University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Leadership and the impact on organizational citizenship behaviors: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Leadership and the impact on organizational citizenship behaviors: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Leadership and the Impact on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors:
An Evaluation Study
by
Jordan Clarke

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2020

Copyright 2020 Jordan Clarke

ii

DEDICATION

To my wife who has patiently supported me through this journey, even as we added two
daughters along the way.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This page, while near the front, represents the last page written and poorly summarizes
the influences upon me and the support I’ve received throughout this process. While the process
of learning never ends, the conclusion to this segment is the realization of a dream. Inspiration
of a dream first fostered by Rock to pursue a terminal degree and from my Grandad who ensured
it would only ever be USC.
The realization of a dream also comes with sacrifice, most of which was carried by my
wife. She listened patiently to endless discussions which could readily be identified as rants,
frustrations, or venting. A dream is tough work and she powered along, even as we added two
daughters to our family. I spent many weekends, nights, and many spare moments realizing a
dream she made possible.
I also learned that my initial enthusiasm would not carry me to the end. At these times, I
found myself struggling to remain motivated and turned to my companions in the struggle: Todd,
Rob, Rich, Erik, and Trucker. Fight on gentlemen, and Trucker your last name is still missing an
‘E’.
Throughout this process I have relied upon the advice of my chair, Dr. Tracy Tambascia
who readily gave it. Sometimes to my chagrin! My committee, Dr. Datta and Dr. Maddox, has
also provided thought provoking insights and critiques. Together, they ensured I did not end up
lost along the way.
Finally, to my parents and family who never stopped believing. My closing thoughts
once again turn to a silly poem I enjoyed as a child by Shel Silverstein:

iv

All the Woulda-Coulda-Shouldas
Layin' in the sun,
Talkin' bout the things
They woulda-coulda-shoulda done...
But those Woulda-Coulda-Shouldas
All ran away and hid
From one little did.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
ABSTRACT xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 12
Organizational Context and Mission 13
Organizational Performance Need 14
Related Literature 15
Importance of the Evaluation 16
Organizational Performance Goal 16
Description of Stakeholder Groups 17
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals 18
Stakeholder Group for the Study 18
Purpose of the Project and Questions 18
Methodological Framework 19
Definitions 19
Organization of the Study 20
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 21
The Role of Culture in an Organization 21
National Culture 21
Organizational Culture 25
Culture at ECC 27
Defining Leadership 28
Leadership Traits 29
Leadership Behavior 32
Leadership Style 33

vi

Organizational Leadership 36
Leadership of Self 36
Leadership of Others 37
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors 41
Antecedents of OCBs 43
Outcomes of OCBs 47
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 50
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 51
Knowledge and Skills 51
Motivation 56
Organization 59
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and the
Organizational Context 61
Conclusion 65
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 66
Participating Stakeholders 66
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 67
Interview Recruitment Strategy and Rationale 68
Survey Sampling, Criteria, and Rationale 68
Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale 69
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation 71
Interviews 71
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation 72
Surveys 72
Data Analysis 73
Credibility and Trustworthiness 74
Validity and Reliability 76
Ethics 76
Limitations and Delimitations 78
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 80
Participating Stakeholders 80
Interview Participants 81

vii

Survey Participants 81
Participant Profiles 81
Findings 82
Knowledge Findings 83
Motivation Findings 87
Organizational Findings 91
Change of Leadership Style to Support OCBs 91
Themes 96
Leadership in Crisis 96
Team Structure and Alignment 97
Coaches, Coaching, and Mentors 98
Summary 101
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 103
Organizational Context and Mission 103
Organizational Performance Goal & Stakeholder Group 103
Recommendations 104
Knowledge Recommendations 104
Motivation Recommendations 108
Organization Recommendations 110
Implementation and Evaluation Plan 114
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 115
Level 3: Behavior 116
Level 2: Learning 119
Level 1: Reaction 121
Evaluation Tools 122
Data Analysis and Reporting 123
Future Research 124
Conclusion 124
REFERENCES 125
Appendix A 148
Appendix B 150
Appendix C 151

viii

Appendix D 152
Appendix E 153

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, and Stakeholder
Performance Goals 18
Table 2: Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment 56
Table 3: Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessment 59
Table 4: Assumed Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments 61
Table 5: Sampling Strategy and Timeline 71
Table 6: Participant Profiles 82
Table 7: Summary of Knowledge Influences 84
Table 8: Summary of Motivation Influences 87
Table 9: Summary of Orgainzational Influences 91
Table 10: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 105
Table 11: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 108
Table 12: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations 111
Table 13: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outomces 116
Table 14: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 117
Table 15: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 118
Table 16: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 121
Table 17: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 122

x

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Anglo Cluster Dimension Scores 24
Figure 2: Anglo Cluster Leadership Scores 25
Figure 3: Situational Leadership 34
Figure 4: Leadership Grid 35
Figure 5: Conceptual Framework 63
Figure 6: Survey results to question 18 89
Figure 7: Survey results to question 12 89
Figure 8: Survey results to question 8 94
Figure 9: Survey results to question 9 95
Figure 10: Survey results to question 2 100
Figure 11: Survey results to question 3 100
Figure 12: Survey results to question 4 101
Figure 13: Sample Dashboard 123

xi

ABSTRACT
This study examines the impact leadership has upon organizational citizenship behaviors using
the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework. The goal of this study was to identify the
necessary components required to expand organizational citizenship behaviors among employees
and the role of leaders in fostering those behaviors. To accomplish this, a mixed methods
approach was used to collect data from 15 executive leaders from an engineering consultant
company based in Los Angeles. Results of the study found that leaders need to continuously
evaluate their teams and larger organizational culture when making decisions as these impact
employee behaviors. Recommendations include collaborative training programs designed to
improve leadership abilities and employee behaviors.

Keywords: leadership, leadership style, employee behavior, organizational citizenship behavior

12

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Organizations are complex systems with multiple components working together to
achieve a goal. At the heart of an organization are its employees and work-related behaviors,
which can have an impact on productivity, organizational success and morale. Leaders are faced
with the problem of changing employee behaviors. A study by Grenny et al. (2013) revealed that
more than 50% of the time, leaders do not seek to change employee behaviors. Grenny et al.’s
(2013) study showed that this problem is so ingrained that more than 90% of negative behaviors
such as gossip or failure to perform are not addressed. Leaders also fail to develop positive
behaviors such as organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs; Podsakoff et al., 2000).
Organ (1988) defined OCBs as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or
explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the
effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). OCBs are made up of six types of behaviors,
such as sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, and helping behavior. OCBs are beneficial to an
organization by improving retention, financial performance, leader/employee relations, and other
positive benefits (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Organizations that successfully
incorporate OCBs into their culture see a competitive advantage over their competitors
(Podsakoff et al., 2009).
This dissertation examines the impact leaders have on employee behaviors, specifically
OCBs. Previous research has indicated that a leader’s style can lead to increased OCBs among
team members (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; LePine et al., 2002; Organ et al., 2005; Podsakoff et
al., 2000). In addition, Ehrhart and Naumann (2004) found that a leader’s behavior can impact
the emergence of OCBs among team members. Understanding how leaders impact OCBs is
important as OCBs are related to organizational effectiveness, employee morale, and reduced

13

turnover (Organ, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2009). Organizations that fail to implement these
behaviors risk loss of market share, reduced employee performance, and loss of critical skills
(Kotter, 2007).
Organizational Context and Mission
Engineering Consultants of California (ECC) is headquartered in Southern California and
supports customers around the globe. ECC’s mission is to provide superior engineering services
around the world (Engineering Consultants of California Vision, 2018). This objective is driven
by its employees who share the goal to meet the engineering challenges of the future. The
industry has experienced substantial growth and is currently in a talent shortage. The southern
California region is also saturated with engineering, aerospace, and defense firms, all competing
for the same talent. ECC is currently struggling to hire talent, with many applicants favoring
positions at other organizations. Additionally, ECC is rapidly losing talent, with a current
attrition rate of 12% (Engineering Consultants of California Labor Statistics, 2019).
The company has a domestic workforce of 1,800 employees, with customer
representatives around the globe (Engineering Consultants of California Demographics, 2018).
Almost 90% of ECC employees are engineers with the remaining employees function in support
roles such as finance, legal, and human resources. An internal study estimated two-thirds of the
company was eligible for retirement in 2016 (Engineering Consultants of California Newsletter,
2006). As the economy surges, experienced employees are beginning to retire at greater rates,
which has implications for ECC’s workforce. However, a recent report found that retention
among the millennial generation are the lowest of any generation within the company
(Engineering Consultants of California Newsletter, 2017). The retention of new employees is
not faced by ECC alone but persists as an issue across the industry. There is little additional

14

demographic information available, as ECC does not share the racial or ethnic composition of its
workforce publicly.
Recently, the relationship between ECC leadership and employees has become strained.
Several policies regarding overtime, work schedules, and hiring have been viewed negatively by
employees, and a coordinated effort is being made by union representatives to organize
employees. The poor relationship has caused ECC leadership to reevaluate the policies and
make several concessions to employees, including changes in leadership positions in an attempt
to repair the relationship between leadership and employees.
Organizational Performance Need
ECC recently recognized the importance of leader and employee behaviors in making its
day to day operations successful. Growing dissatisfaction among employees has brought greater
focus on leadership practices within the company. In response, the organization set a goal to
increase OCBs on all of their teams. The goal is being orchestrated through a program designed
to improve employee behaviors such as helping behavior, sportsmanship, organization loyalty,
organization compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue, and self-development.
Organizations that lack OCBs in their top management team (TMT) can have increased
turnover or reduced performance of the employees (Podsakoff et al., 2009). Therefore, the new
goal aims to increase OCBs to drive an effective organization. Failure to meet this need could
result in ECC not accomplishing its goals, a loss of core competencies among employees, and a
reduction of employee relations (Dalal, 2005; Lau & Lam, 2008). Additionally, ECC could
struggle to retain and develop an effective team for the future (Podsakoff et al., 2009). However,
if OCBs are successfully integrated, ECC could see reduced turnover, increased employee

15

performance, and higher employee morale (Nielsen et al., 2009; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al.,
2009).
Related Literature
Leadership style and behaviors exhibited by ECC’s TMT can have an impact on the
employee’s adoption of OCBs (Koh et al., 1995; Pillai et al., 1999). A leader’s personality and
how the leader assigns tasks can also influence how many employees adopt OCBs (Borman et
al., 2001; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Ultimately, the way in which a leader interacts with their
employees can impact the presence of OCBs among employees (Williams et al., 2002).
Understanding this link between leadership and impact on employee behavior is
important for the success of the ECC. Multiple studies have linked leadership to the presence of
OCBs within an organization (Deluga, 1994; Erhart, 2004; Organ et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al.,
2000). Wayne and Green (1993) further revealed that a leader’s relationship with their team
members will impact OCBs. As the team develops, OCBs become the norm within a group
(Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). Therefore, OCBs by nature are social behaviors that are part of an
organization’s culture (Salam et al., 1996).
In a competitive industry in which market share and talent are hotly contested, OCBs can
be a competitive advantage for ECC. Recent studies have shown that if ECC can increase
employee adoption of OCBs, loyalty among employees will increase (Dalal, 2005; Pearce &
Herbik, 2004). When employees are committed to an organization, they form norms as a team
that shape the behaviors of its members (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Jehn and Mannix (2001)
revealed this can in turn reduce conflict among members, leading to a more collaborative
environment. OCBs can help ECC recruit and retain talent, but also improve performance
among employees.

16

A higher performing workforce could help ECC gain additional market share from
competitors. Recent studies on employee performance concluded that when an employee
actively demonstrates OCBs, their performance increases (Podsakoff et al., 2009; Rotundo &
Sackett, 2002). Additional studies on teams reported that teams engaging in OCBs outperform
those that do not (Koys, 2001; Walz & Niehoff, 2000). As employees and teams feel more
supported by their organization, they will adopt OCBs at higher rates than their counterparts who
are not supported by leadership (Bishop et al., 2000; Cialdini & Trost, 1998). ECC can create
strong team dynamics to support and foster adoption of OCBs (Kidwell et al., 1997).
Importance of the Evaluation
As organizations continue to change, it is important to have the right people involved in
the decision making (Kotter, 2007). Leadership not only plays a critical role in inspiring and
motivating employees, but also in understanding the organizations’ needs (Elshout et al., 2013).
It is critical to comprehend how an organization responds to a leader (Bass, 1985). Recognizing
employee response and needs helps the leader to make decisions and adjustments in their style
towards motivation (Ruggieri & Abbate, 2013).
Understanding this challenge can help generate effective OCBs on a team. Several
studies found that trust in a leader can bring about higher levels of OCBs (Lau & Lam, 2008;
McAllister, 1995). Wayne and Green (1993) further revealed that high quality relationship
between leader and follower lead to OCBs. The importance of trust in a leader and the leader-
follower relationship are vital to ECC’s success (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Organizational Performance Goal
The organizational performance goal for ECC is to have 100% of teams engaging in the
following six categories of OCBs by 2022: helping behavior, sportsmanship, organization

17

loyalty, organization compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue, and self-development. The
goal was set by the TMT of ECC in March 2019 after holding a two day workshop. The TMT
revised its priorities for the year and elevated this goal to its number one priority. As part of this
goal, the TMT recognized the importance of the type of behaviors exhibited and not the quantity.
The goal aims to improve the OCBs throughout the organization.
Once the goal was set, the TMT surveyed the organization to create a baseline from
which to begin. The TMT asked how many employees and leaders were participating in OCBs
and what might be improved. From this, an engagement plan was created. The plan includes
regular communication and training for middle management, modeling of OCBs by the TMT,
adaptation of policies to be more flexible for employees, and regular focus groups between the
TMT and employees.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The stakeholder groups include the TMT, middle management, and employees. The
TMT team is responsible for creating the goal and providing guidance to meet the goal.
Additionally, the TMT is responsible for financial, fiscal, and efficiency targets. Subsequently,
middle management is responsible for creating team goals and plans that enable their employees
to reach the overarching ECC goal. The middle management team distributes the statement of
work to teams of employees and ensures alignment between them. Employees are responsible
for meeting their individual tasks and relaying to management and executive leadership any risks
and opportunities to the organizational goal.
In 2017, ECC launched a company-wide program encouraging employees to engage in
OCBs. As such, each stakeholder group in this study has the same performance goal. The goal

18

begins with the TMT, is followed my middle management, and concludes with employees. ECC
aims to have all stakeholders engaging in OCBs by 2022.
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
Provide superior customer operational performance anytime, anywhere
Organizational Performance Goal
By 2022, 100% of teams engaging in all six categories of OCBs
Stakeholder 1 Goal
(TMT)

By 2020, 100% of TMT will
exhibit OCBs.
Stakeholder 2 Goal
(Middle Management)

By 2021, 100% of middle
managers will exhibit
OCBs.
Stakeholder 3 Goal
(Employees)

By 2022, 100% of employees
will exhibit OCBs.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
While a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical purposes,
the TMT was the stakeholder group of focus for this study. The ECC organizational goal is to
have 100% of the team engaging in all six categories of OCBs by 2022. The TMT used monthly
reviews to measure performance against this goal. Failure to meet the goal may result in higher
employee turnover and reduced organization effectiveness.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences required for ECC to meet their goal of 100% employee engagement in all six
categories of OCBs by 2022. The analysis concentrated on knowledge, motivation and

19

organizational influences related to achieving the stakeholder goal of focus. While a complete
performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder
focused on in this analysis was the TMT.
The three following research questions guided this study:
1. What are the TMT’s knowledge and motivation needs related to achieving their
stakeholder goal?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and the TMT’s
knowledge and motivation?
3. What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources may be appropriate for solving the problem?
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to
clarify organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the
preferred performance level within an organization, was implemented. Assumed interfering
elements were generated based on personal knowledge and related literature. These elements
were validated by using interviews, literature review, and content analysis. Research-based
solutions were recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Definitions
Culture: basic assumptions developed within a group as it learns to navigate through
problems (Schein, 1990).
Organizational citizenship behaviors: discretionary behavior outside of the reward
system that improves an organization (Organ, 1988).

