The Mediating Effect of Leader–Member Dyadic Communication Style Agreement on the Relationship Between Servant Leadership and Group-Level Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Abstract

This research examines how dyadic communication agreement in the workplace may operate at the dyadic-within group level as a process variable that mediates the relationship between servant leadership and group organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). In doing so, we propose a model of leader–member dyadic communication whereby communication style agreement mediates the relationships between servant leadership and group-level OCB in work groups. The model is tested by using hierarchical linear modeling with data obtained from a sample of 510 employees and 59 work groups in three Malaysian organizations. Results show that servant leadership is related to leader–member dyadic communication style agreement in the workplace at the individual level and that the servant leadership–group-level OCB link is partially mediated by leader–member dyadic communication style agreement in the workplace. These findings partially validate our proposed model and provide empirical support for the central roles of communication exchange processes in work groups.

Keywords

servant leadership leader–member communication culture group organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)dyads group performance leadership relationship(s)

Although a substantial body of literature addresses the role of communication in organizational leadership (see Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2014, for a review), only a few studies (e.g., Hackman & Johnson, 2013) have investigated how leaders use communication to influence performance and promote job satisfaction among employees. To address this research lacuna, our study explores the relationships between servant leadership and the various communication processes that occur between organizational leaders and members. Broadly speaking, servant leadership is a participative theory of leadership in which leaders uphold to “put their subordinates highest priority needs before their own” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 14). From this short description alone, we can see that the “servant” approach to leadership requires a rethinking of the hierarchical relationship between leaders and subordinates. As stated by Graen (2013), it is not only the leadership characteristics that determine group behavior and performance—Group behavior is also a function of all the communications and interactions within the work group.

Previous studies have identified that various types of communication and interaction within work groups can influence work group outcomes (e.g., Liu, 2010). For example, perspective taking in teams can affect the likelihood that other members reciprocate in kind, whereas “other-rated perspective taking” has been linked to higher communication satisfaction (Park & Raile, 2010). This improved communication satisfaction may, in turn, improve one’s motivation, mood, and even liking of the other (Parker, Atkins, & Axtell, 2008). Previous studies, however, do not capture a potentially critical component of the leader–member dyadic communicative exchange, which is how relational norm congruence can directly or indirectly influence member attitudes and behavior (Joshi & Roh, 2009). According to Uhl-Bien (2006), relational leadership theory would suggest that the quality of the relationship and communication in the dyad may be particularly problematic for subordinates who are incongruent from the supervisor in a direction that is inconsistent with relational norms.

One variable that may mediate the relationship between servant leadership behavior and other group variables is the leader–member dyadic communication style agreement of the work group. This variable represents the extent to which communication and interaction among group members and with their immediate supervisor is consistent with their relational norms (Gordon & Stewart, 2009). This line of investigation thus represents a direct response to scholars such as Seibold, Hollingshead, and Yoon (2014), who call to identify the underlying communication process variables linking group traits and behavior with important work group outcomes.

This research directly contributes to the communication, leadership, and organizational behavior literature in several ways. Our findings further the model of servant leadership and group behavior and help to re-conceptualize the role that leader–member dyadic communication style agreement plays in linking these two constructs. This study paves the way for finer-grained theorizing and analysis of servant leadership and dyadic communication agreement dynamics in the workplace vis-à-vis group outcomes in organizations. Also, conducted in the vastly understudied country of Malaysia, this study is extending and broadening the literature in the organizational behavior domain through comparisons and contrasts involving people from nations located in various regions; these cultural extensions are critical (e.g., Ota, McCann, & Honeycutt, 2012). Each of these points will be discussed in greater detail below.

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis

Servant Leadership

The term “servant leader” refers to the leader who models service by humbly and ethically serving his or her followers, rather than expecting to be served by these followers (Ehrhart, 2004). Servant leadership is based on ethics. Strong, internalized moral standards guide servant leaders as they serve as role models for their followers and to show deep concern for their personal and career growth and development (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Not surprisingly, servant leadership has been found to promote organizational functioning through the development of high levels of trust between a leader and his or her followers (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson (2008) have described servant leadership in terms of seven types of behavior as follows: (a) behaving ethically, (b) providing emotional healing, (c) putting subordinates first, (d) helping subordinates grow and succeed, (e) empowering employees, (f) creating value for the community, and (g) providing conceptual skills that extend beyond other leadership approaches (e.g., transformational leadership). Empirical research has demonstrated the considerable positive impact that servant leadership can have on a variety of employee outcomes (Hu & Liden, 2011).

At the group level, Liden et al. (2008) found that social- and cultural-based exchanges between leaders and their group members are central to the servant leadership process. This exchange might involve a leader who helps group members by affirming their strengths and potential or a leader who provides developmental support for the work group as a whole. These exchanges have been found to contribute to a supportive communication climate within the work group, where group members reciprocate by exerting effort, showing commitment, and displaying organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) directed toward work group performance. Hu and Liden’s (2011) study established that this exchange process is related positively to group potency and, in turn, influences individual perceptions of OCB in the group. The manner in which group members perceive the group leader can also influence how the group members see each other (Susskind, Odom-Reed, & Viccari, 2011). These perceptions can influence interpersonal communication which, in turn, can reinforce views on workplace relationships (Bakar, Dilbeck, & McCroskey, 2010; Bakar & Sheer, 2013). Related exchanges are likely to either strengthen or weaken each group member’s level of commitment to the group’s OCB.

For the purposes of this study, servant leadership refers to the degree to which a leader acts as a role model for one’s followers and shows concern for the followers’ growth and development. In the Malaysian cultural context, employees report that they expect their leaders to show compassion toward them. Malaysian employees also report responding better to work if they see humanistic benefits accruing to the family, the community, and the nation (Selvarajah & Meyer, 2008). Compassion is indeed a central leadership trait commonly found in servant leadership studies (Leever, Daniels, & Zimmerman-Oster, 2006). As such, we feel that the effect of servant leadership on group members’ perceptions must be examined and understood vis-à-vis both cultural/relational norms and communication configurations (Hu & Liden, 2011).

