Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 16, Issue 2, 2021

Job Satisfaction and Transformational Leadership as the

Antecedents of OCB Role Definitions: The Moderating Role

of Justice Perceptions

Alper Kayaalp

Department of Psychology, South Dakota State University

857 11st St. 57006, Brookings, SD, USA

Tel: +1-605-688-6795

Email: alper.kayaalp@sdstate.edu

Kyle J. Page

Workforce Analytics Consultant, American Family Insurance

6000 American Parkway, 53783, Madison, WI

Tel: +1-608-242-4100

Email: kpag1@amfam.com

Ozlem Gumus

Department of Leadership Studies, Louisiana State University in Shreveport

One University Place, 71115, LA, USA

Tel: +1-318-795-4223

Email: Ozlem.gumus@lsus.edu

Abstract

Despite the growing acceptance of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs), or the “good soldier

syndrome”, as discretionary and therefore not enforceable individual behaviors, it is becoming

increasingly clear that OCB role definitions must be taken into account. The current study examined

the antecedents of OCB role definitions in a military work context. Integrating social exchange and role

theories, we found that job satisfaction and transformational leadership are related to how broadly

subordinates define their jobs and that procedural justice has a moderator role in the relationship

between transformational leadership and OCB. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

Keywords: organizational citizenship behaviors, role definitions, job satisfaction, transformational

leadership

*An earlier version of this article was presented at the APA Work, Stress and Health Conference 2019

in Philadelphia, PA.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

1. INTRODUCTION

In an age when organizational survival depends on gaining any competitive edge, employee

behaviors that improve individual productivity and organizational efficiency have become even more

valuable. As such, employees who exhibit behaviors that exceed their job descriptions for the sake of

the organization are often valued as critical assets. The theoretical roots of these behaviors can be

traced back to Barnard (1938), who proposed the concept of “willingness to co-operate” to refer to a

willingness to commit oneself to an organization to reach organizational goals. This idea was further

developed by Katz and Kahn (1966, 1978) to include a distinction between in-role and extra-role

behaviors. This concept has been the subject of a significant amount of research since the 1980s.

Although there are multiple labels and slight differences in conceptualization, Organizational

Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) have gained the most popularity and have been universally recognized

as an essential part of the employee behavioral domain (i.e., Podsakoff, Morrison, Martinez, 2018).

Although a concrete construct definition of OCBs was not given and has changed over time, the

common points in the first (Organ,1988) and most recent (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006)

definition of OCBs emphasize the “beyond the job description (extra-role)” and “discretionary”

aspects. As these qualities possibly provided initial intuitive appeal to the theoretical frameworks that

attempted to explain these behaviors (Kamdar, McAllister, & Turban, 2006), few researchers have

questioned these basic assumptions or sought to find empirical support to test whether some employees

perceive OCBs as part of their job (in-role) rather than beyond their job boundaries (extra-role) (i.e.,

Coyle-Shapiro, Kessler, & Purcell, 2004; Morrison, 1994; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002).

Furthermore, a review of recently published OCB-related articles reveals that only a handful of studies

have considered this issue as the motivational basis of OCB. However, it is obvious that employees

doing the same job may perceive their roles quite differently and assume broader or narrower job

responsibilities (i.e., Hoffman, Morgerson & Gerras, 2003; Morrison, 1994; Sluss, Van Dick, &

Thompson, 2011). This difference in perception affects the degree to which employees engage in these

behaviors. This brings up one pivotal question: “why do some individuals define their roles more

broadly?”

Despite the call for additional studies (i.e., Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Morrison, 1994; Podsakoff

et al., 2018; Tepper & Taylor, 2003; Zellars et al., 2002), there is little research that has contributed to

explaining the antecedents of OCB role definitions. For example, in their recent review of the literature,

Podsakoff et al. (2018) pointed out that there are some noteworthy gaps related to antecedents of OCB

role definitions in the related literature and presented a comprehensive model of the multilevel

antecedents of OCB role definitions for future studies. They also noted a lack of systematic research on

the role of more macro factors, such as national and organizational culture, in the stream of research.

As a response to these calls and drawing on insights from the social exchange and role theories,

we developed a model to examine the antecedents of OCB role definitions by considering both national

and organizational culture. As such, the question of how transformational leadership perceptions and

job satisfaction relate to OCB role definitions was investigated by identifying the psychological

processes of employees’ role definitions and the moderating role of procedural justice in a Turkish

sample. While the prior research examined job satisfaction and procedural justice in various models,

transformational leadership has not been examined as the antecedent of role definitions (Podsakoff et

al., 2018). Furthermore, although there are many OCB studies in civilian organizations, little attention

has been paid to OCBs and OCB role definition from a military perspective (Rose, Herd, & Palacio,

2017), which is astounding as OCBs were first conceptualized as the “good soldier syndrome”

(Bateman & Organ, 1983). However, OCBs may be exceedingly important in a military environment

where personnel are expected to put their lives on the line when necessary. Therefore, findings from

this inherently different work context might provide support to the continuing debate on whether OCBs

are in-role or extra-role.

