Transformational Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour of Cross-functional Team Members: Empirical Assessment of Moderating and Mediating Effects

Abstract

Abstract purpose:

The objective of this article is to examine the effect of transformational leadership on collective efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviour on cross-functional teams’ members. The study also investigates the mediating and moderating effects in the relationship.

Design/methodology/approach:

Self-structured questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale was used to collect the data by adopting both online and offline mode. A sample of 414 team members was drawn from working cross-functional teams of different service sectors, that is, transportation, banks, hospitals, information technology, hotels, educational institutions, agricultural irrigation services, insurance, construction and from real estate in the North India region. PLS-SEM was used to test the relationship between variables. PLS-MGA approach was used to test the moderating effect.

Findings:

The results revealed the positive and significant effect of transformational leadership on collective efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). The finding also supports the mediating effect of collective efficacy on the relationship. The moderating effect of gender also reveals the significant difference between the relationship between transformational leadership and collective efficacy.

Research limitations/implications:

The study will contribute towards understanding the mechanism of cross-functional teams through which an organization can manage the teamwork effectively. The study acknowledges the small sample limitation with a few service sector industries.

Practical implications:

Practitioners can develop a positive belief among team members by concentrating on the quality of leadership and the working environment of the team as well.

Originality/value:

This study probes the transformational leadership and collective efficacy variables as key variables that can make a positive change in the behavioural and performance perspective of team members.

Keywords

Cross-functional team mediating moderating North India service sector team members

Introduction

Rapidly moving technology is stimulating organizations to adopt innovation and change for survival. The adoption of new technology has also become an imperative task of organizations for consistent growth. For the long-term survival, organizations have started the use of cross-functional teams in their functioning, as they contribute to innovation, development and update the services and products (Brettel et al., 2011; Daniel Sherman et al., 2005; McDonough, 2000; Sethi et al., 2001; Song & Xie, 2000). Due to the increasing role of cross-functional teams in organizations, researchers have tried to investigate its predictors. To cope with the challenges, organizations also require leaders who can influence the followers to adopt the changes. Several studies on manufacturing and service companies have highlighted the key role of the leader in team performance (Nair et al., 2021; Rao & Kareem Abdul, 2015; Rolfsen et al., 2013; Sangeetha & Kumaran, 2018; Schaubroeck et al., 2007; Velarde et al., 2022). Transformational leadership is currently the most popularly accepted pattern in the literature of leadership and much empirical evidence supports the positive effect of transformational leadership on team performance (Anselmann & Mulder, 2020; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Purwanto et al., 2020; Van Dijk et al., 2020). Similarly, several studies reveal the contributory role of transformational leadership in exhibiting extra work performance of followers through inspiration and motivating the followers (Bass, 1985; Khan et al., 2016; Podsakoff et al., 1990). As a result, the current study investigates the importance of transformational leadership in cross-functional teams to see whether it has an effect on cross-functional team members’ behaviour in the service sector. Furthermore, the current study is limited to the service sector due to its growing importance, with 54% of the total GDP of the Indian economy contributing to it, as seen in the Statistical Survey report of 2018–2019.¹ However, the present research is required to explore the mechanism of a cross-functional team with identifying the role of leadership through which the team performs better (Holten et al., 2018; Pan & Lin, 2015; Patiar & Wang, 2016). This study purposes to provide new insights into why and under what conditions transformational leadership enhances the performance of the followers, comprising collective efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviours with advancing the arguments. First, the argument is for organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) that can be interrelated to social exchange theory (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003). The social exchange theory proposes that citizenship behaviour will appear in organizations when a worker experiences empathy and positive feelings. Investigators have explained the fact that transformational leadership generates positive emotion and higher inspiration among employees (Bass, 1985). Thus, the relationship between OCB and transformational leadership merits further investigation in a cross-functional team context.

The concept of collective efficacy derived from the social cognitive theory which is described by Bandura (1977) ‘is a process that prepares people with the belief to produce effects through their collective action’. According to the theory, collective efficacy is a group attribute which strengthen the group performance through accepting challenging and problem with united efforts (Bandura, 1977; p. 477). Thus, the concept of collective efficacy in the cross-functional team is worth further examining. In addition, the study investigates whether collective effectiveness and gender can mediate and moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and organisational citizenship actions.

Conceptual Framework

Cross-functional teams have become a part of every type of organization, that is, manufacturing, services, etc., but it becomes difficult to manage diversified human resources in a combined form. As the literature suggests that transformational leadership may provide a cooperative and open environment to the followers of the team (Podsakoff et al., 1990). So, transformational leadership has been taken into consideration, and the present study also explores that whether transformational leadership encourages the cross-functional team members for extra performance through their collective efficacy or not.

It also investigates the moderating role of gender in the relationship of transformational leadership, collective efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviour to know whether the results vary to male and female team members in the relationship. The proposed model of the study is described with the help of Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Source: Literature review.

Literature Review

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership is described as the leadership style which helps in the development of followers’ capabilities and their performances. The transformational leadership concept was developed by Downton (1973) and advanced by Bums (1978) and Bass (1985). Transformational leadership is perceived as the ideal style of leadership in number of studies (Bass, 1985; Khan et al., 2016; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Avolio et al. (1991) assessed transformational leadership with its four aspects, that is, idealized influence, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation. These measures are recognized as four I’s of transformational leadership (Avolio et al., 1991). The study of Avolio et al. (1991) disclosed that four aspects of transformational leadership affect the quantity, innovation, quality and retention of employees in an effective manner. Several authors have used the aspects of transformational leadership in their research (Bycio et al., 1995; Kim, 2012; Krishnan & Arora, 2008; Nayak & Mishra, 2005; Shim et al., 2015; Tepper & Percy, 1994; Walumbwa et al., 2005; Xu et al., 2022; Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Yammarino et al., 1997; Yukl, 1999). Leadership is also known as an important phenomenon in self-managing teams (Stoker et al., 2001). Transformational leadership encourages its followers to perform effectively by making the realization of specific goals (Bass, 1985). The findings of Callow et al. (2009) suggest that if a leader individually supports his team members then he can change their perspective positively. Transformational leadership affects the work-related outcome in several ways and the empirical studies support that transformational leadership has a generally positive influence on follower performance (Buil et al., 2019; Elkins & Keller, 2003; Rosing et al., 2011; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Wang et al., 2011; Wang & Rode, 2010).