Leader–Member Dyadic Communication in the Malaysian Workplace

The uneven ethnic distribution of workers across economic sectors is a core demographic characteristic of the Malaysian workforce (Abdul Rashid & Ho, 2003). Malaysian workplace dynamics are also quite different than what may be found in some of the more culturally heterogeneous societies of Asia and in many Western nations. To this point, previous studies have shown that ethnic majorities tend to preserve their distinct communication styles in the workplace (Ashcraft & Allen, 2003), a dynamic that clearly influences the communication climate of that workplace (Teboul, 1999). In the Malaysian cultural context, the ethnic majority, Malays (native to Malaysia), shape not only the cultural norms of the society but also the different types of communicative behavior in the workplace. For example, research conducted by Nair-Venugopal (2000) found that “Malaysian English” (a mix of the English and Malay languages) is the predominant way of speaking in the Malaysian workplace setting.

According to Storz (1999), an awareness of the concept of budi is necessary to understand Malaysian workplace culture. Budi is the essence of a Malay’s social relationships and underlies the norms of individual and social behavior. The way an individual Malay feels and thinks about himself or herself (as well as others) is guided by budi. In the mind of a Malay, budi determines his or her thinking, judgments, moral attitudes, goodness, and how communication and interaction should occur. The budi is reflected throughout the entire spectrum of mind, emotion, morality, practicality, and goodness. When communicating and interacting with another person (e.g., at work), a person with a high level of budi should be thoughtful and considerate, engage in good conduct, and be enlightened and practical.

Bakar, Walters, and Halim (2014) have noted that one way of interacting at work is through the budi context, that is, the way in which an individual communicates emotions, feelings, and thoughts, as well as manifests kindness (what some refer to as bicara). From this, the communication between a leader and a group member forms in two ways. First, for high-level bicara dyads (i.e., between a leader and each group member), relationship development may be an especially important goal. Second, because high-level bicara communication (and behavior) implies a strong individual cultural identity, the extent to which communication exchange behaviors between a group leader and group members leads to the joint achievement of work group goals may be a crucial factor in the social relationship development and maintenance of the work group. Thus, we argue that leader–member dyadic communication style agreement can, therefore, be viewed as a manifestation of the socially appropriate interactive exchanges that occur between leaders and members. In this study, leader–member dyadic communication style agreement refers to the extent to which the interacting leader–member dyad agrees with the way an individual expresses his or her emotions, feelings, and thoughts, and manifests kindness in his or her evaluations of interactions or conversations with others. This is consistent with Kim’s (1994) conversational constraint theory that uses the concept of social appropriateness (i.e., what constitutes acceptable communicative behavior in a given cultural context) to examine the role of culture in one’s communication.

Group-Level OCB

OCB has served as an index of group effectiveness in many organizational behavior studies (see, for instance, a meta-analysis by Podsakoff, Whiting, & Podsakoff, 2009). OCB has been described as the “performance that supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance takes place” (Organ, 1997, p. 95). Group-level OCB refers to the normative level of OCB exhibited in a work group (Ehrhart, 2004). Specifically, OCB occurs when members have a good understanding of the objectives of their job, connect to the group’s collective tasks, and cooperate with other group members to achieve group effectiveness. Group effectiveness may be accomplished by group members engaging in OCBs such as helping coworkers perform tasks and making suggestions to fellow group members to improve performance. These individual behaviors in the work group, in turn, become a standard mode of group behavior (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). Because the degree of OCB can act as one measure of the effectiveness of a work, we treat OCB as an outcome. Utilizing a communication-centered approach, we propose a multilevel model to examine the intricate relationships among servant leadership and leader–member dyadic communication style agreement in the workplace.

Leader–Member Dyadic Communication Style Agreement as a Mediator Between Servant Leadership and Group-Level OCB

There are at least two reasons why servant leadership enhances the effectiveness of communication in the workplace, which subsequently increases group-level OCB. First, servant leaders have been found to communicate and act in the best interests of their subordinates, place great importance on helping subordinates grow, and succeed in their careers and in their organizations (Hu & Liden, 2011). Through these communicative behaviors that are congruent with the relational norms and employee-centric interactions, all of which reflect a genuine concern for the employee, servant leaders can gain group members’ trust and build long-term relationships (Goldberg, Riordan, & Zhang, 2008). As noted earlier, Malaysian managers are obligated to mentor work group members. In return, work group members are expected to accord those managers with an appropriate level of respect and politeness (Selvarajah & Meyer, 2008). Leading with compassion and encouraging employee participation are behaviors consistent with the servant leadership model.

To truly understand the effects of servant leadership on group members’ perceptions, we feel that researchers must consider both relational norms and communication processes. Our view is consistent with the relational dyadic communication perspective, which holds that dyadic communication is at the heart of all relational dynamics (Cogliser, Schriesheim, Scandura, & Gardner, 2009). As such, when the communication within a given dyad (e.g., group leader–group member, group member–group member) reflects either high shared meaning or low shared meaning in communication, this communication affects the dyadic interpretations of the relationships (Mumby & Stohl, 1996). From the perspective of interaction richness theory, rich conversations within a dyad are characterized by meaning that can be conveyed with few words, interactional movements are highly synchronized, and the dyad precisely conveys intended meanings (Barry & Crant, 2000).

When leader–member dyadic communication and interaction are congruent with relational norms, high leader–member dyadic communication agreement should occur. In this scenario, the social exchanges within the group would be more similar, the range in leader–member dyadic communication style agreement would be similar, and the relational norms of the dyad too would be similar (see Bakar & McCann, 2014). However, when leader–member dyadic communication style and interaction are not congruent with relational norms, low leader–member dyadic communication style agreement should occur. In a low dyadic communication agreement scenario, we would see a wide range in communication in the work group. Finally, in both high and low congruent situations, the relational norms of the dyad should have significant implications for work group outcomes.

Work group environments are inherently complex. Unexpected problems frequently arise in the work group, and the work group itself may experience various changes in its make-up over time. The degree to which group members effectively collaborate can be one key predictor of a group’s successes or failures in performance. Given that work groups can be fluid in nature, the servant leader needs (to some degree) to possess both high-level conceptual skills and effective communication skills. Communication is particularly relevant when addressing issues such as how to make work group members comprehend the direction of an organization (e.g., a servant leader may need to help work group members develop an understanding of the relationship between the changing environment in an organization and the potential impact on the work group; Van Dierendonck, 2011). The communication and interaction between servant leaders and work group members may also facilitate the development of a group’s shared values.