20

Top management team (TMT): The chief executive officer and direct executive reports.
These individuals comprise the TMT and are responsible for setting the mission, vision, and
strategy for ECC.
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about leadership style, and its
impact on organizational effectiveness. The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders as
well as the initial concepts of gap analysis were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of
current literature surrounding the scope of the study. The topics of leadership style,
organizational commitment, and organizational effectiveness will be addressed. Chapter Three
details the assumed interfering elements as well as methodology when it comes to choice of
participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and
analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived
gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions
posited.

21

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review will examine the needs required for ECC to meet its goal of 100%
of teams engaging in all six categories of OCBs. The review starts with research on
organizational leadership and continues through OCBs and organizational culture to provide
context for the problem of practice. Next, the chapter will provide an explanation of the Clark
and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences used in this study. Then,
the chapter will explain the types of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
studied and the TMT’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on their team’s
effectiveness. Finally, the chapter will close with a framework that guided this study.
The Role of Culture in an Organization
The concept of leadership and expectations of leaders are bound by the culture in which
they reside (House et al., 2004). In order to understand leadership, it is important to first
examine the culture it operates within. This study takes place within the United States, so
concepts related to leadership, organizational behavior, and leader/employee relationships
operate within this context. The framework by House et al. (2004) includes the United States as
part of the Anglo cluster. This framework is discussed in more detail in the following section.
For this study, culture was defined as the behaviors, values, and leadership desires held by a
specific group of people (Deal & Kennedy, 2000; Schein, 2017). This study used this definition
of culture to frame the following section.
National Culture
According to House et al. (2004) and research done by Global Leadership and
Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE), there are 10 culture clusters made up by
countries. These clusters are East Asia, South Asia, Africa, Mid East, Nordic, Germanic, Anglo,

22

Latin Europe, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. As previously mentioned, this study takes
place within the United States and in the Anglo cluster. In addition to the United States, the
Anglo cluster also includes the countries of Canada, Ireland, England, Australia, South Africa,
and New Zealand.
Clusters are important in the study of culture as they help group similar beliefs and
expectations of leadership (House et al., 2004). House et al. (2004) defined these groupings as
cultural dimensions and include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, institutional collectivism,
in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, performance orientation, future orientation, humane
orientation, and assertiveness. Hofstede (1980) initially developed this list, which was later
expanded by House et al. (2004) to include performance orientation, humane orientation, and
assertiveness while also splitting institutional collectivism from in-group collectivism. These
dimensions help to group countries into clusters based on people’s preferences of leadership.
For instance, within the Anglo cluster there is a high value on performance but low value on in-
group collectivism (Javidan et al., 2006). The Anglo cluster differs from the Middle East cluster
which has a high value on in-group collectivism and low value on future orientation (Javidan et
al., 2006).
Finally, House et al. (2004) identified six leadership behaviors. The six behaviors are
charismatic, team-oriented, perceptive, humane oriented, autonomous, and self-protective
leadership. These determine how people in a specific cluster view their leaders (Hanges &
Dickson, 2004). Within the Anglo culture, charismatic and participative leadership are the two
most desired types. In contrast, the Middle East cluster values self-protective and humane
oriented leadership (House et al., 2004). These findings are in line with implicit leadership
theory which states that people have unspoken beliefs of what makes a leader (Lord & Maher,

23

2002).
House et al.’s (2004) work was built from previous studies on culture including Hofstede
(1980), Trompenaars (1996), and Schwartz (1999). House et al. (2004) expanded the dimensions
from Hofstede (1980) while pulling additional resources from Trompenaars (1996) and Schwartz
(1999) who examined cultural differences and values. House et al. (2004) also provided the
most recent study as the topic and understanding of leadership continues to develop.
Culture is complex and multifaceted, as seen by the cultural dimensions and leadership
behaviors used to group countries into clusters (Hofstede, 1980). And while clusters include
similar countries, each has differences in their societies and how organizations operate within
them (House et al., 2004). Organizations themselves also have their own culture which is
discussed later in this section.
Anglo Cluster
As this study takes place within the Anglo cluster, this section will go into more detail on
this cluster in particular. This section will help to contextualize the culture within ECC and its
own organizational culture. The primary dimension for the Anglo cluster is that of performance
orientation and rewards competitiveness (Javidan et al., 2006). Consequently, the cluster tends
to place less value on in-group collectivism as the focus is on individual performance (Hofstede,
1980). The Anglo cluster also has low power distance which indicates less tolerance of
inequality, both socially and in status (Javidan et al., 2006). The remaining dimensions are
moderately important and more in the average range of clusters. This cluster, like the rest of the
clusters, is male dominant (Hofstede, 1980). However, the cluster has the belief that gender
equality should be attained, more so than any other cluster (House et al., 2004). The Anglo

24

cluster also seeks higher performance orientation and future orientation as it attempts to avoid
uncertainty (House et al., 2004).
As for leadership behaviors, the Anglo cluster values charismatic behavior above the rest
of the clusters (House et al., 2004). A charismatic behavior translates to a leader who can
effectively communicate a vision and expects high levels of performance (Northouse, 2017).
The leader would also inspire and unite the team towards the goal (Harrison, 2018). On the
converse side, the cluster does not value self-protective leadership or behaviors (House et al.,
2004). Self-protective leadership indicates a belief that these behaviors such as saving face and
self-centeredness inhibit leadership. The following two figures show the rankings for the Anglo
cluster.
Figure 1
Anglo Cluster Dimension Scores (House et al., 2004)

25

Figure 2
Anglo Cluster Leadership Scores (House et al., 2004)

Organizational Culture
According to Schein (1990), culture is comprised of basic assumptions developed within
a group as it learns to navigate through problems. The culture persists when it has worked well
enough and is then taught to each new member of the group. Culture also influences the way a
group thinks and perceives issues by having the correct way to do so. This can influence the way
a member of the group thinks and feels (Kunda, 2009; Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989).
Organizations also seek to hire those who share similar values to that of the organization
(Pratt et al., 1993). If an employee fits with the organization’s culture, they are more likely to be
satisfied and remain loyal to the organization (O'Reilly et al., 1991).
Schein (1990, 2017) defined culture as having three components or levels: artifacts,
espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions. The first level, artifacts, is
visibly and can be seen in the processes and structures of the organization. It can also be seen in
behaviors, but the meaning may be difficult to determine. As Schein (2017) stated, it is “easy to

26

observe and very difficult to decipher” (p. 18). He further explains how making inferences on
the behavior are dangerous as those rely on a different cultural background. Understanding this
level takes time and significant interaction with the group (Schein, 2017).
The second level is espoused beliefs and values. These are the group ideals, goals,
values, and aspirations (Schein, 2017). These become the group’s guide through difficult or
uncertain situation, forming a moral compass or conscious. As these beliefs are created and
tested, the group adopts these as basic underlying assumptions. Also, in this category is the
organization’s strategy and vision.
The final level are the basic underlying assumptions. These are invisible and
unconscious beliefs that are “taken for granted” (Schein, 2017, p. 18). These impact the way
members of the group think, behave, and feel. These assumptions help to create the norms of the
group and those behaviors that are inappropriate or unexpected. Assumptions are similar to
Argyris and Schon’s (1974) theories-in-use which guide how people behave and think in
response to an event. They are difficult to change as they have been tested and proved to be
reliable over time. Culture will protect the basic assumptions and to go against these causes
stress within the organization (Schein, 2017).
An important component of culture is the interaction and influence with leadership.
Leaders are more successful when their strategy aligns with the organization’s culture (Kezar &
Eckel, 2002). Additionally, leaders need to be aligned as a leadership team to change a culture
(Gilpin-Jackson & Bushe, 2007). With this approach, an organization can successfully
implement change (Gilpin-Jackson & Bushe, 2007). Changes in an organization are most
successful if they are in line with the organization’s culture (Kezar & Eckel, 2002). According
to Lewin (1939), organizations move towards equilibrium in an attempt to stabilize the changes.

27

As a culture changes, it will naturally move towards a set of norms. Kotter (2007) noted that for
a change to become permanent, it needs to be institutionalized in an organization. The author
further commented on how the change needs to become the new norms of the organization.
These norms should be tied to the organization and not one leader or team (Kotter, 2007).
Leadership and an organization’s culture will impact an employee’s tendency to engage in
suggestions or discussions (Choi, 2007).
Culture at ECC
Located in southern California, ECC sits within the Anglo culture clustered defined by
House et al. (2004). Furthermore, ECC is influenced by the national culture of the United States
and the localized culture of California. Finally, ECC has its own organizational culture that
influences all the stakeholder groups in this study. As such, culture is important to contextualize
and understand.
ECC operates in a highly structured environment. Many policies are in place because
they ensure safety or quality, but others have arisen simply because it has been done that way in
the past. ECC has recently launched an initiative to eliminate unnecessary policies and
procedures to become more agile and innovative. This initiative signals a shift in leadership at
ECC which previously stressed the importance of strict adherence to policy. Recent changes in
the industry, including many new startup firms, have caused ECC to recognize the importance of
adaptability and speed. This change begins with the culture of ECC which reinforces the need to
be methodical and policy driven.
According to Porter and Samovar (1997), people make decisions and judgments from
their own culture. Defined as ethnocentrism, this can influence the way leaders see, interact
with, and respond to different cultures (Gudykunst, 1997). Ting-Toomey (2015) stressed the

28

importance of leaders recognizing different cultures and crafting a strategy that integrates
multiple cultures. Understanding of leadership and its intersection with culture is important for
the TMT of ECC as their customers span the globe, coming from almost 100 countries.
For ECC to accomplish its goal of having all teams engaging in OCBs, a change in their
organizational culture must occur. A change in culture is required because OCBs are a critical
component in an organization’s culture (Salam et al., 1996). In order to make this change, it
must first start with leadership (Schein, 2017). Leadership models the change and reinforces the
right behaviors for the organization.
Defining Leadership
The study of leadership can be traced historically to Aristotle and continues to be an
important topic of study today (Northouse, 2017). Aristotle said leaders need to possess
“phronesis” defined as wise deliberation by Eidinow and Ramirez (2016). Wise deliberation is
an important part of leadership today as it influences strategy and decision making. Northouse
(2017) defined leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals
to achieve a common goal” (p. 31). The process of leadership consists of the leader and their
followers. Rost (1991) stated that leaders and followers are two different roles working together.
Northouse (2017) indicated that within this process, there are three important components in
leadership: influence, group, and a goal. First, a leader influences his followers and in return is
influenced by their responses, reactions, and creativity. In particular, influence generates action
from the followers to work cohesively with their leader. Second, leadership takes place within a
group setting. This means that the collective is valued over the individual requiring organization
and structure; i.e. there must be a leader and there must be followers. Finally, leadership

29

includes a common goal (Northouse, 2017). A leader aligns the followers and moves them
towards the completion of this goal.
As leadership research has progressed, a distinction has been made between leaders and
managers (Rost, 1991). Bennis and Nanus (1985) and Rost (1991) stressed the important
differences between leadership and management. Leaders work with their followers to create
change (Rost, 1991) and are emotionally engaged and expand how people think (Zaleznik,
1986). Managers, first conceptualized by Fayol, hold responsibilities such as handling planning,
staffing, and controlling (Wren et al., 2002). According to Kotter (1990), the two different roles,
leaders and managers, work together to create a successful organization. Managers seek to
establish an orderly way to do things while leaders are continuously looking to adapt to ongoing
changes (Kotter, 1990). In addition to functional differences, research has revealed that leaders
can take on formal or informal positions (Rost, 1991). Formal leaders are those with a position
or title that provides them with authority. Informal leaders are those that are looked to as leaders
for their influence, charisma, or insight without any outward indicators.
As the study of leadership has evolved over time, several categories of study have
emerged. According to Harrison (2018), the most prominent of these are traits, skills, and
behavior. Additionally, situational and path-goal leadership styles have emerged to indicate how
a leader influences their followers (Harrison, 2018). These theories seek to understand
leadership from a different perspective, all of which converge to explain what comprises a
leader. This section examines each category and how it impacts the current study.
Leadership Traits
Leadership traits, as a category of research, examines the attributes possessed by a leader.
The theory originated with Thomas Carlyle as the “great man theory” (Carlyle, 1840). Carlyle

30

postulated that by studying these heroes who influenced history, one could uncover their own
heroic traits. Follow up studies in the twentieth century began to examine traits possessed by
these “great men” with the belief that they were born with specific traits (Stogdill, 1948). In a
summation of studies from 1904 and 1947 on leadership traits, Stogdill (1948) noted that a
person does not become a leader by possessing a set of common traits. While leaders possessed
some similar traits, there was not a definite set of specific traits among leaders. In fact, a leader
may exhibit some or none of the common leadership traits depending on the situation
(Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). As leadership traits research continued later into the twentieth
century, it began to examine both the traits demonstrated by a leader, and the situation those
traits were exhibited in (Stogdill, 1974). In a survey of 163 studies from 1948 and 1970, Stogdill
(1974) grouped leadership traits into ten characteristic groups. These included: task completion,
tolerance of frustration, self-confidence, and initiative.
Further studies continued to research traits and alter the focus of trait study. Lord et al.
(1986) reduced the list of traits to three: intelligence, masculinity, and dominance. Zaccaro et al.
(2001) revisited traits and argued modern leaders must be equipped with traits for changing
world. Among these proposed traits are social judgment and problem solving skills (Zaccaro et
al., 2001). Leaders must be able to understand a situation and have the skills necessary to
resolve the issue.
Later studies continued to work towards a complete list of leadership traits (Kirkpatrick
& Locke, 1996; Zaccaro et al., 2001). Zaccaro et al. (2001) noted how leaders have a higher
intelligence quota than those not in leadership positions. Intelligence was shown to improve
other abilities such as problem solving skills (Zaccaro et al., 2001). However, intelligence was
not a determinant of a person becoming a leader. Harrison (2018) observed that a leader’s self-

31

confidence increases their ability to influence people. Other important traits detected were
integrity and sociability. Integrity was influential as people were willing to put their trust in the
leader based upon his or her ethical attributes, and sociability was psychologically motivating to
followers who were able to perceive their leader as friendly and consciousness (Harrison, 2018).
Modern research has moved away from an intelligence quota and towards behavioral traits (Lord
& Hall, 2005). With this shift in research, a leader’s personality has garnered additional
research.
The study of leadership personality is a combination of leadership traits and behaviors.
Judge’s studies have attempted to examine the effects of personality on employees and an
organization (Judge et al., 2002; Judge et al., 2000; Judge et al., 2009). Judge et al’s. (2002)
study found a relationship between the big five personality factors and leadership. The big five
personality traits are extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism.
These traits developed to become what is called personality (Goldberg, 1990). Of these traits,
Judge et al. (2002) discovered that extraversion was the most highly correlated with leaders.
Smith and Foti’s (1998) study found that certain personality traits influenced whether a person
was perceived to be a leader. These traits included dominance, intelligence, and self-efficacy.
Leadership is important for ECC as it can be a competitive advantage (van Knippenberg
& Hogg, 2003). It is a complex process which takes time to develop and use effectively (Lord &
Hall, 2005). Understanding leadership personality is important as this can influence the type of
followers a leader attracts and retains (Horowitz et al., 2006). Horowitz et al’s. (2006) study also
revealed how leaders tend to gravitate and select those with similar personalities as themselves.
At ECC, this is important as it seeks to change the mindset of its leaders and employees.