Collective Efficacy

Collective efficacy term has been derived from the social cognitive theory which is developed by Albert Bandura that describes the group’s belief in their joint ability to perform the specific goals (Bandura, 1977). Belief in the collective abilities encourages the individual for better performance. Collective efficacy has been viewed as an important phenomenon in team-level research (Jung & Sosik, 1999, 2002; Katz-Navon & Erez, 2005; Lent et al., 2006; Little & Madigan, 1997; Pizzi & Stanger 2019). In a group, individuals have variations in knowledge, skill and capabilities that can affect the collective efficacy of the team (Gibson & Earley, 2007). Furthermore, earlier performances of the group are also found significant predictor of collective efficacy, which provides the clue to the team about their collective capabilities (Carron & Eys, 2012). Collective efficacy brings different information together and combines it in a useful manner which raises the chance of successful completion of group tasks (Bohn, 2010). Many studies also recommended that collective efficacy influences the work-related outcome positively (Hodges & Carron, 1992; Lirgg et al., 1994; Mulvey & Klein, 1998). Similarly, collective efficacy term is explored by several researchers in the diverse field, that is, teachers’ collective efficacy (Eells, 2011; Goddard et al., 2000; Hattie, 2015) and team efficacy (Carron & Eys, 2012; Gully et al., 2002; Jung & Sosik, 1999, 2002; Kim & Shin, 2015; Little & Madigan, 1997).

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

OCB always perceived worthy for the organization, in which employees perform more than their assigned task and take voluntary participation in an innovative and challenging task through complying with all rules (Sun et al., 2007). Previous research conducted on OCB has almost measured this term with its five attributes, that is, altruism, sportsmanship, courtesy, civic virtue and conscientiousness (Gouldner, 1960; Homans & Enis, 1973; Blau, 1986; Organ, 1988, 1990; Moorman & Blakley, 1995; Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Lin & Peng, 2010; Nielsen et al., 2012). Some researchers have covered OCB with their related variables, that is, organizational performance (Lin & Peng, 2010) transformational leader behaviours, trust and satisfaction (Podsakoff et al., 1990), individualism-collectivism related to OCB (Moorman & Blakley, 1995), informational dissimilarity with team identification (Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003), citizenship behaviour at the team level (Pearce & Herbik, 2004), transformational leader behaviours (Podsakoff et al., 1990) and OCB norms (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004).

Relationship Between TFL and CE

The climate created by the leader in the group predicts the efficacy of the team (Guzzo et al., 1993; Chen & Bliese, 2002). Similarly, the study of Tabbodi and Prahallada (2009) conducted on the University of Shiraz (Iran) and University of Mysore (India) faculties revealed that leadership construct and faculties’ efficacy has a significant and positive relationship. Furthermore, it has been also found that transformational leadership impacts the self-efficacy of the subordinates positively (Aggarwal & Krishnan, 2013). Whereas, collective efficacy term is mainly used as a group phenomenon and it has been found the better predictors of team performance than self-efficacy (Jung & Sosik, 1999; 2002; Katz-Navon & Erez, 2005; Lent et al., 2006; Little & Madigan, 1997). Besides, Kim and Shin (2015) suggest that if team members have optimistic beliefs about their team’s competencies, then they will accomplish their goal with improved creativity and productivity. Leadership and collective efficacy has been researched differently by numerous authors and revealed a positive relationship (Chuang et al., 2004; Jung & Sosik, 1999, 2002). Therefore, historical perspective develops the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1 (H₁): Transformational leadership and collective efficacy is positively related.

Relationship Between CE and OCB

Collective efforts of the team contribute more to OCB rather than individual work. In a group, all participants act as a whole for their assigned group task that provides a better result to the organization (Lindsley et al., 1995). However, supporting workers with collectivistic tendencies result in OCBs (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). Many studies also recommended that collective efficacy positively affects the work-related outcome (Hodges & Carron, 1992; Lirgg et al., 1994; Mulvey & Klein, 1998). Interestingly, it has been found that obstacles faced by members in teamwork can be resolved through collective efforts in the team (Bandura, 2000). Further, collective efficacy positively affects to extra-role behaviour of the team (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000). Therefore, we can postulate that:

Hypothesis 2 (H₂): Collective efficacy has a positive effect on organizational citizenship behaviour.

Relationship Between TFL and OCB

The transformational leader usually enlarges the daily work outcome of their follower to go above the work requirements which exhibits OCB (Podsakoff et al., 1990). In fact, followers become habitual to extra performance through working with their transformational leaders (Boerner et al., 2008). Bass and Avolio (1997) specified that transformational leaders challenge followers to change old traditions by seeing their abilities, needs and interests. Although, widespread research have been carried out in variability of organizational contexts that demonstrating the influence of TL on employees’ OCB (Humphrey, 2012; Hur et al., 2011; Jha, 2014; López-Domínguez et al., 2013; MacKenzie et al., 2001; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Purvanova et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2011). The study conducted by Euwema et al. (2007) revealed that supportive leadership is the positive and significant predictor of OCB. Similarly, many researchers studied the association between leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour and revealed a positive relationship between the variables (Euwema et al., 2007; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Thus, the literature supports the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3 (H₃): Transformational leadership has a direct positive effect on organizational citizenship behaviour.

Mediating Role of Collective Efficacy

Transformational leadership affects the collective efficacy (Chuang et al., 2004; Jung & Sosik, 1999, 2002); and collective efficacy affects the work-related outcome positively (Hodges & Carron, 1992; Lirgg et al., 1994; Mulvey & Klein, 1998; Seijts et al., 2000). Moreover, transformational leadership style creates trust among team members, and therefore they will be more likely to observe others’ capability to perform a task (Kanawattabachai & Yoo, 2007; McAllister, 1995). Similarly, transformational leadership foster the creativity among team by prompting their collective regulatory forces (Van Dijk et al., 2020). Besides, the study of Li et al. (2015) suggested that extraverted leader will improve followers’ opinion of collective efficacy through motivation and ideological clarifications, that would turn into high team performance. In addition, collective efficacy mediates the relationship of interpersonal relationship and athlete satisfaction (satisfaction with strategy, personal treatment and satisfaction with team integration) (Jowett et al., 2012). Thus, it was expected that transformational leadership encourages the team members to perform more than the assigned task by creating collective belief in team abilities. It is suggested that, in order to better understand the relationship between transformational leadership and organisational citizenship activity through the mediating influence of collective efficacy, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 4 (H₄): The effect of transformational leadership on organizational citizenship behaviour is fully mediated by collective efficacy.

Moderating Role of Gender

To understand the gender-based distinction in society has repetitively been an imperious task in many fields (Okazaki et al., 2013; Prakash & Flores, 1985). It is expected that gender-specific abilities and personality attributes are essential to society (Barry et al., 1957). Many researchers have found a significant moderating effect of gender that highlights significant differences in male and female according to their abilities and characteristics (Bailey, 2005; Fischer & Arnold, 1990; Khare, 2012; Mitchell & Walsh, 2004; Rodgers & Harris, 2003; Yang & Lester, 2005). Literature suggests that females are more emotionally expressive (Kring & Gordon, 1998) and sensitive and ethical (Bailey, 2005) in comparison to men, although men are task-oriented (Minton & Schneider, 1980) and more self-assured with high self-esteem (Feingold, 1994). Hence, the present study explores the role of gender in the relationship of transformational leadership, collective efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviour to know whether transformational leadership develops the collective belief and their extra-role behaviour in the men and women separately or not in a specific group. Thus, the proposed hypotheses are:

Hypothesis 5a (H_5a): The positive relationship between transformational leadership and collective efficacy is stronger for females in comparison to males.