Thus, the goal of this study is to expand the theoretical understanding of OCB role definitions in a

Turkish military context. More specifically, we aim to respond to calls for research by identifying

additional antecedents of OCB role definitions and examining the mechanisms of how employees see

OCBs in a military context (i.e., Chiaburu & Byrne, 2009; Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Morrison, 1994;

Podsakoff et al., 2018; Tepper & Taylor, 2003; Zellars et al., 2002).

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

OCB has been defined as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly

recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of

the organization” (Organ, 1988; p. 4). Due to this extra-role and discretionary nature in the definition,

Alper Kayaalp, Kyle J. Page and Ozlem Gumus

the subsequent studies mostly treated OCB as constructive, self-initiated, spontaneous, or voluntary

behavior aimed at enhancing the productivity of the workplace (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). However,

research suggests that the characterization of OCBs as only extra-role may not be sensible. Indeed, the

first study provoking a reconsideration of OCBs was Morrison’s (1994) study, which introduced the

construct of OCB role definitions, or the extent to which employees define OCBs as in-role or extra-

role (Morrison, 1994).

Drawing from role theory, in-role behavior can be defined as the required or expected behaviors in

accordance with formal job descriptions, while extra-role behaviors are the actions above and beyond

formal role requirements (Katz & Kahn, 1966, 1978). The combination of in-role and extra-role

behaviors forms the entire performance domain of an employee (Podsakoff et al., 2018; Wang, 2009).

Morrison (1994) suggested that it is important to examine how employees define their

responsibilities to truly understand the motivational basis of OCBs. This has been supported through

subsequent studies that indicate that employees do not always view OCBs as extra-role (i.e., Coyle-

Shapiro et al., 2004; Kamdar et al., 2006; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Tepper & Taylor, 2003; Van

Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994; Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995; Vey & Campbell, 2004;

Zellars et al., 2002). Such findings unanimously point out that we may gain a better understanding of

the OCB construct by researching factors that may be related to OCB role definitions. The same studies

have also indicated that employees engage in more or fewer OCBs depending on whether they define

OCBs as in-role or extra-role. Morrison (1994) argued that in-role behavior is more likely to be

associated with rewards and sanctions, thus the motivation for in-role behavior is greater than the

motivation for extra-role behavior. From this reasoning, it could be possible that individuals may not

engage in OCBs voluntarily but may feel obligated to do so when they are defined as part of their job

duties.

This differentiation is important in understanding the OCB construct in military contexts as well.

Whereas these behaviors might be seen as discretionary in civilian organizations, military cultures

mostly treat these behaviors as expected (Rose et al., 2017). Although there are similarities, compared

to the civilian business sector, the military is more physically and psychologically demanding. Military

units, specifically combat units, often operate under conditions of high uncertainty, challenge, and

stress and the in-role contributions of individuals may not be enough for unit success under such

conditions (i.e., Deluga, 1995; Kayaalp, 2016). Armies are unique organizations of their own, with

their norms, values, beliefs, history, and sociology, which military culture is built on. (Hill, 2015). In

such a culture, individuals are “indoctrinated at a young age” and “military culture permeates almost

every aspect of their lives” (Meyer, 2015, p.416). Furthermore, armies are in general inherently

collectivistic and have high power distance. Therefore, although citizenship behaviors might be

typically seen as extra-role in a civilian work context, it could be expected that these same behaviors

could be explicitly conceptualized as “required” in a soldier’s job duties (Rose et al., 2017).

As the division between extra-role and in-role performance is, at best, vague, it is imperative to

identify the reasons why employees categorize their jobs differently. Although several researchers (i.e.,

Morrison, 1994; Chiaburu & Byrne, 2009) have proposed the examination of the predictors of the OCB

role definition rather than OCBs, a few studies have examined such antecedents. For example, prior

research found significant associations of the OCB role definition with mutual commitment (Coyle-

Shapiro et al., 2004), trust, commitment, and job satisfaction (Chiaburu & Bryne, 2009; Morrison,

1994), organizational justice perceptions (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Tepper & Taylor, 2003), and

leader-member exchange (Hoffman, Morgerson, & Gerras, 2003). Overall, whereas this stream of

research has defined a number of antecedents of OCB role definitions, additional evidence is required

to examine some new variables of interest for organizations.

In line with prior studies, we used social exchange theory (Adams, 1965; Blau, 1964) and role

theory (Katz & Kahn, 1966, 1978) as the theoretical frameworks for our study. Briefly, social exchange

theory and its central tenet, the norm of reciprocity, posit that (1) a positive work environment is

formed by an organization and/or its leaders and (2) that beneficial actions towards individuals create

an impetus (i.e., a social force) on employees and in turn employees reciprocate in positive ways

through their attitudes and/or behaviors (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004). From this perspective, “OCB role

definitions emerge as individually held beliefs about personal obligations within social exchange

relations” (Kamdar et al, 2006; p. 841). Therefore, as OCB role definitions are discretionary acts like

extra-role citizenship behaviors, it could be expected that this sense of obligation towards positive

treatment might be reflected in broader role definitions. Indeed, research indicates that positive

exchanges between an employee and their organization are likely to prompt a sense of obligation

towards the organization and lead to broader role definitions and citizenship behaviors (Coyle-Shapiro

et al., 2004).

