Artikel 5

International Journal of Organizational Analysis
“You get what you appreciate”: Effects of leadership on job satisfaction, affective
commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour
Abderrahman Hassi,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Abderrahman Hassi, (2018) "“You get what you appreciate”: Effects of leadership on job
satisfaction, affective commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour", International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-08-2018-1506
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-08-2018-1506
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:21 19 December 2018 (PT)
Downloaded on: 19 December 2018, At: 10:21 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 163 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm
“You get what you appreciate” You get what

you appreciate
Effects of leadership on job satisfaction,
affective commitment and organisational
citizenship behaviour
Abderrahman Hassi
School of Business Administration, Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane, Received 25 November 2017
Revised 17 December 2017
Ifrane, Morocco 18 April 2018
6 August 2018
Accepted 29 August 2018
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the influences of transactional and transformational
leadership styles on employee job satisfaction, employee affective commitment and organisational citizenship
behaviour (OCB) within Moroccan organisations.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were gathered from a sample of 219 employees working in
seven different industries in Morocco and analysed using Structural Equations Modelling (SEM).
Findings – SEM analyses reveal that employee job satisfaction, affective commitment and OCB are only
impacted by the personal recognition dimension of the transformational leadership style. The study indicates
that charisma and intellectual stimulation (transformational leadership) as well as contingent reward and
management-by-exception (transactional leadership) did not yield significant results.
Research limitations/implications – The use of a cross-sectional research design limits establishing
cause-and-effect relationships.
Practical implications – The results of the current study may be of use and interest for organisations in
designing effective leadership training programs, as it takes into account how managers and/or practitioners
tap into their subordinates’ effective behaviour.
Originality/value – With insights derived from a non-Western perspective, the major theoretical
contribution of the present study lies in exploring the effects of transactional and transformational leadership
styles on employee job satisfaction, employee affective commitment and OCB in Morocco.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Transformational leadership, Commitment, Transactional leadership,
Organizational citizenship
Paper type Research paper
Introduction and research rationale

While leaders are individuals who are able to stimulate, mobilise and inspire their followers
with the objective to reach desired outcomes (Andersen, 2016), leadership is regarded as an
interpersonal influence in a given situation via a communication process with the aim of
attaining a specific goal (Birasnav, 2014). Leadership has been looked at from the
perspective of how managers and leaders recognise the extent of how their own energy level
affects their subordinates (Clawson, 2008). Hence, organisational leadership styles that
contribute positively to employee satisfaction, performance, effectiveness and productivity
(Turner and Muller, 2005) and inculcate positive employee attitudes (Bhal and Ansari, 2007)
are highly desirable in the workplace.
Over the past few decades, two contrasting perspectives on leadership have emerged as
the focus of attention in the academic and applied literatures; in this regard, transactional International Journal of
Organizational Analysis
and transformational leadership styles have been proven to be among the most popular © Emerald Publishing Limited
1934-8835
approaches that allow leaders to maximise their effectiveness (Boehm et al., 2015). Along the DOI 10.1108/IJOA-08-2018-1506
IJOA same lines, there is an important and growing body of literature that has documented the
positive association between, on one hand, transactional and transformational leadership
and, on the other hand, follower behaviours and organisational outcomes (Bono and Judge,
2003; Judge and Piccolo, 2004). More specifically, crucial individual behaviours and
organisational outcomes, such as employee job satisfaction, organisational performance and
employee commitment, have been linked with leadership styles (Walumbwa et al., 2005).
Research has proven that effective leaders should be able to recognise when to use
different tactics of influence and to acquire the required skills to effectively carry out various
influence attempts (Yulk, 2010). Therefore, organisations and other stakeholders need to be
cognizant of the leadership styles that contribute positively to employee satisfaction and
increase employee performance, effectiveness and productivity (Turner and Muller, 2005).
Several calls have been made by scholars for researchers to pay more attention to the
“fundamental’ issues at play in leadership such as influence processes that characterise
leader–follower interactions (Yulk, 2010). However, practitioner and academic management
research is much needed in the Middle East region (Singh and Stokes, 2015), including
Morocco, which has been neglected by scholars and top management journals (Ozbilgin,
2004). Despite the growing interest in the concept of leadership, academic research has yet to
satisfactorily follow these trends in the Middle East and keep pace with Western countries
(Behery and Al-Nasser, 2016). In practice, numerous organisations and managers in the
Middle East disregard the importance of leadership and lack knowledge and skill of the best
leadership approaches that should be used when tapping into their subordinates’ effective
behaviours (Bealer and Bhanugopan, 2014).
Given this context, it is our intention to investigate the topic under study in response to
the countless appeals for more research on the subject matter to contribute to bridging the
glaring gap in the leadership literature pertaining to the Moroccan context. To do so, the
current paper will examine the impacts of transactional and transformational leadership
styles on employee job satisfaction, affective commitment and organisational citizenship
behaviour (OCB) within Moroccan organisations.
Leadership research in Morocco

In terms of leadership studies in the Moroccan context, research has hardly scratched the
surface of leadership styles in the workplace. In this respect, using data from the GLOBE
Project and resorting to cluster analysis to investigate leadership in the Middle East and
North Africa region, Kabasakal et al. (2012) contend that the Moroccan respondents mostly
value the administratively competent leadership (administratively skilled, organised and a
good administrator) along with the diplomatic, performance-oriented, inspirational and
integrity-based styles.
Conversely, Forster and Fenwick (2015) found that the patriarchal, authoritarian and
dirigiste styles of leadership have been manifested and even expected by some employees
within Moroccan organisations despite that business leaders prefer that their own
leadership styles to be aligned with those termed as ‘best practices’ in the West. Sample
cases of the latter include participative, credible, honest, transparent and inspiring styles
(Northouse, 2010). Nonetheless, these Western leadership styles are not always evident or
even possible in the Moroccan context (Forster and Fenwick, 2015); this is because some
managers are confused as reflected with their simultaneous attachment to both local and
Western values (Ali and Wahabi, 1995) and it is also because of the reluctance or inability of
Moroccan organisations to think in a strategic way (Benson and Al Arkoubi, 2006).
The review of the meagre extant literature on leadership in Morocco permits for the
sketching of a few conclusions. First, one must be cautious in interpreting the findings of the
GLOBE study, as the sample size of the Moroccan sample was small (N = 55) with the You get what
research focus being the cultural variation rather than the individual variation within each you appreciate
sub-sample, whereas the unit of analysis for the GLOBE project consisted of cultural level
aggregated responses of each country under study. Second, the duality of values and
practices in the Moroccan context has emerged in several studies; for instance, Hassi (2016)
found that a human resource management system is not homogenous within Moroccan
small- and medium-sized businesses, as there is a two-tier system at play comprised: 1)
companies that are professionally managed with human resource activities playing a
strategic role through a proactive approach; and 2) companies that use a reactive human
resource management approach that focuses on maintaining daily routines to best meet the
aims of short-term objectives. Finally, some studies have explored organisational
behaviours in Morocco but used ethnographic research design in one organisation only (Al
Arkoubi, 2008; d’Iribarne, 2002, 2003); this methodological focus has perpetuated the fact
that a more general portrait of management practice in Morocco remains elusive from an
empirical stance (Forster and Fenwick, 2015).
Theory and hypotheses