32

Leadership Behavior
The behavioral approach to leadership is a style that examines how leaders use
relationship and task behaviors to achieve an organization’s goal (Harrison, 2018). Relationship
behaviors are those employed by the leader to enhance and expand the social relationship with
their followers. These behaviors can make followers more comfortable on a team, working with
the leader, and more at ease throughout their day to day activities (Northouse, 2017). The task
behaviors are those actions a leader takes to performing the work. These behaviors include
managing the schedule or assigning work to employees (Northouse, 2017).
Leadership study has its origin in the study of traits until Stogdill (1948) suggested
further research outside of traits. This study sparked a series of studies at Ohio State University
in the 1940s to examine leadership behaviors. These studies resulted in the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire (LDBQ), a 150 question survey that categorizes typical leadership
behaviors (Hemphill & Coons, 1957). Stogdill (1963) later updated and revised the survey to the
LDBQ-VII, which creates two general leadership behaviors: initiating structure and
consideration behavior. The first, initiating structure, can be compared to task behaviors
(Stogdill, 1974). These behaviors focused around the structure of the organization including role
definition and work assignments. The second, consideration behaviors, is comparable to
relationship behaviors (Stogdill, 1974). These behaviors seek to build trust, respect, and general
likableness between the leader and their followers. Unlike previous behavioral research, Stogdill
(1974) used two scales to measure leaders. One scaled measured structure while the other
measured consideration behaviors, allowing leaders to have both behaviors present. In Stogdill’s
(1974) measurement, the behaviors are not mutually exclusive.
Another series of studies examining leadership behaviors took place at the University of

33

Michigan (Cartwright & Zander, 1960; Katz & Kahn, 1951). Similar to Stogdill’s grouping of
leadership behaviors, these studies identified two large categories of leadership behaviors:
production orientation and employee orientation. Production orientation views employees as
part of an assembly line whereas employee orientation looks at the individual and considers their
personal needs. Unlike Stogdill (1974), these behaviors sit on the same scale which means that a
high score in production orientation results in a low score in employee orientation and vice versa.
Kahn (1956) later revised this scale to include a second scale, allowing for a leader to possess
both employee and production orientation.
Leadership behaviors are important to ECC and this study as followers view leaders
through their behaviors (Bottomley et al., 2014). Firestone (2010) noted how leaders can exhibit
to enhance perceptions of their effectiveness and inspire their followers. Positive leadership
behaviors are also likely to increase satisfaction among followers (Firestone, 2010). Another
study on leadership behaviors revealed that leaders are more likely to exhibit positive behaviors
when they feel in control of the situation (Nielsen & Cleal, 2011). Similarly, middle managers
exhibit positive behaviors when they are faced with meaningful work (Nielsen & Cleal, 2011).
Leadership Style
Leadership style is the series of behaviors demonstrated by a leader that creates a pattern
or style (Northouse, 2017). Leadership style builds upon leadership behavior and situational
theory, creating a template for how leaders act and respond in given situations. Two
measurements of leadership style are discussed in this section: situational leadership and the
leadership grid.
The first way to assess leadership style is situational leadership, which breaks behaviors
into two categories: directive and supportive. Directive behaviors are those which instructions

34

are given without room for input (Blanchard et al., 1985). An example would be of an order
given from a military leader in which there is no room for discussion. Supportive behaviors are
collaborative, letting other individuals make the decisions (Blanchard et al., 1985). These can
then be ranked from low to high, creating four types of leadership styles: directing, coaching,
supporting, and delegating. As a leader and the team develop together, Blanchard et al. (1085)
suggested they will move through the phase depicted in the following figure.
Figure 3
Situational leadership, Leadership and the one minute manager: increasing effectiveness
through situational leadership (Blanchard et al., 1985)

Another measurement used to assess leadership behaviors is the leadership grid (Blake &
McCanse, 1991). Once again, two large groupings are used to classify behaviors as concern for
production or people. Based on the leader’s score, they are categorized into one of five

35

leadership categories. These are country club, team leader, middle of the road, impoverished,
and authority. The country club leader has high focus on people, low focus on production, which
is the inverse of authority in which the leader is low on people, high on production (Blake &
McCanse, 1991). High production and high focus on people is the team leader while low in both
is impoverished. As the name suggestions, middle of the road sits in the middle of both scales
(Blake & McCanse, 1991).
Figure 4
Leadership grid (Blake & McCanse, 1991)

Blake and McCanse (1991) also introduced the concept of opportunism, which
acknowledges how a leader may shift behaviors depending on the situation. The authors
suggested that leaders may have a primary and backup style. Leaders might focus on the
relationship with their followers first and then alter to focusing on the tasks at hand out of

36

concern for production as a deadline approaches. The primary style is used in most situations
with the backup lying dormant only to be employed under stressful circumstances (Blake &
McCanse, 1991).
Organizational Leadership
Organizations are intricate systems that are continuously undergoing change (Kotter,
2007). They differ from one another and face both internal and external challenges. In addition,
organizations also develop their own culture and climate that influence its members (Schein,
2017). Crossan et al. (2008) noted how the external environment is continuously changing.
Leaders must learn to absorb information quickly and successfully predict future changes
(Wheatley, 1994). With this changing environment comes added hostility and competition
(Hambrick et al., 1998). Organizations are increasingly looking to accomplish more with less
cost (Detjen & Webber, 2017). These changes put additional pressure on leaders to succeed
within their organizations, many of which are ill-equipped to do so (Detjen & Webber, 2017).
Crossan et al. (2008) proposed leadership comprised of three parts: leadership of self, others, and
the organization.
Leadership of Self
Leadership of self is the leader’s ability to be self-aware, reflect, and be self-disciplined
(Crossan et al., 2008). This ability can help leaders to recognize their own mindsets, biases, and
tendencies. According to Hambrick and Mason (1984), leaders make decisions that align with
their mindset, often unaware their mindset influenced the decision. Many leaders are unaware of
their mindset and its impact on their day to day decisions (Finkelstein, 2006; Hambrick &
Mason, 1984). The inability to recognize this can cause a leader to fail in attaining his or her
goals (Finkelstein, 2006). In order to be successful, leaders must be fully aware of their mindset

37

as it can enhance their strengths and reveal weakness (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Self-
reflection can be used to understand one’s mindset and enable the leader to be more successful
(Gardner et al., 2005). Self-reflection can also lead to greater self-awareness and greater
situational awareness. Ilies et al. (2005) defined self-awareness as “one's awareness of, and trust
in, one's own personal characteristics, values, motives, feelings, and cognitions (p. 377).
Increased self-awareness assists the leader to be more disciplined and enhance their ability to
lead by example (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).
Leadership of Others
Leadership of others focuses on the dyadic relationship of the leader with their followers
(Crossan et al., 2008). Most research conducted on leadership examines these dyadic
relationships with followers (Crossan & Mazutis, 2008; House & Aditya, 1997). According to
Bossidy et al. (2004), a critical component of leaders is how they work with and through their
followers. Porter (2001) also emphasized the importance of the leader instructing their followers
about the organization’s strategy and how it relates to their work.
Leadership-Member Exchange Theory
Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) examines the relationship between a leader
and follower (Dulebohn et al., 2012) with roots in social exchange theory (Erdogan & Liden,
2002). LMX began with the study of in and out-group of employees (Northouse, 2017) and now
seeks to understand the relationship between a leader, follower, and an effective organization
(Dansereau et al., 1975). Today, LMX measures the relationship between leader and follower
using the LMX7, which organizes relationships from low to high quality (Harrison, 2018).
According to Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), there are three phases in the leader and follower
relationship. First, the stranger phase is a low quality relationship identifiable in its contractual

38

nature (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Second, the acquaintance phase expands the relationship as
the leader offers their follower an opportunity to test the relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
The leader will give the follower more responsibility in this phase and afford more career
opportunities. Finally, the mature partnership phase is a high quality relationship built on mutual
trust and respect (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In a high quality relationship, leader and follower
feel an obligation towards each other and exhibit reciprocity, resulting in beneficial relationship
for both (Gouldner, 1960; Liden et al., 1997).
LMX continues to be an important area of study not only for the benefit it brings to both
leader and follower, but to the larger organization. High quality LMX relationships have been
shown to decrease turnover, improve organizational commitment among followers, improve
attitudes, and result in greater follower development (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden et al.,
1997). Additionally, high quality LMX relationships can improve organizational effectiveness
(Katz, 1964) and lead to increased levels of OCBs (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Ilies et al. (2007)
revealed that LMX relationships are a predictor of OCBs on teams. Wayne and Green (1993)
also noted that the quality of LMX relationships can impact the performance of the leader’s
followers. In high quality relationships, leaders often have higher expectations of followers.
These expectations can enable greater follower success and positive behavior (Dulebohn et al.,
2012). Leaders can also model behaviors for their followers. Organ (1988) suggested leaders
who model OCBs are more likely to have teams also engaged in OCBs.
Dulebohn et al. (2012) found that leader behavior and the perception of the leader can
influence LMX quality. High quality LMX had the strongest positive relationship when the
leader had high expectations of follower success (Dulebohn et al., 2012). Ilies et al. (2007)
explored a similar relationship with high quality LMX and a follower’s performance. Another

39

recent study argued LMX agreement between leader and follower may be even more important
than the quality of LMX (Matta et al., 2015). The researchers found that employee engagement
and OCBs decrease if the leader and follower disagree on the quality of their relationship (Matta
et al., 2015). LMX is important to this study because the relationship between leader and
follower can influence the presence of OCBs. Since LMX can be a predictor of OCBs on a team,
it is important for ECC to understand the relationship of leader and follower to successfully
reach their goal (Ilies et al., 2007). LMX is also important to ECC as it serves as the conduit for
leaders to model behaviors to their followers (Organ, 1988). If ECC’s leaders have poor
relationships with their followers, the emergence of OCBs on their teams will also likely suffer
(Ilies et al., 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2000).
Leadership of Organizations
Leadership of organizations is the leader’s influence and control of the larger
organization (Crossan et al., 2008). Hunt (2004) revealed that leaders at the top of an
organization influence the organization through their decisions. Because of the complexity in
organizations, many leaders struggle to respond appropriately (Kotter, 1990). Hambrick et al.
(1998) also noted that the business environment has become increasingly hostile. Hitt et al.
(2005) commented that “competition in the 21st century’s global economy will be complex,
challenging, and filled with competitive opportunities and threats (p. 63).” Technological
advances have also increased the rapidity of changes and leaders are required to be increasingly
agile in their response (Crossan et al., 2008). Because of this, bankruptcy rates among
organizations similar to ECC has continued to increase (Flynn & Kearns, 2011). Many of these
organizations failed due to their inability to adapt to the changes in the business environment
(Beer et al., 2005; Crossan et al., 2008). While leadership itself cannot avoid failure, a

40

successful leader can avoid or mitigate failures (Beer et al., 2005). These failures further
illustrate the need for successful leadership of an organization.
In order to successfully lead an organization, leaders must properly deal with both
internal and external factors (Voelpel et al., 2006). The “outside-in approach” positions the
organization’s strategy and structure in response to the external factors. Meanwhile, the “inside-
out approach” sets up the organization based on its resources and capabilities (Voelpel et al.,
2006). Both methods can be successful but must align with the organization’s strategy to be
successful (Beer et al., 2005). Those organizations that face strategic misalignment are typically
met with failure (Beer et al., 2005; Miles & Snow, 1984; Powell, 1992). Heracleous and Werres
(2016) defined this alignment as the organization’s strategy, core competencies, culture, and
external environment all in agreement. Tension among these factors causes strategic
misalignment (Heracleous & Werres, 2016). Ultimately, the leader’s decisions for the
organization can lead to success or failure (Heracleous & Werres, 2016).
Another important piece for leaders to successfully lead an organization is the ability to
succeed in many different roles (Hitt et al., 2010). Several studies have identified various roles
or components that a leader must perform to be successful leading an organization (Hart &
Quinn, 1993; Hitt et al., 1998; Ireland & Hitt, 1999; Quinn, 1988). Of those roles, several are
applicable to leadership within ECC. Hart and Quinn (1993) proposed a leader must set the
vision for the organization and also motivate the team to accomplish this vision. Quinn (1988)
determined leaders must be mentors and directors of the organization to drive success.
Meanwhile, Hitt et al. (1998) emphasized the importance of maintaining an effective culture.

41

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
Organizational citizenship behaviors were first defined and identified by Organ (1988). In
addition to the previous definition provided, Organ (1988) defined OCBs as “behavior is not an
enforceable requirement of the role or the job description” and “the behavior is rather a matter of
personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable” (p. 4). Organ
(1997) later clarified that OCBs should be improving the organizations effectiveness or
performance but not rewarded directly. OCBs are closely related to contextual performance
which are “behaviors that do not support the technical core itself so much as they support the
broader organizational, social, and psychological environment in which the technical core must
function” (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p. 73).
OCBs can be broken down into six components that together improve the organization
(Podsakoff et al., 2000). First, helping behavior is defined as helping others and seeking to
minimize problems within the workplace. Graham (1986) defined this as neighborliness while
Puffer (1987) called it prosocial behavior. Organ (1988) further clarified that helping behavior
can be directed towards a specific person and it can also be done towards the larger organization.
This behavior can be assistance given to a new employee by providing instructions and coaching.
It can also be an action taken to resolve a workplace problem such as a faulty printer or
misplaced tool. At the core, helping behavior is an attitude and willingness to help those around
them in the workplace.
The second OCB is sportsmanship, which is sustaining a positive attitude throughout the
various inconveniences faced at work. Again, the behavior of sportsmanship can be directed at
individuals and the organization as a whole. Organ (1988) noted that every organization
encounters issues that require its employees to adjust to the events. These issues could be from

42

the outside environment or from within the organization itself. As a member of the organization,
employees may have good reason to complain. However, sportsmanship is the ability to move
on or through the issues. Inconveniences can also arise from fellow coworkers in the form of
gossip or complaining. Those employees who demonstrate sportsmanship are less likely to
become involved in these discussions and will therefore waste less resources and time (Organ,
1988).
Third, civic virtue is being involved within the organization by expressing opinions and
interest. Involvement in an organization takes many forms and can include attending meetings
or reading organizational news (Graham, 1986). Civic virtual also has a component of
involvement which can be demonstrated through participation in decision making and expressing
opinions to organizational leadership. It can also include involvement in organizational politics
(Organ, 1988). Civic virtue is somewhat linked to sportsmanship in that these behaviors are
positive and not negative involvement like gossip.
Fourth, organizational loyalty is protecting the organization from both internal and
external factors. It also includes commitment to the organization through difficult times.
Podsakoff et al. (2000) also revealed that organizational loyalty can include promotion of the
organization to those outside of it. Organizational loyalty could look like positive conversations
around the organization or defending against inaccurate information during a discussion.
Ultimately, organizational loyalty seeks to ensure the longevity of the organization and its
interests.
Fifth, organizational compliance includes behaviors that abides by the policies and
procedures of the organization. This behavior can be seen by an employee who follows the rules
throughout their day (Podsakoff et al., 2000). It is also important to note that this behavior

43

persists regardless if there are other employees about to observe the action. Organizational
compliance is a behavior that internalizes polices and abides by them at all times.
Finally, self-development includes discretionary actions taken to develop knowledge,
skills, and abilities. This behavior can include taking training courses, learning new skills, and
staying up to date on developments within a field of study (Podsakoff et al., 2000). This
behavior seeks to improve oneself and become more useful to the organization. It can be seen by
taking on new tasks and a willingness to perform a new statement of work.
Antecedents of OCBs
An antecedent is a stimulus that is provided to generate a response. In behavioral
psychology, antecedents administered to observe the resulting behaviors (Yin et al., 2008).
These behaviors lead to an observable outcome. Researchers classified this method as the
antecedent, behavior, and consequence (ABC) model (Yin et al., 2008). In an organization,
antecedents can be present or absent depending on the situation. Organ (1997) posited that the
presence of certain antecedents within an organization would generate specific behaviors from
employees. Additional research has identified several important antecedents that are examined
in more detail below (Moorman, 1991; Organ, 1996).
Antecedents are important to this study as they can help ECC reach its goal of having all
employees exhibit OCBs. Antecedents provide ECC with areas of focus for their TMT. The
TMT can review antecedents that may be missing or need improvements in ECC to encourage
the growth of OCBs (Moorman, 1991). The antecedents can also provide a starting point for the
TMT in their examination of OCBs within ECC.

