Research Proposal

Prepared by Jayeeta Debnath Munshi, Assistant Professor MBA Department, Techno

India School of Management Studies, Saltlake, West Bengal, India
To:
WBUT
From: Jayeeta Debnath Munshi
Date:
1 Feb 2013
Subject: Human Resource Management
1) Title of the Proposed Research Study for Ph. D:
A Study on Leadership Effectiveness In relation to Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) in
relation to the Leader Member exchange (LMX) and their complex interactions, in education
industry of West Bengal.
2) Introduction for the Proposed Study:
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
A review of the research reveals that relative to perceived organizational support, LMX is a
better predictor of OCB (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). Deluga (1994) found a positive
relationship between employee OCB and the quality of LMX. LMX describes how leaders
develop different exchange relationships over time with their various subordinates as they
influence each other (Farouk, 2002). LMX research shows that subordinates reporting highquality LMX not only assume greater job responsibilities but also express contributing to other
units (Liden & Graen, 1980). Hence, the quality of the LMX influences levels of delegation,
responsibility, and autonomy and in turn, employees perceive greater latitude, decision
influence, and feelings of contribution (Gomez & Rosen, 2001). These feelings of contribution
may be those that are beyond the job prescribed in their job descriptions and are referred to as
OCB. Liden and Maslyn (1998) found a four-dimensional LMX model comprising of contribution,
loyalty, affect, and professional respect.
3) Review of Literature:
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory
The LMX Theory dates back to 1975 when Danserau, Graen and Haga made a first description
of dyadic relationships in their work called A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in
formal organizations. Prior to this work, leadership was seen as something that leaders did,
furthermore the behavior of the leader showed up as something done to the group of followers
as a whole. Thus an average leadership style was used by the leader. The key point of the LMX
Theory is that it challenged the conception of this relationship towards the group, and proposed
a different focus over the relationship of the leader and the followers. It made several
distinctions. Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory has existed for more than 30 years and
like most other models, has gone through a few different iterations. Scandura, Graen, & Novak
(1986) defined leader-member exchange as: (a) a system of components and their relationships
(b) involving both members of a dyad (i.e., one-on-one (c) involving interdependent patterns of
behavior and (d) sharing mutual outcome instrumentalities and (e) producing conceptions of
environments, cause maps, and value. With its roots in vertical dyad linkage theory (VDL), the
traditional concept is that leaders develop exchange relationships with their subordinates and

based upon these relationships an in-group and an out-group are developed (Brower,
Schoorman, & Tan, 2000). Members within the "in-group" enjoy a level of mutual trust, respect
and liking and receive more information and concern from their leaders. The "in-group"
relationships develop for a number of reasons, but a few may be: similar interests, similar work
patterns and dependability. Those individuals in the "out group" have a low level of influence
and mutual respect. As a result, it is likely that "out group" subordinates will have less motivation
to go above and beyond in their role, and will be more likely to just come to work, do their job,
and go home (Yukl, 2001, p. 115). It is seen that the in group can perform 20% more efficiently
and
50%
more
satisfied,
than
the
out
group.
But, if the out group is bigger than the inner then it is a question on the leadership. LMX theory
suggests that high-quality relationships between a leader-subordinate dyad will lead to positive
outcomes such as better performance, lower turnover, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment. Empirical research supports many of the proposed relationships (Steers et al.,
1996).Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995) also discuss what is known as the Life Cycle of Leadership
Making. The model is defined by three phases: stranger, acquaintance & maturity.
- The stranger phase is a formal stage in the relationship. The leader and follower are clarifying
their roles and in many ways, exploring the boundaries of the relationship. Emotional ties to one
another and the organization are minimal and exchanges are purely contractual: leader
provides followers only with what they need to perform, and followers behave only as required
and do only their prescribed job (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995, p. 230). From a transformational
leadership point of view, this relationship could be characterized as transactional .In the stranger
phase both the ingroup and outgroup is not formed ant it is the greatest opportunity of the
leader to innovate and experiment with the different aspects of the leadership skills and involve
as many as members as possible to creat the excellently efficient and motivated workgroup.
- The acquaintance phase is marked by an offer by either party to improve the working
relationship. This offer must be accepted for the individuals to move into this phase. Once
accepted, the relationship develops on a personal and professional level. Although still
contractual in nature, an increased level of trust is displayed and some of the formal boundaries
marked by the stranger phase decrease. In this stage already the ingroup and outgroup are
showing their specific identity but are not clearly demarcated. A confident leader can still
motivate to increase the size of his ingroup.
- The final phase in the Life Cycle of Leadership Making is maturity. Mature partnerships are
defined by a high level of trust and mutual respect. This phase correlates nicely with Bass
(1985) definition of transformational leadership. Individuals implicitly trust one another and count
on each other for support and it is here where leadership among the two individuals emerges.
According to Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995), the time it takes for individuals to move through the
phases varies. However, Liden at al. (1993) found that supervisors and subordinates have
established perceptions of each other within the first two weeks. Some relationships never move
past the stranger phase and other relationships may move into the acquaintance phase, but
"the high degree of mutual respect, trust and obligation necessary for truly effective leadership
still has not been fully developed. This acquaintance stage is a critical stage in the leadership
development process since those dyads that do not develop to the mature stage eventually fall
back to the first stage" The theory is still not much popular in industry and yet to be test in all
industrial and academic sectors. Here the larger ingroup shows trust, dependence and jobownership and the smaller outgroup try to enter ingroup of the good leader by showcasing
more responsibility and maturity.