Leadership refers to an influence-based relationship between leaders and followers with the
intention to achieve organisational outcomes (Bass and Riggio, 2006). In their efforts to do
so, effective leadership resorts to, by large, articulating vision, instilling loyalty and leading
employees’ talents directly towards the desired goals (Strange and Mumford, 2002). Several
leadership approaches have been developed to understand leader effectiveness such as
transactional and transformational leadership which are often paired together (Ng et al.,
2016), as they are both required for effective leadership (Baškarada et al., 2017). The
selection of a leader’s transactional or transformational leadership style is contingent on
four organisational factors, namely human capital, performance, time orientation and risk
appetite, as well as, the two environmental factors of risk and stability (Baškarada et al.,
2017).
Transformational leadership
Examined through the lens of its effects, transformational leadership aims as transforming
followers’ priorities and inspiring them to accomplish targets beyond their potentials and
expectations (Yulk, 2010).
The model of transformational leadership includes the following components: charisma,
inspirational motivation, individualised consideration, intellectual stimulation and personal
recognition. First, charisma is a set of personal characteristics that permit a person to
influence other individuals by affecting their feelings, opinions and behaviours (Riggio,
2009). It makes an individual stand out and shine in comparison to their conventional
everyday counterparts (Dubrin and Dalglish, 2003). It has been recognised as a factor that
generates trust, credibility and respect (Bealer and Bhanugopan, 2014); it also influences
followers’ affective and normative commitment (Brown, Chen and O’Donnell, 2017). Overall,
charismatic leaders are perceived, by their subordinates, as more effective than less
charismatic leaders (Amirul and Daud, 2012). Second, inspirational motivation refers to
leaders who articulate a compelling vision for the future to their subordinates, express
confidence that desired outcomes will be achieved, build team spirit and create enthusiasm
(Bass and Bass, 2008). Third, individualised consideration entails organisational leaders
playing the role of coach or mentor for their followers with the objective to help them
nurture and achieve their full potential by creating learning opportunities and a conducive
environment (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Fourth, intellectual stimulation is concerned with
IJOA leaders allowing their followers to enhance the latter’s innovation-related skills by
encouraging them to think on their own, question assumptions, reframe problems and allow
employees to resort to novel perspectives as they deal with regular everyday workplace
challenges (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Finally, personal recognition is about providing
organisational members with rewards as praise and acknowledgment for fulfilling desired
results (Rafferty and Griffin, 2004).
Previous work has indicated that transformational leaders demonstrate confidence and
respect in their followers and lead the latter to fulfil various positive organisational
outcomes (Givens, 2008) by means of appealing to their higher-order needs and offering a
purpose that transcends short-term goals (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Transformational
leadership is an engaging relationship between a leader and their subordinates inspiring the
latter to think beyond the horizon as they seek new directions (Krishnan, 2012). Consistently,
transformational leadership has been found to be linked to superior performance (Jing,
2017), profitability (Brandt et al., 2016), affective commitment (Lee, 2005), intrinsic
motivation (Charbonneau et al., 2001) and trust in the leader (Holtz and Harold, 2008).
Transactional leadership
The central tenet of the transactional approach is the exchange process between leaders and
followers where the former resort primarily to rewards and sanctions as a control
mechanism (Dubrin and Dalglish, 2003) to get the latter to perform desired tasks in a
preferred way (Kanungo, 2001). Transactional leaders and followers agree, explicitly or
implicitly, that desired followers’ behaviours will yield rewards such as increase in salary,
promotions and more perks and benefits; conversely, undesirable behaviours will result in
chastisement and punishment. Transactional leaders demand that their followers comply
with and adhere to their requests if they hope to obtain rewards and/or avoid punitive
action. To do so, transactional leaders define roles, set targets to be reached and develop
task requirements for their followers. In so doing, they increase the level of followers’
compliance, decrease resistance, reward achievement and promote reciprocal dependence
(Deichmann and Stam, 2015). This dyadic interaction of leadership style has been
fundamentally related to contingent reward and punishment behaviour.
Subsequently, it is no wonder that transactional leadership is composed of two
fundamental dimensions: contingent reward and management-by-exception. Contingent
reward takes place when the leader and follower have a mutual understanding of the
rewards or sanctions for performance or absence of performance. The emphasis is placed on
completing tasks that have been agreed upon according to previous expectations. On the
other hand, in management-by-exception, the leader takes action only when major
deviations from plans are blatantly obvious.
Empirical evidence lends supports to the association between transactional leadership
and organisational effectiveness (Bass and Riggio, 2006), organisational commitment
(Jabeen et al., 2015) and employee job satisfaction and organisational identification
(Epitropaki and Martin, 2005). On another note, transactional leaders have been found to
play a developmental role insofar as they monitor subordinate performance and take the
required corrective measures to oblige followers to adjust their work attitudes and
behaviours (Sosik and Jung, 2010).
Leadership and employee job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is “a positive (or negative) evaluative judgment one makes about one’s job or
job situation” (Weiss, 2002, p. 175). This definition implies that individuals construct
attitudes vis-à-vis their work based on their feelings, beliefs and behaviours. Job satisfaction
is reflected in a sense of fulfilment felt while performing work-related tasks and refers to You get what
various mental, physiological and environmental situations which trigger an individual to you appreciate
express fulfilment with their job. In other words, job satisfaction is about employees having
a pleasurable emotion associated with their job (Akehurst et al., 2013). In fact, the positive
appraisal of the work experience refers to the fact that employees enjoy their work, whereas
the negative evaluation entails loathing one’s occupation, to enjoy working on diverse tasks
yields satisfaction, while having an aversion to a specific job results in discontent and
dissatisfaction. Job satisfaction exerts significant influence on job-related behaviours such
as productivity, absenteeism, turnover and employee relations (Meyer et al., 2004). It has
been documented that job satisfaction is the most frequently studied attitude in the
organisational behaviour literature (Alvinius et al., 2017).
The nature and type of leader–follower relationship exerts tremendous influence on the
job satisfaction of employees (DeCremer, 2003). The sources of employee job dissatisfaction
are linked, in part, to conflicting job demands stemming from leadership styles (Schyns and
Sanders, 2007). More precisely, research suggests that transformational leadership is
positively related to job satisfaction because of its productive and caring characteristics
(Albion and Gagliardi, 2011; Menon, 2014). Conversely, transactional leadership impacts
negatively employee job satisfaction (Emery and Barker, 2007).
With regard to the influence of the dimensions of transformational leadership on
employee job satisfaction, Nguni et al. (2006) found that charisma exerted a great deal of
influence, while intellectual stimulation had a weak influence on respondents’ job
satisfaction. Similarly, recognition has been found to positively correlate with employee
satisfaction (Ali and Ahmed, 2009) as individuals whose work related contributions are
appreciated experience increased job satisfaction (Nelson, 2005; Gostick and Elton, 2007).
Charismatic leadership has been found to strongly influence job satisfaction (Sayadi, 2016).
Along the same lines, transactional leaders engender employees’ job satisfaction through
rewarding employees’ effort (Sadler, 2003; Yulk, 2010) as a leader’s contingent reward
behaviour leads employees to perceive that they are being treated in a just and fair manner,
which results in enhancing their job satisfaction (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Finally, there is a
negative correlation between management by exception and job satisfaction (Emery and
Barker, 2007).
Based on the preceding sections, the following research hypotheses are posed:
H1a. Transformational leadership dimensions of personal recognition, charisma and

intellectual stimulation will be significantly related to employee job satisfaction.
H1b. Transactional leadership dimensions of contingent reward and management-by-

exception will be significantly related to employee job satisfaction.
Leadership and affective commitment

Commitment is a psychological state involving normative, continuance and affective
components (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001). Affective commitment entails psychological
attachment with a relationship (Arriaga and Agnew, 2001). Employees who are affectively
committed to their organisation view their personal employment relationship as congruent
to the goals and values of the organisation (Beck and Wilson, 2000).
An extensive body of research has been carried out to examine the outcomes of
organisational commitment for employees and their organisations. Affective commitment
positively affects several work-related attitudes and behaviours such as organisational
IJOA citizenship behaviour (Liu, 2009) as well as job satisfaction and involvement with one’s work
(Markovits et al., 2007). Affective commitment has been found to negatively correlate with
turnover (Albrecht and Andreetta, 2011).
Affective commitment constitutes the focus of the current research because it relates
theoretically and empirically to leadership concepts such as transformational leadership
(Herold et al., 2008). It has also been consistently found to be the most accurate predictor of
positive organisational behaviour compared to other types of commitment (Chen and
Francesco, 2003; Lavelle et al., 2007). For instance, in arts-and-culture organisations, Sabella
et al. (2016) found that affective commitment was the most accurate description of
organisational commitment.
Research indicates that leadership has major influence on employee performance and
commitment (Wang et al., 2005). Further, employee perception of leadership behaviour is an
important predictor of employee commitment (Jaskyte, 2004). Along the same lines,
transformational leadership has been associated with team commitment (Arnold et al., 2001).
In addition, transformational leadership is positively related to organisational commitment
across various organisational and cultural settings (Bono and Judge, 2003). On another note,
transactional leadership has also been found to have a significant relationship with
organisational commitment (Lo et al., 2009).
Concerning the dimensions of transformational leadership, intellectual stimulation has
been found to have a positive impact on affective commitment (Rafferty and Griffin, 2004)
because when leaders encourage subordinates to actively engage in their organisation by
considering new ways of doing things, subordinates feel valued and exhibit an increased
affective commitment towards their organisation. Similarly, the more transformational
leaders intellectually stimulate their subordinates by encouraging their innovativeness and
creativity in solving problems and taking initiatives, the more likely subordinates’ affective
commitment increases as reflected in their identification with their organisation’s values,
goals and norms (Dick, 2011). While personal recognition is generally thought to positively
relate to affective commitment as individuals who receive recognition for their work would
feel an enhanced sense of investment in their organisation, empirical investigation found a
negative relationship between the two variables in question (Rafferty and Griffin, 2004).
Finally, affective commitment is positively linked to charismatic leadership (Michaelis et al.,
2009; Rowden, 2000).
Regarding the dimensions of transactional leadership, contingent reward and active
management by exception were found to be positively associated with affective
organisational commitment (Mesu et al., 2012).
The influences of leadership styles on employee affective commitment suggest the
following:

intellectual stimulation will be significantly related to employee affective
commitment.

exception will be significantly related to employee affective commitment.
Leadership and OCB

