Investigating the relationship between benevolent leadership and the organizational citizenship behaviour of academic staff: The mediating role of leader-member exchange

Abstract

While research on the relationship between leadership and organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs) is well-established, empirical knowledge on the influence of benevolent leadership on OCBs through the mediating role of leader-member exchange, particularly in the context of educational management, remains scarce. Moreover, discussion is still limited on benevolent leadership in a Confucian-based culture like Vietnam, as well as the distinction between the two types of academic staff OCBs, namely OCBs directed to the organization (termed as OCBO) and OCBs directed to individuals (termed as OCBI). Based on survey data collected from 333 lecturers in Vietnamese universities, the analysis results confirm the mediating effect of leader-member exchange on the linkages from benevolent leadership to both OCBO and OCBI. University leaders with benevolence can motivate academic staff to engage in extra-role behaviours that benefit not only the organization but also other colleagues and students through nurturing a good quality leader-member exchange.

Keywords

academic staff benevolent leadership higher education leader-member exchange organizational citizenship behaviour

Introduction

Leadership refers to a leader’s interpersonal skills that are deployed to orientate, support, and influence followers (Tsai et al., 2009); as such, it is one of the most critical aspects in the success of an organization (Lin et al., 2018). Under the umbrella of the leadership literature, there are different styles of leadership that have been developed in Western contexts and then adopted equivalently across Eastern management practices (Li et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2005). However, the effectiveness of each leadership style depends on characteristics uniquely represented in a particular organizational context (Apkarian and Rasmussen, 2020; Ogawa and Bossert, 1995) as well as a specific cultural condition (Aycan et al., 2013; Farh and Cheng, 2000; Oc, 2018). It is therefore imperative to extend our understanding as to whether a particular leadership style is applied and linked to an organization’s human capital and critical outcomes in a certain cultural setting (Zhang et al., 2012). Luu (2019) and Lin et al. (2018) have emphasized the advantages of contextual- and cultural-based leadership styles in promoting obligation, vitality, self-management, and well-being among followers.

Based on a synthesis of the leadership literature in business fields (e.g., Hiller et al., 2019; Ma and Tsui, 2015), benevolent leadership – an emerging area in leadership theory and practice (Chan and Mak, 2012; Karakas and Sarigollu, 2012) – is especially suitable for business firms rooted in Confucianism, as is the case in Vietnam (Cox et al., 2014; Luu, 2019). Previous studies have not only revealed that benevolent leadership differs from other leadership styles such as transformational and transactional leadership (Chen et al., 2014; Li et al., 2018), but have also demonstrated that benevolent leaders facilitate followers’ positive work attitudes and performances (Chen et al., 2014; Karakas and Sarigollu, 2012) by activating positive social exchange relationships with such followers (Karakas and Sarigollu, 2012; Lin et al., 2018). When a leader’s level of care and concern towards followers increases, followers will feel obligated to reciprocate and consequently seek to do so; thus, they are willing to follow and obey the leader with their own best efforts by showing favourable work attitudes and behaviours (Chen et al., 2014; Karakas and Sarigollu, 2013; Li et al., 2018). Despite a flourishing in such research regarding business firms (e.g., Hiller et al., 2019; Wang and Cheng, 2010), to the best of our knowledge, none of the existing studies examine either the theoretical or practical implications of benevolent leadership in higher education settings.

Moral values and ethical conduct have been preserved and implicated in a diverse array of educational systems, from leadership practices in K-12 school settings (e.g., Lumby, 2016; Sayadi, 2016; Sibomana, 2020) to leadership competencies in higher education contexts (e.g., Apkarian and Rasmussen, 2020). In addition, ethical values are widely emphasized across educational programmes and curriculums, specifically within management and leadership courses (e.g., Hamilton et al., 2018; Karakas et al., 2013; Sims et al., 2020). Thus, value-based leaderships (e.g., benevolent leadership) and the pro-social behaviours of academic staff (e.g., organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs)) are critical to university management in the context of a deeply Confucian-rooted culture like Vietnam (Le and Ho, 2020; Luu, 2019; Truong et al., 2017). In the current research, we therefore focus on benevolent leadership as the embodiment of leaders’ virtuous behaviours (Karakas et al., 2013), which refer to the whole-hearted and genuine actions of leaders towards most or all university academic staff. Benevolent leaders not only help academic staff members fulfil their workplace responsibilities and duties but also show holistic concerns for them that extend beyond professional relationships into their personal and family life (cf. Li et al., 2018). Thus, understanding how benevolent leadership can influence academic staff’s ability to exert pro-social behaviours such as OCBs, if at all, is of prime importance in today’s educational management environment.