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Beyond social exchange theory, role theory defines role expectations through organizational

context and the personal attributes of the role occupants (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Roles are conceived as

the shared, normative expectations that prescribe and explain the pattern of behaviors in various social

contexts (Biddle,1986). In organizational settings, various factors at the organizational, group, and

individual levels affect role perceptions. Roles in the workplace, therefore, are not defined solely by

formal job descriptions or personal beliefs but rather by an interaction between the individual and

social context (Van Dyne et al., 1995). From this point of view, we examined job satisfaction,

transformational leadership, and procedural justice perceptions as salient factors that could affect how

employees define their roles (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Model depicting the antecedents of OCB Role Definitions with the moderation effect

One of the most researched work attitudes in organizational settings is job satisfaction. Job

satisfaction is described as a “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of

one’s job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300). Job satisfaction is often considered as a key

factor in individual and organizational effectiveness (Spector, 1997). Prior research indicates that job

satisfaction is strongly related to extra-role behaviors (i.e., LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Koster,

2014; Organ, 1988; Smith, Bateman, & Organ 1983; Williams & Anderson, 1991). However, to the

best of our knowledge, job satisfaction has received limited attention in OCB role definition studies

(Podsakoff et al., 2018). Notable exceptions are Morrison’s (1994) and Chiaburu and Byrne’s (2009)

studies. Morrison (1994) found that job satisfaction was positively related to OCB role definitions of

conscientiousness and keeping up, but not the altruism and involvement dimensions, whereas Chiaburu

and Byrne (2009) found that job satisfaction moderated the relationship between trust and role

definitions. Thus, while the previous studies support the notion that job satisfaction is related to the

general OCB construct as a form of reciprocity, supporting evidence is not particularly clear for its

relationship with OCB role definitions (Chiaburu, & Byrne, 2009).

Given this scarce and inconsistent line of research, it is important to test if such a relationship can

be found in a military context. In line with the previous research suggesting that positive job attitudes

create a sense of obligation on the part of the employee (Chiaburu & Byrne, 2009; Organ, 1988), we

argue that job satisfaction is an important factor that might be related to employees’ OCB role

definitions through the norm of reciprocity such that obligation towards satisfaction is reflected in

broader role definitions. Thus, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1: Job satisfaction is positively related to OCB role definitions such that more satisfied

employees are more likely to consider OCBs as part of their job roles (more in-role).

The role of leadership, indeed, has also been scarcely examined in the OCB role definition

literature. One notable exception is Hoffman and colleagues’ study (2003), which examined the quality

of exchanges with direct supervisors and found that the relationship between leader-member exchange

and subordinate safety citizenship role definitions was moderated by safety climate. To the best of our

knowledge, transformational leadership has not been examined in OCB role definition research.

However, supervisor-subordinate relations are of particular importance in organizations as supervisors’

central role is as figures that enact organizational policies and procedures (Kamdar et al., 2006).

Developed by Bass (1985), based on the seminal work of Burns (1978), transformational leadership

has been one of the most popular leadership theories over the last three decades. Indeed,

transformational leadership behaviors have been shown to be positively related to important outcomes

in military contexts (i.e., Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002).

Certain types of behaviors performed by transformational leaders include motivating followers to

commit themselves to organizational objectives (Bass, 1985). As such, these leadership behaviors may

be related to subordinate beliefs pertaining to job-role limits. Inspired by a transformational leader,

military personnel may develop a sense of pride and purpose in their organization, which breeds loyalty

JOB SATISFACTION

TRANSF. LEADERSHIP

OCB

ROLE

DEFINITIONS

PROCEDURAL

JUSTICE

Alper Kayaalp, Kyle J. Page and Ozlem Gumus

and engagement towards their organization, which might be reflected in broader role definitions. Thus,

we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2: Transformational leadership is positively related to OCB role definitions such that

employees with more positive perceptions are more likely to consider OCBs as part of their job roles

(more in-role).

Despite numerous calls, few studies have examined the role of contextual factors in the OCB role

definition literature (Podsakoff et al., 2018). Among these, a few researchers have found intervening

and moderating effects of some variables such as organizational commitment (Chiaburu & Bryne,

2009), work locus of control (Blakely et al., 2005), and uncertainty avoidance (García-Cabrera &

García-Soto, 2011). However, empirical evidence suggests that procedural justice might also have

significant main and interactive effects on employees’ work-related attitudes and behaviors

(Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). In two notable studies, Tepper and Taylor (2003) found that the

relationship between supervisors’ procedural justice perceptions and mentoring behavior was stronger

for supervisors who defined mentoring behavior as extra-role. Similarly, Coyle-Shapiro et al. (2004)

showed that employees’ perception of mutual commitment mediates the effects of procedural justice on

OCB role definition. To the best of our knowledge, the procedural justice perception has not been

examined as a boundary condition in OCB role definition studies.