The concept of OCB has attracted tremendous attention from scholars and researchers over
the last three decades (Wang and Sung, 2016). It refers to a largely discretionary extra-role
behaviours that are not prescribed by formal roles, but shown by organisational members to You get what
contribute in achieving shared workplace desired outcomes without expecting immediate you appreciate
personal gains (Wang et al., 2005). However, the line of demarcation between in-role and
extra-role behaviours has recently become blurry as the OCB literature began to include
behaviours that are rewarded by organisations (Baker and Bulkley, 2014).
It is worth noting that some employees might resort to OCB as an impression
management tactic so that their supervisors perceive them as organisational members who
engage in high levels of OCB (Bolino et al., 2006). They may also engage in OCB for prosocial
motives, which constitute a desire to be helpful and concerned with others’ needs and
feelings (Grant and Mayer, 2009). Nonetheless, the majority of employees who exhibit OCB
in the workplace do so to express their gratitude to their organisation or to fulfil higher-
order needs or to match their behaviours with their values (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006).
Relationships between employee OCB and several organisational outcomes have been
empirically demonstrated in the literature such as employee commitment (Meyer and
Herscovitch, 2001), affective organisational commitment (Ng and Feldman, 2011), trust in
the leader (Colquitt et al., 2013), psychological empowerment (Seibert et al., 2011), employee
job satisfaction (Gyekye and Haybatollahi, 2015) and the supervisor–subordinate social
exchange relationship (Liu and Wang, 2013).
Research has also shown that various types of leadership have been associated with
followers’ OCB. To explain the positive influence of leaders on their subordinates’ OCB,
several theories have been employed to this end. First, according to the social exchange
theory, as leaders look after the benefit of their organisations and subordinates, the latter are
likely to reciprocate with similar pro-social behaviours (Mayer et al., 2009; Newman et al.,
2014). The effects of transformational leadership on OCB are far from being mere reactions
of subordinates to leadership behaviours, as they may include more complex relational
exchanges that take place between leaders and subordinates and that evolve over time
(Nohe and Hertel, 2017). Second, the social comparison theory posits that employees are
likely to engage more in OCB as they enjoy a favourable comparison against their colleagues
on job attainment, the exchange rapports with their superiors ((Vidyarthi et al., 2010) or the
way their organisations treat them (Spence et al., 2011). Finally, the social learning theory
suggests that individuals are influenced by observing role models with employees learning
about what is acceptable or unacceptable in the workplace by observing their supervisors
and adjusting their own behaviours accordingly (Mo and Shi, 2017).
Although the association between leadership and followers’ OCB is complex (Judge and
Piccolo, 2004), the relevance of leadership styles as predictor of subordinates’ OCB has been
empirically established (Burris et al., 2008). In this regard, transformational leadership has
been consistently associated with followers’ higher level of OCB (Carter et al., 2014; Wang
et al., 2011). Conversely, only a limited number of studies tackled links between
transactional leadership and OCB and revealed a statistically significant relationship
between the two variables under study (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Finally, it is important to
note that transformational leadership affects OCB more positively than transactional
leadership (MacKenzie et al., 2001; Yulk, 2010).
Transformational leaders inspire subordinates to go beyond their work expectations by
setting challenging goals while serving as ideal role models. Additionally, they provide each
follower with personalised attention and help and assist subordinates in aligning their
values with those of their organisation which consequently serve a higher collective desired
outcome (Bottomley et al., 2016). Transformational leaders may exhort followers to carry out
discretionary behaviours by enticing them to internalise and prioritise a larger
organisational purpose over self-interest (Caillier, 2014; Ritz et al., 2014).
IJOA In terms of its components, the various dimensions of transformational leadership
positively relate to followers’ OCB. In this respect, charisma has been found to positively
influence OCB at both the individual and group levels (Cho and Dansereau, 2010), as
charismatic leaders are able to motivate subordinates to go beyond their own needs (Dvir
et al., 2002). In fact, when charismatic leaders act in admirable ways such as selflessness,
subordinates feel positive about adopting a more collective and unselfish behavioural
orientation (Gilmore et al., 2013) and can result in subordinates’ enthusiasm toward altruistic
behaviours, including OCB (Sosik and Jung, 2010). Similarly, intellectual stimulation
positively impacts OCB, as it allows subordinates to become more creative and less risk
averse in matters pertaining to work because of the encouragement received by their leaders
to challenge held assumptions and beliefs (Herrmann and Felfe, 2014). Finally, employees
who feel recognised and valued by their organisation tend to perform extra roles in the
workplace (Snape and Redman, 2010). In short, the influence of transformational leadership
on followers’ OCB originates from fostering positive consequences (Gilmore et al., 2013).
Regarding dimensions of transactional leadership, contingent reward behaviour is
strongly associated with subordinates’ OCB, as the decision of engaging in OCB activities is
dependent upon employees’ beliefs about future rewards (Barbuto and Story, 2011). Along
the same lines, the relationship between management by exception and OCB has been found
to be positive (Nahum-Shani and Somech, 2011).
We posit that transformational and transactional leadership enhance positive OCB
among subordinates in the workplace. Henceforth, we make the following predictions:

intellectual stimulation will be significantly related to OCB.

exception will be significantly related to OCB.
Figure 1 exhibits the research model which summarises the hypothesised relationships
between this study variables as discussed in the previous sections.
Methods
Participants and research procedures
Data were gathered from employees working in various organisations in Morocco and
occupying various job positions. Potential respondents reported to a manager, as the aim is
to assess leadership styles. Different sectors of activities within public, semi-public and
private organisations were also represented. The various sectors, organisations and job
categories provide the opportunity for variance in regards to the adopted business practices.
A web-based survey was created and sent to 2,000 employees via a mailing list. The
questionnaire scales and items were presented in French, as the latter is the means of
communication widely used in the Moroccan workplace (Benzakour, 2007). The back-
translation method was used (Brislin, 1986) to translate the items from English to French. A
total of 219 usable questionnaires were obtained representing a response rate of 11 per cent.
While this response rate is low, the number of useable questionnaire is interesting (N = 219),
particularly that there is no agreed-upon standard for a minimum acceptable response rate
in social science research (Fowler, 2002).
The subsequent paragraph discusses the demographical details of the respondents.
Seven industries are represented as follows: Public administration (17.8 per cent), IT (16 per
cent), Manufacturing (15.1 per cent), Banking (14.6 per cent), Consulting (12.8 per cent),
Transformational You get what
Leadership you appreciate
y Personal H1a Job
Recognition
y Intellectual Satisfaction
Stimulation
y Charisma H1b
H2a
Affective
H2b
Commitment
Transactional
Leadership
y Contingent H3a
Reward
H3b
y Management by OCB
Exception Figure 1.
Research framework
Healthcare (12.3 per cent) and Retail (11.4 per cent). In terms of gender, 46.6 per cent of the
respondents stated they were female. The age ranges are relatively balanced (18-24, 23.3 per
cent; 25-34, 32.4 per cent; 35-44, 23.3 per cent and 45-54, 21 per cent). From a methodological
stance, the fact that data were gathered from several industries paves the way to avoiding
industry-type effects usually associated with data collected from a single industry. As per
their educational level, 38.8 per cent of the respondents hold a bachelor degree, 29.2 per cent,
a college degree and 25.6 per cent, a postgraduate degree. Regarding their job position, 36.1
per cent are employees with non-managerial positions, 26.9 per cent are team leads, 23.3 per
cent are middle-managers and 13.7 per cent are senior managers. Their average
organisational tenure was 7.2 years (SD = 4.7 years).
Measures
A four-section web-based questionnaire was administered, including an introductory letter
stating the purpose of the study and an assurance of anonymity and confidentiality of
individual responses. Except for personal demographic data (i.e. age, gender, education, job
position, organisational tenure and industry), the following measures consisted of a five-point
scale with response options ranging from 1, “strongly disagree” to 5, “strongly agree”.
Employee job satisfaction

Five items for job satisfaction have been borrowed from Heinonen and Korvela (2003)
because this scale is appropriate for professional workplace settings. The measure has been
validated by Kaya et al. (2010). The five items are:
(1) I am willing to work harder to help this company succeed.
(2) I am proud to work for [this organisation].
(3) I feel a strong sense of belonging to this organization.
(4) I would refer a friend to come work at [this organisation].
(5) Overall, I am satisfied working at [this organisation].
IJOA Affective commitment
This measure uses five items that were consistent with items used in previous academic
research by specialists and scholars (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Only the affective dimension of
organisational commitment is used in the present study because of its statistical relationship
with transformational leadership that has been extensively established in several empirical
investigations (Bono and Judge, 2003). On the contrary, the relationship between
transformational leadership and other dimensions of organisational commitment –
particularly normative commitment – has up to now only been theoretically supported
(Simosi and Xenikou, 2010).
OCB
Six items were drawn from the Williams and Anderson (1991) scale of OCB-Individual,
which is directed primarily to individuals within the organisation, was used in this research
because it is differentiated from OCB-O, which refers to behaviours that benefit the
organisation in general. Further, Williams and Anderson’s (1991) OCB scale was based on
the behaviour-related work of the founding pioneers of OCB such as Organ (1988) and Smith
et al. (1983). Finally, this scale is pertinent to measure OCB behaviours as it includes items
representing intra-role behaviours; this conceptual perspective indicate whether the
respondents differentiated between intra-role and extra-role behaviours (Cohen, 2006). These
six OCB items are:
(1) I help my co-workers when their workload is heavy.
(2) I help my co-workers who have been absent to finish their work.
(3) I take time to listen to my co-workers’ problems and worries.
(4) I go out of my way to help new co-workers.
(5) I take personal interest in my co-workers.
(6) I pass along notices and news to my co-workers.
Transformational leadership
This measure includes three scales, namely charisma, intellectual stimulation and personal
recognition. The first two scales were developed by Bass (1985) and included in the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The personal recognition scale was
operationalised by Rafferty and Griffin (2004).
Empirical research has consistently and extensively demonstrated that idealised
influence (charisma), intellectual stimulation, individualised consideration and inspirational
motivation are highly correlated and that they reflect the higher-order construct of
transformational leadership (Walumbwa et al., 2005); this is one of the main reasons why
these scales are usually combined into one transformational leadership factor by
researchers. In the present study, as we used a finer-grained approach to identify which
aspects of the transformational and transactional patterns account for employee job
satisfaction, affective commitment and OCB, we opted for leadership dimensions that have
yet to show a high intercorrelation for them to be used separately as dimensions rather than
to be combined in one second-order construct.
Transactional leadership
This measure is comprised of two scales, which are contingent reward and management-by-
exception as suggested in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) created by
Bass (1985). Contingent rewards and management by exceptions were used in the current You get what
research because they constitute the building block of transactional leadership (Bass and you appreciate
Avolio, 2004; Rafferty and Griffin, 2004; Yulk, 2010). The MLQ is the most widely used
instrument by researchers in the leadership literature (Posner, 2016).
As the focus of the present study was to show how the different facets of
transformational and transactional leadership influence employee job satisfaction, affective
commitment and OCB, we treated leadership dimensions separately; consistently with this
reasoning, we did not resort to the overall effect of each leadership style as reflected in a
composite score averaging the means of each of the leadership dimensions.
Control variables
Extant literature suggests that demographic variables such as gender, age, education, job
position and organisational tenure are potential predictors of leadership outcomes
(Walumbwa et al., 2004), organisational commitment (Riordan et al., 2003) and employee job
satisfaction (Warr, 2008). Therefore, we controlled for respondents’ age, gender, position,
education, organisational tenure (years in service with the current organisation) and
organisation’s industry. These variables are held as fixed effects in our analyses to account
for unmeasured impacts on the dependent variables that may be associated with these
variables.
To answer the research hypotheses, structural equations modelling (SEM) technique is
used, via AMOS 24, for the sake of parsimony (James et al., 2006). The SEM technique is also
used because of its multiple advantages such as:
(1) estimating and removing the measurement error, while leaving only common
variance, which enhances the reliability of measurement; and
(2) allowing complete and simultaneous tests of multiple relations among variables
(Ullman, 2006).
Results and analyses