Despite the fact that pro-social behaviour is highly valued in higher education contexts (Nasra and Heilbrunn, 2016; Yada and Jäppinen, 2019) and more research is needed to explore the OCBs of university staff members (i.e., voluntary and extra-role behaviours, Ababneh and Hackett, 2019; Lawrence et al., 2012), the examination of OCBs towards the organization (OCBO) and OCBs towards individuals (OCBI) of academic staff are relatively less understood. Moreover, previous studies have demonstrated that several types of educational leadership such as transformational leadership (e.g., Berkovich and Bogler, 2020; Bush et al., 2018), transactional leadership (e.g., Day et al., 2016), servant leadership (e.g., Sims et al., 2020), or instructional leadership (e.g., Day et al., 2016; Sibomana, 2020) have a significant impact on teachers’ or lecturers’ functioning and informal performance – i.e., OCBs – emphasizing the role of quality of leader-member exchange (LMX) on the linkage between educational leadership and OCBs (Vermeulen et al., 2020; Yada and Jäppinen, 2019). However, there remains a lack of studies examining the effect of benevolent leadership on LMX, which in turn drives the OCBO an OCBI of academic staff in the context of higher education within a Confucian-based culture like Vietnam. Thus, it is important to conduct research in order to address such a limitation.

The current study makes several contributions to the educational leadership literature in general, specifically benevolent leadership, LMX, and literature on OCBs. First, although benevolent leadership has been studied in business firms, such is not the case in the context of educational management. This study thus advances the research stream of educational management and leadership by establishing the role of benevolent leadership in nurturing LMX and motivating academic staff’s OCBO and OCBI. Second, by drawing on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), this study sheds light on the mediating role of LMX on the linkage between benevolent leadership and OCBs in higher education contexts. Finally, because there are very few studies on higher education leadership in a country rooted in Confucian-base values such as Vietnam, this study offers contextual insights into the investigated linkages.

Conceptual framework and hypothesis development

The effect of benevolent leadership on academic staff’s perception of leader-member exchange

Benevolent leadership refers to leaders’ demonstration of individualized, holistic concern and care for the well-being of their followers in both the work domain and personal lives (Farh and Cheng, 2000; Wang and Cheng, 2010). In the context of higher education, university structure is usually designed as a line organization (Sewerin and Holmberg, 2017); leaders can be presidents, vice presidents, directors, deans, and associate deans who all have a significant influence on organizational leadership and outcomes (Hallinger et al., 2015). In the work domain, benevolent leaders tend to create a humane work environment, show concern for the career development of academic staff, and provide coaching and mentoring for on-the-job issues such as teaching- and researching-focused tasks (cf. Chan and Mak, 2012; Wang and Cheng, 2010). In the non-work domain, benevolent leaders express their further concerns, for example, by offering academic staff assistance with their daily problems, treating academic staff as family members and often even going so far as to take care of academic staff’s families (cf. Chan and Mak, 2012; Wang and Cheng, 2010). Because of such the holistic and individualized concerns for subordinates by leaders, prior leadership research (e.g., Chen et al., 2014; Hiller et al., 2019) has conceptualized benevolent leadership as a core component of a fatherly or ‘paternalistic’ leadership style. It has attracted widespread scholarly and practical attention in Asia (Aycan et al., 2013) due to its prevalence in Confucian-based cultures. In particular, benevolent leadership seems to be highly relevant within the educational settings of Vietnamese society, with its legacy of Confucian values such as kindness, decorum, uprightness, wisdom, and faithfulness (Holjeva, 2008; Truong et al., 2017). The leader within each successive level in a higher education organization is deemed a ‘senior lecturer’, receiving the greatest respect from academic colleagues. Thus, hierarchical roles and harmonious relations are fundamental to building successful relationships between leaders and academic staff members (Hallinger et al., 2015; Truong et al., 2017).

Drawing on both LMX theory (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995) and the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), LMX is defined as the quality of dyadic relationships between leaders and their followers (Liden and Maslyn, 1998; Wayne and Green, 1993). According to Lee et al. (2019), LMX theory is the most prominent theory of relational leadership and the quality of a leader-member relationship largely depends on the personal characteristics of both the leader and the other members (Somech and Wenderow, 2006). High LMX is regarded as a high level of trust, respect, loyalty, and a mutual obligation between leaders and subordinates (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden and Maslyn, 1998). The literature review reveals that the LMX relationship is not only a key determinant of followers’ behaviours, but is also used as a measure of an effective leadership style (Gerstner and Day, 1997).