44

Leadership Behaviors
The way in which a leader behaves can impact the presence of OCBs on their team (Pillai
et al., 1999). Further studies have revealed the importance of fairness, trust, and role clarity to
discover their impact on OCBs (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; MacKenzie et al., 2001; Organ, 1988;
Podsakoff et al., 1990). Organ (1988) postulated that fair treatment increases OCBs as the
employee feels obligated to reciprocate and as a way to build trust and confidence. Fair
treatment also increases job satisfaction which is positively linked to OCBs (Organ, 1988). In
contrast, unfairness leads to a decrease in OCBs (Moorman, 1991; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993)
while role ambiguity also reduces OCBs on a team (Organ, 1988).
Leadership Style
Part of a leader’s ability is the style in which they interact with employees. Multiple
studies reveal a relationship between transformational leadership and OCBs (Koh et al., 1995;
MacKenzie et al., 2001; Pillai et al., 1999; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1996).
Additional studies also show a relationship between servant leadership and leadership
empowerment to OCBs (Ahearne et al., 2004; Erhart, 2004). A critical component to this
relationship was the presence of trust between leader and team members (MacKenzie et al.,
2001; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1996). Schnake et al. (1993) and Deluga (1994)
found that a leader’s style can impact an employee’s participation in OCBs. Several studies have
shown how charismatic and servant leadership positively impact OCBs (Deluga, 1994; Erhart,
2004; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Additionally, supportive leadership style also encourages OCBs
on a team (Chen et al., 2005; Organ et al., 2005; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000).
Leaders who are seen as being fair in their interactions with their team can also bring about
increased levels of OCBs (Williams et al., 2002). Finally, the quality of the relationship between

45

the leader and their employees influences OCBs (Wayne & Green, 1993). However, a directive
leadership style, with command and control tendencies, is negatively linked to OCBs (Podsakoff
et al., 2000; Salam et al., 1996). This directive leadership style not only inhibits OCBs but also
reduces communication on the team (Cruz et al., 1999).
Another component of leadership style is the leader’s personality which can also have an
impact on OCBs (Borman et al., 2001; Konovsky & Organ, 1996). However, when compared to
a leader’s behaviors or team dynamics, a leader’s personality is a weaker antecedent (Organ &
Ryan, 1995). Organ and McFall (2004) postulated that the workplace may suppress personalities
thus producing a weaker link to OCBs. However, leadership personality does have an impact on
job satisfaction (Arvey et al., 1989; Judge et al., 2000; Staw et al., 1986). This impact on job
satisfaction may indirectly increase the impact leadership personality has on OCBs (Organ &
Ryan, 1995).
Task Characteristics
Another antecedent for OCBs is task characteristics. These include autonomy,
significant, feedback, identify, variety, task interdependence, goal interdependence, and
intrinsically satisfying (Organ, 1988). By providing these task characteristics, leaders can help
generate OCBs on their teams (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Autonomy is the level of freedom an
employee is given to complete a task while variety is a task that requires many skills to complete.
Interdependent tasks and interdependent goals require multiple people of a group working
together. A leader can give feedback as progression of the task occurs and can also provide
meaning to the work, giving it significance to the employee. A task with interdependence, high
autonomy, and high significance is more likely to generate OCBs than one that is independent,
has low autonomy, and is seen as insignificant (Farh et al., 1990; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Van

46

Dyne et al., 2000). A leader who gives appropriate feedback is more likely to have OCBs
present on the team (Podsakoff et al., 1996; Van Dyne et al., 1994). However, if an employee is
overburdened with tasks, they will exhibit lower levels of OCBs (Jex & Thomas, 2003).
Team Dynamics
A team’s dynamics and working relationships can impact the presence of OCBs. Kidwell
et al. (1997) suggested that group cohesiveness can have an impact on team OCBs. Cohesion on
a team can help to reinforce behaviors and can be used to create group norms. George and
Bettenhausen (1990) noted that group norms can be used to increase OCBs on the team. In a
review of studies, Podsakoff et al. (1990) noted that group cohesion has an impact on the team
OCBs. In addition to cohesion, team support can influence OCBs. Bishop et al. (2000)
described that perceived team support influences OCBs on a team. Deckop et al., (2003) found
that employees who had been assisted by their teammates were more likely to demonstrate
OCBs. In a similar study, Bommer et al. (2003) examined individual OCBs in relation to group
OCBs. The researchers determined that higher individual levels of OCBs bring about more
OCBs on a team (Bommer et al., 2003).
Another component of team dynamics is the influence of the leader on group
performance. Ehrhart et al. (2006) noted how a strong, effective leader leads to a more effective
team. Further studies have found a link between leader effectiveness and a team’s effectiveness
(Mullen & Copper, 1994; Yukl et al., 2002). Perceived team support also leads to higher
participation in OCBs (Pearce & Herbik, 2004). Cialdini and Trost (1998) indicated that when a
team member feels supported by their organization, they are more likely to reciprocate
behaviors. George and Jones (1997) explained that a team can encourage and discourage certain
behaviors. OCBs can become group norms if sponsored by the team (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).

47

Finally, how someone views themselves in relation to the team can influence their
participation in OCBs. Triandis (1989) explained how people who view themselves as
inseparable from the group are more likely to participate in OCBs. This view is described as
allocentrism, a cultural value orientation in which an individual’s goals typically align with the
group (Triandis, 1989). In allocentrism, there is also an emphasis on norms and behaviors along
with a prioritization of the team over self (Triandis & Bhawuk, 1997). Members of this team
have higher levels of OCBs present (Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Van Dyne et al., 2000). If a
team contains members that view themselves as separate from the group, they are less likely to
participate in OCBs (Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Triandis & Bhawuk, 1997; Van Dyne et al.,
2000). These individuals emphasize their own needs above the team and pursue goals in conflict
with those of the team goals.
Outcomes of OCBs
As previously described, OCBs have been framed using the ABC model. The last part of
the model are the consequences or outcomes from a stimulus. In this case, an antecedent spurs a
behavior which produces a result (Organ, 1988). Outcomes are important to this study as ECC is
seeking to change the current behavior of its employees. Understanding the role of culture on
OCBs, in addition to their antecedents, and outcomes is critical to ECC’s success in reaching
their goal of 100% employee engagement in all six categories of OCBs by 2022. Several of
these outcomes can benefit ECC and are explored in more detail below.
Norms
The presence of OCBs on a team can encourage or discourage other members from
participating in the behaviors (George & Jones, 1997). As more members on a team participate
in OCBs, the team begins to adopt the behaviors as team behaviors (Podsakoff & MacKenzie,

48

1997). Social learning theory can be used to explain the phenomenon in which members learn
through observation (Bandura, 1986). As the group grows, members learn what appropriate
behavior is and what is not through observations of other members (Wood & Bandura, 1989).
As OCBs become regular team behaviors, they become the shared property or norms of the
group (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Social information processing theory can also be used to
understand this trend (Walther, 1992). This theory states that social cues of the group shape a
member’s behavior and an individual’s participation of OCBs will be influenced by the group’s
participation (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). If the group values OCBs, it is more likely each team
member will as well (Bommer et al., 2003; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Hackman (1992) found
that members with a high status within a group are more likely to engage in expected group
behaviors, and the group can influence its member’s desires. As these desires and values align to
create norms between members, a harmonic relationship occurs (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). This
relationship helps members avoid interpersonal issues and can assist with the group’s survival
(Feldman, 1984). Cialdini et al., (1990, 1991) disclosed how group norms must be made
important to the member before that member will engage in the norms. It is also important that
members view themselves as part of the group to engage in group norms (Festinger, 1954). The
emergence of OCBs on a team can bring about cohesion and alignment of the individual to the
group’s behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 2009).
Performance
Organ (1988) initially postulated that employees demonstrating OCBs would have higher
levels of performance than those employees not engaging in OCBs. Several studies since then
have indicated a causal link between OCBs and employee performance (Podsakoff et al., 2009;
Podsakoff et al., 2000; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Van Der Vegt et al., 2003). Podsakoff et al.

49

(2009) noted that OCBs enhance organizational efficiency, productivity, and profitability for the
organization. Additional studies examined team level OCBs and determined that teams engaging
in OCBs outperform teams with lower OCB engagement (Karambayya, 1991; Koys, 2001; Walz
& Niehoff, 2000). Increased OCBs on the team also bring about higher levels of job satisfaction
on the team and in turn encourage others to engage in OCBs (Turnipseed, 2005). George and
Jones (1997) found that OCBs, while voluntary, are important to group success.
Group success starts in part through the creation of norms (Podsakoff et al., 2009). OCBs
as norms enable the group to avoid conflict and improve the group’s performance (Cummings &
Worley, 2014; Ehrhart et al., 2009; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Nielsen et al., 2009). OCBs also
improve a group’s communication and overall coordination (Bachrach et al., 2006; Erhart &
Naumann, 2004). Finally, OCBs enhance a group’s ability to identify priorities, develop a plan,
and execute to completion (Nielsen et al., 2009). According to Ancona et al. (2007), OCBs
enable to successfully align their priorities to that of the groups to improve performance.
Commitment
OCBs can foster greater loyalty and commitment to an organization (Dalal, 2005; Pearce
& Herbik, 2004). Rousseau (1989) suggested this occurs due to psychological contracts among
the leader and members of a team. These contracts are mutual expectations between leader and
member for how each will behave. As part of this contract, commitment is expected from the
member. OCBs enhance this relationship and improve a member’s level of commitment (Dalal,
2005).
A second theory for explaining the relationship between OCBs and commitment is the
social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelly, 1959). Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) found a
positive relation between high quality relationships and commitment to an organization. Ferris et

50

al. (2009) also found increased attachment between leaders and followers in a high quality
relationship.
Norms of reciprocity is another way to examine the OCBs relationship to commitment
(Gouldner, 1960). Feelings of mutual obligations and reciprocity can lead followers to
reciprocate (Liden et al., 1997). Leaders who demonstrate OCBs can inspire more loyalty
among their followers through reciprocity (Wayne et al., 1997).
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
This study uses the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to assess how the
organization is achieving their goals. The framework can be broken down into three components
which allow for a gap analysis to be done: knowledge, motivation, and organization. Together,
these comprise the key areas an organization can be assessed as it works towards its goal. Each
component will be briefly explained as part of the larger framework.
First, knowledge refers to the factual or conceptual understanding among stakeholders.
These are commonly referred to as the how, when, what, why, and where which are used to
understand a problem (Clark & Estes, 2008). The knowledge component is critical to assess
where the stakeholders are. Once gaps have been identified, supplemental information and
training can be conducted to close the gaps.
Second, motivation examines how motivated the stakeholders are to attain their goal.
How long do they persevere through difficulty? Do they start immediately or work up to a
problem? Stakeholders who are not motivated are less likely to achieve their goal which will
impact the larger organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) further illustrated
how motivation can vary from individual to individual or team to team.

51

Finally, organization looks to see if the stakeholders have the necessary tools, processes,
and resources to reach their goal. Clark and Estes (2008) referred to a lack of any of these as an
organizational, resource, or procedural barrier which inhibits goal attainment. Certain policies or
cultural expectations can reinforce or subtract from the stakeholder’s ability to reach a goal.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This literature review of current research focuses on what is needed for the TMT of ECC
to reach their stakeholder goal. The organizational mission for ECC is to provide superior
customer operational performance. The stakeholder goal is to build an empowered and capable
team through training, recruitment, and retention of critical skills by December 2020.
Knowledge and Skills
The first step for the TMT of ECC is to understand the knowledge influences required to
reach their stakeholder goal. Clark and Estes (2008) revealed that many organizations attempt to
automate much of employees’ statement of work. These organizations wrongly believe their
employees to be a cog in the larger wheel; easily replaced and substituted. However, the authors
argue that there is a cost to maintaining a talented and engaged workforce. By not doing so,
many organizations fail to reach their goals. This literature review examines how leaders can
retain and develop their employees to reach their goals and the organization’s goal.
To be successful in developing an effective team, the TMT of ECC must understand the
knowledge influences required to meet their goal and the knowledge types associated with each
knowledge influence. Within knowledge, there are four types. The first type is factual
knowledge which includes facts and information. These include facts, terms, contexts, and
disciplines (Krathwohl, 2002). The second type of knowledge is conceptual. This knowledge
type examines what concepts must be understood to solve problems, including theories,

52

principles, and categories (Krathwohl, 2002). The third type of knowledge is procedural.
Procedural knowledge is ways in which a problem can be solved (Krathwohl, 2002). The fourth
knowledge type is metacognition. This knowledge type allows for reflection on an employee’s
process or mental models (Krathwohl, 2002).
Based on relevant research, three knowledge influences of the TMT were examined.
Categorization of the knowledge types allowed for an influence assessment to be conducted with
the TMT of ECC. Once assessed, the TMT were able to evaluate how they were meeting their
stakeholder goal.
Organizational Climate and Team Structure
The TMT needs to know how organization climate and team structure works together to
influence learning. This is declarative knowledge and requires the TMT to conceptually
understand how teams are setup and operate are an important piece in engaging employees to
reach an organization’s goals. One way of linking the two is through creating a sense of
ownership among team members. Ownership is an important part of an employee’s
performance. A recent review of literature found that leaders influence an employee’s feelings
about an organization (Popa, 2012). The study found that these leaders build and foster
commitment in their employees which increases organizational effectiveness. Popa (2012)
further stated that employee commitment to an organization occurs more easily if organizational
goals align with those of the employee. By having closely aligned goals, leaders can more easily
foster commitment among their employees (Popa, 2012). Additional research explains how
leaders can create a sense of ownership to improve performance (Ruggieri & Abbate, 2013).
The study disclosed how ownership is a key factor in predicting organizational effectiveness.
Leaders who show self-sacrifice can more successfully create team identification and a sense of