Hypothesis 5b (H_5b): The positive relationship between collective efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviour is stronger for females in comparison to males.

Hypothesis 5c (H_5c): The positive relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour is stronger for females in comparison to males.

Research Design

Sample

The present study has been conducted in the service sector of North India. According to data from the Central Statistical Office under the Ministry of Statistics Programme Implementation via sate wise comparison (GSVA), North India is more interested in the service sector, with Delhi and Chandigarh ranking first in all states of India.² For the survey, data has been collected from team members of working cross-functional teams of different service sectors, that is, transportation, banks, hospitals, information technology, hotels, educational institutions, agricultural irrigation services, insurance, construction and real estate. Data have been collected through both offline and online modes. The survey was completed through a self-structured questionnaire by applying a convenient sampling method. The data were collected from October 2018 to December 2019 (15 months) with 425 team members. At the end of the procedure, 414 responses have been found valid. The bilingual questionnaire (Hindi and English) was used for the ease of the respondents. The Key Informant Approach (Seidler, 1974) has been used to acquire the information of team members in which team leaders acted as a key informant.

Measures

The independent variable of the present study is transformational leadership which is measured by using the 22 items taken from different research (i.e., Edwards et al., 2010; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Ryan, 2012; Tepper & Percy, 1994). Transformational leadership construct was measured with four dimensions, namely, individual consideration, idealized influence, inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation. All the variables used in the study were operationalized on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 to 5).

The dependent variable of the study is organizational citizenship behaviour. The study measures the organizational citizenship behaviour construct with 24 items taken from the studies of Kim (2012); Van Dyne et al. (1994); Wong et al. (2009); and Kumar and Shah (2015). The mediating variable of the study is collective efficacy which was measured with 10 items adapted from Tepper and Percy (1994) and Short et al. (2005).

Results and Findings

Descriptive Results

The descriptive statistics of the present study are reported in Table 1. All the respondents actively participated from different service sectors, namely, transportation (10.9%), banks (10.9%), hospitals (12.1%), information technology (9.9%), hotels (9.9%), educational institutions (13.2%), agricultural irrigation services (7.8%), insurance (6.6%), construction (8.8%) and real estate (9.9%) with 414 responses The profile of the respondents shows that most of the respondents were male (79.7%) in comparison to female (20.3%).

Table 1.

Respondents’ Profile

Measure	Items	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	330	79.7
Gender	Female	84	20.3
Age groups	2–30	184	44.5
	30–40	180	43.5
	40–50	36	8.7
	>50	14	3.3
Marital status	Married	317	76.6
Marital status	Unmarried	97	23.4
Educations	Graduate	151	36.5
	Postgraduate	161	38.9
	Professionals	42	10.1
	Others	60	14.5
Job level	Junior-level	163	39.4
Job level	Mid-level	207	50.0
	Senior-level	44	10.6
Types of organization	Private	197	47.6
	Public	160	38.6
	Others	57	13.7
Working experience	1–3	153	36.9
	3–5	114	27.6
	5–10	107	25.8
	>10	40	9.7

Source: Authors’ calculation based on survey.

Further, the majority of the respondents were from the age group of 20–30 (44.5%) and 30–40 (43.5%), while respondents from the age group 30–40 and 40–50 were less. About 76.6% of the respondents were married. The majority of the respondents were graduates and postgraduates with 36.5% and 38.9%, respectively. Besides, the job level shows that half of the respondents were from mid-level, 39.4% were from junior level and 10.6% were from the senior level. Of the respondents, 47.6% were from the private sector, 38.6% were from the public and the remaining from others. About 64% of respondents have 1–5 years of experience and the remaining have more experienced.

Methodical Approach

For the structural equation modelling analysis, covariance-based SEM (Byrne, 2013) or variance-based SEM (Henseler et al., 2009) can be used. But in this study, variance-based SEM (PLS-SEM) has been used which is considered more appropriate for providing reliable statistical estimates of indirect effects through bootstrapping techniques in mediation analysis (Barron & Kenny, 1986; Hair et al., 2012). The present study predicts the effect of transformational leadership and the collective efficacy of team members on their extra-role performance. Further, the moderation effects of gender in the relationship of transformational leadership, collective efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviour have been tested by PLS multi-group analysis, which is known as PLS-MGA. This method compares the predefined data groups of males and females in the structural relationships (Henseler et al., 2009; Sarstedt et al., 2011).

Measurement Model Assessment

In PLS-SEM, the measurement model was confirmed by testing internal reliability and convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the constructs. The reliability was examined by the composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) (Nunnally, 1994). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour construct were validated at the second-order reflective-reflective measurement model while collective efficacy construct was validated at the first-order reflective measurement model. Table 2 displays that all of the constructs have met the criteria of reliability because values of CRs and AVEs are above the threshold value 0.7 and 0.5, respectively (Hair et al., 2017, 2020). Further, factor loadings represent the correlation of the items with their defined factors, and as Table 2 reports that all the factor loadings values of the items are equal to the suggested value 0.7 or more than that reveals sufficient loadings (Hair et al., 2005). Two items related to sportsmanship factors named S1, S3 were removed from the model because of low factor loadings.

Table 2.

Assessment of Constructs’ Reflective Measurement Models

Variable	Items	Factor Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability	AVE
First order construct
Altruism	A1 A2 A3 A4 A5	0.750 0.792 0.735 0.743 0.694	0.797	0.861	0.553
Courtesy	C1 C2 C3	0.797 0.819 0.768	0.708	0.837	0.632
Collective efficacy	CE1 CE2 CE3 CE4 CE5 CE6	0.687 0.717 0.729 0.740 0.715 0.717	0.812	0.864	0.515
Conscientiousness	CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5	0.712 0.763 0.689 0.707 0.757	0.776	0.848	0.527
Civic virtue	CV1 CV2 CV3 CV4 CV5 CV6	0.675 0.679 0.720 0.693 0.778 0.728	0.806	0.861	0.509
Individual consideration	IC1 IC2 IC3 IC4 IC5 IC6	0.701 0.763 0.754 0.778 0.677 0.723	0.828	0.875	0.538
Idealized Influence	ID1 ID2 ID3 ID4 ID5	0.781 0.793 0.704 0.737 0.707	0.800	0.862	0.555
Inspirational Motivation	IN1 IN2 IN3 IN5	0.785 0.710 0.729 0.670	0.697	0.815	0.525
Sportsmanship	S2 S4	0.910 0.758	0.600	0.823	0.701
Intellectual Stimulation	ST1 ST2 ST3 ST4 ST5	0.716 0.723 0.747 0.754 0.742	0.789	0.856	0.543
Second-order construct
Transformational leadership			0.924	0.919	0.740
Organizational citizenship behaviour			0.916	0.891	0.628

Source: PLS-SEM output.

