions, my supervisor collects
accurate and complete information”. The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.85.
Affective commitment. Five items from the scale of Cook and Wall (1980) were used to
measure this construct. On a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The participants were asked to assess the extent to which they agreed with the listed
statements. A sample item was “I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organisation”. The
Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.92.
Organisational citizenship behaviour. Ten items developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) to
measure OCB and two items from the scale developed by Borman and Motowidlo (1993) to
measure contextual performance were used to measure OCB. The items were measured on a
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items were “I
volunteer to help others who have heavy workloads” and “I voluntarily do more than the job
requires”.
The 12 items of OCB did not originally load well on one specified factor. After
systematically and iteratively removing problematic items that had weak or cross path
loadings, eight OCB items (a = 0.77) that loaded significantly on the specified factor were Affective
retained as indicators of this construct. commitment
Even though partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) is effective
in handling non-normal data (Hair et al., 2019; Hair et al., 2011), measures of skewness and
kurtosis (less than 1 in absolute terms) and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (insignificant figures)
suggested no problematic deviation from a normal distribution (George and Mallery, 2010).
Furthermore, exploratory factor analysis (principal components and varimax rotation)
resulted in eight factors explaining 69% of the variance, with no single factor explaining
389
more than 50% of the variance in the analysis; suggesting that the common method bias
was not a serious problem in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2012).

Data analysis
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, v. 20) and Smart PLS 3 were used to analyse data.
Specifically, correlation analysis, PLS-SEM and process macro (Hayes, 2013) were used to
address the hypotheses. Unlike other multivariate techniques that can examine only a single
relationship at the time, SEM techniques can simultaneously evaluate relationships between
many variables at the same time (Hair et al., 2010; Zhang and Bartol, 2010). Compared to
covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM), PLS-SEM is appropriate where the purpose of research
focusses on prediction and explanation of key constructs; the sample size is small and available
data are non-normal (Hair et al., 2019; Hair et al., 2011). The data analysis in the proposed new
model is more suited to PLS-SEM than CB-SEM because the latter focusses on theory
confirmation or comparison of alternative theories (Hair et al., 2011).
Construct validity of the measurement model was evaluated by assessing the model’s
convergent and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2011).
Convergent validity assesses the degree to which the indicators of one latent construct
are related (Hair et al., 2010). Among other indicators, there is convergent validity when the
average variance extracted (AVE, the average amount of variation that a latent variable
explains in the observed variable) is 0.50 or higher; and composite reliability is 0.70 or
higher.
Discriminant validity assesses the extent to which the indicators of different
constructs are not related (Hair et al., 2010). To assess discriminant validity, Fornell–
Larcker criterion was used. According to this criterion, the square root of the AVE of each
variable should be greater than correlations of that variable with other variables in the
model (alternatively, AVE should be greater than the squared inter-construct correlation,
Hair et al., 2010).
To assess serial mediation, Hayes’ (2013) process macro (Model 6) was used. The
sample was bootstrapped 5,000 times at 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals. While
PLS-SEM is able to generate indirect effects like process macro, the latter has an
advantage because it provides an indication of statistical significance that can easily be
interpreted.

Results
Assessment of the measurement model
The results of convergent and discriminant validity are summarised in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, with the exception of OCB, each construct had the AVE higher than
0.50 and the composite reliability exceeding 0.70. Even though the AVE of OCB was less
than 0.50 (perhaps, because of its multi-dimensional nature), its composite reliability was
greater than the threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2011). To ensure that all the dimensions of OCB
MRR are represented in the model (content validity), all eight items were retained in the
44,3 measurement of this construct.
As the square-root of the AVE of each construct (shown on the diagonal) was greater
than corresponding correlations with other constructs, the measurement model displays
adequate discriminant validity.
Thus, the results of Table 1 provide reasonable evidence of convergent and discriminant
390 validity of constructs to continue with testing of the hypotheses.

Descriptive statistics and inter-correlation of variables

The means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations of the study variables are
shown in Table 2.
In general, the results from Table 2 suggest that all scale variables reached acceptable
levels of internal reliability exceeding Nunnally’s (1978) cut-off point of 0.70.
Based on zero-order correlations, and in line with H1, the results revealed that there
was a positive relationship between transformational leadership and OCB (r = 0.26,
r # 0.01); but as shown below, once the mediators were included in the model, the
relationship became insignificant ( b = 0.06, r
0.05). There were also significant
correlations between transformational leadership and organisational justice (r = 0.67,
r # 0.01); transformational justice and affective commitment (r = 0.49, r # 0.01);
affective commitment and organisational justice (r = 0.63, p # 0.01); affective
commitment and OCB (r = 0.38, r # 0.01); and organisational justice and OCB (r = 0.23,
r # 0.01).