Procedural justice, defined as the extent to which decision making and reward distribution

processes are seen as fair (Lind & Tyler, 1988), seems to be an important and theoretically relevant

contextual boundary condition of the relationship between our variables and OCB role definitions. Our

reasoning falls in line with the framework of social exchange theory, where experiencing procedural

fairness communicates the idea that employees are valued and cared for (i.e., Kamdar et al., 2006;

Tyler & Blader, 2003). This reasoning leads to the formulation of two propositions. First, individuals

with high job satisfaction and high transformational leadership perceptions are more likely to expand

their role definitions when they also have more favorable procedural justice perceptions. Such an

interaction of positive exchanges between an employee and their organization and/or leader is likely to

prompt a sense of obligation towards the organization and lead to broader role definitions. Second, with

the same reasoning, these linkages will be weaker for employees with less favorable procedural justice

perceptions. We thus include procedural justice perceptions as a potential boundary condition in our

model as both justice variability effects (i.e., more and less favorable) are theoretically plausible.

Hence, procedural justice may be viewed as a moderator of the linkages in our model such that the

relationships are stronger when subordinates have more favorable procedural justice perceptions. Thus,

we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between job satisfaction and OCB role definition will be

strengthened by the procedural justice perceptions, such that this relationship will be stronger when

subordinates have more favorable procedural justice perceptions.

Hypothesis 4: The positive relationship between transformational leadership and OCB role

definition will be strengthened by the procedural justice perceptions, such that this relationship will be

stronger when subordinates have more favorable procedural justice perceptions.

3. METHOD

3.1 Design and Participants

Data were collected as part of a larger project which assessed military personnel work behaviors

of interest. Study procedures were approved by the institutional review board at the Army Personnel

Directorate. A stratified random sampling technique was used to cover 390 Turkish Army officers

holding command and administrative positions in various units and headquarters scattered in different

parts of Turkey. The participants were approximately representative of the population of interest (Army

officers) in terms of rank (ranging from lieutenant to colonel), branches, and location. Participation was

voluntary and the surveys were anonymous. After the completion of the survey, observed eligibility

rates were applied to the surveys for the sampling strata defined by the intersection of rank, age, region,

and gender. After this analysis and elimination due to extensive missing data, the final sample

consisted of 263 officers (retention rate of 82.2%), of which 90.9% were male, the average age was 31

years (SD = 6.59), and the average tenure was 10 years (SD = 6.57).

3.2 Measures

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

We used published measures to collect data for the study. Turkish language versions of all the

measures were used after translation and back-translation procedures were carried out (Birslin, 1980).

Some items were adapted for use in the military context.

OCB Role Definitions. In line with previous research (Morrison, 1994; Zellars et al., 2002), a 14-

item scale was used (Williams & Anderson, 1991) which consists of two subscales: OCBO (e.g., “I

help others who have been absent”; α = .78) and OCBI (e.g., “I do not take undeserved work breaks”; α

= .86). OCBOs benefit the organization and OCBIs benefit specific individuals while indirectly

contributing to the organization. Following the footsteps of previous studies (i.e., Coyle-Shapiro et al.,

2004; Morrison, 1994; Zellars et al., 2002), we defined the anchors as follows; “Behaviors that are part

of your job” (in-role, coded as 0) and “behaviors that exceed your job requirements” (extra-role, coded

as 1). Morrison (1994) reported that individuals were able to provide more valid responses when

presented with a dichotomous response format rather than a continuous scale. This makes sense from a

theoretical perspective as well, as the OCB role definition construct, unlike the actual OCB itself,

focuses on whether the employees see the tasks as part of their job, not whether they perform these

activities or not (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Morrison, 1994; Zellars et al., 2002).

An average score was taken to create a general OCB role definition. As the in-role orientation was

coded as 0, and the extra-role was coded as 1, higher scores indicate the activity is an extra-role

behavior (close to 1) while lower scores indicate the activity is an in-role behavior (close to 0) (α =

.78). Several concerns were taken into consideration in using an aggregate score. First, as noted, the

same approach has been adopted in previous studies (i.e. Clark, Zickar, & Sex, 2014; Morrison, 1994;

Zellars et al., 2002; Vey & Campbell, 2004). Secondly, the reliability scores of OCBI and OCBO were

lower than the overall OCB score (.67, .62, .78 respectively). Thus, an average score was computed to

create a general OCB role definition.

Transformational Leadership. Twenty items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ–Form 5X)

relevant to the transformational-leadership subscale were used (Avolio & Bass,

1995). The MLQ measures the four components of transformational leadership behavior, i.e. Idealized

Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration.