The above is consistent with social network theories, which hold that the structure of an organization (e.g., how a work group is nested in the larger organization) can shape behaviors in the work group; for example, see Monge and Contractor (2003). Specifically, work groups that are embedded in organizations contain both dyads and individual group members who can be influenced by organizational characteristics such as leadership style and group-level contextual issues such as shared relational norms. Relational norms and communication work together to influence the types of leader–member relationships and the conversations that leaders and members have in work groups (see Chua, Ingram, & Morris, 2008). The work group members’ perceptions of both OCB and the group interaction process likely result from at least two levels of influence as follows: (a) between-dyads differences (e.g., relationships with servant leaders and among group members) and (b) relational norms based on the communication activities and social exchanges in the work group.

Servant leadership lends itself to the fostering and maximizing of collaboration among work group members in a manner that is consistent with cultural norms. By displaying personal integrity in his or her dealings with the work group, the servant leader can promote normative communication activities and create a supportive communication climate in the work group. From the cultural research presented above, in the Malaysian workplace, we anticipate that servant leadership will directly influence group outcomes such as group-level OCB (Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008). However, we predict that servant leadership will indirectly affect group-level OCB through its positive relationship with leader–member dyadic communication style agreement. According to research by Taras, Kirkman, and Steel (2010) and Ting-Toomey (2010), group behavior can only be determined through interpersonal relationships and task-orientation interaction and is dependent on the context of the interactions.

Our expectations regarding mediation is also consistent with the functional leadership perspective, which states that a congruence between dyadic relational norms and communication climate is required for group servant leadership to contribute to group effectiveness (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008). The social normative values between servant leaders and other group members need to be congruent for servant leaders to be able to direct work group members’ attention to a common goal (Seibold, Meyers, & Shoham, 2010).

As communication scholars, we have a primary interest in the construct of leader–member communication style agreement configurations. We are of the view that communication based on relational normative values within the work group is likely to influence the relationship between servant leadership and group OCB. That is, communication and interaction based on bicara that occurs among group leaders and group members may promote the distinctiveness of interpersonal relationships across leader–member dyads. As such, high communication agreement across leader–member dyads is likely to have significant implications for group-level OCB, such that,

Hypothesis 1: Servant leadership relates positively to group-level OCB through the mediating effect of leader–member dyadic communication style agreement.

The hypothesis advanced in this study suggests that leader–member dyadic communication agreement within a work group should be reflective of servant leadership. As noted by Sendjaya and Pekerti (2010), servant leadership is enhanced through open and honest communication interaction in which the group leader and the group members both talk about their feelings regarding the work environment and their personal lives. The sharing of sensitive information reflects a high degree of leader–member dyadic shared meaning. Within the work group, the group member communication tends to be freer, less careful, and less restrictive (Sias, Pedersen, Gallagher, & Kopaneva, 2012). We, therefore, expect that leader–member dyadic communication style agreement plays a role in determining the relationship between servant leadership and OCB. This premise is supported by findings from meta-analytic research conducted by Hong, Hu, Liao, and Jiang (2013), which shows that the communication climate between a manager and his or her employees can be a critical mechanism that underlies the leadership and employee attitude link.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Data were collected from three subsidiary organizations of a large government-linked manufacturing corporation in Malaysia. The study’s participants are members of intact work groups and perform relatively similar types of managerial or subordinate-related functions in all three organizations. Different functional groups such as accounting, customer service, design, production, staffing, and marketing are represented. To ensure mature group membership, our sample was limited to employees with a minimum of 6 months tenure in their current groups (see Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

Survey packs were sent to potential respondents through the organizations’ internal mail systems and were prefaced with a cover letter outlining the details of the research. It was explicitly stated that participation was voluntary and that confidentiality would be assured. Each survey pack contained a manager-report questionnaire and self-report employee questionnaires. The self-report questionnaire measured individual group members’ perceptions of servant leadership and communication style with their manager. The manager-report questionnaire measured individual managers’ perceptions of communication style with each group members and OCB.

Eight hundred fifty employees, including 65 managers (representing 65 different groups), were invited to participate. The participants were asked to complete the surveys at home and return them by mail in self-addressed stamped envelopes. Six work groups that had missing manager’s ratings were discarded. A total of 510 employees representing 59 work groups were included in the analysis. The total employee response rate was 60%. The demographic breakdown of the full-time working sample was as follows: gender, 65% male, 35% female and ethnic group, 60% Malay, 35% Chinese, and 5% Indian. The average age of the full-time workers was 45.6 years, their average organizational tenure was 8 years, and their average job tenure was 6 years. In the managerial sample, there was a 90% response rate. Of the managers, 56% were male and 44% were female, although approximately 45% were Malay (Bumiputra), 50% were Chinese, and 5% were Indian. The average age of the managers was 58.2 years, their average organizational tenure was 9.3 years, and their average job tenure was 8.3 years. In every pair of manager–subordinate dyads, the manager rated between 6 and 7 group member’s OCB.

Instrumentation

Servant leadership

Group members assessed their leaders via Liden et al.’s (2008) 28-item Servant Leadership Scale. Sample items (see Table 3) included “My manager seems to care about my success rather than his/her own,” “My manager provides me with the working experience that enables me to develop new skills,” and “My manager is involved in community activities.” Servant leadership was measured using Likert-type scale items (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Based on Hu and Liden’s (2011) suggestion, we used overall servant leadership as a latent factor and the average of all items to represent servant leadership within group. The Cronbach’s alpha was .90.

Leader–member dyadic communication style agreement

Both group managers and work group members assessed communication style in the Malaysian workplace via Bakar et al.’s (2014) 14-item Communication Styles in the Workplace Scale (see Table 3). Sample items to which group members responded included “I always try to talk politely with my manager at work” and “I like talking with a manager who uses polite language,” while group managers responded to items such as “I always try to talk politely with this employee at work” and “I am not keen on discussing private matters with this employee.” Communication style was measured using Likert-type scale items (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha was .87 for group members and .89 for leaders.