Note: AVE, Average variance extracted.

For discriminate validity, Fornell and Larcker (1981) test was approached which describes that all the constructs should be distinct from one another (Garson, 2016; Hair et al., 2014). Table 3 shows the square root of the AVE of constructs (on-diagonal) is greater than the correlation (off-diagonal) among the construct. Hence, it has been proved that all the constructs are divergent from each other.

Table 3.

Fornell and Larcker (1981) Discriminant Validity

	A	C	CE	CS	CV	IC	ID	IN	S	ST
A	0.744
C	0.572	0.795
CE	0.667	0.549	0.718
CS	0.637	0.614	0.655	0.726
CV	0.701	0.632	0.709	0.679	0.713
IC	0.610	0.492	0.659	0.606	0.633	0.734
ID	0.462	0.402	0.507	0.410	0.471	0.590	0.745
IN	0.518	0.449	0.579	0.555	0.527	0.706	0.636	0.725
S	0.402	0.351	0.300	0.356	0.394	0.231	0.337	0.265	0.837
ST	0.582	0.473	0.598	0.587	0.600	0.758	0.535	0.704	0.280	0.737

Source: PLS-SEM output.

Note: AVE, Average variance extracted: A, altruism; C, courtesy; CE, collective efficacy; CS, conscientiousness; CV, civic virtue; S, sportsmanship.

Analysis of Structural Model

After validation of the measurement model, the structural model has been assessed to test the proposed hypotheses (Hair et al., 2014). For evaluation of the structural model, three parameters, that is, significance of path coefficients (t-value), the coefficient of determination (R²) and the cross-validated redundancy (Q²) recommended by Henseler et al. (2009) and Hair et al. (2014) has been used in the study. This study has followed the Preacher & Hayes’ approach to the mediation model described by Hair et al. (2014). First, the study tests the direct effect of transformational leadership on organizational citizenship behaviour by applying a bootstrapping procedure (5,000 sub-samples). The effect has been found positive and significant (β = 0.723; t = 17.737; Figure 2) and supports the H₁. Further step added the mediator variable in the model and found that indirect effect has a positive and significant effect (TFL and collective efficacy [CE], H₂: β = 0.687, t = 18.017; Figure 3 and between CE and organizational citizenship behaviour [OCB], H₃: β = 0.494, t =9.164; Figure 3), thus findings support to H₂ and H₃.

Figure 2.

Source: Authors’ desk.

Figure 3.

Source: Authors’ desk.

The mediating effect does not fully suppress the direct effect because the direct effect of TFL on OCB is (β = 0.384, t = 6.659; Figure 3) and produced mediation by the model is not in total (Barron & Kenny, 1986). To conclude the extent of this indirect effect, Iacobucci and Duhachek (2003) recommend the VAF (Variance Accounted For), which directs the size of the indirect effect with the total effect (direct effect + indirect effect) or VAF = direct effect/total effect. Table 4 displays that VAF gaining a value of 0.47 (47%, which is more than 20% and below 80%) that confirms the presence of partial mediation (Hair et al., 2014).

The direct effect structural model revealed the 52.5% explained variance (R²) for the organizational citizenship behaviour (Figure 2). After the intervention of the mediator into the structural model, the value of explained variance for collective efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviour was reported as 47.2% and 65.2% (Figure 3), respectively, which is above the benchmark value of 0.10 as recommended by Falk and Miller (1992) revealing the acceptable R-squared values for both structural models.

To assess the predictive relevance of the models, cross-validated redundancy measure Q² has been used in the study (Chin, 1998; Stone, 1974). A cross-validated redundancy technique is samples re-use technique that consists of cross-validation (Henseler et al., 2009). Cohen (1988) recommends the three parameters to evaluate the predictive relevance as; 0.02 signifies a ‘small’ effect size, 0.15 ‘medium’ effect size and 0.35 shows ‘high’ effect size. The predictive relevance (Q²) for direct effect structural models is 0.194 (Figure 2). For the mediator structural model, Q² for the two endogenous latent variables (i.e., collective efficacy, organizational citizenship behaviour) are 0.239 and 0.243 correspondingly (Figure 3 and Table 4). Hence as per Cohen (1988), both of the structural models have moderate predictive relevance.

Table 4.

Summary of Mediating Result

Endogenous Construct			R²							Q²
Collective efficacy					0.470					0.239
Organizational citizenship behaviour					0.652					0.243
Relationship		Path Coefficient				T-value		p-Value			Results
CE → OCB		0.494				9.164		0.000			H₂ Supported
TFL → CE		0.687				18.017		0.000			H₃ Supported
TFL → OCB		0.384				6.659		0.000			H₄ Supported
Mediation outcome
Mediated Path	Direct Effect			Indirect Effect (0.687 × 0.494)			Total Effect		VAF (indirect/total)			Mediation
TFL → CE → OCB	0.384*			0.339			0.723		0.47			Partial

Source: PLS-SEM output.

Note: CE, Collective efficacy; OCB, organizational citizenship behaviour. *Significant at 0.05 level.

Finally, Harman’s single factor test was used to examine the common method bias in the study because the study consists of the self-reported questionnaire. All the items were loaded to a single factor with unrotated principal component factor analysis and the result revealed 17.982% variance below the threshold of 50% variance. The extracted variance suggests that common method bias was not a big issue in the study.

Analysis of Moderation Effect

To test the moderating effect of gender in the structural model, the PLS-MGA procedure has been used (Sarstedt et al., 2011). In PLS-SEM, the male and female group has been generated with 330 male and 84 female members respectively to compare both groups. Before the accomplishment of the multi-group analysis, measurement invariance of complex models is necessary to pretest so that there is no measurement error and changes in the beta are due to group differences (Dabholkar & Bagozzi, 2002). MICOM contains three-step in which configural invariance, compositional invariance and the equality of composite mean values and variances have been tested (Henseler et al., 2015). Configural invariance has been automatically set by the Smart PLS 3 software by using the same set-up of the specified group model (Garson, 2016, p. 185). Further two steps were tested through the permutation algorithm procedure in PLS (Schubring et al., 2016, p. 4606). Table 5 suggests that compositional invariance of the model has been confirmed because the calculated score of correlation values of the groups have no significant difference. The next step of MICOM as shown in 3(a) disclose that there is no significant difference in mean value because all p-values are more than 0.05 and step 3(b) results also indicate that there is no significant difference in variance with more than 0.05 p values. Thus, it has been concluded that MICOM findings support the measurement invariance.

Table 5.