However, due to the high levels of intercorrelations between the four dimensions of transformational

leadership, studies have resorted to using composite scores rather than the dimensions (Yukl, 2006).

Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of their direct supervisor’s behavior ranging from 0

(not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always). Sample items include “provides me with assistance in

exchange for my efforts”, “talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished” and, “acts in

ways that build my respect”. Responses were aggregated to create a composite transformational

leadership perception score (α = .85).

Job Satisfaction. A 36-item, Likert-type scale was used (Spector, 1997). Respondents were asked

to indicate their degree of satisfaction ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) with

regard to various facets of their job (i.e., pay, promotion). An aggregated job satisfaction score was

computed from all the items (α = .93). Sample items include “In general, I like working here” and “I

like doing the things I do at work”.

Procedural Justice. The 15-item, Likert-type Procedural Justice Scale (Moorman, 1991) was used.

Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of procedural justice experienced ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This scale assesses both the degree to which the organization

has developed formal procedures designed to increase the fairness of work decisions (6-item) and the

degree to which the leaders behave fairly towards employees while enacting those procedures (9-item).

Sample items include “All job decisions are applied consistently across all affected employees” and

“Concerning decisions made about my job, my direct supervisor discusses the implications of the

decisions with me”. A total procedural justice score was computed from all the items (α = .96).

3.3 Analysis

Pearson’s product-moment correlations (r) were applied to test Hypotheses 1 and 2, whereas

Hypotheses 3 and 4 were subjected to multiple regression analysis with Process Macro (Hayes, 2013).

Based on a review of the literature, several variables were used as control variables. Tenure, age, and

gender are commonly specified control variables in OCB role definition research (i.e., Hofmann et al.,

2003; Wang, 2009). As age and tenure have been found to be highly correlated in our sample (r = .99, p

< .01), only tenure and gender were controlled.

Alper Kayaalp, Kyle J. Page and Ozlem Gumus

4. RESULTS

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics, correlations, and Alpha reliability estimates for the study

variables. The results provide initial support for Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2, with significant

correlations between job satisfaction and OCB role definitions (r = -.31, p < .01), and between

transformational leadership and OCB role definitions (r = -.30, p < .01). The negative signs suggest

that employees with higher job satisfaction and higher transformational leadership perceptions define

their jobs more broadly (more in-role).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations

Variables

1. Tenure

10.04

6.57

(--)

2. Gender (0 female, 1 male)

.91

.289

.09

(--)

3. Trans. Leadership

2.61

.83

.14

-.07

(.85)

4. Procedural Justice

3.54

1.30

.13

-.01

.49

(.96)

5. Job Satisfaction

3.39

1.05

.21

-.05

.52

.47

(.93)

6. OCB Role Definitions

.34

.24

-.17

-.01

-.30

-.15

-.31

(.78)

Note. ** p < .01, * p < .05, n = 263. Bold values in parentheses represent Cronbach’s Alpha scores. N = 263.

Higher OCB role definition score indicates the activity is an extra-role behavior while lower scores indicate the

activity is an in-role behavior (0=in-role, 1=extra-role).

Supplementary analyses were conducted using multiple regression to see if tenure,

transformational leadership, and job satisfaction relate to OCB role definitions. Using the enter method

it was found that the model explains a moderate amount of variance in OCB role definitions (F (3, 259)

= 13.626, p < .01, R

= .14). In support of Hypothesis 1 and 2, both job satisfaction (β = -.185), t = -

2.705, p < .01) and transformational leadership perceptions (β = -.196), t = -2.895, p < .01) were

positively associated with OCB role definitions. These results confirm that employees are more likely

to define their jobs broadly when they are satisfied with their job and motivated and inspired by a

transformational leader.

Hypothesis 3 and 4 were tested using model 1 of the Process Macro (Hayes, 2013). Hypothesis 3,

which posited that subordinates' procedural justice perceptions would moderate the relationship

between job satisfaction and OCB role definitions, was not supported. Although the overall model was

significant (ΔR

= .11, F (4, 258) = 7.8601 p < .001), the interaction was not (F (1, 258) = .0723, p =

.7883). However, Hypothesis 4, which posited that subordinates' procedural justice perceptions

moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB role definitions, was

supported. Specifically, the overall model was significant (ΔR

= .14, F (4, 258) = 10.098, p < .001), as

was the interaction (ΔR

= .02, F (1, 258) = 6.9485, p < .05, β = -.0382). This interaction effect size

(ΔR

= .0233) is in the typical range (.01–.03) found in non-experimental studies (Champoux & Peters,

1987; Chaplin, 1991; Chiaburu & Byrne, 2009). The interaction was in the predicted direction (Figure

2).