Complexity Leadership Theory

There have been several articles, papers and book chapters and an edited volume (Uhl-Bien &
Marion, 2008) that describe how complexity science can inform leadership thinking as it has
traditionally been studied. These papers explore how complexity theory informs the role of
leadership in organizations. Complexity theory is a science of complexly interacting systems; it
explores the nature of interaction and adaptation in such systems and how they influence such
things as emergence, innovation, and fitness. Those researches argue that complexity theory
focuses leadership efforts on behaviors that enable organizational effectiveness, as opposed to
determining or guiding effectiveness. Complexity science broadens conceptualizations of
leadership from perspectives that are heavily invested in psychology (e.g., human relations
models) to include processes for managing dynamic systems an interconnectivity. Complexity
Leadership Theory (CSLT) focuses on identifying what leadership might mean in a complex
adaptive system composed of human beings interacting in a social network (Hazy, 2008). In
particular, CSLT defines leadership as a system function that operates to "changes the rules of
interaction" among people or groups within a complex adaptive system of interactions, both in
terms of ends - where the system is going - and means - how to get there (Hazy, Goldstein, &
Lichtenstein, 2007; Goldstein, Hazy & Lichtenstein, 2010). To explore this approach, two books
as well as many articles, papers and book chapters have been published that describe how
leadership can be considered in this way.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
In recent years, much interest in OCB has been shown. OCB has been said to enhance
organizational performance because they lubricate the social machinery of the organization,
reduce friction, and increase efficiency (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983).
OCB represents 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, 1988a). Most OCB actions, taken singly, would not make a dent in the
overall performance of the organization (Organ, 1988b). The effect will be seen with the
aggregate summation of OCB performed across time and across persons in the group,
department, and organization. The most critical element is that these behaviors are defined at
face value. OCB are behaviors that are clearly observable by peers, supervisors, or
researchers.
Originally, Smith et al. (1983) proposed a two-dimensional model of OCB: altruism and
generalized compliance (later called conscientiousness). Altruism refers to behaviors that are
voluntary--for example, being cooperative, helpful, and other instances of extra-role behavior-helps a specific individual with a given work-related problem. Generalized compliance refers to
those behaviors that are impersonal that does not provide immediate aid to any particular
individual but is indirectly helpful to other people in the organization. It places priority on arriving
to work on time, not taking too many breaks, or not leaving early. Later, Organ (1988a)
expanded the taxonomy of OCB to include altruism (narrower than the altruism of Smith et al.,
1983), conscientiousness (narrower than generalized compliance),
Altruism is helping someone who has a problem, while courtesy is helping to prevent problems,
performing thoughtful or considerate gestures towards others.
Dimensions of OCB: We cannot reach on any final conclusion with regard to definition of OCB
these lines related to the concept of Organ (1988, 1990)

Conscientiousness:This type of approach, can be said to having high level of awareness to