In the context of higher education, a president and/or dean’s expression of benevolence – for example, his/her empathy, care, support, encouragement and consideration to faculty members and their families – will stimulate fellow academic staff’s feelings of gratitude, loyalty, and obedience towards their leader (cf. Chan and Mak, 2012; Li et al., 2018; Wang and Cheng, 2010). This facilitates a strong attitude and intention to reciprocate the benevolence (Chen et al., 2014; Wang and Cheng, 2010). Moreover, academic staff in a highly benevolent leadership context interact more frequently with their leader and are more willing to form and maintain a high-quality relationship with that leader (Chan and Mak, 2012; Tang and Naumann, 2015; Zhang et al., 2015). Drawing from the above arguments, we contend that a benevolent leader will build a low power distance environment and foster close relationships with academic staff. This in turn leads to the academic staff’s strong emotional bond and mutual trust with their leader, with high-quality LMX aroused as a consequence. The social exchange theory also lends support to the contention that benevolent leader behaviours will generate and maintain good leader-member relationships. Accordingly, we propose the hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Benevolent leadership is positively related to academic staff’s perceptions of leader-member exchange.

The effects of leader-member exchange on organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs)

OCBs refer to relatively discretionary behaviours of individuals, such as conscientiousness, sportsmanship, civic virtue, courtesy, and altruism (Ababneh and Hackett, 2019; Lawrence et al., 2012; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Williams and Anderson, 1991). These behaviours are initiated by voluntarily activities above and beyond the job description of organizational members and have important contributions to organization performance; however, such behaviours are often not directly or explicitly acknowledged by the formal reward system (Klotz et al., 2018; Organ, 1997; Organ et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Within the educational context, Nasra and Heilbrunn (2016) and Oplatka (2009) conceptualized OCBs as academic staff’s voluntary activities that exist beyond what is required within formal task obligations of higher education organizations, with the aim of promoting the effective functioning of the higher education organization. Based on Williams and Anderson’s (1991) definition of OCBs and the above contention, academic staff’s OCBs are classified into two broad categories, namely OCBs directed to a higher education organization (i.e., OCBO) and OCBs directed to individuals such as other academic members or students (i.e., OCBI). In particular, OCBO refers to those citizenship behaviours that benefit the university in general, for example, sending notice before being unable to come to work, respecting the unofficial rules, or setting out to maintain order. OCBI aims to benefit specific individuals, such as assisting out-of-work colleagues or students, or understanding and paying attention to the interests of other academic members or students (Belogolovsky and Somech, 2010; Nasra and Heilbrunn, 2016; Oplatka, 2009).

According to the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), when followers perceive high-quality leader-member relationships, mutual trust and liking are reinforced, which in turn leads to an inclination to take on duties beyond formal requirements. Conversely, in low-exchange relationship conditions, followers only fulfil any responsibilities described in the job description; thus, they are not expected to exert extra-role behaviours beyond their formal task performance (Chan and Mak, 2012; Ng, 2017). In the context of educational organizations, previous empirical studies (e.g., Cerit, 2017; Runhaar et al., 2013; Singh and Vidyarthi, 2018) indicate that academic staff with a higher quality exchange relationship are more likely to facilitate their altruism and civic virtue that foster their ability to exert voluntary actions. This implies a high propensity of taking extra-role behaviours (Singh and Vidyarthi, 2018) such as OCBO and OCBI which benefit the university in general or other colleagues or students. The assertion is also supported by the social exchange theory, which denotes a positive relationship between leader-member relationships and extra-role behaviours. Based on the above contention, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2: Academic staff’s perceptions of good leader-member exchange are positively related to (a) OCBO and (b) OCBI.

The mediating effect of leader-member exchange on the link between the benevolent leader and OCBs

In line with LMX theory, leaders form the different quality of relationships with their followers depending on the personal characteristics of both leaders and followers (Gerstner and Day, 1997; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). According to Ma and Tsui (2015), if leadership styles can adeptly facilitate leader-member interactions, followers’ skill and career development will be advanced, and a high-quality LMX will be generated. In the case of higher education organizations, if faculty members comprehend that their leaders often provide coaching and mentoring, show holistic concern, or even help them during personal emergencies, the academic staff’s trust, respect, and closeness with the leader will increase, consequently leading to a high quality of LMX (cf. Chan and Mak, 2012; Lin et al., 2018). According to the social exchange theory, a high level of LMX quality stimulates academic staff to form positive reciprocal attitudes and initiate an obligation to pay it back by reinforcing extra-role behaviours such as OCBO and OCBI (Inelmen et al., 2017; Singh and Vidyarthi, 2018). All of these arguments provide a basis to hypothesize that a quality LMX relationship mediates the linkage between the benevolent leadership style and the two behavioural outcomes. This rationale also finds support from Chan and Mak (2012) and Ng (2017) who argue that LMX quality is evoked by the leaders’ benevolence and is also a necessary precursor of OCBs. In short, a high quality of LMX can operate as a mediating mechanism through which benevolent leadership can encourage both OCBO and OCBI. It is entirely appropriate in the context of higher education. Thus, the following mediation relationships are hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3: Academic staff’s perceptions of good leader-member exchange mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and OCBO.