Variable 1 2 3 4 AVE CR

Commit 0.866 0.75 0.94

Justice 0.631 0.735 0.54 0.87
OCB 0.376 0.225
0.616 0.38 0.83
Table 1.
Transformational leadership 0.490 0.666
0.263 0.812 0.66 0.94
Results of convergent
and discriminant Notes: AVE = Average variance extracted; CR = Composite reliability; the numbers in the diagonal
validity represent the square root of AVE

Variable Mean SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Gender 0.53 0.50 0.02 –0.04 0.14* 0.02 0.09 0.15* 0.12 0.14*
Age 3.29 1.15 – 0.62** 0.33** 0.16* 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.03
Tenure 8.63 7.98 – 0.22** 0.09 0.06 0.14 0.02 0.08
Ed 5.11 1.00 – 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.01
MGT level 0.74 0.95 – 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.11
Lead 2.28 0.08 (0.92) 0.67** 0.49** 0.26**
Justice 2.92 0.83 (0.83) 0.63** 0.23**
Table 2. Commit 3.36 1.01 (0.92) 0.38**
Means, standard OCB 3.78 0.58 (0.77)
deviations (SD) and Notes: *Significant at 0.05; **Significant at 0.01; Cronbach’s alphas; where applicable, are shown in
inter-correlations of parenthesis. MGT = management; Ed = education, lead = transformational leadership, commit = affective
variables commitment
Assessment of the structural model Affective
The PLS-SEM coefficients for each relationship (main effects) between variables in the commitment
hypothesised model are shown in Figure 2.
As indicated in Figure 2, transformational leadership had positive and significant effects
on organisational justice ( b = 0.66, r # 0.01); organisational justice had positive and
significant effects on affective commitment ( b = 0.55, r # 0.01); and affective commitment
had positive and significant effects on OCB ( b = 0.34, r # 0.01).
391
Testing of mediated effects
As indicated above, to examine the indirect effects between variables, the process macro
Model 6 with two mediators was used (Hayes, 2013). The sample was bootstrapped 5,000
times at 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals. Table 3 shows the direct, total indirect and
total effects of transformational leadership on OCB.
The direct effect was not statistically significant (b = 0.056, r
0.05) because the
confidence intervals overlapped zero (95% CI: 0.029, 0.144). However, the total effects were
statistically significant (b = 0.127, r # 0.01) because the confidence intervals did not overlap
zero (95% CI: 0.060, 0.194), suggesting that the effects of transformational leadership on
OCB were fully mediated (explained) by other factors. This is supported by the total indirect
effects that were significant (b = 0.071, r # 0.05, 95% CI: 0.040, 0.136).
Out of the total indirect effects, Table 4 shows which ones were significant.

Figure 2.
The PLS-SEM results
( x 2 = 1,042.158,
SRMR = 0.073)

Effect b SE 95% bias-corrected interval

Direct effect 0.056 0.043 0.029 0.141

Total indirect effects 0.071* 0.034 0.004 0.136
Table 3.
Total effect 0.127** 0.034 0.060 0.194 Estimated direct,
total indirect and
Notes: *Significant at 0.05; **Significant at 0.01 total effects
MRR While the indirect effects of transformational leadership on OCB via justice (b = 0.03)
44,3 were not statistically significant because the confidence intervals overlapped zero (95%
CI: 0.099, 0.029), the indirect effects of transformational leadership on OCB via affective
commitment (b = 0.04) were statistically significant because the confidence intervals did
not overlap zero (95% CI: 0.007, 0.085). More importantly, the indirect effects of
transformational leadership on OCB via the serial mediation of organisational justice and
392 affective commitment (b = 0.06) were statistically significant because the confidence
intervals did not overlap zero (95% CI: 0.033, 0.104). Compared to single mediation effects
of either organisational justice or affective commitment between transformational
leadership and OCB, serial mediation effects were higher and significant. Thus, while H2
was not supported, H3 and H4 were fully supported.