the related work, it may also includewilling behaviors that can lead beyond the minimum
imagination of role definition and performance ofemployee more extra than minimum expected
level. We can take instance that are maximum attendance levels, punctuality in the working
environment, be in time, utilizing given time without dishonesty, to fulfill
the given task within the given time to follow the rules (Organ, 1988)
Civic Virtue: Civic virtue includes all those behaviors which has linkage with the political
environment of organization i.e. (to attend meeting s to keep in touch with policy discussion and
to take side of others suggestions in formulation and implantation of new policy, etc.).
Sportsmanship: Sportsmanship means to work with patience with those employees who
frustrate others that can be foreseeable in the working environment. These behaviors also
include having less concentration of ideal situations of working environment without passing
argument to the authorities. Sportsmanship also highlights the protection of status of the
organization from those who are not in the favor of the organization (Netemeyer, Boles, McKee
and Mc Murram,1997).
Altruism / Helping Behaviors: All those acts which are taken willingly by the employee which
shows that he want to provide assistance of his mate employee by giving solution that can make
ease in his or her task in real time within the organization (Podsakoff and Organ, 1988,1990 et
al,. 2000). We can exemplify those individuals or employees who provide assistance to the
newly hired employees to make them use at working environment, it also include to share the
work load of their work mate employees, to provide assistance by giving the solutions of the
current problems, on work training for the usage of newly installed equipment, to provide help of
mate employees for getting the material and equipment which are necessary to complete the
work within the given time spam (Podsakoff and et al., 2000).
Courtesy: Courtesy covers all those behaviors that are related to adopt proactive approach to
solve the upcoming problems. Courtesy is something that differs from altruism as we know
altruism is just to provide help someone in problem, and courtesy is something which help to
stay away from problems, passing mature and serious singles to others.
This study will mainly find out how in a complex system the set of interactions between different
types Leaders falling different complex situations with the two layered groups increase
efficiency, struggle for maintenance of systematic coordination and contribute on Citizenship
behavior of the efferent employees of different types of organizations. And, thus propose some
direct and proportional equations to bring-out the relationships as discussed above.
4) Research Question/ statement of the problem:
That A specific leader in an specific situation Interact in a particular way to synthesize effective
workgroup outcomes and can promote a pattern of Organizational Citizenship in a given type of
Academic Organization, which varies with change of any aforesaid variables in a particular
systemic fashion and can be defined in equations to prescribe their usage as successful
formulas to Organizational Bipartite interactions, complexities and collisions.
5) Objectives: Delineate a few objectives of study (You may have two types of objectives if
you desire):

(i)

Primary Objectives
The key objective of the study is to put light on the Effective process of establishing balanced
equation of Leader Member interactions in complex situations of the-then education business.

(ii)

Secondary Objectives

The study will ultimately ascertain the relationship among leadership effectiveness (LE), leadermember exchanges and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). This study sought to
measure LE using a construct developed from literature for this study. It also seeks to ascertain
the level of OCB in a complex adaptive situation and to relate this to LE. If leadership
effectiveness can be measured from a perspective of the quality of interactions (LMX) then
leader-member interactions should be a criterion variable for LE and OCB. The study seeks to
find out the relationship among these three variables.
6) Hypothesis:
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
H 1:
H 2:

H 3:

That the in-group level of interaction has a relationship with Organizational Citizenship
Behavior in Government owned educational institutions.
That the in-group level of interaction and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior in Government owned educational institutions varies from Private educational
Institutions.

That the in-group members organizational Citizenship Behaviors have relationship with
Leadership effectiveness in governments higher institutions of learning in West Bengal?
H 4: That the in-group members organizational citizenship behaviors dependent on leadership
effectiveness in governments higher institutions of learning in West Bengal is higher
than Private ones.
H 5: That the out-group level of interaction has a relationship with Organizational Citizenship
Behavior in Government owned educational institutions.
H 6: That the out-group level of interaction and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior in Government owned educational institutions varies from Private educational
Institutions.
H 7: That the out-group members organizational Citizenship Behaviors have relationship with
Leadership effectiveness in governments higher institutions of learning in West Bengal?
H 8: That the out-group members organizational citizenship behaviors dependent on
leadership effectiveness in governments higher institutions of learning in West Bengal is
higher than Private ones.
H 9: That the Government sectors in-group members citizenship behavior is lower than private
sectors .
H 10: That the Government sectors out-group members citizenship behavior is higher than
private sectors
H 11: That the size of in-group and out-group are dependent upon Age in a workgroup.
H 12: That the size of in-group and out-group are dependent upon Age of the Leader of the
workgroup.
H 13: That leaders interaction with members has no effect on members commitment in
government institutions of learning in West Bengal.
H 14: That a leaders interaction with members has no effect on members commitment in the
private institutions of learning in West Bengal.
H 15: That the Leader Member interactions in private institutions is more complex than
Government Institutions.
H 16: That the Leaders and the groups in private institutions interact in greater complex situations.
H 17: That the Private academic institution is the complex adaptive system, which generate
greater OCB due to effective LMX.
H 18: That OCB increases when Leader member interactions is stronger workgroups.

H19 : That OCB increases with the proportion of the in-group.

