Ocb and Politics Haifa 19

JPART 22:573596
Change-Oriented Organizational Citizenship

Behavior in Public Administration: The
Power of Leadership and the Cost of
Organizational Politics
Eran Vigoda-Gadot, Itai Beeri
University of Haifa
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

ABSTRACT
Using a well-grounded theory of organizational citizenship behavior, this study attempts to

extend the meaning of the good soldier syndrome beyond its common boundaries of the
business sector. We follow Bettencourts (2004) conceptualization and model of change-
oriented organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) to explain why and how public
employees engage in activities targeted at changing and improving the public work
environment and its job processes even when no formal rewards are offered in return. We
extend Bettencourts model and demonstrate its usefulness and contribution to public
administration organizations, focusing especially on leadership behavior, leader-member
exchange relations, and perceptions of organizational politics in public agencies. A field study
of 217 public personnel in a large public health care organization yields interesting findings,
demonstrating the uniqueness of change-oriented OCB over classical OCB measures
(individual and organizational), the general positive effect of leadership on OCB and the
moderating effect of perceptions of politics in this relationship. Implications of the findings
are developed and discussed in the context of modern public administration.
INTRODUCTION
A growing challenge facing most public services in modern democracies is the quest for
creativity, innovation, and change-oriented behaviors among employees. Doctrines of mar-
ket-driven management developed in recent decades have placed this challenge at the fore-
front of the disciplines theoretical and empirical efforts. It has become clear that global
governmental reforms (Terry 1998) can be successful only within a dynamic workplace and
a proactive public sector. Studies on reforms in public administration stress this need even
further (e.g., Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000). Such an organizational atmosphere that encour-
ages public servants to go the extra mile in daily job routines may compensate for bureau-
cratic red tape, slow and unbendable procedures, and insensitivity and inexibility in the
Both authors contributed equally to this article. The authors wish to thank Shelly Trifon who assisted in data
collection and four anonymous reviewers whose comments contributed signicantly to the improvement of this
article. Address correspondence to the author at eranv@poli.haifa.ac.il.
doi:10.1093/jopart/mur036
doi:10.1093/jopart/mur036
Advance Access publication on September 2, 2011
The
The Author
Author 2011.
2011. Published
Published by
by Oxford
Oxford University
University Press
Press on
on behalf
behalfof
ofthe
theJournal
JournalofofPublic
PublicAdministration
AdministrationResearch
Research
and Theory,
and Theory, Inc.
Inc. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. For
For permissions,
permissions, please
please e-mail:
e-mail:journals.permissions@oup.com
journals.permissions@oup.com
574
2 Journal of Public Administration Research and
and Theory
Theory
provision of services (Vigoda-Gadot 2007b). Hence, improving the performance and

achievements of governmental agencies depends upon reinventing old procedures and
rocking the boat of conservative paradigms and conventional work practices. These
new managerial dynamics are strongly inuenced by the New Public Management
(NPM) school of thought that emphasizes the rapidly changing nature of the markets
and the need for public administration to emulate the models of the business world.
For a number of years already, NPM has called for the transformation of the bureaucratic
structures of public organizations into a more vibrant type of activity and creative cong-
uration (Bernier and Hafsi 2007).
Hence, infusing new and creative managerial practices into public systems and in ser-
vice of very demanding citizens must involve a comprehensive set of change-oriented

behaviors among public personnel, across organizations and in various work environments
(Saner 2001). These changes include advances in information technology, changes in the
nature and preferences of the workplace, dealing with more critical citizens-as-clients and
facing increased global competition (Borins 2001). One of the most signicant elements
that these changes entail is employing an increasingly large percentage of highly skilled and
knowledge-based employees who are committed to disseminating change. These profes-
sional public servants are expected to have a greater say in how to organize and perform
their tasks and to formulate new ideas (Saner 2001) that affect the actual services provided
to citizens. The public managers are similarly expected to mobilize their workers to in-
novate and to make constructive changes at all levels of the organization (Chiun et al.
2006; Davis 2004).
In view of the strong dynamics pushing for change and reforms in public sector organ-
izations, this study offers change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as
a useful terminology for our discipline. Our major goals are two-fold: (1) to introduce
the relatively new terminology of change-oriented OCB to scholars and professionals
in public administration and (2) to examine the meaning of change-oriented OCB and
its relationship with several potential variables such as leadership style, leader-member
exchange (LMX), and perceptions of organizational politics (POPS). Our model draws
on Bettencourts (2004) path model and is rmly anchored in public sector management
theory and the literature of organizational politics.
OCB AND CHANGE-ORIENTED OCB: ITS MEANING FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES

The change-oriented activities of public employees are a promising eld of study. As these
orientations are largely voluntary and spontaneous, they have much in common with the
concepts of bureaucratic values, public service ethos, and motivation in public service (e.g.,
Pollit 1993; Bereton and Temple 1999; Perry et al. 2008). Public ofcers who are acutely
aware of their duties contribute to a stronger relationship between policy makers and the
citizenry. The major role of public servants is to translate governmental policies into prac-
tical actions and services to citizens. By so doing, they also reinforce the old social contract
between rulers and the people.
The roots of change-oriented OCB are in the classical concept of OCB. A seminal
work by Organ (1988) suggested that this behavior may be described as the good soldier
syndrome in which employees perform over and above their formal work duties. During
recent decades, OCB has become one of the most studied topics in management literature,
incorporating an entire set of spontaneous activities that go beyond prescribed role
Beeri Change-Oriented OCB in Public Administration
Vigoda-Gadot and Beeri
Vigoda-Gadot 575
3
requirements (Katz and Kahn 1966). OCB has been dened as individual behavior that
promotes the goals of the organization by contributing to its social and psychological en-
vironment (Smith, Organ, and Near 1983; Organ 1988). Bettencourt (2004) further dened
a unique domain of OCB activities as change-oriented OCB, describing innovative and
creative actions by employees that are aimed at bringing about constructive change in
the organization (Bettencourt 2004; Choi 2007; Morrison and Phelps 1999).
OCB expresses a form of extra-role behavior exhibited by employees in which they
perform beyond their formal job requirements without expecting recognition in terms of
either explicit or implicit rewards from supervisors. The presence of OCB is likely to pro-
mote a more positive social and working environment, enhancing the performance of a work
unit and the core products of the organization (Chiun et al. 2006). Most studies on OCB

describe it as a positive and constructive behavior worthy of encouragement by supervisors
(Podsakoff and Mackenzie 1997; Smith et al. 1983) and very important for clients of the
organization. Therefore, OCB may be extremely useful in the public sector because it con-
tributes to improving public service, overcoming bureaucracys ills and encouraging the
performance of various work units and agencies. OCB is thus expected to contribute to the
improved performance of service-oriented systems. OCB benets public service by rein-
forcing the bureaucratic values of the good soldier syndrome, the willingness to serve other
citizens, and strengthening the overall ethos of public service.
Studies on OCB have frequently distinguished between various internal dimensions of
this phenomenon. For example, Organ (1988) suggested a taxonomy of ve dimensions
(altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship), whereas Williams
and Anderson (1991) distinguished between two aspects of citizenship behaviors directed
toward individuals and those directed toward the organization in general.
Later studies argued that although OCB activities are important, they are not sufcient for
ensuring the continued viability of an organization. Therefore, an organization also needs
employees who are willing to challenge the present state of operations to bring about construc-
tive change (Bettencourt 2004; Morrison and Phelps 1999). This form of work performance
is referred today as change-oriented OCB. Some early notions of change-oriented OCB can
be traced back to a study by Van Dyne and Lepine (1998) who presented empirical support
for an expanded, multidimensional conceptualization of extra-role behavior (helping and
voice). They argued that helping is an afliative-promotive behavior, whereas voice is an
example of challenging promotive behavior that emphasizes the expression of constructive
challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize. Voice is making innovative
suggestions for change and recommending modications to standard procedures even when
others disagree. Given that OCBs are generally regarded as extra-role behaviors, voice,
a change-oriented form of extra-role behavior, can be related to change-oriented OCB.
Change-oriented OCB also means taking charge of ones environment, which en-
tails voluntary and constructive efforts by individual employees to effect organizationally
functional change with respect to how work is executed within the contexts of their jobs,
work units, or organizations (Morrison and Phelps 1999). It has also been referred to as
task revision in which individuals take action to correct a faulty procedure, inaccurate job
description, or unrealistic role expectation (Staw and Boettger 1990). Finally, as change-
oriented OCB is targeted at and intended to benet the organization in general, some studies
suggested that it should be considered a specic dimension of OCB directed toward the
organization (Choi 2007).
576
and Theory
Theory
Behaviors such as change-oriented OCB play a major role in public organizations.