53

ownership (Ruggieri & Abbate, 2013). Results from the study indicated that a clear goal and a
collaborative team can increase employee engagement. Moreover, employees who identified
themselves as part of the team produced more effort in reaching their team’s goals (Ruggieri &
Abbate, 2013). Additional research concluded that a sense of empowerment can improve
employee performance (Elshout et al., 2013). The study explained that these same employees
are more satisfied with their job and perform better than their peers. Elshout et al. (2013) also
indicated transformational leadership style as the most effective means to empower employees.
Burns (2004) proposed that leadership can be more effective when it is more than a
transaction between leader and follower. Leadership should understand the needs of the follower
and seek to meet those needs. Transformational leadership relates to all aspects of the follower
and not simply a follower completing a task (Burns, 2004). When compared to a transactional
leadership style, transformational allows for greater organizational alignment (Elshout et al.,
2013). Another study on leadership styles concluded that leaders can inspire employee
performance (Nguyen et al., 2016). Results determined that transformational leadership has a
positive correlation to employee performance. Maier et al. (2015) concluded that the structure of
a team can alter an employee’s behavior. How the leader manages a team and how the team
operates are key influencers on an employee’s performance (Maier et al., 2015).
Measurable Goal Setting
The TMT needs to know how to set effective and measurable goals. To do so requires
the TMT to understand the procedures for setting effective goals. Leaders have the ability to
inspire employees and drive levels of organizational commitment (Elshout et al., 2013; Popa,
2012). Elshout et al. (2013) found organizational commitment influences performance levels

54

and absenteeism. Leaders can use their leadership style to positively impact their organizations
and improve performance (Elshout et al., 2013; Popa, 2012).
Clark and Estes (2008) noted how many organizations are unsuccessful in linking
organizational goals to employee goals. The authors describe how goals must be fluid enough to
move with the business but firm enough for the organization to measure success. Ultimately, the
goals should allow for leaders to measure the performance of their employees and allow their
team to meet an organization’s larger goal (Northouse, 2017). Finally, the way in which goals
are established and communicated is important. According to Clark and Estes (2008), goals
should be set by a knowledgeable member or leader with clear ties to both an employee’s task
and the organization’s vision. Employees should feel a sense of ownership throughout this
process and provide feedback.
Leadership and Employee Behaviors
The TMT needs to know how to reflect on their leadership and how it impacts employee
behaviors. This knowledge influence is metacognition which allows for leaders to reflect on
their own actions and behaviors. Current studies have shown that leadership impacts the
behaviors of their employees (MacKenzie et al., 2001; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff et al.,
1996). The researchers further determined that different situations can handled with different
aspects of leadership. Leaders must be able to reflect on situations and recognize the impact of
their leadership on the situation.
Leadership is important as it can increase an employee’s commitment to an organization
(Elshout et al., 2013). The study also revealed that leadership can impact an employee’s
satisfaction and effectiveness. Further studies have shown that leaders who allow for a toxic
workplace can impede an employee’s effectiveness (Kusy & Holloway, 2010). Toxicity can be

55

destructive comments, an employee bullying others, and other negative behaviors. Kusy and
Holloway (2010) found that 68% of employees exposed to these behaviors have less
performance. The study further detailed that 78% of employees are less committed to their
organization. The style in which a leader chooses to interact employees can impact their
performance (Kusy & Holloway, 2010). In addition to performance, leaders can also stimulate
greater commitment (Elshout et al., 2013).
The impact of leadership on performance can also be important to understanding the
negative drivers of motivation (Kusy & Holloway, 2010). These negative influences are
important for a leader to identify, manage, and resolve. Kusy and Holloway (2010) found that
68% of employees are less productive when exposed to negative influences in their organization.
To eliminate these influences, Kotter (2007) indicated leaders must communicate effectively
within their organization. The author also shows the importance of setting clear, achievable
goals. By doing so, leaders eliminate added burdens on employee motivation (Kotter, 2007).
In addition to inspiring employees, leaders can also build a sense of ownership to further
strengthen employees (Nguyen et al., 2016). Table 2 highlights the three knowledge influences,
knowledge types, and knowledge influence assessments. These were used to assess influences
within ECC.

56

Table 2
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment
Organizational Mission
Provide superior customer operational performance
Organizational Global Goal
By 2022, 100% of teams will be engaging in all six categories of OCBs.
Stakeholder Goal
By 2020, the TMT (LT) will integrate OCBs into their team
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
The TMT needs to know how
organization climate and team
structure works together to
influence learning.
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Interview prompt: how does
your organization’s climate
influence the learning of new
skills by team members?
The TMT needs to know how to
set effective goals.
Procedural Interview prompt: how do you
create goals? How do you
measure progress towards your
goals?
The TMT needs to reflect on how
their leadership style impacts
employee behaviors.
Metacognitive Interview prompt: how does
your style of leadership impact
employee behaviors?

Motivation
The second component for ECC’s TMT to reach their stakeholder goal is motivation.
Clark and Estes (2008) explained motivation as the thoughts, beliefs, and understanding a person
has about themselves and others. As with knowledge, motivation is broken into three categories
or steps. The first, active choice, is when someone makes the decision to engage in a specific
task (Clark & Estes, 2008). Persistence is the second step in motivation and occurs when a
person continues with the task despite obstacles or surrounding distractions (Clark & Estes,
2008). The final step is mental effort which is how much effort a person will expend towards the
completion of the task (Clark & Estes, 2008). If employees are having difficulty with motivation
in reaching goals, the breakdown may have occurred in one or all of the three areas. Clark and

57

Estes (2008) looked at ways to ensure employees are properly motivated and to reduce negative
influences on motivation. As these influences are removed, it allows for employees to reach
their goals and that of their organization.
Attribution Theory
The TMT should put effort into creating actions that positively impact other team
member’s behaviors. Rueda (2011) explained attribution theory as the belief a person has about
their success or failure in accomplishing a task. In addition, attribution theory includes the
control a person has in bringing about a specific outcome. There are three parts in attribution
theory which are stability, locus, and control. The first, stability, examines whether attributions
are more permanent or not. A more permanent attribute would be a mentality or thoughts about
one’s abilities or skills. Second is locus which categorizes the attribute as either internal or
external. Attributes that are internal are within a person while external typically occur within
their environment. Third, is control and it labels events as either controllable or uncontrollable.
If someone believes they have no ability to influence or control an event, they view it as
uncontrollable. In attribution theory, a person’s place in the social world is an important part of
motivation (Rueda, 2011).
According to Liu et al. (2012), managers emulate leaders. This is referred to as the
cascading leadership effect. Leaders who experience abusive leaders are more likely to be
abusive towards their team. Liu et al. (2012) further determined that teams under this style of
leadership exhibit less creativity. It is important for leaders to recognize the influences within
their environment and the control they have on their behavior with their team. While their
leader’s style may not be within their control, their style is towards their team.

58

Judge et al. (2009) also determined that leadership is an emotional process which
influences the leader and employee. The personality of the leader will influence their leadership
style which then impacts their interactions with their team. Those leaders who are emotionally
stable are less likely to display emotions to their employees (Judge et al., 2009). Those who are
more narcissistic would be less likely to get along with their teams and more focused on their
own performance (Judge et al., 2009). These personality traits are within a leader’s locus as
internal attributes. It is therefore important for the leader to understand their personality to see
what impact it has on their team’s motivation.
Goal Content Theory
The TMT must have current, clear, and challenging goals to empower their teams.
According to Rueda (2011), goal content answers the question “what is it that I want?” (p. 43).
Goals that are too vague or challenging can cause people to give up or to be demotivated. By
setting proper goals, the TMT at ECC can remain motivated to attain their stakeholder goal of
having teams participate in OCBs by 2020.
Dweck and Leggett (1988) also found that the environment someone is in can influence
their performance. The researchers postulate that the social setting may influence goals and how
one meets those goals. According to Rueda (2011), a social setting can create a situation in
which people would avoid tasks. Johnson et al. (2014) found that many people avoid difficult
tasks which in turn remove development opportunities. By doing so, the person has eliminated a
chance to improve self-regulating behaviors. Leaders must be aware of this and choose to
embrace such tasks.

59

Table 3 provides an overview of the two motivation influences for the TMT of ECC. The
table also provides the assessment type that was used to address any influences within the
organization.
Table 3

Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessment
Organizational Mission
Provide superior customer operational performance
Organizational Global Goal
By 2022, 100% of teams will be engaging in all six categories of OCBs.
Stakeholder Goal
By 2020, the TMT (LT) will integrate OCBs into their team
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Attribution Theory – The TMT needs to put effort
into creating actions that positively impact other
team member’s behaviors
Interview prompt: Share how your efforts at
applying priority OCBs impact your team’s
behaviors
Goal Orientation Theory – The TMT needs to
strive to equip their team with all the necessary
tools to remove potential stoppages to work.
Interview prompt: Share your goals for
providing your team with the necessary tools
to reach their OCB goals

Organization
The final component in Clark and Estes (2008) framework include the organizational
influences. These are the processes, resources, and organizational culture that can prevent an
organization from reaching its goal. Clark and Estes (2008) defined processes as the way
materials, equipment, tools, and people work together towards the organizational goal. Materials
are the resources required for the organization to reach its goal. If an organization has processes
that do not support the goal or is lacking materials, it will not reach its goals. An organizational
culture can be examined by looking at the cultural settings and cultural models within it. The

60

cultural settings are the visible manifestations of the organization’s culture such as behaviors.
These are exhibited in how an organization communicates or the level of trust between
employees and leaders. Cultural models are the invisible norms within an organization. These
are the unspoken expectations for completing tasks or interactions among teams.
Stakeholder Specific Factors
The cultural model within ECC is for employees to focus on their own development.
This occurs through formal means such as education and on the job training. Informal means
include mentorship, collaboration, and observations.
At ECC, time with the company equates to power and influence on a team. Senior
members have more weight in conversations and can have priority when choosing their
statement of work. This sometimes leaves newer employees with unsatisfying work and limited
ability to convey dissatisfaction. According to Liu et al. (2012), employees listen to those
around them and are influenced by their attitudes. As such, leaders must model the behaviors
they wish to see among employees by empowering all employees, regardless of years of service,
to contribute. Policy and restrictions related to years of service should also be adapted.
A second culture setting is the importance of process within ECC. Policy drives the
organization leading to inflexibility in the system. Previous leaders at ECC have stressed the
importance of policy and have only recently sought to eliminate unnecessary policies. This
focus on policy has led to a culture of doing tasks strictly by the book without room for
innovation. However, as changes occur in the organizations, the policy must also adapt. Kotter
(2007) indicated that many organizations fail to change their policy and subsequently fail to
adopt change successfully. Table 4 examines the cultural models and settings within ECC.

61

Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments

Organizational Mission
Provide superior customer operational performance
Organizational Global Goal
By 2022, 100% of teams will be engaging in all six categories of OCBs.
Stakeholder Goal (If Applicable)
By 2020, the TMT (LT) will integrate OCBs into their team
Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1: TMT needs to
be willing to change their leadership style to
support OCB. (Cultural Models)

Interview prompt: Share how you have
changed your style of leadership in a time of
crisis versus routine activities.
Cultural Model Influence 2: TMT needs to
inspire a culture of trust to build effective
OCB relationships.

Interview prompt: Share how you build trust
on your team.
Cultural Setting Influence 1: TMT needs
time outside of their work responsibilities to
focus on OCB improvements.
Interview prompt: Share how you spend
your time each day. Share how you
encourage behaviors among your employees.
Cultural Setting Influence 2: TMT needs
OCB role models among other organizations
that have effectively implemented OCB
change

Interview prompt: Share your ideal leader.
How does that leader compare to you? How
does that leader contribute to employee
behaviors?

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
The conceptual framework provides a brief overview of the purpose and contains a
visualization of the interactions between stakeholders, organization, and the organizational goal.
According to Maxwell (2013), the framework is how a phenomenon is viewed and understood
by a person. As such, the framework provides an overview of beliefs for this study. It also
connected previous research to this study and defined the necessary concepts and terms
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In short, the conceptual framework provides guide posts as this

62

study moves from previous research, to the research being conducted in this study, and how to
interpret the results.
The knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences are key to Clark and
Estes (2008) gap analysis which was used in this study. Figure 5 illustrates how these interact
with each other to bring about the organizational goal. Taken individually, the KMO influences
were assessed qualitatively and quantitatively to understand the gap that is preventing the
stakeholders from reaching the stated organizational performance goal. Each of these was
assessed individually and then discussed in context of each other. Changes to the organizational
brought impact the knowledge and motivation of the stakeholders, therefore impacting the
organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Within the organization lies the culture which adds
additional layers to the organization and how it impacts the stakeholders and goals (Schein,
2017).

63

Figure 5
Conceptual Framework

64

In this figure, the TMT interacts with both the employee teams and organization. The
TMT consists of the leader, four direct reports, and their subsequent leaders which comprise the
executive team for ECC. These leaders are responsible for setting the organizational goals,
influencing the organizational culture, and impacting the effectiveness of their teams. Leaders
must be knowledgeable about the various types of leadership, their behavior and tendencies, and
how this impacts both employees and the organization. These knowledge influences are what
leaders must know in order to achieve the organization’s goals. In addition, leaders must be
motivated to improve organizational effectiveness. Leaders must be aware and motivated to take
control in achieving the organization’s goal (Rueda, 2011). The organization is both influenced
and influences leaders while impacting the performance of employees and teams. An
organization is made up of processes, resources, and culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). The culture
of the organization, its artifacts and unobservable expectations, influence both leaders and
employees (Schein, 1990). As previously discussed, Schein (1990) broke culture down into
three levels. The first are the observable behaviors within the organization. These are the
artifacts that can readily been seen. Second are the values and norms (Schein, 1990). These are
what is expected of leaders and employees and important factors in the organization.
Underneath it all is the final layer, the underlying assumptions. These are invisible and often
times difficult to uncover. Leaders must be aware of their own assumptions and those of the
organization which provide the foundation for the vision and behaviors. Culture must be aligned
with the organization’s goals and in turn aligned with those of the employees. The employee
teams are both impacted by leaders and the organization resulting in an effective or ineffective
employee base. The employees must be aligned to achieve the stakeholder goal of improve

65

response time. Aligning the goals of employees to that of the organization’s goal can eliminate
issues and ensure the organization’s goal is being met.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to perform a gap analysis on the knowledge, motivation, and
organization influences that may impede ECC from reaching its stated goal of integrating OCBs
into their TMT by 2020. Chapter Two provided an overview of literature as it pertains to the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences along with the conceptual framework. In
Chapter Three, the methodological approach for this study will be provided.