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Figure 2. Interaction of transformational leadership and perceived procedural justice on OCB

Role Definitions

5. DISCUSSION

The goal of the present study was to investigate the potential antecedents of OCB role definitions

in a military context. Our results provide new insight into the role of job satisfaction and

transformational leadership as the antecedents of the OCB role definition. The most interesting finding

of this study was that the majority of the behaviors in the OCB scale are considered in-role (required)

by military personnel. Furthermore, the findings indicate that an employee who is motivated and

inspired by a transformational leader will likely see their job broadly; more so, when that individual

also perceives that they have been treated fairly. That is, transformational leadership perception

interacts with procedural justice perception and might be a key factor influencing employees’ role

definition. Our study is particularly relevant in light of recent calls for examining antecedents of OCB

role-definitions (i.e., Hofmann et al., 2003; Kamdar et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2018; Tepper et al.,

2001; Wang, 2009).

5.1 Theoretical Implications

Role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1966, 1978) posits that individuals enact their roles in different ways

and that these roles can be broadened. In line with this and Morrison's (1994) findings, our study

indicates that employees with favorable attitudes define OCBs as in-role behaviors. The findings also

indicate that, in line with the social exchange and role theories, individuals develop a sense of

obligation towards their supervisors and organization in exchange for benefits from their organization

and/or supervisors, which is subsequently reflected in broader role definitions (Wang, 2009; Gakovic &

Tetrick, 2003). In other words, favorable attitudes/perceptions such as job satisfaction, positive

leadership, and justice perceptions are positively related to how subordinates define their jobs. Like the

OCB construct, OCB role categorization is also a discretionary act as employees have control over how

they define their jobs. Therefore, attitudes/perceptions are likely to influence employees’ role definition

as they influence extra-role OCB. It appears that, through social exchange theory, subordinates first

reciprocate cognitively by broadening or narrowing their role definitions as a result of their attitudes

and perceptions, then reciprocate behaviorally by engaging or withholding OCBs (Coyle-Shapiro et al.,

2004; Kamdar et al., 2006). The results indicate that when encouraged by a transformational leader,

military personnel may develop a sense of pride and purpose in their organization, which breeds loyalty

Alper Kayaalp, Kyle J. Page and Ozlem Gumus

and engagement towards their organization, leading to broader role definitions. Thus, from a social

exchange standpoint, broadening one’s role might be seen as a currency of exchange to repay their

organizations (Jiao, Richards, Hackett, 2013).

In the quest for an explanation of broader in-role categorization, plausible contextual explanations

could be that, in a general sense, military service expects or demands a high level of devotion and

dedication from the personnel, which is more rare in civilian organizations (Bowen, 1989). Perhaps,

this is the main reason why the military is unique in that employment is more than just a job choice.

Furthermore, based on the value system, performance evaluation of military personnel usually involves

aspects such as selfless service and loyalty, which most civilian organizations refer to as discretionary

(Rose et al., 2017). Hence, it is quite expected that many behaviors that could be seen as extra-role in a

civilian organization may be perceived as a required part of the job in a military context. For example,

one of the OCB scale items “I adhere to informal rules devised to maintain order” cannot be optional

but rather should be an internalized behavior for military personnel.

These results are in line with the notion that employees in high collectivism and high-power

distance cultures will have expanded role perceptions (Blakely, Srivastava, & Moorman, 2005; Jiao et

al., 2013). Universally, military organizations have been characterized by a high degree of order and

discipline, a hierarchical structure, and a pattern of unique interaction among its members (Gerras,

Wong, & Allen, 2008). These features create a culture that is more collectivistic with a high-power

distance when compared to civilian organizations (Soeters, 1997). Therefore, it is to be expected that

these kinds of behaviors could be explicitly conceptualized as required and expected in a soldier’s job

duties.

From a cultural perspective, the features of Turkish culture may be related to the OCB role

definitions of Turkish employees as it is also described by high power distance, uncertainty avoidance,

and collectivism (Hofstede, 1984). National cultures permeate military life. Turkish employees show

respect to those in positions of authority and attach importance to harmony and interpersonal helping in

the work environment. Supervisors, as well, may take a somewhat paternalistic attitude toward their

employees (Ersoy, Born, Derous, & Molen, 2011). In such a societal and military culture, which fosters

moral involvement and loyalty (Kayaalp, 2018), it is quite reasonable to expect that citizenship

behaviors will be more readily perceived as a required part of the job.

5.2 Practical Implications

Our study findings have practical implications as well. Although we did not test the actual

citizenship behaviors in our study, prior studies indicate that individuals who define OCBs as part of

their jobs are more likely to display these behaviors (Blakely, et al., 2005; Kamdar et al., 2006;

Morrison, 1994; Wang, 2009). Therefore, given the importance of these behaviors for organizational

efficiency, organizations need to effectively manage the well-being and procedural justice environment

as well as how leaders interact with subordinates at the interpersonal level (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004)

to enhance the overall extent to which individuals will exhibit OCBs. Furthermore, in organizational

contexts, there might be situations in which the in-role contributions of employees are not enough, and

employees are to define their jobs broadly (Morrison, 1994). In such contexts, it might be valuable for

leaders to develop social exchange relationships with their subordinates and understand the social and

psychological factors that influence their subordinates’ perceptions of their job responsibilities. This

means that organizations should encourage the existence and development of transformational leaders.