Recently, a growing number of studies have pointed to the importance of organizational
commitment, public sector motivation (PSM), and psychological contracts to public organ-
izations (e.g., Coggburn et al. 2010; Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler 2003). However, OCB and
change-oriented OCB are hardly mentioned in public administration research and theory. A
search of the literature revealed that with the exception of only a few studies (i.e., Koberg
et al. 2005; Vigoda 2000), this phenomenon has not yet left an imprint on our discipline.
This omission is extremely interesting as citizenship is a core terminology in political sci-
ence and makes an original addition to the NPM jargon by emphasizing the role of the
people in building effective governance. Citizenship is therefore a fundamental concept
strongly related to modern public administrations goals and vision.

We believe that change-oriented OCB is a useful concept for public organizations and
that it is clearly distinct from PSM. In fact, the two concepts are complementary rather than
contradictory. In our view, change-oriented OCB deals with the innovative, informal aspect
of behavior (Organ 1988, among others), whereas PSM (Perry 1996, 2000; Perry et al.
2008) is a more formal and not necessarily innovative dimension of contribution to ones
work. Therefore, it is possible that change-oriented OCB may serve as an extension of the
concept of motivation in public administration. Thus, change-oriented OCB seems worthy
of exploration especially for its voice-related context and proactive and out of the box
thinking that can promote healthy contacts between public ofcials and citizens (Perry et al.
2008). We believe that this possibility, in and of itself, is a well-grounded and sufcient
justication for the encouragement of change-oriented OCB studies in public
administration.
More specically, the added value of good citizenship behavior and exceptional proso-
cial activities can result in greater efciency, increased productivity, improved human re-
lations in the work unit, lower levels of stress and burnout among public servants, and
increased inclination toward team work and learning (Battaglio and Condrey 2009;
Coggburn 2006; Coggburn et al. 2010). These positive effects can also spill over onto ser-
vice recipients, increasing and improving the services offered to them, thereby leading to
healthier relationships between the government and its citizens and ameliorating the image
of state agencies in the eyes of citizens. The lack of extra-role activities, such as OCB and
especially change-oriented OCB, in public organizations also has many negative implica-
tions that reach far beyond the immediate customer-provider contract. These negative at-
titudes may overow into citizens dissatisfaction with government, mistrust in public
servants, and lead to misgivings about the legitimacy of government and the ability of
the democratic-bureaucratic machinery to function for the public as it should (Chen
and Brudney 2009).
CHANGE-ORIENTED OCB, THE POWER OF LEADERSHIP, AND THE COST OF POLITICS:

MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
Following Bettencourts (2004) model, we suggest an extended conceptualization of the
antecedents to and characteristics of change-oriented OCB in the public sector. We focus
on the relationships between change-oriented OCB and four major variables: transforma-
tional leadership, transactional leadership, LMX, and POPS.
Vigoda-Gadot 577
5
Leadership and Change in the Public Sector

A growing debate about reforms in the public sector has simultaneously highlighted the role
of leadership and its contribution to planned change. Public managers as professional lead-
ers of governmental institutions are increasingly called on to engage in activities that re-
build organizational structures, improve processes, and create constructive cultures for both
public servants and citizens. They are expected to create robust institutional capacity
through the strategic management of people, programs, and partnerships (Van Slyke
and Alexander 2006). In fact, one of the major concerns and challenges of public organ-
izations today is to establish effective management leadership, one that can maximize the
public interest, and to do it on a very tight budget.
Managers use various leadership behaviors to inuence the situational goals and

behaviors of their followers (Bettencourt 2004). The literature usually distinguishes be-
tween two major leadership styles: transformational and transactional leadership. Both
types focus on the relationship between leaders and subordinates (Bass 1985) but each
in a different way. The key assumption of transactional leadership is that leader-follower
alignment occurs through the strategic use of relatively narrowly dened activities and the
completion of task-focused actions that usually relate to in-role expectations (e.g., recog-
nition and/or approval are offered in return for performance and/or pecuniary incentives).
This kind of leadership may work because followers and leaders have to achieve conver-
gence. According to this view, transactional leaders give things of value to followers in
return for things of value to the leader. Conversely, transformational leaders seek to replace
the values of their followers. The key assumption of transformational leadership is that
leaders can motivate followers by using nonmaterial incentives such as appeals to morality
and ethics, suasion, and inspiration and by using the organizational culture to align the
interests and preferences of subordinates with the vision and goals of leaders (Kotter 1999).
Previous studies (i.e., Deluga 1992; Howell and Hall-Merenda 1999) have also dem-
onstrated that both transformational and transactional leadership are strongly associated
with LMX. The roots of the studies on LMX can be traced back to the early 1970s.
LMX was dened as the quality of the exchange relationships between leaders and employ-
ees in organizations (Graen, Dansereau, and Minami 1972). Over the past four decades,
studies in this eld have expanded rapidly (e.g., Schriesheim, Castro, and Cogliser
1999, 67). Studies in public management also used this concept to explain complex inter-
actions inside public agencies, those that consider public managerial leadership as essential
for renewing and improving service to citizens (e.g., Song 2006; Song and Olshfsky 2008).
The core argument is that LMX must be considered a powerful tool in reforming public
managerial structures and processes. The reasoning behind this argument gains support
from the more generic idea that improvement of the internal relationships between man-
agers and subordinates is important for the enhancement of organizational outcomes in any
organization (Bettencourt 2004; Chiun et al. 2006; Wayne et al. 1997).
Using LMX as a link between leadership style and employees behavior, we can argue that
mutual, positive transactions may lead over time to the development of exchange relationships
between employees and managers. The reason for such an exchange is that during the trans-
action process leaders receive approval in the form of status, esteem, loyalty, and inuence,
whereas followers receive rewards such as authority, promotion, and favorable job assign-
ments (Basu and Green 1997). However, exchange relationships are not limited to material
transactions. They may also include social exchanges of psychological benets such as
578
and Theory
Theory
trust, esteem, support, consideration, and friendship (Song 2006; Song and Olshfsky 2008).
Moreover, LMX may be rst stimulated by conventional, market-based, transactional so-
cial exchanges, a kind of testing process, that then evolve into a transformational social
exchange in the form of a partnership dyad (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995). Hence, the rst
hypothesis suggests that:
H1 In the public sector, perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership styles
will be positively related to the quality of LMX relationships.
LMX and change-oriented OCB

LMX relationships are rooted in social exchange theory (Graen and Scandura 1987). As sug-
gested by Deluga (1992), the thread uniting social exchange theory and OCB is supervisor
trust-building behavior and in particular, perceptions of fairness which lead to satisfying and
rewarding relationships. These healthy relationships should be based on mutually benecial
transactions. A high-quality LMX consists of a relationship that goes beyond the contract
and is likely to lead to extra-role or citizenship behavior (Wayne et al. 1997). According to
Liden and Graen (1980), employees reporting high-quality LMX relationships make con-
tributions that go beyond their formal job duties. On the other hand, those employees re-
porting lower quality LMX relationships perform the more routine tasks of the work group.
Hence, the underlying principles that forge the linkage between LMX, OCB, and
change-oriented OCB are justice, fairness, and honesty (Scandura 1999). Each party must
offer something the other party sees as valuable and each party must see the exchange as
reasonably equitable and fair (Graen and Scandura 1987). When a leader trusts a particular
subordinate and provides certain advantages to him/her in terms of greater authority, more
support, or greater recognition, the subordinate may reciprocate with equivalent rewards.
Moreover, when such relationships take place in a public sector organization, those who
benet immediately are the citizens. For example, performing extra-role behaviors and
OCBs may increase the level of public service, help overcome red tape and bureaucracy,
and improve the publics perceptions about government. Therefore, LMX may have a sig-
nicant relationship with OCB types of reactions (Chiun et al. 2006).
Various other studies also support the logic behind this argument. LMX has been men-
tioned asrelated tovarious typesof OCB suchashelping,altruism,and job dedication(Ilies et al.
2007). However, with the exception of Bettencourt (2004), no study has examined the rela-
tionship between LMX and change-oriented OCB, so no evidence exists about these potential
relationships in the public sector, despite the clear recognition that out-of-the-box thinking
and spontaneous change-oriented behaviors are extremely important to the public service.
Bettencourt (2004) elaborated on this relationship and her empirical examination in a retail
setting found that LMX had a direct positive effect on change-oriented OCB. Extending the
arguments of Bettencourts study, we suggest that LMX in public sector organizations im-
proves the quality of work life in general and builds the healthy professional atmosphere so
needed to give citizens better quality services. Improvement in such services happens when
public servants are willing to voice the need for reforms and are willing to change the work
environment to achieve these goals. Therefore, we suggest another hypothesis:
H2 Perceptions of transactional and transformational leadership and the quality of LMX
relationships will be positively related with the change-oriented OCB of public employees.
Vigoda-Gadot 579
7
Whats Politics Got to Do with All This?