66

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This study examined what is necessary for the TMT of ECC to reach their goal of having
all teams engaging in OCBs. By leveraging the Clark and Estes (2008) framework, this study
examined the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences required to reach ECC’s
goal. This study is a concurrent triangulation mixed methods study. This chapter provides the
research design and methodology, data collection, and proposed analysis. It will begin with an
examination of the stakeholders, outline the qualitative and quantitative methods, and conclude
with the reasoning for a mixed methods study. The research questions for this study are as
follows:
1. What are the TMT’s knowledge and motivation needs related to achieving their
stakeholder goal?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and the TMT’s
knowledge and motivation?
3. What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources may be appropriate for solving the problem?
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus was the TMT for ECC. The team is comprised of 15
leaders representing each department in ECC and is responsible for its strategy, goals, and
performance. This study aimed to include all leaders in order to provide an accurate
representation of the team. Interviews were conducted with the executive leaders to provide a
comprehensive understanding of the TMT and their plan to reach their stakeholder goal. Surveys
were also be conducted with executive leaders to reinforce the qualitative data and assess the

67

behaviors on the team. The TMT is defined as the chief executive and those individuals who
lead each of the departments within ECC.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The interviews examined the progress on the OCB program at ECC among the TMT. As
the stakeholder group was limited in size, the researcher invited the entire population to
participate in the study. The following criteria was used to select participants in the study:
Criterion 1
Participants must be full time employees for ECC and excludes part time, interns, and
contractors. Employees who are part time, interns, or contractors are not given the same access
as full time employees and are often assigned to a specific project for a duration of time.
Therefore, their understanding of the organization is limited and potentially incomplete.
Criterion 2
Participants must work onsite with the team, which excludes remote or virtual employees.
Onsite is defined as the Southern California site which serves as the headquarters for ECC. With
over 90% of the organization located in Southern California, this study only examined this
region. The sites outside of this region serve as auxiliary support and are often collocated with
customers. As such, these organizations vary significantly and could be outliers from the
majority of the organization.
Criterion 3
Participants must be part of the TMT of ECC. This TMT is made up of functional and
support departments and reports directly to the chief executive officer of ECC.

68

Interview Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
The TMT of ECC meets weekly to review business operations, performance, and any
special topics. The researcher made a presentation at this meeting indicating that a research
study and to request their participation. The researcher worked with the administrative staff to
schedule interviews with each leader in their office. Leaders who do not wish to participate in
the study were given the option to cancel the interview any time prior to their scheduled
interview. Once the interview began, the researcher informed participants that their participation
was entirely voluntary, and they may conclude the interview at any time.
The sampling strategy for this study was purposeful to select those leaders that are
directly responsible for the organization and its goals. In order to minimize impact to
participants, the qualitative data collection took place concurrently with the quantitative data
collection. The data collection began during the month of September 2019 and concluded in the
following month. The study performed interviews with 15 participants which comprise the
TMT. In order to provide an in-depth view of the TMT, the full population was interviewed.
A semi-structured interview was used as only one interview was conducted with each
participant (Bernard, 1988). The semi-structured approach allowed for the most comprehensive
collection of data in the given time period. This study was a concurrent triangulation strategy for
a mixed methods study (Creswell, 2014). Interviews were used to gather qualitative data on
participants and their interactions with the organization. The interviews sought to understand
how the TMT was meeting the organization’s goals and objectives.
Survey Sampling, Criteria, and Rationale
The survey for this study examines the OCBs of the TMT and was used to validate the
qualitative data collected during interviews. As the stakeholder group was limited in size, the

69

researcher invited the entire population to participate in the study. The following criteria
remains the same as the above interview criteria:
Criterion 1
Participants must be full time employees for ECC and excludes part time, interns, and
contractors. Employees that are part time, interns, or contractors are not given the same access
as full time employees and are often assigned to a specific project for a duration of time.
Therefore, their understanding of the organization is limited and potentially incomplete.
Criterion 2
Participants must work onsite with the team which excludes remote or virtual employees.
Onsite is defined as the Southern California site which serves as the headquarters for ECC. With
over 90% of the organization located in Southern California, this study only examined this
region. The sites outside of this region serve as auxiliary support and are often collocated with
customers. As such, these organizations vary significantly and could be outliers from the
majority of the organization.
Criterion 3
Participants must be part of the TMT of ECC. This TMT is made up of functional and
support departments and reports directly to the chief executive officer of ECC.
Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale
As previously mentioned above, the researcher informed participants of an upcoming
study in their weekly leadership meetings. The following week, an email was sent to each leader
containing a link to complete an online survey. The invitation email informed participants of the
voluntary nature of the study and requested their participation in the survey. Leaders who do not

70

wish to participate in the survey could choose to ignore the request or inform the researcher of
their decision.
Surveys were conducted in parallel with interviews to validate the data collected during
interviews. The invitation was sent out in the beginning of the data collection process and
remain open for three weeks. A reminder email was sent at the end of each week to participants
who have not yet completed the survey. The study was a concurrent triangulation strategy for
mixed methods with surveys used to validate the interview data (Creswell, 2014). Surveys were
used to collect quantitative data from the leaders of the organization. These measures gauged
how the teams are performing towards the organizational goals.
The rationale for survey sampling remains the same as the interview sampling. The
sampling strategy for this study was purposeful to select those leaders that are directly
responsible for the organization and its goals. In order to minimize impact to participants, the
qualitative data collection took place concurrently with the quantitative data collection. The data
collection began during the month of September 2019 and concluded in the following month.
The study performed interviews with 15 participants which comprise the TMT. In order to
provide an in-depth view of the TMT, the full population was interviewed.

71

Table 5
Sampling Strategy and Timeline
Sampling
Strategy
Number in
Stakeholder
population
Number of
Proposed
participants
from
stakeholder
population
Start and
End Date
for Data
Collection
Interviews Census, semi-
structured
15 executive
leaders
15 executive
leaders
9/26/19 –
10/17/19
Surveys Census 15 executive
leaders
15 executive
leaders
9/26/19 –
10/17/19

Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
The two primary methods of data collection for this study were interviews and surveys.
Interviews allowed for the collection of qualitative data while surveys collected quantitative data
from participants. Together, these assisted in understanding the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences at play in ECC as it tries to reach its goal. Each of these methods is
described in more detail in the following segments.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured format for approximately 60 minutes.
A semi-structured approach allowed for participants to delve into a particular topic and enable
the researcher to observe their train of thought. Interviews with 12 questions were used to
explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs revealed in the previous literature.
These questions were selected to align to the conceptual framework presented in the previous
chapter to fully capture the influences on participants. Interviews were conducted over a two-
week timespan and took place in the participants’ offices for confidentiality. This approach

72

allowed for privacy and a familiar setting for the participant to enable a frank discussion. The
interview protocols for this study can be found in the Appendices.
Interview Procedures
Interviews were conducted concurrently with surveys. The semi-structured approach
allowed for the researcher to prepare questions in advance and to allow participants to fully
develop their ideas. As Bernard (1988) indicates, semi-structured interviews also provide the
best opportunity for data collection when only one interview occurred. Interviews were
conducted onsite at ECC and during normal working hours. Participants were interviewed in
their offices to provide privacy and to ensure each participant was in a comfortable setting. Each
participant was interviewed for approximately an hour. No follow up interviews were conducted
with participants. For the study, 15 participants were interviewed for the study, with total
interview time under 20 hours.
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
In addition to qualitative data, this study used a survey to collect quantitative data as part
of a concurrent triangulation mixed methods study (Creswell, 2014). The researcher used the
quantitative data to triangulate the results from the qualitative data. Surveys were administered
to each member of the TMT at ECC. This survey was used to improve the triangulation of data
and to validate the qualitative data collected.
Surveys
Survey Instrument
The survey for this study contained 20 questions. These questions seek to examine the
level of OCBs on the TMT and their sub teams. The survey was developed by Spector et al.
(2010) as a means to determine the frequency of OCBs on a team. Fox et al. (2012) found the

73

internal reliability of the survey to be .97. Responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale
to measure the varying levels of OCBs. The survey took participants approximately five minutes
to complete.
Survey Procedures
Surveys were administered to participants during the same time period as interviews.
Each participant was emailed an online link to complete the survey. If participants had not yet
responded in a week, reminder emails were sent to participants. Up to two reminder emails were
sent to participants. The survey was sent to participants the same week as the interviews and
closed in two weeks.
Surveys were administered to each participant using Qualtrics, an online survey tool.
Qualtrics allowed for secure storage of information and data analysis. Participants were given
two weeks to submit the survey once they received the link. A reminder email was sent after a
week to participants who had not yet completed the survey.
Data Analysis
The researcher conducted data analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data
concurrently. This section provides more detail of the data analysis process for this study. For
data analysis of the qualitative data, the researcher used the following steps: data management,
recording and transcriptions, creation of themes and profiles, and interpretation (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Seidman, 2006).
The first step of the process was data management. This step includes the collection of
all field notes, recordings, and other data collected during the qualitative data collection phase.
The researcher then organized and securely stored the data on the researcher’s laptop, which had
an encrypted hard drive and required multifactor authentication to access. No hard copies were

74

stored.
The second step was recording and transcription. The researcher used a recording device
to ensure accuracy of the participant’s thoughts, views, and statements. Recordings of interviews
were professionally transcribed to allow for a holistic understanding of the interview including
nonverbal cues and body language of the participants. Recordings and transcriptions were stored
on the researcher’s computer.
The next step was open coding. The researcher assigned codes as words or concepts
reappeared in the transcripts. As topics emerge that related back to the previous literature or
KMO influences, the researcher noted this in the margins. After an initial set of codes had been
created, the researcher reviewed the data set to ensure no additional codes needed to be created.
The codes provided the building blocks for the creation of themes.
Fourth was the creation of themes. As the researcher began to examine and analyze the
data, themes were created from the codes. The researcher grouped codes using the conceptual
framework and previous literature. The themes connected patterns within the data and sought to
bring meaning. These themes helped in the analysis and guided the researcher through the data.
As analysis progressed, themes continued to expand as the researcher sought to derive meaning.
The final step in the data analysis phase was the interpretation of the data. The researcher
again examined the data and sought to answer the research questions based on what has been
learned and observed in the data. This final step included an analysis of previous studies to help
understand what had been learned.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In qualitative research, the researcher is the instrument for data collection and brings
inherent bias (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). When the conducting a study, the researcher must

75

work to minimize the influence of their bias on the study. Clark and Estes (2008) also note the
importance of collecting credible data through a trustworthy researcher. The first step to
mitigating the risk of researcher bias is to first recognize it (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this
study, the researcher worked in close proximity to the participants as an employee of ECC. The
researcher had no supervisorial or managerial duties with participants. In addition, the
researcher allowed for participants to form their own thoughts without comment or suggestion
throughout the data collection for this study. Additionally, this study aimed to minimize
researcher bias by using triangulation of previous literature and multiple sources of data
(Creswell, 2014). The alignment of data from multiple sources allows for increased credibility
within the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
For this study, the research design used previous related literature to develop the
conceptual framework. The framework helped to guide the creation of interview and survey
questions. Field testing was used to ensure proper settings for interviews, length, and questions.
Purposeful sampling based on participants’ scores was used to bring enhanced credibility.
Participants of the study were given the opportunity to opt out at any time during the study.
According to Rubin and Rubin (2012), this allowed for heightened credibility and
trustworthiness.
This study was reviewed by dissertation committee and underwent revisions through the
dissertation process. The Internal Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California
(USC) was also responsible for approving the study. This process was designed to further
increase the credibility and trustworthiness.
Finally, the researcher used clear language during the reporting phase. Detailed
information and transparent reporting also work to bring credibility to the study. Findings and

76

recommendations were tied back to the relevant literature which ground this study in the
previous research and enhance the study’s credibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Validity and Reliability
Validity examines the measurement for something and its appropriateness while
reliability examines the consistency of measurement (Creswell, 2014). Both are important in this
study to ensure results are correct and repeatable. In order to achieve this, proper design and
instruments are required. The qualitative and quantitative instruments used are derived and
modified from previous research. Field testing allowed for fine tuning of the instruments.
Quantitative instruments for this study have been validated in previous studies (Fox et al., 2012).
Previous version of the survey have been revised to the current survey (Dalal, 2005; Spector et
al., 2010). Questions on the survey were created from previous version of the study and
validated using subject matter experts. The survey was designed to measure OCB levels on the
team. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) asserted that triangulation of previous research, organizational
documents, interviews, and surveys work to increase the validity and reliability.
Ethics
This study was rooted in an ethical approach towards participants and the data collected.
The primary investigator was certified by Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI)
and approved for study by the University of Southern California (USC) Internal Review Board
(IRB). Participants were provided an information fact sheet outlining their voluntary
participation, ability to withdraw from the study at any point, the confidentiality of their
responses, and secure storage of their data (Glense, 2011). This information fact sheet was
provided to all participants prior to the administration of the survey or interview session.
Confirmation of the participant’s willingness to participate and permission to record participants

77

was requested at the start of each interview session. Prior to beginning the interview,
participants were again reminded they could withdraw from the study at any point.
Administration of the survey was also preceded by a reminder that participants were under no
obligation to finish the survey and could stop at any time. At the end of each interview session
and survey, participants were informed their responses were confidential and data would only be
used in aggregate for research purposes. At no point would their individual responses be
released to anyone but the primary researcher. Participants were assured their responses was
stored securely on the primary researcher’s device with two factor authentication. The primary
investigator conducted the study with an aim to cause no harm to participants (Glense, 2011;
Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Before beginning each session, participants were reminded that they
could participate in the study without negative consequences occurring to them within their
organization. Finally, the information fact sheet distinguished the primary researcher’s role as
employee and researcher. The primary researcher role within ECC was to support the executive
leadership team through strategy development, project tracking, and daily operations. Data
collected within the study was in the role of researcher and not as an employee of Engineering
Consultants of California. The primary researcher is an employee of ECC with no management
authority over the participants. The primary researcher began each session with a statement
reminding participants of the distinction between researcher and employee of ECC. Participants
were informed that data collected would be used for research purposes and part of a study
approved by USC. This study was conducted separately of any data collection efforts of ECC.
Participants were also informed that the primary researcher was not operating as an employee of
ECC and was collecting data for an outside study.
As the primary researcher is an employee of ECC, there are two inherent biases present.

78

First, as an employee of ECC, the primary researcher was within the worldview and
organizational climate of ECC. This means the researcher may share similar or like opinions
with participants on concepts discussed in the study. Being within the organization may also
lead to an inability to recognize what is unknown by the organization. Second, the primary
researcher is experienced within the field and has developed schemas for how an organization
operates. These schemas can lead to opinions of the researcher prior to data analysis. Schemas
in place could also prevent additional insights while assessing themes within the data. In order
to mitigate these biases, the primary researcher conducted data collection without leading
participants to answers and remained neutral to participant responses. Questions were structured
as to allow participants an opportunity to express their worldview and observations without
hindrance. The interview questions were also reviewed by experts and underwent revisions to
ensure alignment to the conceptual framework and research questions. During data analysis, the
researcher reviewed alternative explanations for participant responses and themes.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are limitations and delimitations that the researcher must be aware of throughout
the study. Limitations are those influences over which are out of the researcher’s locus of
control. Delimitations are decisions made by the researcher that can impact the study. This
study was dependent upon the truthfulness of participants and assumed they were willing to
share their experience. The study took take place during a time of crisis for the organization and
at a time when the TMT was experiencing significant change. And finally, the study was
conducted with several new team members who had less time to collaborate and engage with
their teams.

79

This study also had two delimitations. First, the study selected executive leaders and did
not include middle or first line managers. Second, quantitative and qualitative data was collected
concurrently for the study.