Hypothesis 4: Academic staff’s perceptions of good leader-member exchange mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and OCBI.

The theoretical framework is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The research framework.

Research method

Measurement

The measurement scales for the studied constructs were assessed by prior validated multi-item scales which were derived from the existing literature with minor modifications and adaptations to fit the studied context, i.e. that of higher education (see Appendix). All scale items were measured by a seven-point Likert scale. Benevolent leadership was measured by the well-established 11-item index adapted from Chen et al. (2014). The leader-member exchange scale was adapted from Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) and consisted of seven items. Additionally, the outcome variables, OCBO and OCBI, were operationalized by adapting the respective seven- and seven-item scales of Williams and Anderson (1991).

Since all the measurement items were originated from the English research literature while the field study was conducted in Vietnam, a back-translation technique was used to ensure equivalence (Schaffer and Riordan, 2003).

Data collection

The study was conducted in the context of Vietnamese higher education, which has been changing fundamentally and comprehensively to support the country’s socio-economic development (Pham et al., 2019) and meet requirements for the internationalization of higher education in a globalized context (Hoang et al., 2018). Moreover, within Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh City is the biggest city in terms of population, and also an educational centre (Choi et al., 2019). Thus, Ho Chi Minh City was a suitable choice to collect empirical data. Participants were lecturers working in universities in Ho Chi Minh City, including two types of universities: state-owned and private universities. A questionnaire survey was employed for data collection. Two screening questions were used to ensure the qualification of potential respondents. Four hundred questionnaires were distributed. Of a total of 358 returned questionnaires, only 333 usable questionnaires remained after the data cleaning process.

Sample characteristics

The characteristics of the 333 respondents are described in Table 1. The majority of the respondents were female (53.15%), while males comprised 46.85% of respondents. With respect to the age groups of respondents, 45.95% were people aged from 36-45 years old, followed by 42.04% between 25-35 years old, and 8.11% from 46-55 years old, while the rest were included in age groups outside these categories. Regarding level of education, the majority of the respondents had a Master’s degree (65.47%), followed by those categorized as doctorate and higher level (e.g., associate professor and full professor) accounting for 34.53%. The sample consisted of 264 lecturers (79.27%) and 69 lecturers (20.73%) working for public and private universities, respectively. Furthermore, the respondents with organizational tenure of 10-15 years made up the most significant percentage at 41.74%, with over 15 years at 30.03% and 5-10 years at 28.23%. About 62.46% of respondents revealed that their income ranged from 10-20 million VND, followed by 29.43% of lecturers earning 20-30 million VND every month, while the rest was comprised of groups outside these income-per-month categories.

Table 1.

The demographic characteristics of the respondents (n = 333).

Variable		Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	156	46.85
Gender	Female	177	53.15
Age	25-35 years old	140	42.04
	36-45 years old	153	45.95
	46-55 years old	27	8.11
	>55 years old	13	3.90
Academia degree	Master’s degree	218	65.47
Academia degree	Doctoral degree	115	34.53
Organizational type	Public university	264	79.27
Organizational type	Private university	69	20.73
Organizational tenure	5-10 years	94	28.23
	10-15 years	139	41.74
	>15 years	100	30.03
Income per month (VND)*	<10 VND million	12	3.60
	10-20 VND million	208	62.46
	20-30 VND million	98	29.43
	>30 VND million	15	4.51

* Exchange rate at: (Vietnamese) VND 1 to USD 0.000043.

Data analysis and results

The partial least squares-structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach (Ringle et al., 2015) was used to analyze and evaluate the measurement and structural models.

Scale accuracy analysis

The Cronbach’s alpha values, the composite reliability (CR) criteria, and average variance extracted (AVE) indexes were used to assess the scale reliability of the studied constructs. Two indicators were removed because of having factor loadings to their corresponding constructs less than the cut-off value (0.50). The testing results indicated that all the Cronbach’s alpha and CR estimates were above the stipulated level of 0.70 as suggested by Hair et al. (2017), and the AVEs exceeded the recommended threshold value of 0.50 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981), thus confirming good reliability (see Table 2). For convergent validity, all the remaining scales confirmed convergent validity as the factor loadings of the scale items to their corresponding constructs exceeded the threshold of 0.50 and were higher than cross-loading values on any other research constructs (Hair et al., 2017) (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Scale accuracy analysis.