To that end, organizations might design training programs, such as mentoring and coaching, for the

managers to improve their skills in transformational leadership. The research indicates that leadership

training does result in more effective leadership behaviors in organizational settings (i.e., Burke & Day,

1986; McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998).

6. CONCLUSION

To conclude, responding to researchers’ calls for further investigation, we explored possible

reasons why military personnel might define OCBs as in-role or extra-role by examining how variables

such as job satisfaction, transformational leadership, and procedural justice perceptions might be

related to OCB role definitions, and contributed to the growing literature on OCB role definitions (i.e.,

Chiaburu & Byrne, 2009; Clark, Zickar, & Jex, 2014).

Our results provide new insights into the role of attitudes and perceptions as antecedents of OCB

role definitions. The most interesting finding of this study was that the majority of the behaviors in the

OCB scale are considered in-role (required and part of their job) by the military personnel. This

suggests that traditional OCB measures might not be measuring only extra-role behaviors but also in-

role behaviors for some individuals.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

6.1 Limitations and Future Research

The findings of this study need to be considered in light of its limitations. By underlining these

limitations, we at the same time suggest directions for future research. First, our research is cross-

sectional in nature, which could result in common method variance. Likewise, reverse causality cannot

be ruled out. Therefore, we lack the ability to make causal inferences. Further longitudinal studies are

needed to examine whether broadening or narrowing the role definition is a cause or consequence of

job satisfaction and/or transformational leadership perceptions. It may be argued that engaging in

discretionary acts (e.g., broader role definitions) increases well-being and satisfaction. Therefore,

research designs involving measures at multiple times will help determine whether the OCB role

definition is a cause or consequence of various factors. To minimize this risk, the questionnaires were

pre-tested to ensure respondents’ understanding of the survey questions. What is more, as the

difference in formats reduces the likelihood of common method bias (Morrison, 1994), we assessed our

variables on different-point Likert scales. As a second limitation of our study, self-reported data were

used, which raises concerns about the possibility of single-source bias. However, due to the

psychological nature of the variables examined, self-reported data were considered an essential source

of information. Third, this study was conducted in a single and specific organization (the Turkish

army). As such, additional research with other samples/organizations/cultures is required to generalize

the conclusions of this study. Furthermore, due to procedural and institutional restrictions, we did not

measure other variables that might impact on OCB role definitions. As role expectations are specified

by both the organizational environment and the personal characteristics of role occupants (Katz &

Kahn, 1966; Jiao et al., 2013), incorporating factors such as positive and negative affect, role conflict,

job autonomy, job stress and personality into future studies would be an interesting avenue for

research. Fourth, because of the considerations cited in the method section, a general OCB role

definition score was used in the analyses instead of OCB subscales. However, there is a possibility that

the role of independent variables could be different on subscales (i.e., OCBI, OCBO) of the scale.

Thus, future research could measure and analyze those OCB subscales. Lastly, due to institutional

restrictions with regard to the scope of the study, we were able to examine only the justice perceptions

as a possible contextual factor. Future studies could take into account other contextual variables such as

organizational climate, perceived stress and role clarity.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. In: L. Berkowitz (ed.). Advances in Experimental

Psychology. (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A

multi-framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership

Quarterly, 6, 188-218.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207–218.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship

between Affect and Employee Citizenship. Academic and Management Journal, 26, 587-595.

Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. In R. Turner & J. F. Short (Eds.), Annual

Review of Sociology, 12, 67-92. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Birslin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H.C. Triandis &

J.W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 389–444). Boston: Allon &

Bacon.

Blakely, G. L., Srivastava, A., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The effects of nationality, work role

centrality and work locus of control on the role definition of OCB. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, 12(1), 103–117.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.

Bowen, G. L. (1989). Family factors and member retention: A key relationship in the work family

equation. The Organization Family: Work and Family Linkages in the US Military. Gary L.

Bowen and Dennis K. Orthner, eds. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Alper Kayaalp, Kyle J. Page and Ozlem Gumus

Burke, M. J. and Day, R. R. (1986) A cumulative study of training, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,

pp. 232 – 65.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Champoux, J. E., & Peters, W. S. (1987). Form, effect size, and power in moderated regression

analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 243−255.

Chaplin, W. E. (1991). The Next Generation of Moderator Research in Personality Psychology.

Journal of Personality, 59 (2), 143-178.

Chiaburu, D. (2007). From interactional justice to citizenship behaviors: role enlargement or role

discretion? Social Justice Research, 20(2), 207-227.

Chiaburu, D., & Byrne, Z. S. (2009). Predicting OCB role definitions: The roles of exchanges with the

organization and psychological attachment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 201-214.