Descriptive statistics
Table I provides the descriptive statistics and correlations for the variables used in the
current study, including means, standard deviations and standardised coefficient alphas. All
of the construct scales show excellent levels of reliability, except for employee job
satisfaction (alpha = 0.663) and OCB (alpha = 0.614). There are statistically significant
differences in the means of all the variables of the research study. Table I also shows the
Variables (N = 219) M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Intellectual stimulation 3.410 0.832 (0.878)

2. Charisma 3.412 0.734 0.818* 0.(844)
3. Personal recognition 3.420 0.670 692* 0.685* (0.906)
4. Contingent reward 3.198 0.879 0.809* 0.737* 0.713* (0.905)
5. Management by exception 3.455 0.743 0.700* 0.683* 0.578* 0.619* (0.769) Table I.
6. Employee satisfaction 3.544 0.668 0.491* 0.483* 0.551* 456* 0.379* (0.663)
7. Affective commitment 3.559 0.801 0.508* 483* 0.571* 403* 0.386* 0.560* (0.788)
Means, standard
8. OCB 3.793 0.637 0.137* 0.197* 0.314* 0.212* 0.185* 0.368* 0.317* (0.614) deviations,
reliabilities and
Notes: Scale reliabilities are reported on the diagonal; *p < 0.05 variables (N = 219)
IJOA intercorrelations among the various scales and reveals that all the variables are statistically
significant and positive. As expected, the leadership subscales were intercorrelated and r-
values ranged between 0.578 and 0.818, with an average ‘r’ of 0.703. Given the fact that these
dimensions were interrelated, they will be treated as co-varying in the SEM analyses.
To test for the normality of the data set, a z-test was computed using skewness and
kurtosis by respectively dividing the skew and kurtosis values by their standard errors as
recommended by Kim (2013). The z-test values for all variables (except for OCB) are smaller
than the cut-off point of 3.29 for medium-sized samples (50 < n < 300), which did not allow
rejecting the null hypothesis consisting of non-normal distribution (Kim, 2013).
To ensure the properties of the instruments, the reliability and validity of the
measurement model was examined by computing the average variance extracted (AVE) and
Fornell’s composite reliability (CR) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). For all of the constructs, the
AVE is greater than 0.5, and the CRs are well above the cut-off value of 0.7 (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981), indicating convergent validity of the measurement scales. Further, the
discriminant validity was demonstrated given that the AVE values of every construct are
greater than the squared correlation between the construct itself and the other constructs
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Measurement model
The goodness of fit of the overall model will be assessed by means of several indices as
generally recommended by scholars (Schumacker and Lomax, 2004). These indices are the
comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the root-mean-square error of
approximation (RMSEA), the chi-square ( x 2) and the minimum discrepancy divided by its
degree of freedom (CMIN/DF) because the x 2 test is sensitive to sample size (Kline, 2011).
Before testing the hypothesised structural model, the measurement model was tested to
assess whether it is a good fit.
To evaluate the independence and distinctiveness of our scales, we conducted
confirmatory factor analyses to compare two different models. Concerning transformational
leadership scales, in the first model, we used three factors for the transformational construct,
namely charisma, personal recognition and intellectual stimulation, while allowing the three
factors to correlate. The fit indices of this model were satisfactory: x 2 = 1541.126; x 2/df
ratio = 2.055; RMSEA = 0.070; CFI = 0.828; and TLI = 0.812. In the second model, one
unique factor was built for the transformational construct. The fit indices of this model
compared to the first model were slightly not as good: x 2= 1,690.356; x 2/df ratio = 2.195;
RMSEA = 0.074; CFI = 0.800; and TLI = 0.787.
Regarding transactional leadership scales, in the first model, we used two factors for the
transactional construct, namely contingent rewards and management by exception, while
allowing the two factors to correlate. The fit indices of this model were satisfactory x 2 =
760.169; x 2/df ratio = 2.071; RMSEA = 0.070; CFI = 0.854; and TLI = 0.839. In the second
model, one unique factor was built for the transformational construct. The fit indices of this
model compared to the first model were slightly not as good: x 2= 796.148; x 2/df ratio =
2.169; RMSEA = 0.073; CFI = 0.841; and TLI = 0.824.
These results support the distinctiveness and uniqueness of leadership scales used in the
hypothesised model. They also provide empirical evidence that further examination of the
structural model is justified.
Hypothesised structural model

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) along with maximum likelihood estimation (Kline,
2011) was conducted through AMOS 24 to specify the nature of the hypothesised
relationships among the variables. The fit indices for this model showed a very good fit to You get what
the data: x 2 (N = 219) = 71.731, p <0.01 (df = 42, CMIN/DF = 1.708; CFI = 0.974; TLI = you appreciate
0.943; and RMSEA = 0.057). Results are shown in Table II. Only the personal recognition
variable, which is a dimension of the transformational leadership style, is statistically
significant and has positive coefficients for the paths to employee job satisfaction ( b =
0.348, p < 0.05), affective commitment ( b = 0.521, p < 0.01) and OCB ( b = 0.346, p < 0.01)
while controlling for individual and organisational factors. None of the control variables
(age, gender, position, education, organisational tenure and organisation’s industry) were
found to be statistically related to the dependent variables.
H1a, 2a and H3a are partially supported by our data as one dimension of the
transformational leadership, namely personal recognition is statically associated with all the
three dependent variables. Conversely, the other two dimensions of the transformational
leadership style, which are charisma and intellectual stimulation were not statistically
related to the dependent variables.
As none of the dimensions of transactional leadership style were found to be statistically
associated with the dependent variables, H1b, H2b and H3b are not corroborated. They
Standardised
Structural relationships parameter estimates
Satisfaction <— Industry 0.156