To calculate leader–member dyadic communication agreement, we followed the steps outlined by Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, and Yammarino (2001) based on the analysis of the individuals’ within- and between-dyad data. Specifically, the within-dyad score reflected the level of agreement of a leader with a member in a given dyad in a group, whereas between-dyad scores were calculated by averaging the responses on the scales for both the manager and the group member. The within-dyad score represented the difference between the score for either party from the other’s corresponding score. We subtracted the group member score from that of the manager. This approach resulted in agreement scores that ranged from −4.07 to 3.63 on the Communication Styles in the Workplace Scale. A negative score indicated that the manager’s value was lower than that of the group member.

Group-Level OCB

Managers accessed group-level OCB with six items adopted from work by Smith, Organ, and Near (1983). Sample items included “In general this subordinate helps other group members who have been absent” and “This employee helps other group members who have heavy workloads.” See Table 3 for all items. Group-level OCB was measured using Likert-type scale items (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha was .88.

Data Aggregation and Level of Analysis

Given that all of our analyses were cross-level, we needed to establish that the variables at the individual level and at the group level could be aggregated. Also, we needed to determine whether it is necessary to control the group effects. To achieve this, we first calculated two forms of intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). ICC(1) represented the proportion of variance attributable to group variability and ICC(2) reflected the extent to which groups were used to differentiate reliably in terms of the individuals’ rating of the variables. As a next step, we drew on the research by Bliese (2000), who suggested that ICC(1) values close to .20 indicate that the scores are desirable for group-level analysis. For ICC(2), values greater than .60 were desirable. Our ICC(1) and ICC(2) values calculated via ANOVA were .18 and .76 for servant leadership, .22 and .89 for manager communication style, .20 and .77 for group member communication style, and .23 and .85 for group-level OCB. The results suggested that the individual-level variables could be aggregated, that a cross-level analysis was appropriate, and that hierarchical linear modeling techniques were appropriate to test our hypothesis (see Tasa, Taggar, & Seijts, 2007).

Analysis Strategy

We tested our hypothesis via hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). HLM is a stringent and efficient procedure appropriate for our analysis as it (a) allows for simultaneous analyses of multi- and cross-level data (e.g., nested structure), which minimize possible biases (e.g., employees’ one-sided ratings of servant leadership); (b) supports mediation tests; and (c) identifies sources of variance, thus, reducing measurement error (see Raudenbusch, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2004).

Because our sample consisted of dyads in work groups with each manager rating multiple subordinates in a work group, managers’ ratings on group-level OCB might not have been independent. HLM can detect manager effects while also testing our mediation hypothesis. Thus, we estimated a multilevel model where group members (Level 1) were nested within the group managers (Level 2). We followed Hayes’s (2009) “mediation with bootstrapping techniques approach” to determine whether leader–member dyadic communication style agreement in the workplace mediated the relationship of servant leadership and group-level OCB. As Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006) noted, such bootstrapping techniques allow researchers to capture partial mediation approaches used on non-experimental studies.

Prior to hypothesis testing, we assessed the data for entry errors and normality (based on kurtosis and skewness) of the distribution on each item and the composite score for each variable. The majority of the items appeared within normal range. In addition, an inspection of multicolinearity between predictors was also conducted based on the variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance index. The VIF and tolerance index are within the acceptable range for colinearity. Descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables appear in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Matrix (Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, r; N = 510).

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Servant leadership	4.95	.53	—
2. Manager—communication style	5.51	.66	.52*	—
3. Group member—communication style	5.21	.72	.50*	.48*	—
4. Leader–member dyadic communication style agreement	4.35	.69	.43*	.55*	.53*	—
5. Group-level OCB	4.84	.62	.46*	.50*	.45*	.64*	—

Note. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior.

p < .05.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

We conducted two sets of CFA, one for employee data and one for manager data. This was done to access the discriminant validity of all variables. For the variables rated by employees in the work groups (servant leadership and communication style), the CFA results (Table 2) suggested that the hypothesized two-factor model yielded a better fit, χ²(65, N = 510) = 466.47, p < .01, comparative fit index = .98, normed fit index = .98, standardized root mean square residual = .04, and root mean square error for approximation = .09, than did a one-factor model. Group OCB and communication style—as rated by managers—yielded a two-factor model χ²(38, N = 65) = 208.70, p < .01, comparative fit index = .98, normed fit index = .99, standardized root mean square residual = .02, and root mean square error for approximation = .07. All items loaded significantly on their respective factors (Table 3), indicating clear discriminant validity for all variables, which enabled us to proceed with model testing.

Table 2.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Structure of the Measured Variables.

Model	χ²(df)	Δχ²(df)	CFI	NFI	SRMSR	RMSEA
Group member—variables^a
Two-factor	466.47 (65)	—	.98	.98	.04	.09
One-factor	307.73 (65)	158.74 (20)	.55	.68	.10	.20
Manager—variables^b
Two-factor	278.70 (38)	—	.98	.99	.02	.07
One-factor	226.01 (65)	178.53 (30)	.48	.58	.14	.19

Note. All χ² and Δχ² values are significant at p < .01. df = degree of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index; SRMSR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error for approximation.

Variables include servant leadership and manager and group member communication style in the workplace.

Variable includes manager communication style in workplace and group organizational citizenship behavior.

Table 3.

Standardized Factor Loadings for the Constructs.