Internal politics in organizations has long been recognized as meaningful for individuals
and organizations. Although organizational politics is evident in any type of organization, it
is consistently much higher in the public sector than in the private sector (Vigoda-Gadot
and Kapun 2005). Politics in organizations, and especially in public agencies, is a contro-
versial phenomenon. Many studies mention its objective nature, having both constructive
and destructive effects on employees and citizens as clients (e.g., Ferris et al. 1989; Vigoda-
Gadot and Kapun 2005). According to Bolman and Deal (1991), organizational political
leadership may be viewed as a positive and pragmatic style of leadership for dealing with
continuing conicts and competition and for achieving organizational compromises.

However, this study followed the conventional approach in the literature that views
organizational politics as workplace activities that can result in negative or destructive
work outcomes (Vigoda 2000). A majority of the empirical studies in this eld have used
a perceptual approach and focused on judgments about workplace politics by individuals.
Employees were usually asked to report whether a specic action or decision was within the
parameters of sanctioned behavior (Randall et al. 1999). Randall et al. (1999) dened or-
ganizational politics as unsanctioned inuence attempts that seek to promote self-interests
at the expense of organizational goals. POPS are most commonly measured using the scale
developed by Kacmar and Ferris (1991).
In accordance with the denition by Randall et al. (1999), strong perceptions about the
presence of organizational politics are related to weaker job involvement (Cropanzano et al.
1997), reduced job satisfaction (Ferris and Kacmar 1992; Gandz and Murray 1980), with-
drawal from the organization (Gilmore et al. 1996), increased job anxiety and stress
(Ferris et al. 1994; Vigoda 2002), and poorer performance of the organization and the indi-
vidual (Vigoda 2000; Witt 1998). The negative impact of politics stems from the fact that
politics affects both the economic and social aspects of the employer-employee exchange
(Witt 1998).
Organizational politics has also been associated with perceptions of fairness and jus-
tice (Cropanzano et al. 1997; Ferris et al. 1989; Ferris and Kacmar 1992). According to
Ferris and Kacmar (1992), employees who score high on the POPS scale feel, there is less
procedural justice, fairness, and equity in their work environment. Employees who feel they
have been treated unfairly for political reasons are inclined to react by reducing the
voluntary contributions they make to the organization and weakening their ties with it.
Such a reaction is especially evident in public sector organizations where tenure in
a job is important and employees are less inclined to leave even if they feel they have been
mistreated (Vigoda-Gadot 2007a). Instead, they turn to less risky responses such as refrain-
ing from volunteering their services or engaging in extra-role activities. Hence, the psy-
chological escape route from a highly political atmosphere can become reduced
engagement in OCB, especially in change-oriented OCB.
However, a more thorough examination of the literature suggests that this relationship
between perceptions of politics and work outcomes such as OCBs may not be direct. For
example, according to Kacmar et al. (2007), POPS moderate the relationship between LMX
and employees work effort. If the work environment is perceived as political (a situation
that is particularly relevant for public sector organizations), the work effort of those with
high-quality LMX relationships may be greater than those with low-quality LMX relation-
ships. In addition, the quality of the LMX relationship with the supervisor affects POPS.
580
and Theory
Theory
Employees who enjoy a high-quality LMX relationship with their supervisor may feel pro-
tected from a lack of clear rules, ambiguity, and unfairness. Put differently, they perceive
the work environment as less threatening and less (negatively) political. However, those
with poor relationships with their supervisor may feel much less protected and therefore
view the work environment as more (negatively) political (Kacmar et al. 2007). Similarly,
poorer LMX was positively associated with perceptions about the supervisors political
behavior (Ferris and Kacmar 1992). Therefore, and according to Scandura (1999),
LMX may be viewed through the lens of organizational justice as well. Any leadership
actions that reduce perceptions of politics (or justice) in the workgroup will also contribute
to the improvement of work outcomes such as change-oriented OCB. Vigoda-Gadot
(2007a) examined the relationship between leadership style, organizational politics, and

employees performance (in a public sector setting) and found that whereas POPS had
a negative relationship with transformational leadership, it simultaneously had a positive
relationship with transactional leadership. Similarly, and in line with Pillai et al. (1999) and
Ehrhart (2004), it was argued that a transformational leader whose inuence derives from
his or her high levels of professionalism and personal integrity can create an environment of
creativity, trust, commitment, involvement, satisfaction, and excellence in the organiza-
tion. Therefore, transformational leadership has characteristics that can reduce POPS
among public employees and indirectly enhance change-oriented OCB. In contrast, a trans-
actional leadership style is characterized by negotiation about interests, the reward system,
interest-based relationships, and struggles over limited resources. All these issues are ev-
ident in a political environment (Vigoda-Gadot 2007a). On the other hand, a transactional
leader may enhance a rational and transparent give-and-take system, while maintaining
a fair environment that can reduce POPS among public employees. All things considered,
a transactional leader whose inuence derives from his or her position of authority has the
ability to reduce POPS and motivate public employees to engage in change-oriented OCB.
In contrast, the ability of a transformational leader to achieve this goal is more limited.
Aggregating all these arguments that are based on past knowledge, we may conclude that
previous studies point to (1) a direct relationship between leadership style and LMX on one
hand and POPS on the other and (2) an indirect relationship between LMX and change-ori-
ented OCB, where POPS plays a moderating role. When POPS is high, the relationship be-
tween the quality of the LMX and change-oriented OCB will be stronger and more positive
than when POPS is low. In addition, when POPS is low, change-oriented OCB resulting from
LMX will be higher than when POPS is high. Thus, we suggest H3 and H4 as follows:
H3 In the public sector, perceptions of transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
and the quality of LMX relationships will be negatively related to POPS.
H4 POPS moderate the relationship between the quality of LMX and change-oriented OCB in
the public sector.
Figures 1a1c summarize the hypotheses tested in this study. The rst model
(gure 1a) explains the relationship between leadership style and LMX as suggested in
H1. The second model (gure 1b) presents the relationship between leadership style,
LMX and perceptions of politics as suggested in H3. The third model (gure 1c) presents
the direct relationship between leadership style and LMX and change-oriented OCB (H2)
and the moderating effect of perceptions of politics on the relationship between LMX and
change-oriented OCB (H4).
Vigoda-Gadot 581
9
Figure 1
(a) The Relationship between Leadership Styles and LMX in the Public Sector. (b) The Relationship
between Leadership Styles, LMX, and Perceptions of Politics in the Public Sector. (c) The relationship
between leadership, Change-Oriented OCB, and Perceptions of Politics
METHODS
Sample and Procedure
Employees from a large public medical center located in the north of Israel participated in
the study. This public medical center provides a wide range of health services such as
582
10 Journal
JournalofofPublic
Researchand
andTheory
Theory
administrative, informational, diagnostic, and therapeutic services. These services are pro-
vided through various medical departments (e.g., internal medicine, cardiology, neurology)
headed by professional medical managers. The employees and their direct supervisors par-
ticipated in the study. They all hold a variety of para-professional and administrative posi-
tions (e.g., human resources, purchase and supply, maintenance, social assistance, medical
secretarial, etc.). The participants provide services across medical departments to medical
staff and consumers. After formal approval from the institutions authorities, each em-
ployee received a questionnaire that was based on the independent and control variables.
A direct return method was used to increase response rate and to ensure that all data col-
lected were viewed by the researchers only. This method assured participants that no personal
information would be shared with the institutions management. Our contacts with employees