80

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences affecting the ability of Engineering Consultants of California to meet their goal of
100% employee engagement in all six categories of organizational citizenship behaviors by
2022. The top management team was the main stakeholder group for this study. The following
research questions guided this study:
1. What are the TMT’s knowledge and motivation needs related to achieving their
stakeholder goal?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and the TMT’s
knowledge and motivation?
3. What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources may be appropriate for solving the problem?
Twelve members of the TMT were interviewed and surveyed on OCBs. The data
collection phase of this study spanned five weeks. Interviews were conducted in person in
participants’ offices and consisted of 13 questions. Surveys were collected using the Qualtrics
survey tool and distributed by the researcher via an online link.
Participating Stakeholders
The participating stakeholders for this study were the TMT of ECC. The TMT team is
responsible for creating organizational goals and providing guidance to meet those goals, and for
financial, fiscal, and efficiency targets. At the time of this study, the TMT was made up of 15
individuals, and were distributed among three management groups: core engineering, product
engineering, and support organizations. The core engineering group was responsible for all
design work in ECC. Product engineering was customer facing and interfaced with core

81

engineering on product wide solutions. The support organizations were made up of finance,
operations, legal, human resources, and information technology.
Interview Participants
The interview participants in this study were the TMT, which included seven males and
seven females. Fourteen participants were interviewed, of which seven were female and seven
were male. Only one member of the TMT was not interviewed due to schedule conflicts.
Interviews took approximately 40 minutes for each participant.
Survey Participants
The survey participants were the same individuals as the interview participants. For this
study, 12 participants were surveyed, of which six were male and six were female. Three
members of the TMT did not complete the survey. The survey consisted of 20 questions and
took approximately three minutes to complete.
Participant Profiles
The following table outlines the participants, their gender, and level of education.

82

Table 6
Participant Profiles
Participant Gender Level of Education
John Male Masters degree
Luke Male Bachelors degree
Tom Male Bachelors degree
Matt Male Masters degree
Phillip Male Bachelors degree
Jim Male Masters degree
Nick Male Bachelors degree
Emma Female Bachelors degree
Taylor Female Masters degree
Belle Female Bachelors degree
Harriett Female Bachelors degree
Martha Female Masters degree
Alice Female Masters degree
Patty Female Masters degree

Findings
Findings from the interviews and surveys for this research study are reported in this
section. This section begins with the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
previously identified and then moves onto additional themes. The section concludes with a

83

discussion of the findings. Table 6 provides an overview of influences and whether or not the
influence was validated in the data.
In this study, findings were validated as a gap if 70% of participants did not understand
or implement a concept. Likewise, a gap was invalidated if 70% of participants understood the
concept and were able to successfully demonstrate it. This standard remains the same
throughout the knowledge, motivation, and organizational findings.
Knowledge Findings
In order to be successful leaders, the TMT of ECC need to be cognizant of their
knowledge gaps when it comes to influencing employee behaviors (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Leaders need to have factual and conceptual knowledge of what is required of them and how
their interactions can influence their teams. They should also be aware that their leadership
style, how they approach goal setting, and how they encourage growth on their teams all
influence employee behaviors. Leaders also need procedural knowledge for how to set and
measure goals. Finally, they should be reflective about their abilities and where they can seek to
improve. The following section examines the knowledge influences and whether or not they
were validated during data collection. Knowledge influences that are labeled as validated
indicate there is a gap and will need to be addressed. Table 6 provides a summary of those
influences and their outcomes.

84

Table 7
Summary of Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge Influence

Validated as a
Gap?
Yes, No
(Y, N)
The TMT needs to know how organization climate and team structure works
together to influence learning. (D)
Y
The TMT needs to know how to set effective goals. (P) N
The TMT needs to reflect on how their leadership style impacts employee
behaviors. (M)
N

Organizational Climate and Team Structure
The TMT needs to know how the organization structure can influence employee behavior
and learning. Leaders who exhibit a sense of commitment the organization can see greater
commitment to the organization (Ruggieri & Abbate, 2013). Employees who identify as part of
a team produce additional effort in order to reach the organization’s goals (Ruggieri & Abbate,
2013). Additionally, leaders who empower their employees may have higher performing
employees (Elshout et al., 2013). This knowledge influence was validated as a gap.
One interview participant, Belle, talked about how she “focuses the team on things we
can change.” She said otherwise “it feels like it’s all impossible.” Similarly, Martha “tries to
insulate the team… so that they feel protected and cared for.” She commented that “there’s too
much stuff going on” and that she “makes time and space for the team.” Emma spoke about how
her team “feels it in their hearts… they want to work hard for it, they want to help.” Phillip
stressed the importance of “letting people know you’re here with him” and “I’m going to try and
help you.” He described his team as “resilient.” John noted that he “empowers the team by
listening… making oneself vulnerable and showing that it’s a team effort.”

85

Interview participants talked about the importance of empowering their employees to
make decisions. They also found it important to give the team space to work towards the goal
without stepping in to provide detailed instructions. Martha commented how she “creates the
space so that the team can execute at the level of performance that we need.” Participants
accomplished this through building trust, respecting employee’s opinions, and by providing an
environment where they could accomplish tasks without distractions.
Measurable Goal Setting
The TMT needs to know how to set and measure goals to inspire employees (Elshout et
al., 2013; Popa, 2012). Many organizations fail to properly set goals and link them to employee
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Leaders need to set effective goals and then measure progress
towards those goals. This knowledge influence was not validated as a gap.
Patty shared that she “has high expectations of her team.” She “explains the why through
data” and “gets everyone aligned” to accomplish goals. Martha agreed that she “helps to instill
the why when setting goals.” Alice added that “the team needs to be challenged and excited.”
She accomplished this through “setting high expectations where everyone can do their best
work.” John noted that he needs to “help our team understand their linkage to the vision.” He
accomplished this through “being inclusive, communicating changes, and setting the direction.”
Jim ensured that his team’s “activities are aligned to that vision.” Finally, Tom “focuses on the
end goal, ensuring to be inclusive of the team when making decisions.”
Participants shared that high expectations, use of data, and explaining why were critical
to reaching their goals. The explanation of the vision and connection to employee’s work was a
reoccurring theme among the participants. Additionally, participants stressed the need for

86

challenging work. They believed that employees should feel a sense of accomplishment in their
work.
Leadership and Employee Behaviors
The TMT needs to reflect on how their leadership impacts employee behaviors.
Leadership not only impacts employee behaviors but can also inspire loyalty (Elshout et al.,
2013, MacKenzie et al., 2001; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1996). Leaders should
seek to use their position to encourage employee performance. This knowledge influence was
not identified as a gap.
Alice recognized that by “valuing the work of the team… they will do more than you ask
of them.” She noted that you have to “create that energy where they build on each other.” Belle
commented on work and said, “it’s got to energize you.” Emma recognized that “knowing your
audience, knowing the situation, and knowing your resources… you have to play all those things
together” and that “there’s a different response depending on the situation.” She followed up
with “you have to know your people.” Lastly, Luke pointed out that “it’s about knowing what
the other person needs.”
Interview participants recognized the importance of leadership and how their actions
should match their words. They also sought to create a sense of fun to inspire the team. Belle
said she “believes in having fun at work by going to lunch or to go camping together.”
Participants sought to create an environment where employees would go above and beyond what
was asked of them. The participants accomplished this through understanding the needs of their
team and valuing the work they do. Alice did this through “creating an environment where
people feel empowered.” By doing this, she believed “people will really do more than you’re
asking and then you just kind of create that energy.” And Emma said she does this “by just

87

asking what’s going on? How are you feeling?” She uses this to “encourage the team and helps
them to work with each other.”
Motivation Findings
Once aware of their strengths and weaknesses, the TMT needs to be motivated to reach
their stated goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation is required to overcome obstacles and to put
forth the necessary effort to reach that goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). The TMT need to listen,
reflect, and adapt to reach their goals. Whether the TMT is motivated to improve on their
weaknesses will determine the successfulness of their goal. The following section examines the
motivation influences and whether or not they were validated during data collection. Motivation
influences that are labeled as validated indicate there is a gap and will need to be addressed.
Table 7 provides a summary of those influences and their outcomes.
Table 8
Summary of Motivation Influences
Assumed Motivation Influence*

Validated as a
Gap
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Attribution Theory – The TMT need to put effort into creating actions that
positively impact other team member’s behaviors
Y
Goal Orientation Theory – The TMT need strive to equip their team with all
the necessary tools to remove potential stoppages to work.
N

Actions That Impact Employee Behaviors
The TMT should put forth effort to create actions that positively impact their team’s
behaviors. Leaders can influence their team’s emotions and creativity (Judge et al., 2009; Liu et
al., 2012). It is important that leaders recognize their influence and use it appropriately (Liu et
al., 2012). This motivation influence was identified as a gap.

88

Interview participants used unique ways to influence their teams’ behaviors, but often
times struggled with persistence. Jim explained how “we started recognizing team members…
but stopped” and that he needed to “keep the momentum and the focus on it.” Jim used
“lanyards, pins, or formal recognition in front of leadership.’ He said that “we need to get better
and reinforce that” and “I don’t think we’re as systematic as we should be.” Patty agreed as she
“hadn’t been doing those things.” Other interview participants attempted to focus on a more
personal connection with their team. Harriett talked about how she “creates an environment
that’s open and comfortable.” She also spoke about “ways to connect to make it personal.”
Taylor also spoke about “connection with you because you’re sharing,” and how “people start
trusting each other because you’re coming through for them.” She tried to keep it “informal,
friendly, and fun with her… close knit team.” Alice said, “[I] show people I care, I have their
back.” Tom encouraged people by “letting the team do their job in their own way.”
Participants in the study stressed the importance of recognizing employees and revealed
their own shortcomings in doing so. They also spoke about the importance of building trust with
their teams and how to give employees space to talk and to provide feedback. Participants
recognized the importance that trust plays in building relationships and then the environment. In
the survey, participants also sought to appreciate teammates regularly as seen in question 18
below. The survey findings support the data from interview participants by showing the value
placed on providing encouragement or appreciation. Survey participants reported regularly
showing appreciation to their coworkers.

89

Figure 6
Survey Results for Question 18

Figure 7
Survey Results for Question 12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Never
Once or twice
Once or twice per month
Once or twice per week
Every day
Went out of the way to give a co-worker
encouragement or express appreciation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Never
Once or twice
Once or twice per month
Once or twice per week
Every day
Help a co-worker who had too much to do

90

Equip Employees With Challenging Goals
The TMT needs to challenge their teams with clear goals. Vague or unclear goals can
create demotivated employees (Rueda, 2011). By motivating employees through challenging
goals, the TMT can influence how employees reach those goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). The
data presented revealed this assumed influence was not validated and that there is not a
motivational gap present.
Interview participants spoke about the importance of listening and responding to
teammates. John said that “you ask questions of the situation that are going to draw answers
out” and used “leading questions.” Likewise, Phillip commented that leadership is about
“providing the teams what they need based on what you heard.” For him, this was accomplished
through the “ability to listen” and “trying to figure out how to help them.” Emma put it as “walk
with me… tell me how you see it.” She used this to allow teammates to “say what they feel
without the emotion.”
Interview participants also spoke about how this approach can motivate employees to
reach their goals. Philip argued that the ability to listen “motivates the team as much as
possible.” Tom agreed and said that “if people get bored, they leave.” He avoided this by
keeping his “focus always on the task… so I think big picture, and then I act tactically.” Tom
stated reaching a goal “is all about simplifying and doing things in the small bites.”
Participants frequently used questions to probe how they could help, where they could
remove roadblocks, and to clarify priorities. Four interview participants recognized the need set
a goal and then allow the team to achieve the goal. Three participants felt it was important to let
the team decide how to reach that goal.

91

Organizational Findings
Kotter (2007) revealed that many companies fail to adjust their policies and culture when
a new organizational goal is set. By not ensuring alignment, the organization is more likely to
fail in reaching its goal. There needs to be an alignment in ECC’s vision, leader’s actions, and
policies in order to reach its organizational goal. The following section examines the
organizational influences and whether or not they were validated during data collection.
Organizational influences that are labeled as validated indicate there is a gap that will need to be
addressed. Table 8 provides a summary of those influences and their outcomes.
Table 9
Summary of Organization Influences
Assumed Organization Influence*

Validated as a
Gap
Yes, No
(Y, N)
TMT needs to be willing to change their leadership style to support OCBs.
N
TMT needs to inspire a culture of trust to build effective OCB relationships.
Y
TMT need time outside of their work responsibilities to focus on OCB
improvements.

Y
TMT needs OCB role models among other organizations that have effectively
implemented OCB change
Y

Change of Leadership Style to Support OCBs
The TMT should be willing to change their leadership style to support OCB improvement
on their teams. Pillai et al. (1999) found that leadership style can influence whether or not an
employee will adopt OCBs. By not understanding the needs of the team or being unwilling to
change, ECC can negatively impact the OCBs on teams.

92

Interview participants brought up that they regularly evaluated their actions and adjusted
as needed. John used regular conversations with his team and commented that in one instance
“as we talked, I realized that my way of thinking wasn’t correct.” Likewise, Nick needed to
change and said, “I had to find another way to help myself and help the team.” Phillip frequently
asked questions of his teams to “provide the teams what they need based on what you heard.”
According to Jim, an important part of leadership is reflection, as he said, “…in a leadership
position, gotta constantly reflect, do some introspection.” He took it a step further to determine
“what’s working well and what can we improve as far as your leadership.” Similarly, Belle
sought to “fail often” in her attempt to continuously improve. Her mindset was to be open to
change and said of a situation that did not work, “okay, that didn’t work. Let me try something
different. Let me think about why it didn’t work.”
Participants spoke often of improving their ability to lead and interact with their teams.
They regularly reflected on how they came across and made adjustments in their leadership style
accordingly. Participants valued feedback and took it into account on their path of continuous
improvement. Part of this process was a regular dialog with teammates which served as a
checkpoint or validation for participants.
Culture of Trust to Build Effective OCB Relationships
The TMT should seek to build effective relationships and development with their teams.
Liu et al. (2012) found that employee actions are influenced by those around them. By not
focusing on relationship building or development, ECCs would risk sending the wrong message
to employees.
Interview participants had varying approaches to employee development and some
ignored it entirely. Those who supported employee development used conversations with

93

employees to see where they could assist. Luke held “formal development conversations to see
where they want to go” and then “connect[ed] them with assignments.” This approach is similar
to Emma’s where she asked employees, “tell me what you want…what do you want to do?”
Likewise, Bell asked, “what do you want… how can I help?” And from Martha, “what are you
interested in?” In Martha’s view, the onus of seeking out professional development fell to the
employee.
Two participants took this a step further and created opportunities for employee
development. Phillip went beyond questions and examined the training and connections. He
helped his employees “take the right training… make the right connections.” Alice similarly
identified “areas of improvement” in her employees and helped with their “next assignment to
improve those areas.” However, most participants did not have a structure or plan around
employee development. Two participants agreed that it is entirely on the employee. Tom
expected employees “to figure that out.” He believed that “it’s their own career, they should
speak up.” Harriet agreed that she should “give them the space to do it.”
Participants had mixed responses on how to handle development. Several conducted
formal development conversations with their employees while others expected the employee to
be entirely responsible for their development. Further, interview participants commented how
the organization as a whole can improve on its approach to development. These interview
participants focused on the importance of experiential learning opportunities such as rotation
with other teams.
Time to Focus on OCB Improvements
Leaders need time to make necessary changes to the organization and to make OCB
improvements. A large portion of the organization’s impact on OCBs will be in the policy and