Measurement Invariance Analysis for Moderation

MICOM Step 1
Configural variance established = yes
MICOM Step 2
Composite		Original Correlation	5% Quantile of Empirical Distribution	Permutation p-Values	Compositional Variance Established
TFL		0.999	0.999	0.998	Yes
CE		0.999	0.999	0.997	Yes
OCB		0.999	0.999	0.998	Yes
MICOM Step 3(a)
Composite	Composite Mean Difference (male - female)		95% Confidence Interval	Permutation p-Values		Equal Mean
TFL	0.005		−0.229	0.253		Yes
CE	0.005		−0.228	0.236		Yes
OCB	0.007		−0.225	0.249		Yes
MICOM Step 3(b)
Composite	Composite Variance Difference (male - female)		95% Confidence Interval	Permutation p-Values			Equal Variance
TFL	−0.025		−0.457	0.439			Yes
CE	−0.018		−0.376	0.317			Yes
TD	−0.022		−0.403	0.346			Yes

Source: PLS permutation algorithm output.

Note: CE, Collective efficacy; OCB, organizational citizenship behaviour.

Moderating Result

To measure the differences across male and female groups, PLS multigroup analysis (PLS-MGA) has been done as defined by Sarstedt et al. (2011). PLS-MGA is a non-parametric technique that is used to assess the group difference by using PLS-SEM bootstrapping procedure. The difference between path coefficients of groups is known significant at the 5% probability error when the p-value is lesser than 0.05 or greater than 0.95 (Sarstedt et al., 2011).

Table 6 represents the results of the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between transformational leadership, collective efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviour which is tested by PLS-MGA. The findings revealed the path coefficient value (β = 0.653) for the male team member group and (β = 0.807) for the female team member group for the relationship between transformational leadership and collective efficacy. As the findings disclose the difference between males and females has a significant difference because the p-value (0.020) is less than 0.05. The result proves that the moderating impact of gender on the relationship which indicates that transformational leadership is more related to collective efficacy for female team members in comparison to male team members.

Table 6.

Moderating Impact of Gender Differences Result

Path	Male (n = 330)				Female (n = 84)				Difference (male - female)	p-Value (male vs. female)
Path	β	T	SD	p- Value	β	T	SD	p-Value	Difference (male - female)	p-Value (male vs. female)
TFL → CE	0.653	14.256	0.046	0.00	0.807	17.847	0.045	0.00	0.154*	0.020*
CE → OCB	0.446	8.490	0.059	0.00	0.501	3.964	0.112	0.00	−0.055^ns	0.660
TFL → OCB	0.465	4.282	0.065	0.00	0.364	5.592	0.109	0.00	0.101^ns	0.417
Results	*Female > male in TFL → CE path; ns, not significant

Source: PLS-MGA output.

Note: *p < 0.05. CE, Collective efficacy; OCB, organizational citizenship behaviour.

The next structural relationship of collective efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviour has found the path coefficient value (β = 0.446) for males and (β = 0.501) for the female groups. In this structural relationship, the difference of path coefficient between male and female groups has been noted -0.055 with 0.660 p-value > 0.05 which reveals no moderation effect of gender in this structural relationship. In the context of the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour, the findings provided the path coefficient value (β = 0.465) for the male group and (β = 0.364) for the female group. The difference in the path coefficient of males and females has been found 0.101 with 0.417 p-values > 0.05. As this outcome at 5%, a probable error that was neither less than 0.05 nor more than 0.95 discloses no moderating effect of gender on this structural relation.

Conclusion

Previous researchers have investigated the positive relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour, the present study contributes to the topic by clarifying the mechanism behind these relationships in the Indian context. The present study tested the mediation model in cross-functional teams to describe the mechanism through which transformational leadership influences and encourage their team members to exhibit extra work role performance. The findings of the study revealed that transformational leadership had a significant positive relationship with organizational citizenship behaviour which predicts the influence of leadership on team members in a positive direction. The outcome further shows that collective efficacy mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour. Especially, team members who are inspired by their team leader will feel motivated and make a belief in their teams’ collective ability which can turn into better performance. The study has also examined the moderating role of gender in the relationship between transformational leadership, collective efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviour. The result of the study shows that both male and female team members attach significance of transformational leadership and collective efficacy in their performance level. A significant difference in males and females has been perceived in the relationship of transformational leadership on collective efficacy. Results discovered that female team members are more influenced by transformational leadership in comparison to males. The finding of the research is consistent with the study of Bailey (2005) and Minton and Schneider (1980). As their study reveals that female are more sensitive and ethical and this study also replicate that female team member have a large effect of their concern leader which change their behaviour as well as a productivity system.

Managerial Implication

With the theoretical contribution, the present study deliberates the managerial implications. The results suggest that transformational leadership is positively associated with collective efficacy, which influences the extra work role performance of team members. This mechanism can be beneficial for the organization to manage teamwork effectively through a transformational leader. Service sector should also bestow their effort to cultivate transformational leadership among employees so that the behaviour of employees renovated positively. Training and workshop methods can be used to improve strong leadership qualities among employees. As per the findings of the study, collective efficacy is the important variable which mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour. So, practitioners should give their attention to enhance the belief of team members positively by taking care of the working environment along with effective leadership. Furthermore, shared beliefs of team members in their conjoint capabilities encourage teams to accept the challenges at workplace with innovative initiatives. However, the service sector should provide challenging tasks to their employees to increase employee trust in their skills, which would contribute to increased innovation. The result of the study revealed that collective efficacy among team members enhances the performance of team and exhibits extra work role behaviour. Thus, the organization should concentrate on enhancing the beliefs of team members in positive manner. Through this type of mechanism, the organization may be also benefited from cost reduction and time management as well as the innovative initiative taken by team members by using their combined skills. Research also exposed that female team members are more concerned with transformational leadership. The organization can involve female team members while assembling the team for better results.

Limitation and Future Research Direction

Although the study has provided the support of the mediating role of collective efficacy in between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour relationship, limitations of the study must be necessarily acknowledged. First, the sample of the study is limited for covering a few service sector industries of North India. Therefore, future research can cover a wider sample of all the remaining industries of different regions. The present study focused on transformational leadership style and for further exploration other styles of leadership can also be taken into consideration. Further, the present study has discussed the mediating link of collective efficacy while future research can be conducted with other interpersonal and intrapersonal concepts to enrich the behavioural phenomenon of team members. Effects of the various moderating variable like age, job level, marital status, organization types, etc. are not involved in the present study. Therefore, future research can be done to examine the effect of different moderating variables which may enrich the knowledge in this perspective.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Aggarwal

, & Krishnan

V. R.

(2013). Impact of transformational leadership on follower’s self-efficacy: Moderating role of follower’s impression management. Management and Labour Studies, 38(4), 297–313. 10.1177/0258042X13513129

Anselmann

, & Mulder

R. H.

(2020). Transformational leadership, knowledge sharing and reflection, and work teams’ performance: A structural equation modelling analysis. Journal of Nursing Management, 28(7), 1627–1634. 10.1111/jonm.13118

Aselage

, & Eisenberger

(2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 491–509. 10.1002/job.211

Avolio

B. J.

, Waldman

D. A.

, & Yammarino

F. J.

(1991). Leading in the 1990s: The four I’s of transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(4), 9–16. 10.1108/03090599110143366

Bailey

A. A.

(2005). Non-fulfillment of promotional deals: The impact of gender and company reputation on consumers’ perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(4), 285–295. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2004.10.003

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura

(2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. 10.1111/1467-8721.00064

Barron

R. M.

& Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Barry

III , Bacon

M. K.

, & Child

I. L.

(1957). A cross-cultural survey of some sex differences in socialization. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55(3), 327–332. 10.1037/h0041178

10.