Indicator	Factor loading
Servant leadership (α = .90)
I would seek help from my manager if I had a personal problem.	.77*
My manager cares about my personal well-being.	.82*
My manager takes time to talk to me on a personal level.	.78*
My manager can recognize when I’m down without asking me.	.73*
My manager emphasizes the importance of giving back to the community.	.60*
My manager is always interested in helping people in our community.	.70*
My manager is involved in community activities.	.83*
I am encouraged by my manager to volunteer in the community.	.72*
My manager can tell if something is going wrong.	.76*
My manager is able to effectively think through complex problems.	.84*
My manager has a thorough understanding of our organization and its goals.	.88*
My manager can solve work problems with new or creative ideas.	.84*
My manager gives me responsibility to make important decisions about my job.	.90*
My manager encourages me to handle important work decisions about my job.	.70*
My manager gives me the freedom to handle difficult situations in the way that I feel is best.	.69*
When I have to make important decision at work, I do not have to consult my manager first.	.72*
My manager makes my career development a priority.	.65*
My manager is interested in making sure that I achieve my career goals.	.64*
My manager provides me with the working experience that enables me to develop new skills.	.72*
My manager wants to know about my career goals.	.67*
My manager seems to care more about my success than his or her own.	.74*
My manager puts my best interests ahead of his or her own.	.60*
My manager sacrifices his or her own interests to meet my needs.	.79*
My manager does what she or he can do to make my job easier.	.77*
My manager holds high ethical standards.	.68*
My manager is always honest.	.61*
My manager would not compromise ethical principles to achieve success.	.67*
Manager—communication style in Malaysian workplace (α = .89)
I try to interact nicely at work.	.62*
The interaction with this employee is good.	.91*
I am happy when interacting with this employee.	.65*
I like talking with employees who use polite language.	.79*
I am not keen on discussing private matters with this employee.	.88*
I interact with this employee as a “friend.”	.78*
I always try to solve relationship problems with this employee.	.78*
I always try to talk politely at work.	.86*
I can accept advice from this employee.	.76*
I provide comments to this employee.	.78*
I always project a character that is acceptable to this employee.	.71*
I always respect this employee’s views.	.76*
I receive compliments from this employee.	.76*
Group member—communication style in Malaysian workplace (α = .87)
I try to interact nicely at work.	.72*
The interaction with my manager is good.	.89*
I am happy when interacting with my manager.	.75*
I like talking with a manager who uses polite language.	.91*
I am not keen on discussing private matters with my manager.	.81*
I interact with my manager as a “friend.”	.80*
I always try to solve relationship problems with my manager.	.88*
I always try to talk politely at work.	.76*
I can accept advice from my manager.	.85*
I provide comments to my manager.	.88*
I always project a character that is acceptable to my manager.	.81*
I always respect my manager’s views.	.73*
I receive compliments from my manager.	.80*
Group-level organizational citizenship behavior (α = .88)
In general, this employee helps other group members who have been absent.	.86*
This employee volunteers things that are not required.	.79*
This employee orients new people even though it is not required.	.77*
This employee helps other group members who have heavy workloads.	.85*
This employee makes innovative suggestions to improve group.	.66*
This employee assists his or her supervisor with his or her work.	.62*

Note. All factor loadings are significant at *p < .001.

Results

Hypothesis Testing

For the first step, mean group tenure, length of the supervisory relationship and organizational tenure were controlled in light of their importance in previous research (Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha, 2007). The ANOVA indicated significant differences with respect to the hypothesized variables across the three organizations. Thus, the three organizations were dummy coded for the effects of mean group tenure, length of supervisory relationship, and organizational tenure on the dependent variable. For the second step, the X–Y model was tested, and finally, the X–M and M–Y models were tested simultaneously. The HLM results shown in Table 4 provide evidence of significant between-group variation in group-level OCB, τ₀₀₀ = .08, χ²(82, n = 475) = 96.8, which was similar to our ICC(1), ICC(2), and Within and Between Analysis I (WABA I) results.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results of Leader–Member Dyadic Communication Style Agreement as a Mediator.

Null model	Coefficient	χ²
Group-level OCB, τ₀₀₀	.08*	182.3
	Total effects		Fixed effects
	X–Y	X–M	M–Y
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Dependent variables	Y: Group-level OCB	M: Leader–member dyadic communication style agreement	Y: Group-level OCB
Step 1: Control variables
Organization 1	.28*	.37*	.25*
Organization 2	.32*	.20*	.30*
Organization 3	.35*	.41*	.33*
Supervisory relationships	.062	.054	.033
Organizational tenure	.044	.032	.024
Group mean tenure	.042	.028	.032
Manager—communication style	.52*	.54*
Group member—communication style	.48*	.55*
R ²	.45
Step 2: Independent variables
Servant leadership	.47*(c)	.44* (a)	.32* (c’)
R ²	.52	.43
Step 3: Mediator
Leader–member dyadic communication style agreement			.58* (b)
		X: servant leadership	Estimated variance
			(a _jb_j) = 0.09
			E(a _jb_j) = 0.15
			95% CI = [.05, .20]
			SE = 0.01
			E(a _jb_{j + C}) = 0.52
			95% CI = [.014, 063]
			SE = 0.01
R ²			.60
Pseudo R²	.32	.34	.44
Log likelihood	22	25	30
AIC	380.30	385.31	388.35
BIC	395.01	395.07	395.04
Intercept	1.73* (2.21)	1.13* (2.16)	1.83* (2.54)

Note. Level 1, N = 510 employees; Level 2, n = 65 work groups. Entries are random effects with robust standard error. R² = proportion of within-group variance explained by Level 1 predictor and mediator; X = servant leadership; M = communication style; Y = group-level OCB; CI = confidence interval; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion.

p < .05.

As Table 4 also shows, results for the X–Y model (Model 1) suggested that servant leadership was significantly and positively related to group-level OCB (servant leadership, c = .47, t = 4.15, p < .05). R² for Model 1 was .52. The results for the X–M model (Model 2) showed that indices of servant leadership were positively and significantly related to leader–member dyadic communication style agreement in the workplace (a = .44, t = 2.50, p < .05). R² for Model 2 was .43. As is indicated in Model 3, after we included the leader–member dyadic communication style agreement in the model (b = .58, t = 5.21, p < .05), servant leadership remained positively and significantly related to group-level OCB (c’= .32, t = 3.48, p < .05), but the regression weight fell. When servant leadership was an independent variable, the indirect effect was significant for the hypothesized group-level OCB as the outcome, E(a _jb_j) = 0.15, p < .05, SE = 0.01, 95% CI (confidence interval) = [.05, .20]. The overall R² of the mediation test was .60.