H 20: That LMX decides its dimension depending upon OCB.
H 21: That The Government sector Complex adaptive system (CAS) and the Private has
multifacate linkage and effects on OCB.
H 22: That The Government sector Complex adaptive system and the Private has multifacate
linkage and effects on LMX.
H23: That a complex adaptive system even showing chaos in leader-member interactions will
report proper OCB if LMX is stable.
H 24: That OCB in and complex adaptive system (CAS) i.e., an recent academic institution result
in different types of Leader-member interactions.
H 25: That Bigger in-groups with effective interactions is directly proportional to greater citizenship
in complex adaptive environments.
H 26: Complexity of interactions increases in the middle stage of the leadership life-cycle with
respect to it the size of the in-group and out group tends to show temporary changes.
H 27: Models(synthesized by this study) of LMX interactions and OCB can regulate management
decisions.
7) Research tools:
LMX scale:
To measure this construct, a LMX-7 scale developed by Scandura & Graen (1984) was chosen as
this was highly recommended by Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995) and Gerstner & Day (1997). In this
measure, a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) was
adopted. An example will be I usually know where I stand with my supervisor. The alpha
reliability of this scale is 0.91

OCB Scale:
It is a 12-item Likert-type scale that measures the degree to which the teaching faculty
of a school engages in organizational citizenship behavior; the higher the score, the greater
the extent of organizational citizenship of the academic institution. The OCB is a refinement
of the earlier OCBS. The reliability of the scale is consistently high - range = .86 to .93
(DiPaola, Tarter, & Hoy, 2005). The construct validity has also been supported in three
separate factor analyses (DiPaola, Tarter, & Hoy, 2005)
Leadership Complexity scale:

Statistical tools:
Data gathered from the respondents are to be analyzed using quantitative methods.
Descriptive and statistical analyses will be used and the Statistical Package for the Social
Science (SPSS version 16) are to be used to analyze the data. All scales used in the study
that are to be will be tested for reliability using the reliability package in SPSS. Descriptive
statistic used to explain the demographics variables and Cronbachs alpha will be used as the
measure for internal consistency. Application of descriptive statistics allows for measures,
which could compute from the sample of collected data to give an estimate of responses to
unit of analysis in the population. This permits the measure of central percentage distributions
and standard deviation measures to gauge the variabilityi.e., the profile of the respondents.
A more detailed analysis is planned to be conducted to examine the set of variables using
scale measurement technique. Inorder to examine the relationship between the independent
variables and dependent variables, correlation analyses will be performed. The Pearson rank

correlations analyze, examine and determine the significant relationships between LMX and
OCB variables. Correlation analysis will show the correlation coefficient and the degree of
magnitude of the relationship between the two variables. T-test and Anova will be used to

establish the point of difference between different types of test-groups. And, multiple
regression to establish the best set.
7) Research Methodology:
The methodology should have the following components:
(i)
Type of study : Quantitative
(ii)
Area of study : Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
(iii)
Universe and Sample : Education Industry
(iv)
Data Collection /Analysis tools Data Techniques to be applied :
The research will step by step:1. Conduct a literature review on leadership and competency mapping.
2. Observe the group four hours per week for six weeks, focusing mostly on conversations at team
meetings, especially those conversations in which the group addresses changes to their work
processes and issues of team relationships and identity (ies).
3. Interview team members to clarify and provide insight into conversations. I will attempt to
conduct these interviews shortly after conversations of interest. While the interviews will not be
formal or structured, the kinds of questions I will ask include the following. The general strategy
for the interviews is to start off with broad questions and follow up on the interviewees
responses, to capture her or his meanings and to avoid imposing my meanings on the
interviewee.
4. Undertake a situational analysis of the field notes and interview notes,
5. Write a research report that combines my understanding of the relevant theory and previous
research with the results of my empirical research.
Proposed timelines and derivable:
Complete literature review: 3 months
Complete theory development: - 6 months
Complete fieldwork by: 12 months
Complete analysis by: 6 months
Complete final report by: 6 months
8)

Pilot Study :
A small sample from my own collage department work group will be chosen and pilotstudy will
be conducted. After conducting a pilot study, some final adjustments to the data collection
procedure or to the apparatus are to be necessarily done.

9)

Limitations of the Study :

The data collection from more than one government collages, Private collages, etc will take
huge time and effort resulting in a lengthy process and consume 3years of time atleast .