were independent and were backed by the full anonymity assured to all who agreed to take part
in the study. No data were transferred to us via the formal organizational channels and no
records were taken by the organization about those who agreed (or refused) to take part in
the study. All data were collected by the researchers and kept with them throughout the study.
Using this strategy, we had a high return rate of 90% where 217 out of 240 employees com-
pleted the questionnaires. The high response rate strengthens the representativeness of the
sample. It is important to note that throughout the study participation was voluntary. Employ-
ees who felt uncomfortable with the process had a simple option of outing at any stage.
After data collection from employees was completed, 17 direct supervisors were asked to
complete individual evaluations for their employees. Supervisors evaluations were based on
a short report of change-oriented OCB for each of the employees under the direct supervision
of the reporting manager. Thus, although the respondents work for the same organization
and share a common work environment, the measurement of the dependent variable was
based on independent observations. Matching supervisors personal evaluations for each
employee and the self-report data by employees was done based on the last four digits of the
ID number that each employee was asked to write on his/her questionnaire.
A breakdown of the sample demonstrates a fair amount of heterogeneity among the
respondents. Seventy-ve percent of the respondents were female. The average age was
43.23 (standard deviation [SD] 5 10.49), meaning that about two-thirds of participants
were ages 33 to 54. The average tenure was 15.72 years (SD 5 10.09) and two-thirds
of the participants had held their positions for up to 19 years. The average number of years
of education was 14.66 (SD 5 2.44).
Measures
Change-Oriented OCB
Change-oriented OCB was measured by a nine-item scale developed through a multistage
process by Morrison and Phelps (1999) and used subsequently in a study by Bettencourt
(2004). Supervisors completed a questionnaire in which they were asked to evaluate the
recent behavior of each employee. Items are as follows: The specic employee: (1) tries to
adopt improved procedures for doing the job, (2) tries to change the job process in order to
be more effective, (3) tries to bring about improved procedures for the organization, (4)
tries to institute new work methods that are more effective for the organization, (5) makes
constructive suggestions for improving how things operate within the organization, (6) tries
to correct faulty procedures or practices, (7) tries to eliminate redundant or unnecessary
procedures, (8) tries to implement solutions to pressing organizational problems, and (9)
Vigoda-Gadotand
Vigoda-Gadot andBeeri Change-OrientedOCB
Beeri Change-Oriented OCBininPublic
Administration 583
11
tries to introduce new work approaches to improve efciency. The scale for these questions
ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Reliability of this scale was .97.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The scale was primarily based on the scale used by Williams and Anderson (1991) and
Organ and Konovsky (1989), as well as suggestions made by Morrison (1994). We utilized
a 10-item scale. Supervisors completed a questionnaire in which they were asked to eval-
uate the recent behavior of each employee. We tested two aspects of this variable: (1) OCB
directed toward Individuals and (2) OCB directed toward the Organization. Five items were
used to test each dimension. The OCB directed toward Individuals scale concerned helping
a specic person, be it the supervisor, a coworker, or a client. The OCB directed toward the

Organization scale represented a more impersonal sort of conscientiousness in attendance,
use of work time, and adherence to various rules but a conscientiousness that far surpasses
any enforceable minimum standards (Smith et al. 1983). OCB directed toward the Orga-
nization is different from OCB directed toward Individuals because it implies a good soldier
approach to doing things that are right and proper, but doing them for the sake of the system
rather than for specic people (Smith et al. 1983). Sample items include (1) helps other
employees who have been absent (OCB directed toward Individuals), (2) helps other em-
ployees who have heavy workloads (OCB directed toward Individuals), (3) attendance at work
is above the norm (OCB directed toward the Organization), and (4) gives advanced notice
when unable to come to work (OCB directed toward the Organization). Each item was
measured on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Reliability of this scale was .89.
Transformational and Transactional Leadership

Core transformational leadership behaviors were measured using ve items adapted from
Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) and Podsakoff et al. (1996) and used
subsequently in a study on change-oriented OCB by Bettencourt (2004). Sample items are:
(1) My supervisor articulates and generates enthusiasm for a shared vision and mission and
(2) My supervisor provides a compelling vision of the organizations future. Transactional
leadership behavior was measured with four items from Podsakoff et al. (1984), Mackenzie
et al. (2001) and Bettencourt (2004). Sample items are (1) My supervisor always gives
positive feedback when I perform well and (2) My supervisor gives me special recognition
when my work is very good. The scale ranged from 1 (not true at all) to 5 (very true).
Reliability of this scale was .94 for transformational leadership and .97 for transactional
leadership.
Leader-Member Exchange
LMX was measured by a ve-item scale of Graen, Liden, and Hoel (1982). These items
were subsequently used by Bettencourt (2004). Sample items are: (1) I can count on my
supervisor to bail me out at his/her expense when I really need him/her and (2) I would
characterize my relationship with my manager as above average. Respondents were asked
to report how much they agreed with the items on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). Reliability of this scale was .93.
Perceptions of Organizational Politics

POPS was measured by a six-item scale taken from Ferris et al. (1989) and used extensively
elsewhere in various versions (i.e., Kacmar and Carlson 1994; Kacmar and Ferris 1991;
584
12 Journal
JournalofofPublic
Researchand
andTheory
Theory
Vigoda 2000, 2002). Sample items are: (1) Favoritism rather than merit determines who
gets ahead around here and (2) I have seen changes made in policies here that only serve the
purposes of a few individuals, not the work unit of the organization. Respondents were
asked to report how much they agreed with the items on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree). Reliability of this scale was .83.
Control Variables
We controlled for age, years of tenure in the organization, and years of education.
Data Analysis

We applied exploratory factor analysis to ensure the validity of the change-oriented OCB
scale and its uniqueness compared with the conservative scale of OCB (directed toward
Individuals and the organization). Following this procedure, we used an ordinary multiple
regression analysis and additional regressions with interaction effect to test the moderating
relationship of POPS (all p values are for two-tailed tests).
FINDINGS
Exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation was rst applied and is presented in table 1.
As expected, the analysis demonstrated quite a clear-cut distinction among three sub fac-
tors: 9 items for change-oriented OCB, 5 items for OCB directed toward Individuals, and an
additional 5 items for OCB directed toward the Organization (including three reversed
scored items). These ndings strongly support the solidity and uniqueness of the
change-oriented OCB items that we used in further analysis.
Table 2 presents the zero-order correlation among the research variables. The normal-
ity of distribution of the research variables was tested using Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z-tests,
skewness and kurtosis, which revealed that transactional leadership, transformational lead-
ership, LMX, and POPS are slightly, but not signicantly, skewed to the left. This evidence
should be taken into account when interpreting the results. Also evident from table 2 is the
strong positive relationship between transformational leadership and transactional leader-
ship and LMX (r 5 .76; p , .001, r 5 .79; p , .001, respectively). These intercorrelations
are not unusual (e.g., Basu and Green 1997; Bettencourt 2004) and in no case exceed the
level of 0.8 that was suggested by Field (2005, 175) as the border of multicollinearity.
However, to make sure that our study does not suffer from a problem of multicollinearity,
we also applied (1) several conrmatory factor analyses1 to ensure the validity of our scales
and (2) a test of tolerance and Variance Ination Factor (VIF).2
1 Exploratory factor analyses with varimax rotation were rst applied for transactional and transformational
leadership and LMX. The analysis demonstrated a clear-cut distinction among three factors: ve items for each of the
variables. The total variance explained was 83.4%. The second exploratory factor analysis was expanded to include
change-oriented OCB as well. The analysis demonstrated a clear-cut distinction among four factors: nine items for
change-oriented OCB and ve items for each of the other research variables. The total variance explained was 80.6%.
These ndings strongly support the solidity and uniqueness of the change-oriented OCB and LMX scales that we used
in further analysis.
2 The tolerance and VIF tests revealed encouraging results as well. The Tolerance values ranged between .30 and .69,
and the VIF values ranged between 1.46 and 3.34far above .10 and far below 5.0/10.0, respectively, which would
indicate a possible problem (Field 2005).
Table 1
Exploratory Factor Analysis for Change-Oriented OCB and OCB (individual and organizational) Items
Factor 1- Factor 2OCB Factor 3OCB
Item Change-Oriented OCB directed toward Individuals directed toward the Organization
1. Tries to adopt improved procedures for doing the job. .816 .244 .248
2. Tries to change how job is executed in order to be more effective. .828 .235 .227
3. Tries to bring about improved procedures for the organization. .843 .291 .165
4. Tries to institute new work methods that are more effective for .849 .264 .194
the organization.
5. Makes constructive suggestions for improving how things .837 .239 .200
operate within the organization.
6. Tries to correct faulty procedures or practices. .878 .258 .114
7. Tries to eliminate redundant or unnecessary procedures. .830 .267 .130
8. Tries to implement solutions to pressing organizational .834 .250 .101
problems.
9. Tries to introduce new work approaches to improve efciency. .848 .225 .163
10. Helps others who have been absent. .248 .814 .265
11. Helps others who have a heavy workload. .281 .813 .222
12. Assists supervisor with his/her work (when not asked). .550 .600 .087
13. Takes time to listen to coworkers problems and worries. .314 .682 -.058
14. Passes along information to coworkers. .459 .498 .259
15. Attendance at work is above the norm. .382 .347 .545
16. Gives advance notice when unable to come to work. .092 .032 .675
17. Takes undeserved work breaks (r). .112 .200 .772
18. Great deal of time spent on personal phone conversations (r). .126 .118 .813
19. Coasts toward the end of the day (r). .198 .025 .769
Eigenvalue 7.33 3.14 3.08
% of Variance 38.59 16.57 16.22
Total % of variance 38.59 55.16 71.38
Vigoda-Gadot and Beeri Change-Oriented OCB in Public Administration
585
13