	No. of scale items		Construct reliability and validity
Research constructs	Original	Final	Cronbach’s alpha	CR	AVE	Item loading/highest cross-loading
Benevolent leadership	11	11	.967	.971	.753	.85/.70; .89/.67; .85/.68; .87/.70; .89/.72; .89/.66; .89/.69; .84/.63; .85/.67; .86/.69; .87/.68
LMX	7	6	.939	.952	.768	.86/.68; .87/.62; .86/.58; .90/.63; .90/.66; 87/.66
OCBO	7	6	.878	.908	.624	.82/.67; .82/.64; .72/.49; .68/.52; .88/.69; .81/.64
OCBI	7	7	.924	.939	.688	.76/.59; .83/.60; .81/.62; .85/.68; .86/.69; .87/.67; .83/.64

LMX: Leader-member exchange; OCBO: Organizational citizenship behaviour towards the organization; OCBI: Organizational citizenship behaviour towards individuals; CR: Composite Reliability; AVE: Average Variance Extracted.

We further assessed the discriminant validity of all measured constructs by Fornell-Larcker’s criteria and the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT). Fornell-Larcker’s criteria is a traditional approach and results revealed that the squared roots of AVEs for all constructs were higher than the highest shared variances (Hair et al., 2017). Additionally, the HTMT ratio is considered a reliable contemporary approach to evaluate discriminant validity with results indicating that the HTMT ratios for all the constructs were less than the cut-off value of 0.90 (Henseler et al., 2015). These results provide evidence for good discriminant validity for all studied constructs (see Table 3). Since the reliability and validity of the studied constructs were confirmed, the structural model testing was conducted as below.

Table 3.

Correlation matrix.

Research constructs		1	2	3	4
1	Benevolent leadership	.867	.698	.729	.735
2	LMX	.672*	.876	.685	.753
3	OCBO	.675*	.627*	.790	.813
4	OCBI	.697*	.708*	.738*	.829

Fornell-Larker Criterion and Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT) are at the lower and upper ends of the diagonal, respectively; diagonal boldface values are the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value.

* p ≤ 0.001: significant levels.

Research model quality

The quality of the theoretical model was assessed through the R ² values as well as the Stone-Geisser Indicator (Q ²) values. The R ² values refer to the explanatory power of the endogenous constructs, and the values of 0.26, 0.13, and 0.02 represent substantial, moderate, and weak levels, respectively (Cohen, 1988). The Q ² values with the recommended level of zero are used for assessing the predictive relevance of the research model (Henseler et al., 2009). The analytic results in Figure 2 showed that the R ² values of the endogenous constructs (i.e., LMX, OCBO, and OCBI) were above the stipulated substantial levels of 0.26 (Cohen, 1988), thus indicating the adequate explanatory power of the research constructs. Moreover, the predictive relevance Q ² of the endogenous constructs had values higher than the recommended level of zero (Henseler et al., 2009). Furthermore, the model fit criterion (SRMR value) was 0.054, coming in under the stipulated value of 0.08 (Henseler et al., 2016). These results demonstrated an acceptable and satisfactory model for the proposed framework.

Figure 2.

Results of hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis testing

A t-test calculated from the resampling/bootstrapping procedure of 5,000 samples was applied to examine the hypothesized relationship coefficients. As shown in Figure 2, benevolent leadership had a significant positive effect on leader-member exchange (H1, β = 0.672, t = 15.596, p < 0.001). The results further exerted significance at 99%, positive effects of leader-member exchange on OCBO (H2a, β = 0.627, t = 12.981, p < 0.001) and OCBI (H2b, β = 0.708, t = 18.716, p < 0.001). Moreover, the f ² values of the direct relationships in the model ranged from 0.646 to 1.007, pointing out that the strength of these relationships in the structural model had large effect sizes (Cohen, 1988; Henseler et al., 2009). Therefore, these findings are consistent with H1: benevolent leadership has a significant positive effect on academic staff’s perceptions of LMX and supported H2a and H2b that hypothesized that academic staff’s perceptions of high-quality LMX are positively related to their OCBO and OCBI, respectively.

The 5,000 bootstrap sample procedure was also used to test the mediating effects. The results indicated that the indirect effects of benevolent leadership on OCBO and OCBI through leader-member exchange (H3, β = 0.421, t = 7.710, p < 0.001 and H4, β = 0.476, t = 9.329, p < 0.001, respectively) were significant at 99%. Furthermore, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the distribution of the product of coefficients were not containing zero. These results are consistent with H3 and H4 that hypothesized that academic staff’s perceptions of good LMX mediate the relationships between benevolent leadership and academic staff’s OCBO and OCBI, respectively.

Discussion and implications

The current research provides empirical evidence on the effectiveness of benevolent leadership by illuminating its indirect relationships with the OCBO and OCBI of academic staff through the mediating role of perceptions of LMX quality in a higher education context within the Vietnamese Confucian-based culture. As hypothesized, we find that benevolent leadership is positively related to LMX, which in turn influences the academic staff’s extra-role behaviours. That is, academic staff’s perceptions of good LMX is found to mediate the link between benevolent leadership and their OCBs.