10)

Significance of the Study:

This research is relevant in several ways. First of all, the scientific relevance has to be
mentioned. Although many researchers already examined a lot of antecedents of
organisational citizenship behaviour (Podsakoff et al, 2000), there is not much research carried
out on antecedents of organisational citizenship behaviour Education industry. This research
tries to reveal several antecedents of organisational citizenship behaviours and therefore, this

will possibly lead to new insights. Besides, there is a practical relevance for the 6 Collages(3
private+3 government) offering professional cources. . The results demonstrate whether
employees show organisational citizenship behaviour and the way this can be influenced.
Since organisational citizenship behaviour is benefiting all companies, the results of this
study are interesting because it will indicate what type of leadership behaviour is needed in
order to create these benefiting behaviours on the part of subordinates.
11)

12)

Future-scope:
The outcome of the study implies that supervisor-subordinate relationship at the workplace
leads to
employees gaining confidence in their ability, appearance and power (Buss, 2001). As
Truckenbrodt
(2000) highlighted the study suggests that quality of exchange relationships affect
subordinates
commitment and goodwill. Hence, an organizational culture in which an open two-way
interaction and learning environment is highly encouraged. Policy-makers and practitioners alike
can gain substantially by understanding the impact good relationship has on the outcome
expected by using LMX and OCB relationship models as a management tools in each situation
of adoptation.
Bibliography
[1] --- Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62,
6-16.
[2] --- Bass, B.M. & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
[3] --- Bird, C. (1940). Social Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century
[4] --- Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the
literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
[5] --- Mann, R.D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in
small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.
[6] --- Barbara C. Crosby, John M. Bryson. Integrative leadership and the creation and
maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 21, Issue 2, April
2010, Pages 211-230
[7] --- Crossan, Mary M., Vera, Dusya and Nanjad, Len. Transcendent leadership: Strategic
leadership in dynamic environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 19 (2008) pp. 569-581.
[8] --- Cynthia D. McCauley, Wilfred H. Drath, Charles J. Palus, Patricia M. G. OConnor, and
Becca A. Baker, The Use of Constructive-development .Theory to Advance the Understanding
of Leadership, The Leadership Quarterly 17, no. 6 (2006): 634.

[9] --- William L. Gardner, Dawn Fischer & James G. (Jerry) Hunt. Emotional Labor and
Leadership: A Threat to Authenticity?The Leadership Quarterly Volume 20, Issue 3, June 2009,
Pages 466-482
[10] --- Bass and Steidlmeier, Ethics, Character, and Authentic Transformational Leadership
Behavior. For a critique of this view, see Terry L. Price, The Ethics of Authentic
Transformational Leadership, Leadership Quarterly 14 (2003): 6781.
[11] --- Ian D. Colville and Anthony J. Murphy. Leadership as the Enabler of
Strategizing and Organizing, Long Range Planning 39 (2006) 663e677
[12] --- Robert L. Cardy, T.T. Selvarajan , Competencies: Alternative frameworks forcompetitive
advantage, Business Horizons (2006) 49, 235245
[13] --- James G. (Jerry) Hun. Transformational/Charismatic Leaderships Tranformation Of The
Field: An Historical Essay, Leadership QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 2 1999
[14] --- George P. Hollenbeck , Morgan W. McCall Jr., Robert F. Silzer. Leadership competency
models, The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 398413
[15] ---- Jeffery D Horey and Jon J. Fallesen, Leadership Competencies: Are we all saying the
same thing? Presented at the International Military Testing Association (November 2003),
1,10 .Available from http://leadeship.au.af.mil/sls-skil.htm ; Internet; accessed 28 October 2005.
[16] ---- Ronald E. Riggio and Joanne Lee. Emotional and interpersonal competencies and
leader
development,
Human
Resource
Management
Review
Volume 17, Issue 4, December 2007, Pages 418-426
[17] ---- Ali, A., Abu, D. S., Aminah, A., & Bahaman, A. S. (2008). The relationship between
transformational leadership behaviors, organizational justice, leader-member exchange,
perceived organizational support, trust in management and organizational citizenship behaviors.
European Journal of Scientific Research, 23(2), 227-242.
[18] ---- Aquino, K., & Bommer, W. H. (2003). Preferential mistreatment: How victim status
moderates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
victimization. Organizational Science, 14(4), 374-385.
[20] ---- Barnald, C.I. (1938). The function of executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship
between affect and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal. 26, 4, 587-595.
[21] ---- Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
[22] ---- Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology,
12, 67-92.
[23] ---- Buss, A. (2001). Psychological dimensions of the self. London: Sage Publications.
Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader-Member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role
ofsubordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group and Organizational Management,
23, 189-216.

[24] ---- Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership:
A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634.
[25] ---- Epitropaki, O. & Martin, R. (1999), The impact of relational demography on the quality of
leadermember exchanges and employees work attitudes and well-being, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 237-240.