586
14 Journal
JournalofofPublic
Researchand
andTheory
Theory
Table 2
Multiple Correlation Matrix (Cronbachs a in parentheses)
Mean
Variable (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Transformational leadership 3.60 (1.13) (.94)
2. Transactional leadership 3.68 (1.26) .74*** (.97)
3. Leader member exchange 3.82 (1.05) .76*** .79*** (.93)
4. Change-oriented OCB 3.51 (.97) .15* .31*** .35*** (.97)
5. POPS 2.83 (.71) 2.55*** 2.46*** 2.51*** 2.10 (.83)
6. Age 43.23 (10.49) .03 2.13 2.02 2.05 2.16*
7. Tenure 15.72 (10.09) .01 2.08 .04 .14* 2.08 .78***
8. Education 14.66 (2.45) .01 2.06 2.08 2.02 .00 .12 .01

Note: N 5 209; POPS = Perceptions of organizational politics.
*p , .05, **p , .01.
In addition, change-oriented OCB was positively related with transactional and trans-
formational leadership, as well as with LMX (r 5 .31, p , .001; r 5 .15, p , .05; r 5 .35,
p , .001, respectively). Finally, transactional and transformational leadership and LMX
were negatively related with POPS (r 5 2.46, p , .001; r 5 2.55, p , .001; r 5 2.51, p ,
.001, respectively). These ndings support H1H3 but must be further conrmed with mul-
tivariate analysis.
Tables 3 and 4 offer such an analysis. First, table 3 presents a simple multiple regres-
sion analysis to test the effect of (1) leadership styles on LMX and (2) leadership styles and
LMX on POPS. These relationships are expected according to H1 and H3, respectively.
According to this table, transactional and transformational leadership had a positive rela-
tionship with LMX (b 5 .50, p , .001, and b 5 .39, p , .001, respectively). In addition,
transformational leadership and LMX were negatively related with POPS (b 5 2.32, p ,
.001, and b 5 2.22, p , .05, respectively). Note, however, that contrary to the zero-order
correlation, the multiple regression analysis revealed that transactional leadership had no
relationship with POPS. These ndings quite strongly support H1 and H3.
To test H2 and H4, we applied a hierarchical multiple regression analysis with inter-
action effect that examined the relationship between the independent variables and change-
oriented OCB. First, and according to the rst step of the equation, the demographic variables
were included in the model to control for age, tenure, and education. change-oriented OCB was
negatively related with age but positively related with tenure, implying that younger but more
tenured employees are more likely to be engaged in change-oriented citizenship behaviors.
This nding, by itself, is interesting, as experience and tenure seem to encourage change-
oriented OCB, but age by itself seems to discourage it.
The second step of the equation yielded quite surprising results. We found a positive
relationship between transactional leadership and change-oriented OCB (b 5 .22, p , .05)
but a negative relationship between transformational leadership and change-oriented OCB
(b 5 2.30, p , .01). In addition, change-oriented OCB was strongly and positively related
with the quality of LMX (b 5 .41, p , .001) but had no direct relationship with POPS.
These ndings support H2, which expected a relationship between the change-oriented
OCB of public employees, leadership styles, and LMX. However, the negative direction
Vigoda-Gadotand
Administration 587
15
Table 3
Findings of multiple regression analysis (standardized coefficients) for the effect of Independent
variables on LMX and POPS
Variable LMX POPS
Constant 1.31 4.86
Demographics
Age 2.06 2.28**
Tenure .11 .13
Education 2.05 .01
Main variables
Transactional leadership .50*** 2.08
Transformational leadership .39*** 2.32***

Leader-member exchange 2.22*
R2 .71 .35
Adjusted R2 .70 .33
F 95.90*** 17.97***
Note: N 5 209.
*p , .05, ** p , .01, ***p , .001.
of the transformational leadership / change-oriented OCB relationship was quite coun-

terintuitive and surprising.
In the third step of the equation the interaction effect of POPS was added. The relation-
ships between leadership styles (transformational and transactional), LMX, and change-
Table 4
Findings of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis (standardized coefficients), with Moderation
Effect, for the Relationship between the Independent Variables and Change-Oriented OCB
Change-Oriented OCB
Variable Step 1 b (t) Step 2 b (t) Step 3 b(t)
Constant 4.31 4.12 4.17
Demographics
Age 2.40*** 2.30** 2.30**
Tenure .45*** .38*** .38***
Education .02 .06 .06
Main variables
Transformational leadership 2.30** 2.31**
Transactional leadership .22* .22*
Leader-member exchange (LMX) .41*** .35**
Perceptions of organizational politics .02 2.01
(POPS)
Interaction effect
POPS LMX .14*
R2 .08 .23 .25
Adjusted R2 .07 .20 .21
F 5.94*** 8.22*** 7.80***
DR2 .15 .02
DF 12.27*** 8.95***
Note: N 5 209.
*p , .05, ** p , .01, ***p , .001.
588
16 Journal
JournalofofPublic
Researchand
andTheory
Theory
Figure 2
Interaction Effect of POPS on the Relationship between LMX and Change-Oriented OCB among Public
Employees

oriented OCB remained quite stable. In addition, the interaction effect of POPS LMX
was modest but signicant (b 5 .14, p , .05) and added 2% to the overall explained var-
iance of the model. Figure 2 presents the plot of the interaction effect. In this gure, a high
level of POPS is dened as an above average (.2.83) score, whereas a low level of POPS is
dened as a below average (,2.83) score. The equation under the x-axis expresses the
interaction model that was tested, whereas X represents LMX, Y is for CO-OCB, and Z
stands for POPS. According to this gure, for the whole sample, change-oriented OCB
improves with an increase in the quality of LMX. However, POPS is a moderator in this
relationship, making it stronger within those who have strong perceptions about the level of
organizational politics. When the quality of LMX is poor, strong perceptions about orga-
nizational politics result in a reduced inclination toward change-oriented OCB, compared
to situations in which employees sense that organizational politics is not a major factor in
their work environment. However, when the quality of LMX is high, stronger feelings of
inequity and unfairness in the public organization lead to more change-oriented OCB com-
pared to situations in which employees sense that organizational politics is not a major
factor in their work environment. Put differently, the highest level of change-oriented
OCB was found among employees who reported high levels of LMX and low levels of
POPS; the lowest level of change-oriented OCB was found among employees who reported
low levels of LMX and high levels of POPS. The overall explained variance of the model
was 25%.
Vigoda-Gadotand
Administration 589
17
Although not specically designed to test the hypotheses, similar models were em-
ployed to predict the two other types of OCB. In comparison to the change-oriented OCB
model, different patterns emerged between managerial styles and OCB directed toward
individuals and toward the organization in general. LMX was the only signicant positive
predictor related to OCB directed toward individuals with no interaction effect; no signif-
icant predictor was found related to OCB toward the organization with no interaction
effect.3
These interesting ndings deserve further explanation and will be elaborated on in the
Discussion section.