Before reaching conclusions concerning support for our hypothesis, we compared the hypothesized mediation model with an alternative model using structural equation modeling techniques. In light of the strong impact of leader–member dyadic communication style agreement on group-level OCB, the possibility existed that the association of servant leadership and group-level OCB was totally reliant on leader–member dyadic communication style agreement between the group manager and group members in the workplace. To assess possible alternative relationships, we adopted Tse, Dasborough, and Ashkanasy (2008) and Hu and Liden’s (2011) analytical approaches and computed the statistical significance of the reverse model (leader–member dyadic communication style agreement–servant leadership). When the relationship was reversed, the weight remained the same, as did the leader–member dyadic communication style agreement–group-level OCB. This indicated the significant direct effects of leader–member dyadic communication style agreement.

In sum, the data provided support for our hypothesized mediation model. The data suggested that (a) servant leadership at the individual level as rated by group members was related to group-level OCB as rated by managers and (b) leader–member dyadic communication style agreement partially mediated the relationship between servant leadership and group-level OCB. Thus, our hypothesis was generally supported.

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

This research contributes to the communication literature in many ways. First, by fostering and cultivating communication and dyadic relational norms, the servant manager can enhance the OCB of his or her work group members. This finding is noteworthy in that it complements a substantial body of research supporting the significance of leader–member dyadic communication style agreement and dyadic relational norms in the workplace (e.g., Oetzel, McDermott, Torres, & Sanchez, 2012).

Second, this study enhances theory building by shedding light on how communication emerges within work groups. As would be expected from social network and relational dyad theories, work groups can be influenced by organizational structures, by organizational characteristics (e.g., leadership style), or by group-level contexts (e.g., dyadic relational norms). For example, in this study, we see that servant leaders in Malaysian organizations offer their group members a clear explanation of work goals and provide paths to meet these goals. Such leader–member dyad communicative behaviors appear to guide the group regulation process and promote a quality of interaction that is congruent with the relational norms of the group members. This, in turn, nurtures a sense of belonging in the members of the work group.

Third, by elevating the role of leader–member dyadic communication style agreement considerations within a work group in an organization, we found that leader–member dyadic communication style agreement appeared to enhance a group member’s OCB level. As conversational constraint theory posits, the social appropriateness of communicative behaviors (in and out of work) is culturally driven. Leader–member dyadic communication style agreement matters to work groups, as well as to the leaders of these work groups. The findings herein, thus, contribute to our understanding of leadership and communication in organizations and directly respond to calls by researchers for more attention to the role of dyadic relational norms in the study of work groups and communication (Taras et al., 2010; Ting-Toomey, 2010).

Fourth, this study assessed what people do in a specific cultural setting. Our behaviorally driven mode of investigation, which is supported by many prominent communication researchers (e.g., Ting-Toomey, 2010), allows for culturally specific behaviors to inform our descriptions of communication in the workplace. The current investigation examined perceived interactions (bicara) of behaviors of work group members and found that bicara was indirectly associated with work group member OCB. Regarding the cross-cultural applicability of our findings, we recognize that these findings require more rigorous empirical testing in other cultural venues. That said, we hope that the mediation model explored herein is a promising tool for use by practitioners and scholars. Similarly, many communication and cultural studies in the past have failed to recognize the importance of culture-specific dimensions and assumed that communication patterns in the workplace were broadly applicable across cultures.

Fifth, this research contributes to the communication literature in that it lends support to a model of mediated leader–member dyadic communication style agreement whereby servant leadership–group-level OCB is partially mediated by leader–member dyadic communication style agreement in the workplace. Our findings suggest that group OCB may disappear when leader–member dyadic communication style agreement in the workplace is lacking. Our results clearly suggest that leader–member dyadic communication style agreement in the workplace contributes the most to the emergence of group OCB when we have servant leaders whose focus is on the manager–employee dyadic relationship. This finding aligns with the concept of “social appropriateness” (Kim, 1994). The level of social appropriateness is determined by interpersonal relationship quality and the degree of task-orientation interaction, with an emphasis on high relationship quality for positive social appropriateness. Leader–member dyadic communication style agreement is critical in the concept of social appropriateness.

Leader–member dyadic communication style agreement brings about the exchange of relational normative obligations. Previous studies of Malaysian organizations have indicated that managers in Malaysian organizations are expected to show wisdom, demonstrate compassion, and exhibit a participative style of management (Selvarajah & Meyer, 2008), all of which are consistent with the servant leadership model. Subordinates in Malaysian organizations are expected to communicate with their managers with a sense of respect, humility, and obligatory politeness. By conforming to these norms and leader–member dyadic communication style agreement, obligations between servant leaders and other group members are more likely to be formed. Via subtle communicative exchanges, leader–member dyadic communication style agreement is closely tied to dyadic relational norms and work tasks.

Finally, the results indicate that leader–member dyadic communication style agreement partially mediates the relationship between servant leadership and manager ratings of group member performance. A potential explanation for this is that leader–member dyadic communication style agreement is based on the perceptions of the manager and group member communication exchange and, consequently, performance may be a form of reciprocation (Bakar & Sheer, 2013). Researchers, including Sendjaya and Pekerti (2010) and Hong et al. (2013), have found that servant leadership significantly predicted the relationship climate and agreement between managers and employees, suggesting that leader–member communication agreement can represent and help a social system in organizations. This is achieved through linking formal and informal information, as well as vertical and horizontal relationships, in the work group. For example, Neubert, Carlson, Roberts, Kacmar, and Chonko (2008) and Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko, and Roberts (2009) examined servant leadership, person–organization fit behavior, and leader ethics on employee behavior. These studies indicate that perceived leader ethical level and person–organization fit partially mediate the effect of servant leadership on employee attitude. However, none of these studies explicitly examined the mediating effects of leader–member dyadic communication style agreement as we did in this study.

Practical Implications

The findings of this study have important implications for leading and building effective work groups in organizations. First, if managers can be made aware of the critical role of positive communication exchange and its potential to influence a range of important outcomes, they will be better positioned to capitalize on, and subsequently strengthen, group member OCB. In the case of the Malaysian organizations that we studied, simple managerial communicative acts that consider and conform to cultural norms can lead to strong obligations between servant leaders and group members. Second, if a manager encounters problems with the quality of communication in his or her teams, we would urge this manager to forge bonds with group members who share common relational norms as the manager. These individuals may be able to assist the manager in fostering the roles of leader–member communication agreement to enhance work group effectiveness.