Bass

B. M.

(1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

11.

Bass

B. M.

, & Avolio

B. J.

1997, Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Mind Garden Inc.

12.

Blau

G. J.

(1986). Job involvement and organizational commitment as interactive predictors of tardiness and absenteeism. Journal of Management, 12(4), 577–584. 10.1177/014920638601200412

13.

Boerner

, Dütschke

, & Wied

(2008). Charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Examining the role of stressors and strain. Human Resource Development International, 11(5), 507–521. 10.1080/13678860802417643

14.

Bohn

J. G.

(2010). Development and exploratory validation of an organizational efficacy scale. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(3), 227–251. 10.1002/hrdq.20048

15.

Brettel

, Heinemann

, Engelen

, & Neubauer

(2011). Cross-functional integration of R&D, marketing, and manufacturing in radical and incremental product innovations and its effects on project effectiveness and efficiency. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(2), 251–269. 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00795.x

16.

Buil

, Martínez

, & Matute

(2019). Transformational leadership and employee performance: The role of identification, engagement, and proactive personality. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 64–75. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.014

17.

Bums

J. M.

(1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.

18.

Bycio

, Hackett

R. D.

, & Allen

J. S.

(1995). Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 468–478. 10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.468

19.

Byrne

B. M.

(2013). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.

20.

Callow

, Smith

M. J.

, Hardy

, Arthur

C. A.

, & Hardy

(2009). Measurement of transformational leadership and its relationship with team cohesion and performance level. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(4), 395–412. 10.1080/10413200903204754

21.

Carron

A. V.

, & Eys

M. A.

(2012). Group dynamics in sport (4th ed.). Fitness Information Technology.

22.

Chen

, & Bliese

P. D.

(2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 549–556. 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.549

23.

Chin

W. W.

(1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.

24.

Chuang

W. W.

, Chou

H. W.

, & Yeh

Y. J.

(2004). The impacts of trust, leadership, and collective efficacy on cross-functional team performance. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Knowledge Economy and Electronic Commerce (pp. 2–3).

25.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

26.

Dabholkar

P. A.

, & Bagozzi

R. P.

(2002). An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 184–201. 10.1177/0092070302303001

27.

Daniel Sherman

, Berkowitz

, & Souder

W. E.

(2005). New product development performance and the interaction of cross-functional integration and knowledge management. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(5), 399–411. 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00137.x

28.

Downton

J. V.

(1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in a revolutionary process. Free Press.

29.

Edwards

J. R.

, Knight

D. K.

, Broome

K. M.

, & Flynn

P. M.

(2010). The development and validation of a transformational leadership survey for substance use treatment programs. Substance Use & Misuse, 45(9), 1279–1302. 10.3109/10826081003682834

30.

Eells

R. J.

(2011). Meta-analysis of the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/133

31.

Ehrhart

M. G.

, & Naumann

S. E.

(2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 960–974. 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.960

32.

Elkins

, & Keller

R. T.

(2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature review and conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 486–505.

33.

Euwema

M. C.

, Wendt

, & Van Emmerik

(2007). Leadership styles and group organizational citizenship behavior across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8), 1035–1057. 10.1002/job.496

34.

Falk

R. F.

, & Miller

N. B.

(1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.

35.

Feingold

(1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429–456. 10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429

36.

Fischer

, & Arnold

S. J.

(1990). More than a labor of love: Gender roles and Christmas gift shopping. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 333–345. 10.1086/208561

37.

Fornell

, & Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. 10.1177/002224378101800104

38.

Garson

G. D.

(2016). Partial least squares (PLS-SEM): Regression and structural equation models. Statistical Publishing Associates.

39.

Gibson

C. B.

, & Earley

P. C.

(2007). Collective cognition in action: Accumulation, interaction, examination, and accommodation in the development and operation of group efficacy beliefs in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 438–458. 10.5465/amr.2007.24351397

40.

Goddard

R. D.

, Hoy

W. K.

, & Hoy

A. W.

(2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507. 10.3102/00028312037002479

41.

Gouldner

A. W.

(1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2092623

42.

Gully

S. M.

, Incalcaterra

K. A.

, Joshi

, & Beaubien

J. M.

(2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832. 10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819

43.

Guzzo

R. A.

, Yost

P. R.

, Campbell

R. J.

, & Shea

G. P.

(1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), 87–106. 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb00987.x

44.

Hair

F. J.

, Black

C. W.

, Badin

N. J.

, Anderson

E. R.

, Tatham

R. L.

(2005). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education Inc.

45.

Hair

J. F.

, Henseler

, Dijkstra

T. K.

, & Sarstedt

(2014). Common beliefs and reality about partial least squares: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann. Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209. http//doi.org/10.1177/1094428114526928

46.

Hair

J. F.

Jr , Howard

M. C.

, & Nitzl

(2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069

47.

Hair

J. F.

Jr , Sarstedt

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Gudergan

S. P.

(2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. SAGE Publications.

48.

Hair

J. F.

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Sarstedt

(2012). Partial least squares: The better approach to structural equation modeling. Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 312–319. 10.1016/j.lrp.2012.09.011

49.

Hattie

(2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91.

50.

Henseler

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Sarstedt

(2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

51.

Henseler

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Sinkovics

R. R.

(2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In Sinkovics

R. R.

, & Ghauri

P. N.

(Ed.), New challenges to international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20 (pp. 277–319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014

52.

Hodges

, & Carron

A. V.

(1992). Collective efficacy and group performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 48–59.

53.

Holten

A. L.

, Bøllingtoft

, Carneiro

I. G.

, & Borg

(2018). A within-country study of leadership perceptions and outcomes across native and immigrant employees: Questioning the universality of transformational leadership. Journal of Management and Organization, 24(1), 145–162. 10.1017/jmo.2017.2

54.

Homans

R. E.

, & Enis

B. M.

(1973). A guide for appraising marketing activities. Business Horizons, 16(5), 20–30. 10.1016/0007-6813(73)90091-8

55.

Humphrey

(2012). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors: The role of organizational identification. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 15(4), 247–268. 10.1080/10887156.2012.731831

56.