CHANGE-ORIENTED OCB IN THE SERVICE OF PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS AND CITIZENS:
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
Modern public administration is struggling in a world of rapid changes and developments.
Breakthroughs in technology, stronger calls for governments to plan and shape modern
societies, and increased expectations from governmental and administrative agencies
are occurring in a globalizing and innovative environment. From a public managerial per-
spective, these changes lead to a culture of open decision making that encourages public
employees to undertake innovative and out-of-the-box missions and generate creative
ideas. Many times, these tasks and behaviors must go beyond the formal requirements
of the traditional bureaucratic machinery. Change-oriented OCB is one such behavior that
managers in the public sector must learn to recognize and apply to support work processes
and improve services to the public.
This study borrowed the idea of OCB as a well-studied phenomenon from the generic
managerial and organizational behavior literature and used it to propose a concept that will
advance our knowledge in public management. We focused on public sector employees
willingness to engage in voice activities, above and beyond the formal requirements of the
organization. Although change-oriented OCB is prevalent in public organizations, as much
as it is in other organizations, its meaning and implications for this sector in particular are
far reaching. In addition, the study examined the mutual effects between change-oriented
OCB, leadership, and politics and found meaningful interrelationships.
The ndings of the study should be discussed particularly with regard to several major
points: (1) the stand-alone role of change-oriented OCB in the public sector as a unique
aspect of good citizenship behavior, one with added value over OCBs (i.e., directed toward
Individuals and toward the Organization); (2) the reconrmation of several relationships,
especially between leadership style and leader-member-exchange (LMX) and between
these variables and POPS; (3) the solid, direct relationship between change-oriented
OCB, leadership styles, and LMX; and (4) the modest but interesting indirect relationship
between POPS, LMX, and change-oriented OCB.
First, the fact that our factor analysis revealed three clear-cut factors of change-oriented
OCB, OCB directed toward Individuals, and OCB directed toward the Organization is en-
couraging. Note that different patterns were found in our attempts to relate leadership styles,
LMX, and POPS with the three dimensions of OCB (change-oriented OCB, IND-OCB,
ORG-OCB). These ndings support change-oriented OCB as a behavior that is both related
3 For more detailed results, please contact the rst author.

590
18 Journal
JournalofofPublic
Researchand
andTheory
Theory
to classical OCB factors (IND-OCB and ORG-OCB), but at the same time also separate and
distinct from them in several ways. Although classic OCB factors reect good citizenship in
that employees invest extra-role efforts in others, change-oriented OCB is unique in adding
the extra dimensions of innovation, creativity, and voice into the complex meaning of good
citizenship. Organs (1988) theory of the good soldier syndrome may therefore be ex-
panded to encompass other behaviors as well, those that go beyond doing extra and extend
to creativity and innovation. This idea strongly supports Bettencourts (2004) model, its
emphasis on change-oriented OCB and its major role in making some organizations better
than others.
Moreover, we believe that our study is perhaps the rst to test the theoretical and
empirical meaning of change-oriented OCB in public administration systems. Our focus

on public organizations explores another aspect of this concept and its implications. We
suggest that when change-oriented OCB takes place in a governmental agency, its impli-
cations go far beyond the added value to a specic organization. change-oriented OCB may
have a positive spillover onto peoples experiences with governmental services and affect
the perceptions of the government as a legitimate political entity. Thus, one may argue that
change-oriented OCB can help loosen some of bureaucracys stiffness and make it more
exible and sensitive to citizens needs.
Our model yielded some additional ndings that deserve attention. The rst and most basic
one is the relationship between transactional leadership, transformational leadership, and LMX.
This relationship is well established and widely documented in the literature (i.e., Basu and
Green 1997; Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995; Howell and Hall-Merenda 1999). These studies and
others like them suggest that LMX is strongly and positively affected by both styles of
leadership, transformational and transactional. Our ndings support both the ndings of
these studies and the emphasis placed on the quality of the relationship between supervisors
and subordinates and its impact on a variety of work outcomes.
Another nding that deserves added discussion is the negative relationship between
perceptions of politics and transformational leadership and LMX. This nding is in line
with several other studies that promoted the idea that leadership plays a role in deter-
mining employees views about fairness, equity, the professional handling of conicts
and dilemmas, and decision-making processes that involve a struggle over resources or
benets. For example, Pillai et al. (1999) supported the indirect effect of transformational
leadership on OCBs through procedural justice and trust. In a later study, Andrews and
Kacmar (2001) supported a negative relationship between LMX and organizational poli-
tics. These ndings may imply that public sector managers who use a transformational
leadership style and build high-quality LMX relationships directly reduce perceptions
of politics among employees through the support and identity mechanisms that they pro-
vide to subordinates. However, this rationale does not work for transactional leadership,
which is based more on reciprocity and exchange between employees and their supervisors.
Although we expected that transactional leadership would have some negative effect on
POPS, the ndings revealed no such relationship. A possible explanation for this lack of
association may be the difference between transactional leadership and transformational
leadership and their relationship with organizational politics. Our ndings indicate that
among public employees, transformational leadership negatively affects POPS. Further-
more, this relationship is much more imminent and stable than the one between transac-
tional leadership and POPS.
Vigoda-Gadotand
Administration 591
19
However, perhaps, the most interesting nding of this study lies in the relationships
found between leadership, POPS, and change-oriented OCB. First, and most notable, is the
strong, direct relationship between leadership and change-oriented OCB, which accorded
with our original expectations and with the literature (Podsakoff et al. 1990, 1996). We
found that LMX is strongly and positively related with change-oriented OCB. In addition,
LMX is strongly and positively related with OCB directed toward Individuals. Hence, it
may be argued that the quality of the relationships between public employees and their
supervisors contributes strongly to individuals willingness to engage in innovative and
creative behaviors and behaviors toward other individuals that support the organization.
Whereas Choi (2007) suggested that change-oriented OCB should be considered a specic
dimension of OCB directed toward the organization, our study found reason to assume that

change-oriented OCB has a stand-alone context, quite separate from the other classical
aspects of OCB. The quality of LMX has no effect on behaviors toward the organization
in general.
In addition, however, we also found that the direct relationship is accompanied by an
indirect moderating effect of perceptions of politics. In other words, although the relation-
ship between LMX and change-oriented OCB was positive, it was different for high and
low levels of POPS. The relationship was stronger when employees sensed that organiza-
tional politics was a major factor in their workplace than when they did not. In other words,
LMX is more important in highly political environments. A possible explanation for this
relationship is a compensation type of effect. In a highly political atmosphere, the quality of
LMX can encourage employees to overcome difculties and their frustrations and still en-
gage in active voice behaviors such as change-oriented OCB. However, when the work
place is less politically charged, the need for LMX is reduced. The public manager, as
a leader, may thus serve as a buffer that promotes employees willingness to engage in
innovative change-oriented OCB in spite of negative feelings and perceptions such as
POPS. Another interesting interpretation of the moderation effect assumes public managers
directly affect both LMX (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995) and POPS (Pillai et al. 1999) because
organizational politics is not a given element in the workplace environment. Since public
managers are not perfect, they may enable or not necessarily prevent high levels of POPS.
However, to maintain high levels of change-oriented OCB in the employees, the self-
awareness of a public manager of his/her own limited qualications may push him/her
to compensate the employees with very positive LMX relationships. This possibility ex-
plains why the highest change-oriented OCB was found among employees who reported
that their manager successfully created positive LMX relationships, yet failed to create low
levels of POPS. Nonetheless, this nding should be interpreted with caution because the
interaction effect is rather modest and the direct relationship is more pronounced than the
indirect effect.
Quite surprisingly, we also found a direct positive relationship between transactional
leadership and change-oriented OCB, but a negative relationship between transformational
leadership and change-oriented OCB. These ndings were counterintuitive because we
would have expected the opposite direction of relationship between the variables. In other
words, we would have predicted a weaker and perhaps more negative relationship between
transactional leadership and change-oriented OCB compared with a stronger and more pos-
itive relationship between transformational leadership and change-oriented OCB.
592
20 Journal
JournalofofPublic
Researchand
andTheory
Theory
Although these ndings are difcult to explain and interpret, an interesting study by
Basu and Green (1997) may help us understand these results. In their study, the authors
found quite a similar relationship between charismatic transformational leadership4 and
innovative behavior (which is close in nature to change-oriented OCB). They offered three
possible explanations for these ndings (pp.4923): (1) Perhaps followers are intimidated
by a charismatic leader, and this intimidation manifests itself in lower incidence of inno-
vation. They mention previous studies claiming that, charismatic leaders may be dam-
aging because of their continual need for approval from others. According to Harrison
(1987) charismatic leadership leads to the creation of achievement-oriented cultures
which for the most part are advantageous, but can create excessive stress for members
who are unable to handle the pressure to perform beyond expectations. (2) According