Affective commitment <— Industry 0.155
OCB <— Industry 0.078
Satisfaction <— Job position 0.063
Affective commitment <— Job position 0.012
OCB <— Job position 0.121
Satisfaction <— Gender 0.125
Affective commitment <— Gender 0.128
OCB <— Gender 0.090
Satisfaction <— Age 0.032
Affective commitment <— Age 0.061
OCB <— Age 0.147
Satisfaction <— Education 0.021
Affective commitment <— Education 0.029
OCB <— Education 0.027
Satisfaction <— Personal recognition 0.364***
Affective commitment <— Personal recognition 0.449***
OCB <— Personal recognition 0.367***
Satisfaction <— Intellectual stimulation 0.188
Affective commitment <— Intellectual stimulation 0.340
OCB <— Intellectual stimulation 0.308
Satisfaction <— Charisma 0.085
Affective commitment <— Charisma 0.080
OCB <— Charisma 0.027
Satisfaction <— Contingent reward 0.019
Affective commitment <— Contingent reward 0.250
OCB <— Contingent reward 0.101
Satisfaction <— Management by exception 0.039
Affective commitment <— Management by exception 0.047
Table II.
OCB <— Management by exception 0.121 Parameter estimates
for the hypothesised
Note: ***p < 0.001 model
IJOA predict that transactional leadership will be significantly related, respectively, to employee
job satisfaction, affective commitment and OCB. These results suggest that transactional
leadership exerts no effects on the three dependent variables under study.
Based on the above results, it can be concluded that when organisational leaders resort to
personal recognition of valuing the efforts of employees and their outcome achievements
through positive reinforcement, praise and acknowledgment, employee job satisfaction,
their affective commitment and their OCB consequently increase.
Discussion
SEM analyses reveal that employee job satisfaction, employee affective commitment and
OCB are only impacted by the personal recognition dimension of the transformational
leadership style, whereas none of the other leadership dimensions are affected. Personal
recognition entails valuing employee efforts and achievement of outcomes through praise
and acknowledgment (Rafferty and Griffin, 2004). The empirical support for our research
model reflects the importance of recognising followers’ professional contribution by their
leaders in assuring followers are satisfied with their job, affectively committed and good
organisational citizens.
Transformational leadership has consistently been associated with various positive
organisational outcomes (Givens, 2008). In this study, personal recognition, which is about
acknowledging followers’ efforts and treating them equitably (Rafferty and Griffin, 2004),
has been found to be important for employee job satisfaction, employee affective
commitment and OCB.
These results corroborate previous studies that have showed that employee recognition,
emanating from work-related performance, boosts employee satisfaction with their jobs
(DeCenzo and Robbins, 2010; Huxley et al., 2005). In fact, frequent doses of daily positive
reinforcement, whether implicit or explicit, from leaders towards their employees can
motivate the latter and assist in building feelings of confidence, self-worth and fulfilment,
sentiments and feelings that appear to be closely related to an individual’s job. Ultimately,
these leadership gestures towards their followers will encourage and promote employee
satisfaction.
The existing literature pertaining to personal recognition exhibits also a lack of
consistency as per certain variables. While some researchers (Huddleston et al., 2002)
suggest that highly educated employees were more likely to be motivated by praise and
recognition than less educated individuals, others found no significant relationship between
these two variables (Bhargava and Kelkar, 2000). Similarly, Hoole and Vermeulen (2003)
conclude that senior employees tend to value higher-order rewards more than their
counterparts in positions with less responsibility and authority.
Regarding the other dimensions of transformational leadership, charisma does not
influence any of the dependent variables in the current study. It seems that the concept of
the charismatic leaders, who are generally perceived by their subordinates as more effective
than less charismatic leaders (Amirul and Daud, 2012), does not hold in the Moroccan
context in light of the findings of the present study. In fact, in a survey of Moroccan
employees about their perception of leadership styles, respondents did not consider the
charismatic leader to be effective or functional, but rather preferred coaching and
participative leadership styles (Bensalem and Bensalem, 2014).
Along the same line, intellectual stimulation was not found to be relevant in the
context of this study. It is concerned with leaders allowing their followers to enhance
the latter’s innovation-related skills by encouraging them to think on their own,
question assumptions, reframe problems and resort to novel perspectives in dealing
with regular everyday workplace challenges (Bass and Riggio, 2006). This may be You get what
because of the high power distance and uncertainty avoidance that characterise the you appreciate
Moroccan national culture (Hofstede, 2001). In effect, within Moroccan organisations,
which widely resort to the hierarchical organisational structure (El Amrani and
Chebihi, 2003), subordinates expect to be assigned what to do and the ideal manager
adopts a top-down non-linear management approach (Ait Hammou et al., 2014). In
addition, the high level of rigidity and sought-after precision (Ait Hammou et al., 2014)
as well as obedience, reverence of hierarchy and status, paternalism and limited
encouragement of initiative taking (Benabdeljlil, 2007) may not leave room for
intellectual stimulation of subordinates in the Moroccan organisational life.
Further, the findings of the present study resonate with the extant literature suggesting
that organisational commitment is higher for employees whose leaders emphasised
consideration for them (Bycio et al., 1995). Previous work has indicated that employees
demonstrate strong affective commitment when they feel that their organisations recognise
their efforts, contributions and performance (Davies, 2001); recognition makes employees
feel supported, important and responsible (Allen et al., 2000; Appelbaum et al., 2000).
Similarly, the extant literature provides empirical evidence that the transformational
leadership style was a predictor of OCB (Bass, 1985; Boerner et al., 2007; MacKenzie et al.,
2001; Wang et al., 2005).
The absence of association between transactional leadership and affective commitment,
job satisfaction and OCB may imply that respondents do not feel satisfied, affectively
committed and do not resort to OCB behaviours in situations where their transactional
leaders use tactics such as rewards and sanctions.
In the current study, respondents did not show influence of transactional leadership on
their level of job satisfaction, affective commitment and OCB because the style in question is
mainly concerned with basic work requirements, maintaining the organisational status quo,
as well as limiting employee effort toward goals, job satisfaction and effectiveness
(Bass, 1985).
It seems that employee job satisfaction is not subject to explicit or implicit job-
related agreements between leaders and followers and it is not affected when desirable
behaviours yield rewards and undesirable behaviours result in punishment. This
conclusion is aligned with previous studies which have found that employee job
satisfaction is a pleasurable emotion that can be translated into an enjoyment of work
activities (Akehurst et al., 2013) and, hence, is not subject to negotiations and
concessions between leaders and their subordinates, especially that transactional
leadership style may be perceived as restrictive, less flexible and controlling (Afsar
et al., 2017). Finally, the current research findings resonate with earlier studies that
concluded that transactional leadership may cause employee satisfaction to suffer
because it does not seek to motivate followers beyond the level that is required to avoid
punishment or gain rewards (Bass, 1985).
Regarding the control variables of the present study, respondents’ age, gender, position,
education, organisational tenure and organisation’s industry did not turn out to be
statistically relevant for any of the dependent variables, including personal recognition.
These results are consistent with earlier research that did not find recognition to be
associated with gender (Bradler et al., 2016). Nonetheless, the results of this study are not in
line with previous research indicating that employees in their late career stage were found to
be more interested in praise than financial rewards as compared to their younger
counterparts (Huddleston et al., 2002).
IJOA Theoretical and managerial implications
From a theoretical stance, the current study is the first of its kind to examine the effects
of transformational and transactional leadership on employee job satisfaction,
employee affective commitment and OCB in Morocco and has identified the relevant
leadership style dimension in this context, that of recognising employee contributions
by leaders. The study, thus, enriches the management and leadership literature,
especially given the dearth of academic research and scholarly inquiry on the topic in
question both in the literature in general (Long and Shields, 2010; Neckermann et al.,
2014) and in Morocco in particular.
From a practical viewpoint, the results of the current study may be of use and interest for
managers and practitioners in designing effective leadership training programs. In this
respect, it has been suggested that transformational leadership may be used as a managerial
leadership development tool to yield substantial results (Collins and Holton, 2004;
Walumbwa and Lawler, 2003). At the same time, it is crucial that these training programs
take into account insights from local and traditional leadership styles to avoid possible
resistance (Ardichvili, 2001). While there is a growing interest pertaining to the
transformational leadership in the leadership development literature, training and reporting

of results related to the development of this type of leadership are still wanting (Collins and
Holton, 2004).
Moreover, the findings of the present study can also be useful for organisations
operating in Morocco to select leaders to enhance the leader-position fit and ultimately
improve their performance. Morocco is widely opening its doors, more than ever, to
foreign direct investment and international organisations and betting on attracting
more resources in different business areas (Bensalem and Bensalem, 2014; Id Ahmed
and Loneux, 2016); to do so, the country is pursuing business goals aimed at improving
its competitiveness. Subsequently, it is vital that proven business approaches and
models, such as insights of leadership theories, be adopted by businesses and
organisations operating in the country, especially that the potential of transformational
leadership in motivating followers has been extensively demonstrated across cultures
(Bass, 1997). Along the same line of thought, it is important to have leaders who are
aware of their leadership styles and their implications in the workplace. It has been
proven that the most effective leaders are those who know how to tap into their
subordinates’ effective behaviour (Bealer and Bhanugopan, 2014).
As recommended by various scholars (Bolino and Turnley, 2003; Yulk, 2010), to be an
effective leader, it is necessary to recognise when to use different tactics of influence as well
as the required skill to effectively carry out various influence attempts. Hence, Moroccan
leaders should pay close attention to personal recognition while leading their employees
considering the importance of this leadership dimension in the workplace in efforts to avoid
organisational dysfunction such as decrease of work performance, absenteeism and high
turnover (Motowidlo, 2003). It is noteworthy to highlight the fact that the work environment
determines job satisfaction through recognition received by employees for performing their
job (Brody et al., 2002).
Despite the importance of recognising employee goal achievement and outstanding
performance levels by means of praise and non-financial rewards for both organisations
(Wiscombe, 2002) and individuals, this managerial practice is often times overlooked
(Luthans, 2000) and underutilised by managers (Kouzes and Posner, 2003). Therefore, the
findings are a subtle plea for senior management to increase awareness about their
leadership style and how they promote or prevent subordinates from demonstrating
productive work behaviours. As personal recognition appears important, organisations and
senior management ought to take into account this practice for a more effective and efficient You get what
functioning of their organisations. you appreciate
Limitations and future research
As with most research, the findings of this study should be interpreted cautiously,
taking into account the following limitations. First, the use of a cross-sectional research
design limits establishing cause-and-effect relationships. Future research espousing a
longitudinal design is much needed and would be valuable to test the present study’s
model and verify its findings. Second, data about both the dependent and independent
variables were collected from the same sources, which may have engendered common
method bias. However, measures were taken to reduce this bias such as separating the
dependent variable-related questions and independent variable questions with
demographic questions. Third, the fact that only personal recognition was significantly
related to the dependent variables could be because of the use of a few leadership
dimensions: charisma, intellectual stimulation and personal recognition
(transformational leadership) as well as contingent reward and management-by-