Our study has several important contributions to the research streams of educational management and leadership. Firstly, we expand on the benevolent leadership theory by examining both OCBO and OCBI as two results of benevolent leadership through the mediating mechanism of LMX within higher education in Vietnam. In particular, our study substantiates the idea that a university leader’s expression of benevolence facilitates academic staff’s perceptions of the good quality of LMX, which in turn enhances both OCBs directed to the university and OCBs directed to individuals (e.g., colleagues or students). This study is one of only a few research projects to investigate the link between benevolent leadership and the behaviour of followers in a relatively new research domain, i.e. the higher education management context. Grounded in social exchange theory, our study provides empirical evidence that high-quality LMX acts as a proximal pathway through which benevolent leadership facilitates quite distal individual behavioural outcomes (i.e., OCBO and OCBI). This finding is important because it demonstrates the idea that a benevolent leader can act to shape academic staff’s extra-role behaviours. Notably, our study suggests that university leaders with benevolence can facilitate relatively discretionary behaviours of academic staff members that are critical to that university’s success. University leaders should understand that concerns for the well-being of their academic staff – both at work and non-work domains – are the primary means to promote academic staff’s LMX. Also, they should emphasize benevolent behaviours if they wish to positively influence their academic staff’s OCBs.

In addition, by examining benevolent leadership in the Vietnamese Confucian-based context (Hallinger et al., 2015; Luu, 2019; Truong et al., 2017), particularly within the higher education setting, our study provides contextual insights into the research stream of leadership styles. Under Confucian-rooted cultures such as Vietnam, benevolent leadership is crucial and effective in intensifying leader-member exchange as well as stimulating the OCBs of academic staff. Moreover, in a higher education context, top university managers may inspire middle managers to deploy benevolent leadership, a strategy which helps cultivate a strong bond between leaders and academic staff, thus motivating OCBs among academic staff in their universities.

Limitations and directions for future research

Our study contains several limitations that need to be addressed in future research. First, in the current study, the relationships between variables in the theoretical framework are only considered based on cross-sectional data, and this study design does not allow for testing of long-term impact and the inference of causality (Chen et al., 2014). Therefore, in order to provide concrete conclusions about causal links, the theoretical model should be replicated with longitudinal studies. Second, we collected data solely in a Vietnamese context, and strictly from academic staff in universities, which may again limit our results. Thus, we encourage future research to examine the theoretical framework with data collected from a diversity of countries to bolster the validity of our study. Lastly, data for testing the proposed model was obtained from a self-reported survey as well as strictly from academic staff, both factors which could be susceptible to the threat of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Thus, future research should concern itself with common method bias risks.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City’s academic fund.

ORCID iD

Huong Xuan Ho

Appendix

Table 1A.

Measurement scales.

Construct	Items ( ^RReverse-coded items; ^Item removed during accuracy analysis*)
Benevolent leadership	In my university,… My leader is like a family member in how he/she gets along with us.
	My leader devotes all his/her energy to taking care of me.
	Beyond work relations, my leader expresses concern about my daily life.
	My leader ordinarily shows a kind concern for my comfort.
	My leader will help me when I am in an emergency situation.
	My leader takes very thoughtful care of subordinates who have spent a long time with him/her.
	My leader meets my needs according to my personal requests.
	My leader encourages me when I encounter arduous problems.
	My leader takes good care of my family members as well.
	My leader tries to understand the cause when I do not perform well.
	My leader handles what is difficult for me to do or manage in everyday life.
Leader- member exchange (LMX)	In my university,… My leader and I are suited to each other.
	My leader understands my problems and needs.
	My leader recognizes my potential.
	My leader would be personally inclined to help me solve problems in my academic work.
	My leader considers my suggestions for change.
	I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his/her decisions if he or she were not present to do so.*
	My working relationship with my leader is effective.
Organizational citizenship behaviour towards the organization (OCBO)	Attendance at my university is above the norm.
	Gives advance notice when unable to come to work at my university.
	Takes undeserved work breaks. ^R
	Great deal of time spent on personal phone conversations. ^R ^*
	Complains about insignificant things at my university. ^R
	Conserves and protects my university property.
	Adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order.
Organizational citizenship behaviour towards individuals (OCBI)	Helps other colleagues who have been absent.
	Helps my colleagues who have heavy work loads.
	Assists my leader or colleague or student with his/her work (even when not being asked to do so).
	Takes time to listen to my colleagues’ or/and students’ problems and worries.
	Goes out of his/her way to help new colleagues or/and students.
	Takes a personal interest in other colleagues or/and students.
	Passes along information to colleagues or/and students.

Note: All scale items were measured using a seven-point Likert scale.

References

Ababneh

Hackett

(2019) The direct and indirect impacts of job characteristics on faculty organizational citizenship behavior in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Higher Education 77(1):19–36.