Clark, O. L., Zickar, M. J., & Jex, S. M. (2014). Role definition as a moderator of the relationship

between safety climate and organizational citizenship behavior among hospital nurses. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 29, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9302-0

Coyle-Shapiro, J., Kessler I., & Purcell J. (2004). Exploring Organizationally Directed Citizenship

Behavior: Reciprocity or ‘It's my Job’. Journal of Management Studies, 41 (1), 85-106.

Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the

maze. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and

organizational psychology (pp. 317–372). New York: Wiley.

Deluga, R. J. (1995). The relation between trust in the supervisor and subordinate organizational

citizenship behavior. Military Psychology, 7, 1–16.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on

follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal,

45(4), 735–744.

Ersoy, C. N., Born M., Derous, E., & Molen, V. (2011). Antecedents of organizational citizenship

behavior among blue and white-collar workers in Turkey. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 35 (3), 356-367.

Gakovic, A., & Tetrick, L. E. (2003). Psychological contract breach as a source of strain for employees.

Journal of Business and Psychology,18, 235−246.

García-Cabrera, A.M., & García-Soto, M.G. (2011). MNC commitment, OCB role definition and intent

to leave in subsidiary top managers: The moderating effect of uncertainty avoidance values.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35-5, 641-657.

Gerras, J. S., Wong, L., & Allen, C.D. (2008). Organizational Culture: Applying A Hybrid Model to

the U.S. Army. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a596601.pdf

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Process Macro [Computer software and manual]. Retrieved from

http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html

Hill, A. (2015). Military innovation and military culture. Parameters, 45(1), 85.

Hoffman, D. A., Morgerson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship

between leader-member exchange and content-specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170–178.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

Jiao, C., Richards, D. A. and Hackett, R. D. (2013). Organizational citizenship behavior and role

breadth: A meta-analytic and cross-cultural analysis, Human Resource Management, 52 (5), 697-

714.

Kamdar, D., McAllister, D. M. & Turban, D. B. (2006). ‘All in a day’s work’: How follower

individual differences and justice perceptions predict OCB role definitions and behavior. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 91, 841-855.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966, 1978). The social psychology of organizations, New York: Wiley.

Kayaalp, A. (2016). The Impact of “Temporal Personality” on Individuals’ Organizational Citizenship

Behaviors. Journal of Management and Information Science, 4(2), 79-86.

Kayaalp, A. (2018). Transformational Leadership, Organizational Climate and Individual Creativity

from a Military Culture Perspective. Electronic International Journal of Education, Arts, and

Science, 4 (9), 91-110.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

100

Koster, F. (2014). “When two worlds collide”: Career satisfaction and altruistic organizational

citizenship behaviour. Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 9 (1), 1-12.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational

citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–

65.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum

Press.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago Rand McNally.

McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R. S. and Van Velsor, E. (1998). The Centre for Creative Leadership

Handbook of Leadership Development (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass)

Meyer, E. G. (2015). The Importance of Understanding Military Culture. Academic Psychiatry, 39 (4),

416–418.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship

behaviors. Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied

Psychology, 76, 845-855.

Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: the importance of the

employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (6), 1543-1567.

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. (1999). Taking charge: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change.

Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403-419.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,

MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its

Nature, Antecedents and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Podsakoff, N. P., Morrison, E. W., & Martinez, T. M. (2018). The role of a good soldier: A review of

research on organizational citizenship behavior role perceptions and recommendations for the

future research. In P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. Mackenzie, & N. P. Podsakoff (Eds.), The Oxford

handbook of organizational citizenship behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rose, K., Herd, A., & Palacio, S. (2017). Organizational citizenship behavior: An exploration of one

aspect of cultural adjustment faced by U.S. Army soldiers transitioning from military to civilian

careers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 19(1), 14–24.

Sluss, D. M., Van Dick, R., & Thompson, B. S. (2011). Role theory in organizations: A relational

perspective. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbooks in Psychology. APA handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology, Vol. 1. Building and developing the organization (pp. 505-534).

Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Smith, A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior its nature and

antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.

Soeters, J. L. (1997). Value orientations in military academies: A thirteen country study. Armed Forces

and Society, Chicago, 24-1, 7-32.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand

Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. (2001). Justice, citizenship, and role definition effects.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 789 –796.

Tepper, B. J., & Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationships among supervisors' and subordinates' procedural

justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal,

46, 97-105.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social

Identity, and Cooperative Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct

and definitional clarity (A bridge over troubled waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),

Research in organizational behavior (pp. 215–330). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior:

Construct redefinition, measurement and validation. Academy of Management, 37, 765–802.

Alper Kayaalp, Kyle J. Page and Ozlem Gumus

101

Vey, M. A., & Campbell, J. P. (2004). In role and extra-role organizational citizenship behavior: which

are we measuring? Human Performance, 17(1), 119–135.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of

compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology,

21,377−405.

Yukl, G. (2006).Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wang, M. L. (2009). Does organizational support promote citizenship in service settings? The

moderating role of service climate. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(6), 648-676.

Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors

of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17 (3): 601–617.

Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 1068-1076.