Discussion
In spite of calls made earlier to examine various mechanisms through which
transformational leadership influences desired outcomes (Ng, 2017; Wang et al., 2011), little
is known about such mechanisms, particularly their integration. The current study
investigated the successive mediating roles of organisational justice and affective
commitment in the transformational leadership – OCB relationship. Overall, the results
suggested that the relationship between transformational leadership and affective
commitment was partially mediated (explained) by organisational justice, and, in turn, the
relationship between organisational justice and OCB was fully mediated by affective
commitment. Put differently, the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB
was consecutively mediated by organisational justice and affective commitment.
While the examination of an indirect relationship between transformational leadership
and OCB (Ehrhart, 2004; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Walumbwa
et al., 2006) and between organisational justice and OCB (Colquitt et al., 2013; Lavelle et al.,
2009) are by no means new, to our knowledge, the model which integrates organisational
justice and affective commitment as serial mediators in the transformational leadership –
OCB relationship is novel. Even though past literature has examined organisational justice
(Walumbwa et al., 2006) and affective commitment (Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010)
as sole mediators in the transformational leadership – OCB relationship, to our knowledge,
no study has theoretically postulated and empirically tested the serial mediation of
organisational justice and affective commitment in the transformational leadership – OCB
relationship. It is possible that considered jointly, organisational justice and affective
commitment provide a better mechanism through which transformational leadership
influences OCBs. Our model resonates the thinking of Lehmann-Willenbrock et al. (2013),
who postulated and established that trust and organisational commitment successively

95% confidence interval

Relationship Effect SE Lower Upper
Table 4.
The results of Model 0.071* 0.034 0.004 0.136
process macro on Leadership ! justice ! OCB 0.030 0.032 0.099 0.029
Leadership ! commit ! OCB 0.039* 0.019 0.007 0.085
specific indirect Leadership ! justice ! 0.062* 0.017 0.033 0.104
effects of commit ! OCB
transformational
leadership on OCB Notes: Commit = commitment; *Significant at 0.05
mediate the relationship between procedural justice and OCB. While different, both studies Affective
suggest that relationships between leadership behaviours and OCBs may be explained by commitment
employee affective attitudes, notably, organisational commitment.
The present study responds to earlier calls to examine attitudinal mediators between
transformational leadership and different performance criteria (Wang et al., 2011) and
specifically provides evidence that leaders may influence OCBs by partly creating fairness
and inducing affective commitment amongst employees. Further, in line with the
recommendations of Ng (2017), our study draws on the social exchange theory, justice,
393
affective and identification mechanisms to show that transformational leadership affects
employee attitudes (affective commitment) through organisational justice (Van
Knippenberg et al., 2007); and, in turn, affective attitudes influence OCBs. Thus, our study
addresses the limitation in the literature that explanatory mechanisms between
transformational leadership and outcomes are lacking a theoretical foundation (Ng, 2017,
Van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013).
The study is also novel in that it was based in Lesotho, the underdeveloped country in
which the impact of transformational leadership on various desired outcomes is not yet
known. The results not only suggest that scales used in developed countries to measure
transformational leadership, affective commitment and OCB can be used to provide reliable
information in Lesotho but also that the influence of transformational leadership on desired
outcomes can be replicated and extended in developing countries such as Lesotho. This is
important because some researchers have warned against assuming that theories that apply
in developed countries can apply in developing countries without prior verification (Yen and
Niehoff, 2004).

Limitations
While the present study provides useful insights into how transformational leadership
influences OCB, it has some limitations as well. Firstly, data were based on self-reports, and
this lends itself to common method bias. While Spector (2006) has suggested that common
method bias is not serious enough to invalidate research results, and our statistical analysis
suggests that common method bias was not a problem in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2012),
future studies can guard against this bias by using different sources of data. Secondly, even
though the results are based on sound theories, the cross-sectional research design does not
qualify to resolve the problem of directionality in research. While the purpose of this study
was not to resolve the causality between variables, and existing theories support the
proposed causal model, future studies can still use either longitudinal or experimental
research designs to provide temporal and causal relationships between the variables of this
study. Thirdly, while the university sample was selected randomly, the sample from other
organisations was not selected randomly. Thus, caution should be exercised before the
results can be generalised. Future studies can try to replicate the present findings based on a
more representative sample of employees in Lesotho.