exception (transactional leadership). Future research ought to investigate the effects of
other leadership dimensions on the dependent variables of the current study. Finally,
we must eschew the tempting of an easy generalisation of the findings of the current
study to the Moroccan setting. Future studies should be extended to more industries,
occupations and various organisations before any conclusive generalisations can be
made.
Overall, the current study’s strengths and contributions to business theory and
practice are believed to outweigh its limitations. This study will contribute to achieving
greater understanding of adequate leadership practices that allow managers to better
achieve their objectives of reaching and maintaining employee job satisfaction,
affective commitment and OCB in the Moroccan context. It does so by identifying the
relevant leadership style dimension of employee recognition as supported by the SEM
analyses. Future research would be beneficial in taking the current findings one step
further and assess the appropriate types of recognition that trigger an increase in
organisational outcomes.
Conclusion
While several studies have assessed leadership effectiveness in diverse settings, no
research has investigated leadership styles and their effects on various outcomes in the
Moroccan context. To contribute to bridging this gap, the current study looked at the
influence of transactional and transformational leadership styles on employee job
satisfaction, affective commitment and OCB within Moroccan organisations. SEM
analyses were conducted on data gathered from 219 employees working in seven
different industries in Morocco. The findings reveal that employee job satisfaction,
affective commitment and OCB are only impacted by the personal recognition
dimension of the transformational leadership style. The study indicates that charisma
and intellectual stimulation (transformational leadership) as well as contingent reward
and management-by-exception (transactional leadership) did not yield significant
results. The behaviours subsumed by the personal recognition dimension of the
transformational pattern have important implications for employee well-being,
productive behaviour and overall positive contribution in the workplace.
IJOA References
Afsar, B., Badir, Y.F., Bin Saeed, B. and Hafeez, S. (2017), “Transformational and transactional
leadership and employee’s entrepreneurial behaviour in knowledge-intensive industries”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 307-332.
Ait Hammou, K., Galib, H., Steiger, J. and Melloul, J. (2014), “The effect of national culture on strategic
behaviour and financial performance: evidence from the cement industry in Morocco and the
United States of America”, Journal of Management Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 70-90.
Akehurst, G., Comenche, J.M. and Galindo, M. (2013), “Job satisfaction and commitment in the
entrepreneurial SME”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 277-290.
Al Arkoubi, K. (2008), “Spiritual leadership and identity in moroccan business: an ethnographic study
of YNAA holding”, Unpublished PhD thesis, New Mexico State University, NM.
Albion, M.J. and Gagliardi, R.E. (2011), “A study of transformational leadership, organisational
change and job satisfaction”, Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 23-32.
Albrecht, S.L. and Andreetta, M. (2011), “The influence of empowering leadership, empowerment and
engagement on affective commitment and turnover intentions in community health service

workers: test of a model”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 228-237.
Ali, R. and Ahmed, M.S. (2009), “The impact of reward and recognition programs on employee’s
motivation and satisfaction: an empirical study”, International Review of Business Research
Papers, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 270-279.
Ali, A.J. and Wahabi, R. (1995), “Managerial value systems in Morocco”, Int. Studies of Mgt. and Org,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 87-96.
Allen, T.D., Barnard, S., Rush, M. and Russell, J. (2000), “Ratings of organisational citizenship
behaviour: does the source make a difference?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 97-114.
Alvinius, A., Johansson, E. and Larsson, G. (2017), “Job satisfaction as a form of organisational
commitment at the military strategic level”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 312-326.
Amirul, S.R. and Daud, H.N. (2012), “A study on the relationship between leadership styles and
leadership effectiveness in malaysian GLCs”, European Journal of Business and Management,
Vol. 4 No. 8, pp. 193-201.
Andersen, J.A. (2016), “An old man and the sea of leadership”, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 70-81.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A.L. (2000), Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-
Performance Work Systems Pay off? Economic Policy Institute, Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
New York, NY.
Ardichvili, A. (2001), “Leadership styles and work-related values of managers and employees of
manufacturing enterprises in post-communist countries”, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 363-383.
Arnold, K.A., Barling, J. and Kelloway, E.K. (2001), “Transformational leadership or the iron cage:
Which predicts trust, commitment and team efficacy?”, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 315-320.
Arriaga, X.B. and Agnew, C.R. (2001), “Being committed: affective, cognitive, and conative components
of relationship commitment”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 27 No. 9,
pp. 1190-1203.
Baker, W.E. and Bulkley, N. (2014), “Paying it forward versus rewarding reputation: mechanisms of
generalized reciprocity”, Organisational Science, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 1493-1510.
Barbuto, J. and Story, J. (2011), “Work motivation and organisational citizenship behaviours: a field
study”, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 23-34.
Baškarada, S., Watson, J. and Cormarty, J. (2017), “Balancing transactional and transformational You get what
leadership”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 506-515.
you appreciate
Bass, B. and Bass, R. (2008), The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial
Applications, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1997), “Does the transactional/transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organisational and national boundaries?”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 130-139.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2004), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Manual and Sample Set, 3rd
ed., Mind Garden, Redwood City.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, Psychology Press, NJ.
Bealer, D. and Bhanugopan, R. (2014), “Transactional and transformational leadership behaviour of
expatriate and national managers in the UAE: a cross-cultural comparative analysis”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 293-316.
Beck, K. and Wilson, C. (2000), “Development of affective organisational commitment. A cross-
sequential examination of change with tenure”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 56 No. 1,
pp. 114-136.
Behery, M. and Al-Nasser, A. (2016), “Examining the impact of leadership style and coaching on
employees’ commitment and trust: mediation effect of bullying and job alienation”, International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 291-314.
Benabdeljlil, N. (2007), “Les modes de management des entreprises au maroc: entre contingences
culturelles et économiques”, Revue Internationale P.M.E.: Économie et Gestion de la Petite et
Moyenne Entreprise, Vol. 202, pp. 89-122.
Bensalem, E. and Bensalem, A. (2014), Leadership Dans Les Organisations Marocaines, HEM, Casablanca.
Benson, P.G. and Al Arkoubi, K. (2006), “Human resource management in Morocco”, in Budhwar, P.S.
and Mellahi, K. (Eds), Managing Human Resources in the Middle East, Routledge/Francis Group,
London, pp. 203-290.
Benzakour, F. (2007), “Langue française et langues locales en terre marocaine: rapports de forces et
reconstructions identitaires”, Hérodote, Vol. 3 No. 126, pp. 45-56.
Bhal, K.T. and Ansari, M.A. (2007), “Leader-member exchange-subordinates outcomes relationship:
role of voice and justice”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 20-35.
Bhargava, S. and Kelkar, A. (2000), “Prediction of job involvement, job satisfaction, and empowerment
from organisational structure and corporate culture”, Psychological Studies, Vol. 45 Nos. 1/2,
pp. 43-50.
Birasnav, M. (2014), “Relationship between transformational leadership behaviours and manufacturing
strategy”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 205-223.
Boehm, S.A., Dwertmann, D.J.G., Bruch, H. and Shamir, B. (2015), “The missing link? Investigating
organisational identity strength and transformational leadership climate as mechanisms that
connect CEO charisma with firm performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 156-171.
Boerner, S., Eisenbesiss, S.A. and Griesser, D. (2007), “Follower behaviour and organisational
performance: the impact of transformational leaders”, Journal of Leadership and Organisational
Studies, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 15-26.
Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (2003), “Going the extra mile: cultivating and managing employee
citizenship behaviour”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 60-71.
Bolino, M.C., Varela, J.A., Bande, B. and Turnley, W.H. (2006), “The impact of impression-management
tactics on supervisor ratings of organisational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 281-297.
IJOA Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2003), “Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational
effects of transformational leaders”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 554-571.
Bottomley, P., Mostafa, A.M.S., Gould-Williams, J.S. and Leon-Cázares, F. (2016), “The impact of
transformational leadership on organisational citizenship behaviours: the contingent role of
public service motivation”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 390-405.
Bradler, C., Dur, R., Neckermann, S. and Non, A. (2016), “Employee recognition and performance: a field
experiment”, Management Science, Vol. 62 No. 11, pp. 3085-3099.
Brandt, T., Laitinen, E.K. and Laitinen, T. (2016), “The effect of transformational leadership on the
profitability of finnish firms”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 81-106.
Brislin, R.W. (1986), “The wording of translation of research instruments”, in Lonner, W.J. and Berry, J.
W. (Eds.), Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 137-164.
Brody, D.C., Demarco, C. and Lovrich, N.P. (2002), “Community policing and job satisfaction: evidence
of positive workforce effects from a multijurisdictional comparison in Washington state”, Police
Brown, S., Chen, L. and O’Donnell, E. (2017), “Organisational opinion leader charisma, role modeling,
and relationships”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 80-102.
Burris, E.R., Detert, J.R. and Chiaburu, D.S. (2008), “Quitting before leaving: the mediating effects of
psychological attachment and detachment on voice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 4,
pp. 912-922.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. and Allen, J.S. (1995), “Further assessments of bass’s (1985) conceptualization of
transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4,
pp. 468-478.
Caillier, J.G. (2014), “Do transformational leaders affect turnover intentions and extra-role behaviors
through mission valence?”, American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 226-242.
Carter, M.Z., Mossholder, K.W., Feild, H.S. and Armenakis, A.A. (2014), “Transformational leadership,
interactional justice, and organisational citizenship behavior: the effects of racial and gender
dissimilarity between supervisors and subordinates”, Group and Organisational Management,
Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 691-719.
Charbonneau, D., Barling, J. and Kelloway, K.E. (2001), “Transformational leadership and sports
performance: the mediating role of intrinsic motivation”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 1521-1534.
Chen, Z.X. and Francesco, A.M. (2003), “The relationship between the three components of commitment
and employee performance in China”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 490-510.
Cho, J. and Dansereau, F. (2010), “Are transformational leaders fair? A multi-level study of
transformational leadership, justice perceptions, and organisational citizenship behaviours”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 409-421.
Clawson, J.G.S. (2008), “Leadership as managing energy”, International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 174-181.
Cohen, A. (2006), “The relationship between multiple commitments and organisational citizenship
behaviour in arab and jewish culture”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 69 No. 1,
pp. 105-118.
Collins, D.B. and Holton III, E.F. (2004), “The effectiveness of managerial leadership development
programs: a Meta-Analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001”, Human Resource Development
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., Rodell, J.B., Long, D.M., Zapata, C.P., Conlon, D.E. et al. (2013), “Justice at the
millennium, a decade later: a Meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based
perspectives”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 199-236.
Davies, R. (2001), “How to boost staff retention”, People Management, Vol. 7 No. 8, pp. 54-56.
DeCenzo, D.A. and Robbins, S.P. (2010), Fundamentals of Human Resource Management, (10th ed.), You get what
John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken.
you appreciate
DeCremer, D. (2003), “Why inconsistent leadership is regarded as procedurally unfair: the importance
of social self-esteem concerns”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 535-550.
Deichmann, D. and Stam, D. (2015), “Leveraging transformational and transactional leadership to
cultivate the generation of organisation-focused ideas”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 204-219.
Dick, G.P.M. (2011), “The influence of managerial and job variables on organisational commitment in
the police”, Public Administration, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 557-576.
Dubrin, A.J. and Dalglish, C. (2003), Leadership: An Australian Focus, John Wiley and Sons,
Queensland, Australia.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002), “Impact of transformational leadership on follower
development and performance: a field experiment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45
No. 4, pp. 735-744.
El Amrani, J. and Chebihi, M.A. (2003), “Culture et management au maroc”, Repères et Perspectives,
Vol. 4, pp. 87-107.