Hur

, Van Den Berg

P. T.

, & Wilderom

C. P.

(2011). Transformational leadership as a mediator between emotional intelligence and team outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 591–603. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.002

57.

Iacobucci

, & Duhachek

(2003). Advancing alpha: Measuring reliability with confidence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 478–487. 10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_14

58.

Jha

(2014). Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment: Determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 3(1), 18–35. 10.1108/SAJGBR-04-2012-0036

59.

Jowett

, Shanmugam

, & Caccoulis

(2012). Collective efficacy as a mediator of the association between interpersonal relationships and athlete satisfaction in team sports. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 66–78. 10.1080/1612197X.2012.645127

60.

Judge

T. A.

, & Piccolo

R. F.

(2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

61.

Jung

D. I.

, & Sosik

J. J.

(1999). Effects of group characteristics on work group performance: A longitudinal investigation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(4), 279–290. 10.1037/1089-2699.3.4.279

62.

Jung

D. I.

, & Sosik

J. J.

(2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33(3), 313–336. 10.1177/10496402033003002

63.

Kanawattabachai

, & Yoo

(2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3–4), 187–213. 10.1016/S0963-8687(02)00019-7

64.

Katz-Navon

T. Y.

, & Erez

(2005). When collective- and self-efficacy affect team performance: The role of task interdependence. Small Group Research, 36(4), 437–465. 10.1177/1046496405275233

65.

Khan

Z. A.

, Nawaz

, & Khan

(2016). Leadership theories and styles: A literature review. Leadership, 16(1), 1–7.

66.

Khare

(2012). Moderating effect of age and gender on consumer style inventory in predicting Indian consumers’ local retailer loyalty. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 22(2), 223–239. 10.1080/09593969.2011.652644

67.

Kim

(2012). Transformational leadership and organisational citizenship behavior in the public sector in South Korea: The mediating role of affective commitment. Local Government Studies, 38(6), 867–892. 10.1080/03003930.2012.707617

68.

Kim

, & Shin

(2015). Collective efficacy as a mediator between cooperative group norms and group positive affect and team creativity. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(3), 693–716. 10.1007/s10490-015-9413-4

69.

Kring

A. M.

, & Gordon

A. H.

(1998). Sex differences in emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 686–703. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.686

70.

Krishnan

V. R.

, & Arora

(2008). Determinants of transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Asia Pacific Business Review, 4(1), 34–43. 10.1177/097324700800400104

71.

Kumar

M. M.

, & Shah

S. A.

(2015). Psychometric properties of Podsakoff’s organizational citizenship behaviour scale in the Asian context. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(1), 51–60.

72.

Lent

R. W.

, Schmidt

, & Schmidt

(2006). Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 73–84. 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.04.001

73.

, Zhou

, Zhao

, Zhang

, & Zhang

(2015). Collective-efficacy as a mediator of the relationship of leaders’ personality traits and team performance: A cross-level analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 50(3), 223–231. 10.1002/ijop.12094

74.

Lin

C. C. T.

& Peng

T. K. T.

(2010). From organizational citizenship behavior to team performance: The mediation of group cohesion and collective efficacy. Management and Organization Review, 6(1), 55–75. 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00172.x

75.

Lindsley

D. H.

, Brass

D. J.

, & Thomas

J. B.

(1995). Efficacy-performing spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 645–678. 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080333

76.

Lirgg

C. D.

, Feltz

D. L.

, & Chase

M. A.

(1994). Relationships of individual and collective efficacy to team performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 142–148.

77.

Little

B. L.

, & Madigan

R. M.

(1997). The relationship between collective efficacy and performance in manufacturing work teams. Small Group Research, 28(4), 517–534. 10.1177/1046496497284003

78.

López-Domínguez

, Enache

, Sallan

J. M.

, & Simo

(2013). Transformational leadership as an antecedent of change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2147–2152. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.041

79.

MacKenzie

S. B.

, Podsakoff

P. M.

, & Rich

G. A.

(2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2), 115–134. 10.1177/03079459994506

80.

McAllister

D. J.

(1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. 10.5465/256727

81.

McDonough

E. F.

III . (2000). Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross-functional teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(3), 221–235. 10.1111/1540-5885.1730221

82.

Minton

H. L.

, & Schneider

F. W.

(1980). Differential psychology. Waveland Press.

83.

Mitchell

V. W.

, & Walsh

(2004). Gender differences in German consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 3(4), 331–346. 10.1002/cb.146

84.

Moorman

R. H.

, & Blakely

G. L.

(1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2), 127–142. 10.1002/job.4030160204

85.

Mulvey

P. W.

, & Klein

H. J.

(1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 62–87. 10.1006/obhd.1998.2753

86.

Nair

B. P.

, Prasad

, Nair

S. K.

(2021). Authentic leadership and team members’ outcomes: A cross-level and multi-level analysis. Management and Labour Studies, 47(2), 165–182. 10.1177/0258042X211034614

87.

Nayak

, Mishra

B. B.

(2005). Impact of leadership style on organizational effectiveness. Management and Labour Studies, 30(1), 90–103. 10.1177/0258042X0503000105

88.

Nielsen

T. M.

, Bachrach

D. G.

, Sundstrom

, & Halfhill

T. R.

(2012). Utility of OCB: Organizational citizenship behavior and group performance in a resource allocation framework. Journal of Management, 38(2), 668–694. 10.1177/0149206309356326

89.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

90.

Okazaki

, Navarro

, & López-Nicolas

(2013). Assessing gender differences in ‘quick response’ code loyalty promotion acceptance. The Service Industries Journal, 33(12), 1165–1177. 10.1080/02642069.2011.623775

91.

Omech

, & Drach-Zahavy

(2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: The relationships between job satisfactions, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5), 649–659. 10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00012-3

92.

Organ

D. W.

(1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.

93.

Organ

D. W.

(1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In Staw

, & Cummings

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 12 (pp. 43–72). JAI Press

94.

Pan

S. Y.

, & Lin

K. J.

(2015). Behavioral mechanism and boundary conditions of transformational process. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(8), 970–985. 10.1108/JMP-07-2013-0242

95.

Patiar

, & Wang

(2016). The effects of transformational leadership and organizational commitment on hotel departmental performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(3), 586–608. 10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0050

96.

Pearce

C. L.

, & Herbik

P. A.

(2004). Citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis: The effects of team leadership, team commitment, perceived team support, and team size. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(3), 293–310. 10.3200/SOCP.144.3.293-310

97.

Pearce

C. L.

, & Sims

H. P.

Jr. , (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197. 10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172

98.

Pizzi

, & Stanger

(2019). Consequences of teammate moral behaviour: Linking team moral norms with cohesion and collective efficacy. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(4), 437–453. 10.1080/1612197X.2019.1593215

99.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, Moorman

R. H.

, & Fetter

(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

100.