The notion of leader–member communication style agreement challenges some of today’s prevailing leadership and communication training practices that narrowly focus on skill development within teams, sometimes ignoring the critical role of relational norms and the nurturing of work group OCB. When a manager in an organization fully embraces the profound role that workplace communication can have on relational norms and work group interaction and development, this manager may better succeed in nurturing and achieving his or her employees’ work group OCB. It is in no way an overstatement to suggest that a range of positive organizational outcomes may potentially emerge.

The results of this study also reveal that leader–member dyadic communication style agreement alone is inadequate for developing group effectiveness. Organizations may want to focus their servant leadership training initiatives on programs that place particular emphasis on group members’ growth and development. These types of training programs should be especially useful in helping managers maximize group members’ OCB. Many managers, both Malaysian and around the world, still view their roles as primarily focused on obtaining short-term results. Although short-term pressures will always be a part of the world of the manager, this research suggests that nurturing team members’ growth and embracing the role of communication may not be at odds with short-term goals. In fact, they may be complementary.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

Some of the major strengths and limitations of this study can be attributed to the methods we used. One main asset of the study was the collection of data from different sources. As such, we reduced both common method biases and measurement error (see Spector, 2006). The results that emerged from the hierarchical linear modeling tests also demonstrated that any supervisory bias effect potentially attributable to multiple ratings by managers was not a problem in this study.

Our approach in using managers to rate group members’ OCB, as well as using both the manager and group members to rate communication style, had benefits as well. Specifically, this approach reduced any potential rating bias stemming from social desirability, the approach enhanced reliability, and the approach decreased the likelihood of measurement errors. Another strength (and unique aspect) of this study is that it provided support for the generalizability of the servant leadership model to the Malaysian workplace. The implantation of the British-based education system in Malaysia has led to the transplantation of many Western managerial practices in Malaysian organizations (Bakar & Sheer, 2013). As such, it is not surprising that servant leadership applied well to the Malaysian workplace.

Despite the above strengths, the findings should be considered in light of various limitations. First, the sample was from the service industry in Malaysia, which makes it somewhat limited in its generalizability. Second, because the findings involved traditional work groups, they tell us little about cross-functional or virtual work groups. Third, it is possible that the dyads and work groups in the sample may not adequately represent the actual dyadic populations in the Malaysian workplace at large. Fourth, the data in this study were cross-sectional in nature. Clearly, longitudinal research that tracks relationship development and communication activities within and between dyads would be more desirable. Also, statements of causality based on the results of statistical techniques such as HLM are useful for making some inferences but must be treated with caution, given the correlational nature of the data. Although our additional tests helped rule out reverse causation statistically, experimental and longitudinal research is needed to establish causation convincingly. Fifth, although the current investigation supported the mediation model, further attention and testing (e.g., for further convergent and divergent validity) is needed. Finally, although the current study examines servant leadership and leader–member dyadic communication style agreement in the workplace, other communication variables (e.g., new forms of communication such as social media) with different theoretical explanations may also mediate and influence group members. One promising new direction is to record and content-analyze the actual interactions within the work group. Alternative measures could be developed to examine a collection of specific aspects of communication behavior in work groups.

In conclusion, this study has provided empirical support for the central roles of leader–member dyadic communication style agreement in work groups. In doing so, the study has made valuable contributions to the servant leadership literature and has extended our understanding of leadership and group behavior through leader–member dyadic communication style agreement. The study has also highlighted the importance of taking a multilevel and cross-level mediation analytical approach in both theory building and methodology to unlock the dyadic relational dynamics that make servant leadership a unique leadership lens from which to view OCB. Finally, the analysis presented herein has provided a number of insights into the importance of leader–member dyadic communication style agreement and its effect on the relationship between servant leadership and group-level OCB in the Malaysian workplace setting. With an awareness of the importance of leader–member dyadic communication style agreement, work group managers are more likely to experience positive dyadic relationships and effective work groups.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Erik Timmerman and the reviewers of this article for their helpful comments.

Authors’ Note

A previous version of this article was presented at the 65th International Communication Association Annual Conference.

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 study was supported by Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (12384).

Author Biographies

Hassan Abu Bakar is an associate professor in the Department of Communication, School of Multimedia Technology and Communication and Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia. His main research interests are in dyadic communication in workplace, leadership style, organizational communication, and intercultural communication.

Robert M. McCann (PhD, communication, University of California, Santa Barbara) is the associate dean for global initiatives at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Anderson School of Management, where he is also on the school’s management and organization faculty. His core areas of research interest include intergroup communication, intercultural communication, and workplace ageism.

References

Abdul Rashid

M. Z.

J. A

. (2003). Perceptions of business ethics in a multicultural community: The case of Malaysia. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 75-87.

Ashcraft

L. K.

Allen

B. J.

(2003). The racial foundation of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 13, 5-38.

Avolio

B. J.

Gardner

W. L.

(2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.

Bakar

H. A.

Dilbeck

K. E.

McCroskey

J. C.

(2010). Mediating role of supervisory communication practices on relations between leader-member exchange and perceived employee commitment to workgroup. Communication Monographs, 77, 637-656.

Bakar

H. A.

McCann

R. M.

(2014). Matters of demographic similarity and dissimilarity in supervisor-subordinate relationships and workplace attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 41, 1-16.

Bakar

H. A.

Sheer

V. C.

(2013). The mediating role of perceived cooperative communication in the relationship between interpersonal exchange relationships and perceived group cohesion. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 443-465.

Bakar

H. A.

Walters

Halim

(2014). Measuring communication style in the Malaysian workplace: Instrument development and validation. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 43, 87-112.

Barry

Crant

M. J.

(2000). Dyadic communication relationships in organizations: An attribution/expectancy approach. Organization Science, 11, 648-664.

Bauer

D. J.

Preacher

K. J.

Gil

K. M.

(2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142-163.

10.

Bliese

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. In Klein

Kozlowski

(Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

11.

Chua

R. Y. J.

Ingram

Morris

M. W.

(2008). From the head and the heart: Locating cognition and affect based trust in managers’ professional networks. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 436-452.

12.

Cogliser

C. C.

Schriesheim

C. A.

Scandura

T. A.

Gardner

W. L.

(2009). Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader-member exchange relationships with performance and work attitudes. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 452-465.