Emery, C.R. and Barker, K.J. (2007), “The effect of transactional and transformational leadership styles
on the organisational commitment and job satisfaction of customer contact personnel”, Journal
of Organisational Culture, Communication and Conflict, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 77-90.
Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (2005), “The moderating role of individual differences in the relation
between transformation/transactional leadership perceptions and organisational identification”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 569-589.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Forster, G. and Fenwick, J. (2015), “The influence of islamic values on management practice in
Morocco”, European Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 143-156.
Fowler, F.J. (2002), Survey Research Methods, (3rd Ed.), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Gilmore, P.L., Hu, X., Wei, F., Tetrick, L.E. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2013), “Positive affectivity neutralizes
transformational leadership’s influence on creative performance and organisational citizenship
behaviours”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 1061-1075.
Givens, R. (2008), “Transformational leadership: the impact on organisational and personal outcomes”,
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 4-24.
Gostick, A. and Elton, C. (2007), The Daily Carrot Principle: 365 Ways to Enhance Your Career and Life,
Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Grant, A.M. and Mayer, D.M. (2009), “Good soldiers and good actors: prosocial and impression
management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 4, pp. 900-912.
Gyekye, A.S. and Haybatollahi, M. (2015), “Organisational citizenship behaviours: the impact of age
and job satisfaction among ghanaian industrial workers”, International Journal of
Organisational Analysis, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 185 -301.
Hassi, A. (2016), “Human resource management in Morocco”, in Budhwar, P.S. and Mellahi K. (Eds),
Managing Human Resources in the Middle East, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 244-260.
Heinonen, J. and Korvela, K. (2003), “How About Measuring Intrapreneurship?”, paper presented at the
33rd Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Small Business (EISB) Conference, 10-12 September,
Milan, Italy.
Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. and Liu, Y. (2008), “The effects of transformational and change
leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: a multilevel study”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 346-357.
IJOA Herrmann, D. and Felfe, J. (2014), “Effects of leadership style, creativity technique and personal
initiative on employee creativity”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 209-227.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and
Organisations across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Holtz, B.C. and Harold, C.M. (2008), “When your boss says no! the effects of leadership style and trust
on employee reactions to managerial explanations”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Hoole, C. and Vermeulen, L.P. (2003), “Job satisfaction among South african pilots”, South African
Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 52-57.
Huddleston, P., Good, L. and Frazier, B. (2002), “The influence of firm characteristics and demographic
variables on russian workers’ work motivation and job attitudes”, International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 395-421.
Huxley, P., Evans, S., Gately, C., Webber, M., Mears, A., Pajak, S., Kendall, T., Medina, J. and Katona, C.
(2005), “Stress and pressures in mental health social work: the worker speaks”, British Journal of
Social Work, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1063-1079.
Id Ahmed, Z. and Loneux, C. (2016), “Perspective communicationnelle et rationalisation des

organisations: l’exemple d’Axa maroc (TIC et RSE)”, Revue Française Des Sciences de
L’information et de la Communication, Vol. 9, available at: https://rfsic.revues.org/2490 (accessed
20 October 2017).
Iribarne, P.d. (2002), “Motivating workers in emerging countries: universal tools and local adaptations”,
Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 243-256.
Iribarne, P.d. (2003), “The combination of strategic games and moral community in the functioning of
firms”, Organisation Studies, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 1283-1307.
Jabeen, F., Behery, M. and Elanain, H.A. (2015), “Examining the relationship between the
psychological contract and organisational commitment: the mediating effect of
transactional leadership in the UAE context”, International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 102-122.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A. and Brett, J.M. (2006), “A tale of two methods”, Organisational Research
Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 233-244.
Jaskyte, K. (2004), “Transformational leadership, organisational culture, and innovativeness in
nonprofit organisations”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 153-168.
Jing, F. (2017), “Leadership paradigms and performance in small service firms”, Journal of Management
and Organisation, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 339-358.
Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004), “Transformational and transactional leadership: a Meta-analytic
test of their relative validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 755-768.
Kabasakal, H., Dastmalchian, A., Karacay, G. and Bayraktar, S. (2012), “Leadership and culture in the
MENA region: an analysis of the GLOBE project”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47 No. 4,
pp. 519-529.
Kanungo, R.N. (2001), “Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders”, Canadian Journal
of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 251-265.
Kaya, N., Koc, E. and Topcu, D. (2010), “An exploratory analysis of the influence of human
resource management activities and organisational climate on job satisfaction in turkish
banks”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 11,
pp. 2031-2051.
Kim, H.-Y. (2013), “Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using
skewness and kurtosis”, Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 52-54.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, (3rd. Ed.), Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2003), The Leadership Challenge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. You get what
Krishnan, V.R. (2012), “Transformational leadership and personal outcomes: empowerment as you appreciate
mediator”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 550-563.
Lavelle, J.J., Rupp, D.E. and Brockner, J. (2007), “Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice,
social exchange, and citizenship behaviour: the target similarity model”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 841-866.
Lee, J. (2005), “Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment”, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 655-672.
Liu, Y. (2009), “Perceived organisational support and expatriate organisational citizenship behaviour:
the mediating role of affective commitment towards the parent company”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 38 No 3, pp. 307-319.
Liu, X.Y. and Wang, J. (2013), “Abusive supervision and organisational citizenship behaviour: is
supervisor–subordinate guanxi a mediator?”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 1471-1489.
Lo, M., Ramayah, T. and Min, H. (2009), “Leadership styles and organisational commitment: a test on
Malaysia manufacturing industry”, African Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 1 No. 6,