Prakash

, & Flores

R. C.

(1985). A study of psychological gender differences: Applications for advertising format. Advances in Consumer Research, 12(1985), 231–237.

101.

Purvanova

R. K.

, Bono

J. E.

, & Dzieweczynski

(2006). Transformational leadership, job characteristics, and organizational citizenship performance. Human Performance, 19(1), 1–22. 10.1207/s15327043hup1901_1

102.

Purwanto

, Bernarto

, Asbari

, Wijayanti

L. M.

, & Hyun

C. C.

(2020). Effect of transformational and transactional leadership style on public health centre performance. Journal of Research in Business, Economics, and Education, 2(1), 304–314. https://e-journal.stie-kusumanegara.ac.id/index.php/jrbee/article/view/33

103.

Rao

A. S.

, & Kareem Abdul

(2015). Impact of transformational leadership on team performance: An empirical study in UAE. Measuring Business Excellence, 19(4), 30–56. 10.1108/MBE-07-2014-0022

104.

Rodgers

, & Harris

M. A.

(2003). Gender and e-commerce: An exploratory study. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(3), 322–329. 10.1017/S0021849903030307

105.

Rolfsen

, Fausing

M. S.

, Jeppesen

H. J.

, Jønsson

T. S.

, Lewandowski

, & Bligh

M. C.

(2013). Moderators of shared leadership: Work function and team autonomy. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 19(5/6), 244–262. 10.1108/TPM-11-2012-0038

106.

Rosing

, Frese

, & Bausch

(2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership–innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 956–974

107.

Ryan

(2012). The relationship between shared vision, cohesion, role clarity, mutual trust and transformational leadership within a team setting (Doctoral dissertation). Stellenbosch University.

108.

Sangeetha

, & Kumaran

(2018). Impact of shared leadership on cross functional team effectiveness and performance with respect to manufacturing companies. Journal of Management Research, 18(1), 44–55.

109.

Sarstedt

, Henseler

, & Ringle

C. M.

(2011). Multi-group analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. Advances in International Marketing, 22, 195–218. 10.1108/S1474-7979(2011)0000022012

110.

Schaubroeck

, Lam

S. S. K.

, & Cha

S. E.

(2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1020–1030. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1020

111.

Schubring

, Lorscheid

, Meyer

, & Ringle

C. M.

(2016). The PLS agent: Predictive modeling with PLS-SEM and agent-based simulation. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4604–4612. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.052

112.

Seidler

(1974). On using informants: A technique for collecting quantitative data and controlling measurement error in organization analysis. American Sociological Review, 39(6), 816–883. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2094155

113.

Seijts

G. H.

, Latham

G. P.

, & Whyte

(2000). Effect of self-and group efficacy on group performance in a mixed-motive situation. Human Performance, 13(3), 279–298. 10.1207/S15327043HUP1303_3

114.

Sethi

, Smith

D. C.

, & Park

C. W.

(2001). Cross-functional product development teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 73–85. 10.1509/jmkr.38.1.73.18833

115.

Shim

H. S.

, Jo

, & Hoover

L. T.

(2015). Police transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of organizational culture. Policing: An International Journal, 38(4), 754–774. 10.1108/PIJPSM-05-2015-0066

116.

Shin

S. J.

, & Zhou

(2003). Transformational leadership, conservation and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703–714.

117.

Short

S. E.

, Sullivan

, & Feltz

D. L.

(2005). Development and preliminary validation of the collective efficacy questionnaire for sports. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 9(3), 181–202. 10.1207/s15327841mpee0903_3

118.

Somech

, & Drach-Zahavy

119.

Song

, & Xie

(2000). Does innovativeness moderate the relationship between cross-functional integration and product performance? Journal of International Marketing, 8(4), 61–89. 10.1509/jimk.8.4.61.19796

120.

Stoker

J. I.

, Looise

J. C.

, Fisscher

O. A. M.

& Jong

R. D.

(2001). Leadership and innovation: Relations between leadership, individual characteristics and the functioning of R&D teams. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(7), 1141–1151. 10.1080/09585190110068359

121.

Stone

(1974). Cross-validation and multinomial prediction. Biometrika, 61(3), 509–515. 10.1093/biomet/61.3.509

122.

Sun

L. Y.

, Aryee

, & Law

K. S.

(2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 558–577. 10.5465/amj.2007.25525821

123.

Tabbodi

M. L.

, & Prahallada

N. N.

(2009). The effects of leadership behavior on efficacy: A comparative study of faculty of two universities from Iran and India. Journal of Social Sciences, 20(3), 169–173. 10.1080/09718923.2009.11892736

124.

Tepper

B. J.

, & Percy

P. M.

(1994). Structural validity of the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 734–744. 10.1177/0013164494054003020

125.

Van der Vegt

G. S.

, & Janssen

(2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29(5), 729–751. 10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00033-3

126.

Van Dijk

, Kark

, Matta

, & Johnson

R. E.

(2020). Collective aspirations: Collective regulatory focus as a mediator between transformational and transactional leadership and team creativity. Journal of Business and Psychology. 10.1007/s10869-020-09692-6

127.

Van Dyne

, Graham

J. W.

, & Dienesch

R. M.

(1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 765–802. 10.5465/256600

128.

Velarde

J. M.

, Ghani

M. F.

, Adams

, & Cheah

J. H.

(2022). Towards a healthy school climate: The mediating effect of transformational leadership on cultural intelligence and organisational health. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(1), 163–184. 10.1177/1741143220937311

129.

Walumbwa

F. O.

, Lawler

J. J.

, Avolio

B. J.

, Wang

, & Shi

(2005). Transformational leadership and work-related attitudes: The moderating effects of collective and self-efficacy across cultures. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(3), 2–16. 10.1177/107179190501100301

130.

Wang

, Oh

I.-S.

, Courtright

S. H.

, & Colbert

A. E.

(2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223–270.

131.

Wang

, & Rode

J. C.

(2010). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The moderating effects of identiﬁcation with leader and organizational climate. Human Relations, 63, 1105–1128.

132.

Wong

, Tjosvold

, & Liu

(2009). Cross-functional team organizational citizenship behavior in China: Shared vision and goal interdependence among departments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2879–2909. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00554.x

133.

, Zeng

, Wang

, Qian

, & Gu

(2022). How transformational leadership motivates employee involvement: The roles of psychological safety and traditionality. SAGE Open, 1–10. https://doi:10.1177/21582440211069967

134.

Yammarino

F. J.

, & Bass

B. M.

(1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43(10), 975–995. 10.1177/001872679004301003

135.

Yammarino

F. J.

, Dubinsky

A. J.

, Comer

L. B.

, & Jolson

M. A.

(1997). Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 205–222. 10.5465/257027

136.

Yang

, & Lester

(2005). Gender differences in e-commerce. Applied Economics, 37(18), 2077–2089. 10.1080/00036840500293292

137.

Yukl

(1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305. 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-2