Apkarian

Rasmussen

(2020) Instructional leadership structures across five university departments. Higher Education. Epub ahead of print 05 July 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-020-00583-6.

Aycan

Schyns

Sun

, et al. (2013) Convergence and divergence of paternalistic leadership: a cross-cultural investigation of prototypes. Journal of International Business Studies 44(9):962–969.

Bagozzi

(1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16(1):74–94.

Belogolovsky

Somech

(2010) Teachers’ organizational citizenship behavior: examining the boundary between in-role behavior and extra-role behavior from the perspective of teachers, principals and parents. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(4):914–923.

Berkovich

Bogler

(2020) Conceptualising the mediating paths linking effective school leadership to teachers’ organisational commitment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Epub ahead of print 03 March 2020. DOI: 10.1741143220907321.

Blau

(1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Bush

Abdul Hamid

, et al. (2018) School leadership theories and the Malaysia Education Blueprint: findings from a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Management 32(7):1245–1265.

Cerit

(2017) The mediating effect of LMX in the relationship between school bureaucratic structure and teachers’ proactive behaviour. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 38(6):780–793.

10.

Chan

Mak

(2012) Benevolent leadership and follower performance: the mediating role of leader-member exchange (LMX). Asia Pacific Journal of Management 29(2):285–301.

11.

Chen

Eberly

Chiang

, et al. (2014) Affective trust in Chinese leaders: linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management 40(3):796–819.

12.

Choi

Chung

Truong

(2019) Return on education in two major Vietnamese cities. Sustainability 11(18):4903.

13.

Cohen

(1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

14.

Cox

Hannif

Rowley

(2014) Leadership styles and generational effects: examples of US companies in Vietnam. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25(1):1–22.

15.

Day

Sammons

(2016) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: how successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly 52(2):221–258.

16.

Farh

Cheng

(2000) A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In: Li

Tsui

Weldon

(eds) Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.84–127.

17.

Fornell

Larcker

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

18.

Gerstner

Day

(1997) Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(6):827–844.

19.

Graen

Uhl-Bien

(1995) Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 6(2):219–247.

20.

Hair

Hult

GTM

Ringle

, et al. (2017) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

21.

Hallinger

Walker

Trung

(2015) Making sense of images of fact and fiction: a critical review of the knowledge base for school leadership in Vietnam. Journal of Educational Administration 53(4):445–466.

22.

Hamilton

Forde

McMahon

(2018) Developing a coherent strategy to build leadership capacity in Scottish education. Management in Education 32(2):72–78.

23.

Henseler

Hubona

Ray

(2016) Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems 116(1):2–20.

24.

Henseler

Ringle

Sarstedt

(2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43:115–135.

25.

Henseler

Ringle

Sinkovics

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

Ghauri

(eds) New Challenges to International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.277–319.

26.

Hiller

Sin

Ponnapalli

, et al. (2019) Benevolence and authority as WEIRDly unfamiliar: a multi-language meta-analysis of paternalistic leadership behaviors from 152 studies. The Leadership Quarterly 30(1):165–184.

27.

Hoang

Tran

Pham

(2018) Vietnamese government policies and practices in internationalization of higher education. In: Tran

Marginson

(eds) Internationalization in Vietnamese Higher Education. Cham: Springer, pp.19–42.

28.

Holjevac

(2008) Business ethics in tourism – as a dimension of TQM. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 19(10):1029–1041.

29.

Inelmen

Selekler-Goksen

Yildirim-Öktem

(2017) Understanding citizenship behavior of academics in American- vs Continental European-modeled universities in Turkey. Personnel Review 46(6):1142–1164.

30.

Karakas

Sarigollu

(2012) Benevolent leadership: conceptualization and construct development. Journal of Business Ethics 108(4):537–553.

31.

Karakas

Sarigollu

(2013) The role of leadership in creating virtuous and compassionate organizations: narratives of benevolent leadership in an Anatolian Tiger. Journal of Business Ethics 113(4):663–678.

32.

Karakas

Sarigollu

Manisaligil

(2013) The use of benevolent leadership development to advance principles of responsible management education. Journal of Management Development 32(8):801–822.

33.

Klotz

Bolino

Song

, et al. (2018) Examining the nature, causes, and consequences of profiles of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 39(5):629–647.

34.

Lawrence

Ott

Bell

(2012) Faculty organizational commitment and citizenship. Research in Higher Education 53(3):325–352.

35.

ANH

(2020) The behavioral consequences of regret, anger, and frustration in service settings. Journal of Global Marketing 33(2):84–102.

36.

Lee

Thomas

Martin

, et al. (2019) Leader-member exchange (LMX) ambivalence and task performance: the cross-domain buffering role of social support. Journal of Management 45(5):1927–1957.

37.