13.

Ehrhart

M. G.

(2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviour. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61-94.

14.

Ehrhart

M. G.

Naumann

S. E.

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

15.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Connaughton

S. L.

(2014). Leadership: A communication perspective. Leadership, 10, 7-35.

16.

Goldberg

Riordan

C. M.

Zhang

(2008). Employees’ perceptions of their leaders: Is being similar always better? Group & Organization Management, 33, 330-355.

17.

Gordon

M. E.

Stewart

L. P.

(2009). Conversing about performance discursive resources for the appraisal interview. Management Communication Quarterly, 22, 473-501.

18.

Graen

G. B.

(2013). Overview of future research directions for team leadership. In Rumsey

M. G.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership (pp. 167-183). London, England: Oxford University Press.

19.

Graen

G. B.

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. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.

20.

Greenleaf

R. K.

(1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

21.

Hackman

M. Z.

Johnson

C. E.

(2013). Leadership: A communication perspective. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

22.

Hayes

A. F.

(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.

23.

Hong

Liao

Jiang

(2013). Missing link in the service profit chain: A meta-analytic review of the antecedents, consequence and moderates of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 237-267.

24.

Liden

R. C.

(2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 851-862.

25.

Jaramillo

Grisaffe

D. B.

Chonko

L. B.

Roberts

J. A.

(2009). Examining the impact of servant leadership on salesperson’s turnover intention. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29, 351-366.

26.

Joshi

Roh

(2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 599-627.

27.

Kim

M. S.

(1994). Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of conversational constraints. Human Communication Research, 21, 128-151.

28.

Leever

M. G.

Daniels

Zimmerman-Oster

K. A.

(2006, Fall). Ethics & service-learning: Toward the development of compassionate servant-leadership. Teaching Ethics, 7, 15-32.

29.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Zhao

Henderson

(2008). Servant leadership: Development of multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-177.

30.

Liu

(2010). A phasic analysis of strategy sequences and their mediating effects on interaction goals and negotiation outcomes. Communication Research, 40, 337-359.

31.

Monge

Contractor

(2003). Theories of communication networks. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.

32.

Mumby

D. K.

Stohl

(1996). Disciplining organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 50-72.

33.

Nair-Venugopal

(2000). English identity and the Malaysian workplace. World English, 19, 205-213.

34.

Neubert

M. J.

Carlson

D. S.

Roberts

J. A.

Kacmar

K. M.

Chonko

L. B.

(2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1220-1233.

35.

Oetzel

J. G.

McDermott

V. M.

Torres

Sanchez

(2012). The impact of individual differences and group diversity on group interaction climate and satisfaction: A test of the effective intercultural workgroup communication theory. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 5, 144-167.

36.

Organ

D. W.

(1997). Organizational citizenships behavior: It’s construct cleanup time. Human Performance, 10, 85-97.

37.

Ota

McCann

R. M.

Honeycutt

(2012). Inter-Asian variability in intergenerational communication. Human Communication Research, 36, 172-198.

38.

Park

H. S.

Raile

A. N. W.

(2010). Perspective taking communication and communication satisfaction in coworker dyads. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 569-581.

39.

Parker

S. K.

Atkins

P. W. B.

Axtell

C. M.

(2008). Building better work places through individual perspective taking: A fresh look at a fundamental human process. In Hodgkinson

Ford

(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 149-196). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

40.

Piccolo

R. F.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327-340.

41.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Whiting

S. W.

Podsakoff

P. M.

(2009). Individual and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122-141.

42.

Raudenbusch

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

Cheong

Y. F.

Congdon

(2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

43.

Schaubroeck

Lam

S. S.

Cha

S. E.

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

44.

Schriesheim

C. A.

Castro

S. L.

Zhou

X. T.

Yammarino

F. J.

(2001). The folly of theorizing “A” but testing “B”: A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed leader-member exchange illustration. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 515-551.

45.

Seibold

D. R.

Hollingshead

A. B.

Yoon

(2014). Embedded teams and embedding organizations. In Putnam

L. L.

Mumby

D. K.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication (pp. 327-349). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

46.

Seibold

D. R.

Meyers

R. A.

Shoham

M. D.

(2010). Social influence in groups and organizations. In Berger

C. R.

Roloff

M. E.

Roskos-Ewolsen

(Eds.), Handbook of communication science (2nd ed., pp. 237-253). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

47.

Selvarajah

Meyer

(2008). One nation, three cultures: Exploring dimensions that relate to leadership in Malaysia. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29, 693-712.

48.

Sendjaya

Pekerti

(2010). Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31, 643-663.

49.

Sias

P. M.

Pedersen

Gallagher

E. B.

Kopaneva

(2012). Workplace friendship in the electronically connected organization. Human Communication Research, 38, 253-279.

50.

Smith

A. C.

Organ

D. W.

Near

J. P.

(1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.

51.

Spector

P. E.

(2006). Method variance in organizational research truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232.

52.

Storz

M. L.

(1999). Malay and Chinese values underlying the Malaysian business culture. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 117-131.

53.

Susskind

A. M.

Odom-Reed

P. R.

Viccari

A. E.

(2011). Team leaders and team members in interorganizational networks an examination of structural holes and performance. Communication Research, 38, 613-633.

54.

Taras

Kirkman

B. L.

Steel

(2010). Examining the impact of culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 405-439.

55.

Tasa

Taggar

Seijts

G. H.

(2007). The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitudinal perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 17-27.

56.

Teboul

J. B.

(1999). Racial/ethnic “encounter” in the workplace: Uncertainty, information-seeking, and learning patterns among racial/ethnic majority and minority new hires. Howard Journal of Communication, 10, 97-121.

57.

Ting-Toomey

(2010). Applying dimensional values in understanding intercultural communication. Communication Monographs, 77, 169-180.

58.

Tse

H. H. M.

Dasborough

M. T.

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2008). A multi-level analysis of team climate and interpersonal exchange relationships at work. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 195-211.

59.

Uhl-Bien

(2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654-676.

60.

Van Dierendonck

(2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37, 1228-1261.

61.

Van Vugt

Hogan

Kaiser

R. B.

(2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182-196.