Managerial implications
In spite of inevitable limitations in a study of this nature, there are useful managerial
implications of the findings. The results confirm that the effectiveness of transformational
leadership is influenced by perceptions of leader fairness (Van Knippenberg et al., 2007).
Thus, leaders have to be fair to employees, and in response to fair treatment, employees may
reciprocate by being affectively committed to their organisations, which ultimately prompt
them (employees) to engage in OCBs.
MRR To acquire appropriate leader behaviours and fairness, careful selection practices can be
44,3 used. Specifically, organisations may hire supervisors with transformational leadership
skills because transformational leaders are perceived to be fair by employees (Van
Knippenberg et al., 2007). Psychometric tests can be conducted during the recruitment and
selection of leaders to establish their orientation towards transformative leadership. Even
though such tests may be expensive to conduct, the initial costs may be far outweighed by
394 the long term benefits such as affective commitment and engagement in OCBs. Training
interventions can also be used to assist managers to develop transformational leadership
and fairness skills, and how to engender affective commitment. Overall, as suggested by our
study, transformational leaders may be perceived as fair by employees; and both fairness
and transformational leadership influence employee affective commitment; which, in turn,
affects employee OCBs.

Conclusion
The present study investigated the intervening mechanisms through which
transformational leadership links to OCBs. Social exchange theory, justice, affective and
identification mechanisms were used as fundamental explanatory frameworks. In summary,
the results indicated that organisational justice and affective commitment successively
mediated a positive relationship between transformational leadership and OCB. It is hoped
that these results will stimulate research on other variables that may mediate the
relationship between transformational leadership and other extra-role behaviours in
organisations.