Rubenstein

Lin

, et al. (2018) The curvilinear effect of benevolent leadership on team performance: the mediating role of team action processes and the moderating role of team commitment. Personnel Psychology 71(3):369–397.

38.

Liden

Maslyn

(1998) Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management 24(1):43–72.

39.

Lin

Zhang

, et al. (2018) How is benevolent leadership linked to employee creativity? The mediating role of leader–member exchange and the moderating role of power distance orientation. Journal of Business Ethics 152(4):1099–1115.

40.

Lumby

(2016) Distributed leadership as fashion or fad. Management in Education 30(4):161–167.

41.

Luu

(2019) Relationship between benevolent leadership and the well-being among employees with disabilities. Journal of Business Research 99:282–294.

42.

Tsui

(2015) Traditional Chinese philosophies and contemporary leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 26(1):13–24.

43.

Nasra

Heilbrunn

(2016) Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior in the Arab educational system in Israel: the impact of trust and job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(3):280–396.

44.

(2017) Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: Analyses of multiple mediation pathways. The Leadership Quarterly 28(3): 385–417.

45.

(2018) Contextual leadership: a systematic review of how contextual factors shape leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 29(1):218–235.

46.

Ogawa

Bossert

(1995) Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational Administration Quarterly 31(2):224–243.

47.

Oplatka

(2009) Organizational citizenship behavior in teaching: the consequences for teachers, pupils, and the school. International Journal of Educational Management 23(5):375–389.

48.

Organ

(1997) Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance 10(2):85–97.

49.

Organ

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

(2005) Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

50.

Pham

Nghiem

Nguyen

LMT

, et al. (2019) Exploring key competencies of mid-level academic managers in higher education in Vietnam. Sustainability 11(23):6818.

51.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Paine

, et al. (2000) Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management 26(3):513–563.

52.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Podsakoff

(2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 63:539–569.

53.

Ringle

Wende

Becker

(2015) Smartpls 3.2.9. Bonningstedt: SmartPLS. Available at: http://www.smartpls.com (accessed 18 February 2020).

54.

Runhaar

Konermann

Sanders

(2013) Teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviour: considering the roles of their work engagement, autonomy and leader–member exchange. Teaching and Teacher Education 30:99–108.

55.

Sayadi

(2016) The effect of dimensions of transformational, transactional, and non-leadership on the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of teachers in Iran. Management in Education 30(2):57–65.

56.

Schaffer

Riordan

(2003) A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: a best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods 6(2):169–215.

57.

Sewerin

Holmberg

(2017) Contextualizing distributed leadership in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development 36(6):1280–1294.

58.

Sibomana

(2020) Perceptions of teachers on the instructional leadership behaviours of secondary school principals in Rwanda. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Epub ahead of print 09 July 2020. DOI: 10.1741143220938365.

59.

Sims

Carter

Moore De Peralta

(2020) Do servant, transformational, transactional, and passive avoidant leadership styles influence mentoring competencies for faculty? A study of a gender equity leadership development program. Human Resource Development Quarterly. Epub ahead of print 28 July 2020. DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21408.

60.

Singh

Vidyarthi

(2018) Idiosyncratic deals to employee outcomes: mediating role of social exchange relationships. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 25(4):443–455.

61.

Somech

Wenderow

(2006) The impact of participative and directive leadership on teachers’ performance: the intervening effects of job structuring, decision domain, and leader-member exchange. Educational Administration Quarterly 42(5):746–772.

62.

Tang

Naumann

(2015) Paternalistic leadership, subordinate perceived leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management & Organization 21(3):291–306.

63.

Truong

Hallinger

Sanga

(2017) Confucian values and school leadership in Vietnam: exploring the influence of culture on principal decision making. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(1):77–100.

64.

Tsai

Chen

Cheng

(2009) Employee positive moods as a mediator linking transformational leadership and employee work outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 20(1):206–219.

65.

Vermeulen

Kreijns

Evers

(2020) Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange and school learning climate: impact on teachers’ innovative behaviour in the Netherlands. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Epub ahead of print 02 July 2020. DOI: 10.1741143220932582.

66.

Wang

Cheng

(2010) When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31(1):106–121.

67.

Wang

Law

Hackett

, et al. (2005) Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal 48(3):420–432.

68.

Wayne

Green

(1993) The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations 46(12):1431–1440.

69.

Williams

Anderson

(1991) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management 17(3):601–617.

70.

Yada

Jäppinen

(2019) A systematic narrative review of prosociality in educational leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 47(6):980–1000.

71.

Zhang

, et al. (2012) Understanding indigenous leadership research: explication and Chinese examples. The Leadership Quarterly 23(6):1063–1079.

72.

Zhang

Huai

Xie

(2015) Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: a dual process model. The Leadership Quarterly 26(1):25–36.