to Howell and Avolio (1992), certain kinds of charismatic transformational leaders (termed
unethical charismatics) demand that decisions be accepted without question, censure crit-
ical and opposing views, and encourage dependent followers, thus squashing any oppor-
tunity for individual initiative, thought, or innovative activities. (3) Since transformational
leaders by denition participate in innovation processes (Burns 1978; Bass 1985; Tichy and
Devanna 1986; Tichy and Ulrich 1984), they may view followers who are not up to their
standards as less innovative. Consequently, the more charismatic transformational leaders
are, the less likely they may be to view followers as engaged in innovative activities such as
change-oriented OCB. Hence, Basu and Green (1997) summarize, to the extent that such
perceptions cloud judgment, transformational leadership can be negatively related to in-
novative behavior.
In view of these possibilities, we feel that one explanation for this nding may be that
change-oriented OCB is encouraged by feasible exchange relationships and actions that
support them, specically in the public sector. At the same time, change-oriented OCB
may be discouraged by the more abstract transformative actions of leaders that call for
the fulllment of formal job duties. Although being engaged in change-oriented OCB is
positively related with good LMX qualities, the specic transactional contingent-reward
aspect of this relationship is more effective than abstract transformational types of relation-
ships in supporting innovation and creativity, especially among public employees. Another
possible explanation is that charismatic transformational leadership in the public sector has
specic characteristics that negatively affect change-oriented OCB in the way suggested by
Basu and Green (1997). Such characteristics may put more emphasis on following the for-
mal procedures of complying with regulations and order and less on behaviors involving
creativity and innovation. Hence, it is possible that leadership among public managers is
different than that among other managers and its impact on change-oriented OCB may also
be different.
Finally, the limitations of this study should also be mentioned so they can guide future
attempts to study OCB and change-oriented OCB in public sector environments. First, our
sample is of modest size and quite homogeneous. It presumably shares common features of
the work environment in that it comes from one public health organization. This fact limits
the ability to generalize our ndings to other public services that may differ substantially
from ours. Future studies would therefore benet from testing our model on larger and more
4 Note that although charisma and transformational leadership are not necessarily synonymous, Basu and
Green (1997) and Tichy and Ulrich (1984) refer to charismatic transformational leadership and to charismatic
leadership as to transformational leadership.
Vigoda-Gadotand
Administration 593
21
heterogeneous samples of public employees and organizations. Second, our data were col-
lected in Israel and generalization to other cultures should be done with caution considering
the uniqueness of the Israeli public sector and its health system. Other studies should con-
sider the different meanings of change-oriented behaviors typical of other nations and cul-
tures, with their typical public organizations. Third, our data may be biased by some
skewed distributions of variables. However, such skewing not uncommon in many studies
of the social sciences and should not be considered a major limitation (Stevens 2009).
Finally, we have not used a causal research design, so any conclusions regarding causality
should be treated with caution.
In view of the above issues, future research would benet from: (1) better control over
other possible factors such as organizational type, types of tasks, or type of work environ-

ment; (2) applying more advanced statistical analyses that are useful in testing causality
(i.e., Structural Equation Modeling) or those that are useful in testing multilevel models
(i.e., Hierarchical Linear Modeling); (3) replicating our study in other organizational set-
tings and cultures; and (4) including additional variables (i.e., service climate, personality
types) that have been found signicant in previous studies on leadership, politics, and OCB.
All in all, and despite its limitations, we believe that this study offers a different look at the
informal aspect of innovation and creativity in public administration. It calls for more integra-
tion of knowledge from the generic managerial and organizational behavior theories into public
management and exemplies how this should be done to overcome some of bureaucracies
traditional ills of red tape, stagnation, inexibility, and resistance to change and renewal.
REFERENCES
Andrews, Martha C., and Michele K. Kacmar. 2001. Discriminating among organizational politics, justice
and support. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22:34766.
Bass, Bernard M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Basu, Raja, and Stephen G. Green. 1997. Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An
empirical examination of innovative behavior in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 27:47799.
Battaglio, Paul R. Jr, and Stephen E. Condrey. 2009. Reforming public management: Analyzing the impact
of public service reform on organizational and managerial trust. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 19:689707.
Bereton, Michael, and Michael Temple. 1999. The new public service ethos: An ethical environment for
government. Public Administration 77:45574.
Bernier, Luc, and Taeb Hafsi. 2007. The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Adminis-
tration Review 67:488503.
Bettencourt, Lance A. 2004. Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: The direct and
moderating inuence of goal orientation. Journal of Retailing 80:16580.
Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. 1991. Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame,
multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management 30:50934.
Borins, Sandford. 2001. Public management innovation: Toward a global perspective. American Review of
Public Administration 31:521.
Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Chen, Chung-An A., and Jeffrey L. Brudney. 2009. A cross-sector comparison of using nonstandard
workers: Explaining use and impacts on the employment relationship. Administration and Society
41:31339.
Chiun, L. May, Thurasamy Ramayah, and Jerome Kueh Swee Hui. 2006. An investigation of leader
member exchange effects on organizational citizenship behavior in Malaysia. Journal of Business
and Management 12:523.
594
22 Journal
JournalofofPublic
Researchand
andTheory
Theory
Choi, Jin Nam. 2007. Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of work environment
characteristics and intervening processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28:46784.
Coggburn, Jerrell D. 2006. At-will employment in government: Insights from the State of Texas. Review of
Public Personnel Administration 26:15877.
Coggburn, Jerrell D., R. Paul Battaglio, Jr., James S. Bowman, Stephen E. Condrey, Doug Goodman, and
Jonathan P. West. 2010. State government human resource professionals commitment to em-
ployment at will. American Review of Public Administration 40:189208.
Coyle-Shapiro, Jacqueline A. M., and Ian Kessler. 2003. The employment relationship in the U.K. public
sector: A psychological contract perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
13:21330.
Cropanzano, Russell, John C. Howes, Alicia A. Grandey, and Paul Toth. 1997. The relationship of or-
ganizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational

Behavior 18:15980.
Davis, Mike. 2004. Building innovative bureaucracies: Change, structure and the science of ideas. The
Public Manager 32:3.
Deluga, Ronald J. 1992. The relationship of leader-member exchanges with laissez-faire, transactional,
and transformational leadership. In Impact of leadership, ed. Kenneth E. Clark, Miriam B. Clark,
David R. Campbell, pp. 23747. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Ehrhart, Mark G. 2004. Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organi-
zational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology 57:6194.
Ferris, Gerald R., Dwight D. Frink, David C. Gilmore, and K. Michelle Kacmar. 1994. Understanding as an
antidote for the dysfunctional consequences of organizational politics as a stressor. Journal of
Applied Psychology 24:120420.
Ferris, Gerald R., and K. Michelle K acmar. 1992. Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of
Management 18:93116.
Ferris, Gerald R., Gail S. Russ, and Patricia M. Fundt. 1989. Politics in organizations. In Impression
management in the organization, ed. Robert A. Giacalone and Paul Roeneld, 14370. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Field, Andy. 2005. Discovering statistics using SPSS, 2nd ed London: Sage.
Gandz, Jeffrey, and Victor V. Murray. 1980. The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Man-
agement Journal 23:23751.
Gilmore, David C., Gerald R. Ferris, James H. Dulebohn, and Gloria Harrell-Cook. 1996. Organizational
politics and employee attendance. Group and Organizational Management 21:48194.
Graen, Georg, Fred Dansereau, Jr. and Takao Minami. 1972. Dysfunctional leadership styles. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Performance 7:21636.
Graen, George B., Robert C. Liden, and William Hoel. 1982. The role of leadership in the employee
withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology 67:86872.
Graen, George B., and T. A. Scandura. 1987. Toward a psychological of dyadic organizing. In Research in
organizational behavior, ed. Larry L. Cummings and Barry M. Staw, 175208. Greenwich, CT: JAI
press.
Graen, George B., and Mary Uhl-Bien. 1995. Relationship based approach to leadership: Development of
leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-
domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 6:21947.
Harrison, Roger. 1987. Harnessing personal energy: How companies can inspire employees. Organi-
zational Dynamics. Autumn:421.
Howell, Jane M., and Bruce J. Avolio. 1992. The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or lib-
eration. Academy of Management Executive 6:4354.
Howell, Jane M., and Kathryn E. Hall-Merenda. 1999. The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member
exchange, transformational and transactional leadership and distance on predicting follower per-
formance. Journal of Applied Psychology 84:68094.
Ilies, Remus, Jennifer D. Nahrgang, and Frederick P. Morgeson. 2007. Leader-member exchange and
citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92:26977.
Vigoda-Gadotand
Administration 595
23
Kacmar, K. Michele, and Dawn S. Carlson. 1994. Further validation of the perceptions of the political scale
(POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting,
Dallas, TX (August 1417).
Kacmar, K. Michele, and Gerald R. Ferris. 1991. Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS):
Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement 51:191205.
Kacmar, Michele K., Suzanne Zivnuska, and Charles D. White. 2007. Control and exchange: The impact
of work environment on the work effort of low relationship quality employees. The Leadership
Quarterly 18:6984.
Katz, Daniel, and Robert Louis Kahn. 1966. The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Koberg, C. S., R. W. Boss, E. A. Goodman, A. D. Boss, and E. W. Monsen. 2005. Empirical evidence of
organizational citizenship behavior from the health care industry. International Journal of Public
Administration 28:41736.

Kotter, John P. 1999. John P. Kotter on what leaders really do: A Harvard business review book.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.
Liden, Robert C., and George Graen. 1980. Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of
leadership. Academy of Management Journal 23:45165.
Mackenzie, Scot B., Philip M. Podsakoff, and Gregory A. Rich. 2001. Transformational and transactional
leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 29:11534.
Morrison, Elizabeth Wolfe. 1994. Role denitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The impor-
tance of the employees perspective. Academy of Management Journal 37:154367.
Morrison, Elizabeth Wolfe., and C. Corey C. Phelps. 1999. Taking charge at work: Extra-role efforts to
initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal 42:40319.
Organ, Dennis W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, Dennis W., and Mary Konovsky. 1989. Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 74:15764.
Perry, James. 1996. Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and
validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6:522.
Perry, James. 2000. Bringing society in: Toward a theory of public-service motivation. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 10:47188.
Perry, James, Jeffrey Brudney, David Coursey, and Laura Littlepage. 2008. What drives morally com-
mitted citizens? A study of the antecedents of public service motivation. Public Administration
Review 68:44558.
Pillai, Rajnandini, Chester A. Schriesheim, and Eric S. Williams. 1999. Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of
Management 25:897933.
Podsakoff, Philip M., and Scot B. Mackenzie. 1997. Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on
organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance
10:13351.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scot B. Mackenzie, and W. H. Bommer. 1996. Transformational leader behaviors
and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management 22:25998.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scot B. Mackenzie, S. H. Moorman, and R. Fetter. 1990. Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly 1:10742.
Podsakoff, Philip M., William D. Todor, Richard A. Grover, and Vandra Huber. 1984. Situational
moderators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or ction? Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance 34:2163.
Pollitt, Christopher. 1993. Managerialism and the public services. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Pollitt, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. 2000. Public management reform. A comparative analysis.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
596
24 Journal
JournalofofPublic
Researchand
andTheory
Theory
Randall, L. Marjorie, Russell Cropanzano, Carol A. Borman, and Andrej Birjulin. 1999. Organizational
politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organi-
zational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20:15974.
Saner, Raymond. 2001. Globalization and its impact on leadership qualication in public administration.
International Review of Administrative Sciences 67:64961.
Scandura, Terri. 1999. Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organizational justice perspective. The
Leadership Quarterly 10:2541.
Schriesheim, Chester A., Stephanie L. Castro, and Claudia C. Cogliser. 1999. Leader-member exchange
(LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The
Leadership Quarterly 10:63113.
Smith, C. Ann, Dennis W. Organ, and Janet P. Near. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68:65363.

Song, Seok Hwi. 2006. Workplace friendship and employees productivity: LMX theory and the case of the
Seoul city government. International Review of Public Administration 11:4758.
Song, Seok Hwi., and Dorothy Olshfsky. 2008. Friends at work: A comparative study of work attitudes in
Seoul city government and New Jersey state government. Administration & Society 40:14769.
Staw, Barry M., and Richard D. Boettger. 1990. Task revision: A neglected form of work performance.
Academy of Management Journal 33:53459.
Stevens, James. 2009. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 5th ed. London: Routledge.
Terry, Larry D. 1998. Administrative leadership, neo-managerialism, and the public management
movement. Public Administration Review 53:194200.
Tichy, Noel M., and Mary Anne Devanna. 1986. The transformational leader. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Tichy, Noel M., and David O. Ulrich. 1984. The leadership challengea call for the transformational
leader. Sloan Management Review 26:5968.
Van Dyne, Linn, and Jeffrey A. LePine. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behavior: Evidence of
construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal 41:10819.
Van Slyke, David M., and Robert W. Alexander. 2006. Public service leadership: Opportunities for clarity
and coherence. American Review of Public Administration 36:36274.
Vigoda, Eran. 2000. Internal politics in public administration systems: An empirical examination of its
relationship with job congruence, organizational citizenship behavior and in-role performances.
Public Personnel Management 26:185210.
Vigoda, Eran. 2002. Stress-related aftermaths to workplace politics: The relationship among politics, job
distress and aggressive behavior in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23:57191.
Vigoda-Gadot, Eran. 2007a. Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees performance: An
empirical examination of two competing models. Personnel Review 36:66183.
. 2007b. Citizens perceptions of organizational politics and ethics in public administration: A
ve-year study of their relationship to satisfaction with services, trust in governance, and voice
orientations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17:285305.
Vigoda-Gadot, Eran, and Danit Kapun. 2005. Perceptions of politics and perceived performance in public
and private organizations: A test of one model across two sectors. Policy & Politics 33:25176.
Wayne, Sandy J., Lynn M. Shore, and Robert C. Liden. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader-
member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal 40:82111.
Williams, Larry J., and Stella E. Anderson. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management 17:60117.
Witt, Angela L. 1998. Enhancing organizational goal congruence: A solution to organizational politics.
Journal of Applied Psychology 83:66674.

Ocb and Politics Haifa 19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ocb and Politics Haifa 19

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Ocb and Politics Haifa 19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JPART 22:573596

Change-Oriented Organizational Citizenship

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Using a well-grounded theory of organizational citizenship behavior, this study attempts to

provision of services (Vigoda-Gadot 2007b). Hence, improving the performance and

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

OCB AND CHANGE-ORIENTED OCB: ITS MEANING FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Behaviors such as change-oriented OCB play a major role in public organizations.

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

CHANGE-ORIENTED OCB, THE POWER OF LEADERSHIP, AND THE COST OF POLITICS:

Leadership and Change in the Public Sector

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

LMX and change-oriented OCB

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Whats Politics Got to Do with All This?

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Transformational and Transactional Leadership

Perceptions of Organizational Politics

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

of the transformational leadership / change-oriented OCB relationship was quite coun-

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

3 For more detailed results, please contact the rst author.

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on August 1, 2012

You might also like