References
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Exchange, Vol. 2, pp. 267-299.
Afsar, B. and Umrani, W.A. (2019), “Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: the
role of motivation to learn, task complexity and innovation climate”, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2018-
0257.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009), “Leadership: current theories, research, and future
directions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 421-449.
Babcock-Roberson, M. and Strickland, O.J. (2010), “The relationship between charismatic leadership,
work engagement, and organisational citizenship behaviours”, The Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 144 No. 3, pp. 313-326.
Bandura, A. (2001), “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1995), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Redwood City,
CA.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.F. (1986), “Interactional justice: communicating criteria of fairness”, in Lewicki, R.
J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiations in Organisations, Vol. 1,
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 43-55.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of Affective
contextual performance”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. (Eds), Personnel Selections in
Organisations, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 71-98.
commitment
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1997), “Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning
for personal selection research”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 99-109.
Chen, Z., Takeuchi, R. and Shum, C. (2013), “A social processing perspective of co-worker influence on a
focal employee”, Organization Science, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1618-1639.
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., Roddell, J.B., Long, D.M., Zapata, C.P., Conlon, D.E. and Wesson, M.J. (2013),
395
“Justice at the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-
based perspectives”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 199-236.
Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), “New work attitude measures of trust, organisational commitment
and personal need non-fulfilment”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 1,
pp. 39-52.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Ehrhart, M.G. (2004), “Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level
organizational citizenship behaviour”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 61-94.
Farh, J.L., Earley, P.C. and Lin, S.C. (1997), “Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and
organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 421-444.
Farh, J.L., Zhong, C.B. and Organ, D.W. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behavior in the people’s
republic of China”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 241-253.
George, D. and Mallery, M. (2010), Using SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and
Reference, Addison-Wesly, Bostone, MA.
George, J.M. and Zhou, J. (2007), “Dual tuning in a supportive context: joint contributions of positive
mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviours to employee creativity”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 605-622.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results of
PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2010), Multivariate Data
Analysis: A Global Perspective, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press.
Hoffman, B.J., Blair, C.A., Meriac, J.P. and Woehr, D.J. (2007), “Expanding the criterion domain? A
quantitative review of the OCB literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2,
pp. 555-566.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “Leader-member exchange and citizenship
behaviours: a Meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 269-277.
Khaola, P. and Coldwell, D. (2019), “Explaining how leadership and justice influence employee
innovative behaviours”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 193-212.
Khazanchi, S. and Masterson, S. (2011), “Who and what is fair matters: a multi-foci social exchange
model of creativity”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 86-106.
Lavelle, J.J., Brokner, J., Konovsky, M.A., Price, K.H., Henley, A.B., Taneja, A. and Vinekar, V. (2009),
“Commitment, procedural fairness, and organisational citizenship behaviour: a multi-foci
analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 337-357.
MRR Lavelle, J.J., Rupp, D.E. and Brockner, J. (2007), “Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice,
social exchange, and citizenship behavior: the target similarity model”, Journal of Management,
44,3 Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 841-866. No
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Grohmann, A. and Kauffeld, S. (2013), “Promoting multifoci citizenship
behaviour: time-lagged effects of procedural justice, trust, and commitment”, Applied Psychology,
Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 454-485.
396 LePine, J.A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D.E. (2002), “The nature and dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behavior: a critical review and Meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87
No. 1, pp. 52-65.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory? New approaches in social
relationships”, in Gergen, K., Greenberg, M. and Willis, R. (Eds), Social Exchange: Advances in
Theory and Research, Plenum, New York, NY, 27-55.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Rich, G.A. (2001), “Transformational and transactional leadership
and salesperson performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 115-134.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.
Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of
monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviour”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 36, pp. 527-556.
Nielsen, M.B., Christensen, J.O., Finne, L.B. and Knardahl, S. (2018), “Are leadership fairness,
psychological distress, and role stressors interrelated? A two-wave prospective study of forward
and reverse relationships”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 1-12.
Ng, T.W. (2017), “Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: analyses of multiple
mediation pathways”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 385-417.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (2006), Organisational Citizenship Behaviour: Its
Nature, Antecedents and Consequences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995), “A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organisational citizenship behaviour”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4,
pp. 776-801.
Park, C.H., Song, J.H., Yoon, S.W. and Kim, J. (2013), “A missing link: psychological ownership as a
mediator between transformational leadership and organisational citizenship behaviour”,
Human Resource Development International, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 558-574.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1,
pp. 539-569.
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2009), “Individual-and organisational-level
consequences of organisational citizenship behaviour: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. PVol. 94 No. 1, pp. 122-144.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader behaviours
and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organisational citizenship
behaviours”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizational citizenship
behaviours: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-563.
Purvanova, R.K., Bono, J.E. and Dzieweczynki, J. (2006), “Transformational leadership, job characteristics, Affective
and organisational citizenship performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
commitment
Schroeder, T. (2010), “Explaining organisational citizenship behaviour: a critical review of social
exchange perspective”, Department of Organisational Behaviour, Weatherhead School of
Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Spector, P.E. (2006), “Method variance in organisational research: truth or urban legend?”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 221-232.
Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Springer, New York, NY.
397
Tyler, T.R. (1989), “The psychology of procedural justice: a test of the group-value model”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 830-838.
Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S.H. and Colbert, A.E. (2011), “Transformational leadership and
performance across criteria levels: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of research”, Group and
Organisational Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 223-270.
Van Knippenberg, D. and Sitkin, S.B. (2013), “A critical assessment of charismatic – transformational
leadership research: back to the drawing board?”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 1-60.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D. and van Knippenberg, B. (2007), “Leadership and fairness: the
state of the art”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 113-140.
Walumbwa, F.O., Wu, C. and Orwa, B. (2006), “Leadership, procedural justice climate, work attitudes,
and organizational citizenship behaviour”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2006
No. 1, pp. C1-C6.
Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S.H. and Colbert, A.E. (2011), “Transformational leadership and
performance across criteria levels: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of research”, Group and
Organisation Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 223-270.
Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), “Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work”, Research in Organisational
Behaviour, Vol. 18, pp. 1-74.
Yen, H.R. and Niehoff, B.P. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational
effectiveness: examining relationships in taiwanese banks”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 1617-1637.
Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010), “Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:
the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 107-128.
Zhou, J. and Hoever, I.J. (2014), “Research on workplace creativity: a review and direction”, Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 333-359.

Further reading
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modelling in practice: a review
and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-462.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Becker, T.E. (2005), “Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organisational research:
a qualitative analysis with recommendations”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 274-289.
MRR Grant, A.M. and Ashford, S.J. (2008), “The dynamics of proactivity at work”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 3-34.
44,3
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 161-178.
Hailey, J. (2006), “NGO leadership development: a review of the literature”, Praxis Paper 10. UK,
available at: www.intrac.org/resources/praxis-paper-10-ngo-leadership-development-review-
literature/ (accessed 27 February 2019).
398
Khaola, P. and Coldwell, D.A. (2017), “Striking a balance between types of organisational citizenship
behaviour”, Southern African Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 222-242.
Yukl, G. (2012), “Effective leadership behaviours: what we know and what questions need more
attention”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 66-85.

Corresponding author
Peter Khaola can be contacted at: peterkhaola@gmail.com

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