pp. 133-139.
Long, R.J. and Shields, J.L. (2010), “From pay to praise? Non-cash employee recognition in canadian and
australian firms”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 8,
pp. 1145-1172.
Luthans, K. (2000), “Recognition: a powerful, but often overlooked, leadership tool to improve employee
performance”, The Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 32-39.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Rich, G.R. (2001), “Transformational and transactional leadership
and salesperson performance”, Academy of Marketing Science Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 115-134.
Markovits, Y., Davis, A.J. and Vandick, R. (2007), “Organisational commitment profiles and job
satisfaction among greek private and public sector employees”, International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 77-99.
Mayer, D.M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M. and Salvador, R.B. (2009), “How low does ethical
leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model”, Organisational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 108 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Menon, M.E. (2014), “The relationship between transformational leadership, perceived leader
effectiveness and teachers’ job satisfaction”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 52
No. 4, pp. 509-528.
Mesu, J., Van Riemsdijk, M. and Sanders, K. (2012), “Labour flexibility in SMEs: the impact of
leadership”, Employee Relations, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 120-138.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: theory, Research, and Application,
Sage, Thousand Oakes.
Meyer, J.P., Becker, T.E. and Vandenberghe, C. (2004), “Employee commitment and motivation: a
conceptual analysis and integrative model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6,
pp. 991-1007.
Meyer, J.P. and Herscovitch, L. (2001), “Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 299-326.
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R. and Sonntag, K. (2009), “Affective commitment to change and innovation
implementation behaviour: the role of charismatic leadership and employees’ trust in top
management”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 399-417.
Mo, S. and Shi, J. (2017), “Linking ethical leadership to employees’ organisational citizenship behavior:
testing the multilevel mediation role of organisational concern”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 141 No. 1, pp. 151-162.
IJOA Motowidlo, S.J. (2003), “Job performance”, in Borman, W.C., Ilgen, D.R. and Klimoski, R.J. (Eds.),
Handbook of Psychology, 12. Industrial and Organisational Psychology, John Wiley and Sons,
Hoboken, pp. 39-53.
Nahum-Shani, I. and Somech, A. (2011), “Leadership, OCB and individual differences: idiocentrism and
allocentrism as moderators of the relationship between transformational and transactional
leadership and OCB”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 353-366.
Neckermann, S., Cueni, R. and Frey, B.S. (2014), “Awards at work”, Labour Economics, Vol. 31 No. C,
pp. 205-217.
Nelson, B. (2005), 1001 Ways to Reward Employees, (2nd ed.), Workman Publishing, New York, NY.
Newman, A., Kiazad, K. and Cooper, B. (2014), “Examining the cognitive and affective trust-based
mechanisms underlying the relationship between ethical leadership and organisational
citizenship: a case of the head leading the heart?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 123 No. 1,
pp. 113-123.
Ng, T.W. and Feldman, D.C. (2011), “Affective organisational commitment and citizenship behavior:
linear and non-linear moderating effects of organisational tenure”, J. Vocat. Behav, Vol. 79 No. 2,
pp. 528-537.
Ng, H.S., Kee, D.M.H. and Ramayah, T. (2016), “The role of transformational leadership, entrepreneurial
competence and technical competence on enterprise success of owner-managed SMEs”, Journal
of General Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 23-43.
Nguni, S., Sleegers, P. and Denessen, E. (2006), “Transformational and transactional leadership effects
on teachers’ job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and organisational citizenship
behaviour in primary schools: the tanzanian case”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 145-177.
Nohe, C. and Hertel, G. (2017), “Transformational leadership and organisational citizenship behavior: a
Meta-Analytic test of underlying mechanisms”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1364, pp. 1-13.
Northouse, P.G. (2010), Leadership. Theory and Practice, (5th ed), Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organisational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington.
Ozbilgin, M. (2004), “International human resource management: academic parochialism in editorial
boards of the ‘top’ 22 journals on international human resource management”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 205-221.
Piccolo, R.F. and Colquitt, J.A. (2006), “Transformational leadership and job behaviours: the
mediating role of job characteristics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2,
pp. 327-340.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Paine, J. and Bacharach, D. (2000), “Organisational 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.
Posner, B. (2016), “Investigating the reliability and validity of the leadership practices inventory”,
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 17, pp. 1-23.
Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2004), “Dimensions of transformational leadership: conceptual and
empirical extensions”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 329-354.
Riggio, R.E. (2009), “Charisma”, in Lopez, S.J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology, Blackwell,
Oxford, pp. 141-144.
Riordan, C.M., Griffith, R.W. and Weatherly, E.W. (2003), “Age and work-related outcomes: the
moderating effects of status characteristics”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 37-57.
Ritz, A., Giauque, D., Varone, F. and Anderfuhren-Biget, S. (2014), “From leadership to citizenship
behavior in public organisations: when values matter”, Review of Public Personnel
Administration, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 128-152.
Rowden, R.W. (2000), “The relationship between charismatic leadership behaviours and You get what
organisational commitment”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 30-35.
you appreciate
Sabella, A.R., El-Far, M.T. and Eid, N.L. (2016), “The effects of organisational and job characteristics on
employees’ organisational commitment in arts-and-culture organisations”, International Journal
of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 1002-1024.
Sadler, P. (2003), Leadership, 2nd ed., Kogan Page, London.
Sayadi, Y. (2016), “The effect of dimensions of transformational, transactional, and non-leadership on
the job satisfaction and organisational commitment of teachers in iran”, Management in
Education, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 57-65.
Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (2004), “A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling”,
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Schyns, B. and Sanders, K. (2007), “In the eyes of the beholder: personality and the perception of
leadership”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 2345-2363.
Seibert, S.E., Wang, G. and Courtwright, S.H. (2011), “Antecedents and consequences of psychological
and team empowerment in organisations: a Meta-analytic review”, The Journal of Applied

Simosi, M. and Xenikou, A. (2010), “The role of organisational culture in the relationship
between leadership and organisational commitment: an empirical study in a greek
organisation”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 10,
pp. 1598-1616.
Singh, S.K. and Stokes, P. (2015), “Leading for organisational excellence in the Middle east”,
International Journal of Organisational Analysis, Vol. 23 No. 3.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), “Organisational citizenship behaviour: its nature and
antecedents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 653-663.
Snape, E. and Redman, T. (2010), “HRM practices, organisational citizenship behaviour and
performance: a multi-level analysis”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47 No. 7,
pp. 1119-1247.
Sosik, J.J. and Jung, D.I. (2010), Full Range Leadership Development: Pathways for People, Profit and
Planet, Routledge, New York, NY.
Spence, J.R., Ferris, D.L., Brown, D.J. and Heller, D. (2011), “Understanding daily citizenship behaviors:
a social comparison perspective”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32 No No. 4,
pp. 547-571.
Strange, J.M. and Mumford, M.D. (2002), “The origins of vision: charismatic versus ideological
leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 343-377.
Turner, J.R. and Muller, R. (2005), “The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on
projects: a literature review”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 49-61.
Ullman, J.B. (2006), “Structural equation modeling: reviewing the basics and moving forward”, Journal
of Personality Assessment, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
Vidyarthi, P.R., Liden, R.C., Anand, S., Erdogan, B. and Ghosh, S. (2010), “Where do I stand? Examining
the effects of leader member exchange social comparison on employee work behaviors”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 849-861.
Walumbwa, F.O. and Lawler, J.J. (2003), “Building effective organisations: Transformational leadership,
collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes, and withdrawal behaviours in three emerging
economies”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 1083-1101.
Walumbwa, F.O., Orwa, B., Wang, P. and Lawler, J.L. (2005), “Transformational leadership,
organisational commitment, and job satisfaction: a comparative study of kenyan and US
financial firms”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 235-256.
IJOA Walumbwa, F.O., Wu, C. and Ojode, L.A. (2004), “Gender and instructional outcomes: the
mediating effects of leadership styles”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 124-140.
Walumbwa, F.O., Wu, C. and Orwa, B. (2008), “Contingent reward transactional leadership, work
attitudes, and organisational citizenship behaviour: the role of procedural justice climate
perceptions and strength”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 251-265.
Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S.H. and Colbert, A.E. (2011), “Transformational leadership and
performance across criteria and levels: a Meta-analytic review of 25 years of research”, Group
and Organisation Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 223-270.
Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R.D., Wang, D. and Chen, Z.H. (2005), “Leader-member exchange as a
mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance
and organisational citizenship behaviour”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3,
pp. 420-432.
Wang, Y.-D. and Sung, W.-C. (2016), “Predictors of organisational citizenship behavior: ethical
leadership and workplace jealousy”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 135 No. 1, pp. 117-128.
Warr, P. (2008), “Work values: some demographic and cultural correlates”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 751-775.

Weiss, H.M. (2002), “Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective
experiences”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 173-194.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organisational commitment as predictors
of organisational citizenship and in-role behaviours”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 601-617.
Wiscombe, J. (2002), “Rewards get results”, Workforce, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 42-47.
Yulk, G.A. (2010), Leadership in Organisations, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Corresponding author
Abderrahman Hassi can be contacted at: A.Hassi@aui.ma
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

Artikel 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Artikel 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Downloaded on: 19 December 2018, At: 10:21 (PT)

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

“You get what you appreciate” You get what

Introduction and research rationale

Leadership research in Morocco

Theory and hypotheses

Leadership and employee job satisfaction

H1a. Transformational leadership dimensions of personal recognition, charisma and

H1b. Transactional leadership dimensions of contingent reward and management-by-

Leadership and aﬀective commitment

H2a. Transformational leadership dimensions of personal recognition, charisma and

H2b. Transactional leadership dimensions of contingent reward and management-by-

Leadership and OCB

H3a. Transformational leadership dimensions of personal recognition, charisma and

H3b. Transactional leadership dimensions of contingent reward and management-by-

Employee job satisfaction

Results and analyses

1. Intellectual stimulation 3.410 0.832 (0.878)

(Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Hypothesised structural model

Satisfaction <— Industry 0.156

transformational leadership in the leadership development literature, training and reporting

(transformational leadership) as well as contingent reward and management-by-

engagement on affective commitment and turnover intentions in community health service

Vol. 4, pp. 87-107.

Id Ahmed, Z. and Loneux, C. (2016), “Perspective communicationnelle et rationalisation des

Malaysia manufacturing industry”, African Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 1 No. 6,

and team empowerment in organisations: a Meta-analytic review”, The Journal of Applied

Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 751-775.

You might also like