94

procedures as they are important to reinforcing change. Kotter (2007) indicated that many
organizations fail to adapt their policies to organizational changes. This can lead to employee
dissatisfaction and other issues. Jim believed that they need to have “consistency across our
teams, both in policy and approach.” However, Harriet said the organization is “less innovative
than it should be.” Alice also believed that “this alignment isn’t natural yet.”
Most participants did not recognize the importance of policy to reinforce change. Some
participants commented that the organization needs to improve in this area. However, most
participants did not emphasis the role policy plays in the organization. In the survey, participants
indicated how they look for ways to make improvements. Questions eight and nine reveal a
propensity to offer input on making changes. The survey data correlates with the interview data
in how participants approach policy and their willingness to adapt to necessary changes.
Figure 8
Survey Results for Question 8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Never
Once or twice
Once or twice per month
Once or twice per week
Every day
Offered suggestions to improve how work is done

95

Figure 9
Survey Results for Question 9

Organization Role Models
The TMT need examples of other organizations that have successfully implemented OCB
improvements. According to Wheatley (1994), leaders are required to quickly take in and
process information to successfully prepare for the future. Examination of other successful
organizations can provide the TMT with important steps to take.
Four interview participants briefly discussed other organizations but did not have a model
organization for OCB improvements. Matt spoke about another organization that “had more
technical leaders than I’ve observed here.” This lack of experience led him to believe the
organization was slower to respond to issues raised by employees. Belle agreed that “we tend to
be a little more arrogant.” She pointed out how they should listen more but did not have a model
organization in mind. In regard to organizational structure, Patty commented that “there’s much
more of a hierarchy and I think people play on that.” She believed other organizations were
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never
Once or twice
Once or twice per month
Once or twice per week
Every day
Offered suggestions for improving the work
environment

96

flatter, allowing for more effective teams. Martha noted that “change is hard because of how big
the organization is” and that “one of the biggest things as leaders is recognizing what needs to
change.”
Interview participants pulled from previous experiences in other organizations when
looking for a model. Most relied entirely upon internal experience and other smaller internal
organizations for their observations. These examples centered upon leadership and change but
did not cover the impact upon employee behavior.
Themes
In addition to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational themes, three themes
emerged during data analysis. The first theme examines leaders in crisis and how this changes
how they make decisions, interact with their team, and ultimately act. The second theme
examines how teams are organized and how participants work together. The third theme
expands on the first motivational influence to examine the impact of coaches and mentors on
leaders.
Leadership in Crisis
Interview participants recognized how their leadership style changed when under
pressure or in crisis. Four participants used reflection and assessments to further their
understanding of how they respond in these times. More than half of participants pointed to
times of crisis as an opportunity for the team to excel, and how they used crises to learn and do
retrospective exercises to enhance learning.
Jim and Nick both said their first move was to “slow down.” Jim used this time to ensure
“input from key stakeholders” and Nick “tries to not add any more tension.” Other participants,
like Tom, looked to the “big picture,” and he “always focuses on the task.” Similarly, Harriett

97

looked at the “critical elements to how we solve a key problem.” Alice again pointed to “seeing
the big picture to give assignments to the team.” She said, “it’s important understanding the big
picture and getting people exited to come to work.”
Crisis also presented an opportunity for change for two participants. Martha pointed out
how “priorities have to shift” and “there’s high value in driving monumental change.” John also
pointed to change as “the perfect timing to bring all the right behaviors into a situation.” He
commented how he had to “be careful to not revert back to something more directive.”
Participants use a time of crises to reprioritize the team and to tackle problems in smaller
steps. Many participants rely on slowing down their thinking and decisions making processes
before acting. Others used a crisis to bring changes to their teams to better respond in the future.
Finally, participants agreed that it was important for leaders to remain visible and connected
through times of crisis.
Team Structure and Alignment
Participants revealed how difficult it was to bring an organization into alignment to reach
a goal. Many participants cited the most difficult part of their job is ensure alignment and
maintaining it long term. Their goal was to bring alignment to the organization’s goal
throughout their teams.
Interview participants noted how teammates can have different goals than that of the
organization or may not even care about the organization. Alice said some people are “all about
themselves and not thinking about the greater mission.” She noted how “they want to make
themselves look good… it’s not easy to change.” Tom agreed and noted how “there’s a lack of
trust… that seems to impact their behavior.” John handled this with a “collaborative approach

98

through the use of questions.” He used the questions to “ensure alignment” and to avoid
“coming across as adversarial.”
In addition to self-centered approach found on teammates, two participants discussed the
formation of alliances within a team. Patty pointed to “us not all being aligned.” She noted how
there are “side conversations and alliances.” Martha sought to “find other allies to connect with
a person in a different way.” She used them to “check each other” and to use their style to
“come across differently.”
Given the size of the TMT, alliances are likely natural and may bring about certain levels
of misalignment. Disagreements on the best way to achieve the organization’s goal brought a
lack of alignment among participants. Most participants felt that their team struggled when
working together. Five participants pointed to a lack of trust among teammates, which may have
allowed for discord on the team. However, two leaders pointed out that they use their allies to
strengthen the team’s alignment to their goal. Two other participants had difficulty with this
approach and saw it as an “us versus them” scenario. Ultimately, the participants sought unity
for the team but differed on how best to build trust among teammates.
Coaches, Coaching, and Mentors
Coaches provided valuable feedback on actions and can provide insight into future
decisions, according to interview participants. These individuals are trusted for their input and
are often in a position to provide feedback. Interview participants also functioned as coaches to
their peers and employees when needed. Sometimes participants coached employees who were
not performing or causing friction within the team. The majority of participants agreed that the
people issues were the most difficult portion of their job.

99

Interview participants sought advice and feedback from their coaches to become better
leaders. Jim spoke about how he had “coaching from some of my former leaders… to bring to
light some of my tendencies.” He also used assessments to further explore those tendencies.
Emma also had coaches that “give me some honest feedback… and I take those.” She said that
“I’m not perfect… they give me feedback and let me know when I’m not [perfect].” Phillip
similarly noted, “I’ve talked to many folks along the way that have coached me.” He used
coaches to help with “hard leadership calls and how to act quickly.” This allowed him to learn
important job related skills and prepared him for future roles.
Interview participants also functioned as coaches to their employees by offering advice
and feedback. Luke recognized that he “thinks more as the coach role and less as the boss role.”
He asked, “how can I help this person be successful and what do they need?” Alice commented
that she has “a coaching conversation with someone that didn’t show up very well.” She uses
these conversations to remind employee of “expectations that we’re working together.”
Paramount to the coaching relationship and the ability to provide feedback is trust. The
participants all shared an example of how they trusted their coaches and their decisions. Without
that trust, the relationship suffers and ultimately the coaching is ineffective. These coaching
relationships also took time to develop, and often times participants had the same coach from
early on in their career. When serving as coaches to other employees, participants were careful
to use company expectations to lead employees to the desired outcome. In the survey, questions
two, three, and four revealed how participants served as coaches or mentors. Questions three and
four demonstrated less behaviors than question two as participants are more likely to be mentors
or coaches and not as involved in new employee orientation. However, participants indicated
they regularly share skills or help new employees to learn. Survey question two asked how

100

participants regularly engage in mentoring and coaching activities during the week. The survey
data reinforces the interview participant’s belief in the important of coaching.
Figure 10
Survey Results for Question 2

Figure 11
Survey Results for Question 3

0 2 4 6 8 10
Never
Once or twice
Once or twice per month
Once or twice per week
Every day
Took time to advise, coach, or mentor a co-
worker
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Never
Once or twice
Once or twice per month
Once or twice per week
Every day
Helped co-worker learn new skills or shared job
knowledge

101

Figure 12
Survey Results for Question 4

Summary
This chapter presented the results of this research study. This chapter relied on the
conceptual framework, KMO influences, and previous literature in chapters two and three. The
results provide insights into how leaders influence employee behavior and how OCBs can be
encouraged within the workforce.
The data revealed that participants understood and possess the knowledge for them to
increase OCBs among employees. However, many participants acknowledged they are either
not following through with that knowledge or are doing so intermittently. Several participants
also cited organizational troubles as an impeding factor. Still, most participants had a goal to
become better leaders but varied on how much time they spent pursuing that goal.
While participants may seek to become better leaders, they did not have a specific goal to
improve OCBs on their teams. Several participants recognized the importance of holding
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Never
Once or twice
Once or twice per month
Once or twice per week
Every day
Helped new employees get oriented to the job

102

themselves accountable and as a starting place on which to build. Participants acknowledged the
benefits of OCBs but did not have a clear path towards increasing behaviors on their teams. The
data revealed a lack of momentum towards increasing OCBs, likely due to a lacking goal.
In the next chapter, recommendations will be made for the findings outlined in this
chapter. A framework will be presented to implement recommendations and the next chapter
will also answer the research questions of this study. Additionally, suggestions will be made to
the leaders on how they can improve OCBs in the organization.

103

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This chapter provides a discussion on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences necessary to reach the organizational goal. For the influences that were identified as a
gap, recommendations were provided to address the gap. This chapter opens with a brief review
of the organization, its goal, and stakeholders before discussing the influences and
recommendations. The chapter closes with potential areas of future research.
Organizational Context and Mission
ECC is located in the Southern California region and aims to provide superior
engineering services to its customers worldwide. The organization is seeking to attract, retain,
and develop top talent to develop engineering solutions for the future. The industry is currently
experiencing growth which is causing talent shortages in several regions. ECC aims to set itself
apart from its competitors through
Organizational Performance Goal & Stakeholder Group
The organizational performance goal for ECC is to have 100% of teams engaging OCBs
by 2022. The goal was set by the stakeholder group of the study in an effort to increase the
organization’s competitiveness in the talent arena. ECC aims to have each team in the
organization involved in OCBs.
The stakeholder group for the study was the TMT of ECC. This group is responsible for
setting the organizational goal and ensuring the teams are successful in reaching that goal. The
team consists of 15 leaders representing the various sub teams in the organization.

104

Recommendations
Knowledge Recommendations
For this study, three knowledge influences were examined, which are listed in Table
9. Of the three influences, two were validated as a gap. These knowledge influences revolve
around team behaviors and how they are impacted by a leader’s decisions and actions. The
knowledge influences that directly impact a team’s behavior were selected as they have the
highest impact to reaching the organization’s goal.
The knowledge influence identified as a gap use declarative knowledge, while the two not
identified as a gap relate to procedural and metacognitive knowledge. The declarative
knowledge requires leaders to know and understand how an environment can encourage or
discourage behaviors. Table 9 outlines the three knowledge influences, whether a gap was
identified, recommendations, and the principles behind the recommendations.

105

Table 10
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence

Validated
as a Gap?
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
The TMT needs
to know how
organization
climate and team
structure works
together to
influence
learning. (D)
Y Y Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored more
quickly and remembered
more accurately because
it is elaborated with prior
learning (McCrudden et
al., 2006).
Provide information to TMT
on previously successful
programs that draw on past
experiences. Information
should seek to highlight key
steps the programs underwent
through a change.
The TMT needs
to know how to
set effective
goals. (P)
N N Self-regulatory strategies,
including goal setting,
enhance learning and
performance (Dembo &
Eaton, 2000)
Provide information to the
TMT on how setting goals
can improve an employee’s
performance and
behaviors. Provide strategies
for creating goals and how to
measure those goals.
The TMT needs
to reflect on how
their leadership
style impacts
employee
behaviors. (M)
N N Modeled behavior is
more likely to be adopted
if the model is credible,
similar, and the behavior
has functional value
(Denler et al., 2014)
Provide training on
leadership styles and
metacognitive strategies that
incorporate case studies or
testimonials from industry
senior leaders on their own
success or failures in
influencing employee
behavior through their
leadership styles.

Recommendation 1: Provide Information to TMT on Previously Successful Programs That
Draw on Past Experiences
There is a knowledge gap within the TMT, in which participants did not know how an
organization’s climate can impact employees. Information processing system theory reveals how
learners build new learning upon previous experience (Daou et al., 2016). According to
McCrudden et al. (2006), information should be provided to the TMT that connects with their

106

previous experience to improve their learning. This study suggests that new information should
be related to previous information known to the TMT. The recommendation is to provide
information to TMT on previously successful programs that draw on past
experiences. Information should seek to highlight key steps the programs underwent through a
change.
Maier et al. (2015) concluded that the structure of a team can alter an employee’s
behavior. How the leader manages a team and how the team operates are key influencers on an
employee’s performance (Maier et al., 2015). A recent review of literature found that leaders
influence an employee’s feelings about an organization (Popa, 2012). The study found that these
leaders build and foster commitment in their employees which increases organizational
effectiveness. Popa (2012) further stated that employee commitment to an organization occurs
more easily if organizational goals align with those of the employee. By having closely aligned
goals, leaders can more easily foster commitment among their employees (Popa, 2012; Ruggieri
& Abbate, 2013).
No Gap in Knowledge: Provide Information on Goal Setting
Based on evidence gathered in this study, there is not a gap in this area, as the TMT
knows how to set effective goals. Social cognitive theory details how employees will reciprocate
behaviors and actions in their environment (Bandura et al., 1960). Dembo and Eaton (2000)
recommend self-regulatory strategies such as goal setting to increase employee
performance. This principle indicates how the TMT can influence employees to set effective
goals by modeling this behavior. The recommendation is to provide information to the TMT on
how setting goals can improve an employee’s performance and behaviors. Additionally, the
TMT should be provided strategies for creating goals and how to measure those goals.

107

Leaders have the ability to inspire employees and drive levels of organizational
commitment (Elshout et al., 2013; Popa, 2012). According to Clark and Estes (2008), goals
should be set by a knowledgeable member or leader with clear ties to both an employee’s task
and the organization’s vision. Employees should feel a sense of ownership throughout this
process and provide feedback (Ruggieri & Abbate, 2013).
No Gap in Knowledge: Provide Training on Leadership Styles and Metacognitive Strategies
There is not a gap in this area, as the participants know how to reflect on how their
leadership style impacts employee behaviors. Social cognitive theory details how employees
will reciprocate behaviors and actions in their environment (Bandura, 1989). Denler et al. (2014)
stated that the behavior is more likely to be adopted if the model is credible and the modeled
behavior has functional value. This principle reveals how the TMT may be more willing to
reflect on their leadership style if it is modeled to them by a respected peer. One
recommendation may be to provide training on leadership styles and metacognitive strategies
that incorporates case studies or testimonials from industry senior leaders on their own success or
failures in influencing employee behavior through their leadership styles.
Studies have shown that leadership impacts the behaviors of their employees (MacKenzie
et al., 2001; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1996). The impact of leadership on
performance can also be important to understanding the negative drivers of motivation (Kusy &
Holloway, 2010). To eliminate these influences, Kotter (2007) indicated leaders should
communicate effectively within their organization. Finally, leaders can also build a sense of
ownership to further strengthen employees (Nguyen et al., 2016). This principle leads to the
recommendation to provide training on leadership styles and metacognitive strategies that
incorporate case studies or testimonials from industry senior leaders.

108

Motivation Recommendations
For this study, two motivation influences were examined, which are listed in Table
10. Of the two influences, one was validated as a gap. These motivation influences look at the
driving factors for the TMT to bring about positive behaviors in their teams. Similar to the
knowledge influences, the motivation influence that impact a team’s behavior was selected as it
has the highest impact to reaching the organization’s goal.
Table 11

Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Motivation
Influence

Validated
as a Gap
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Attribution Theory
– The TMT should
put effort into
creating actions that
positively impact
other team
member’s behaviors
Y Y Building supportive
and caring personal
relationship in the
community of learners
(Pintrich, 2003).
Pair TMT members with a
peer and share best practices
to encourage learning. The
buddy system should be
integrated as part of the
team’s weekly activities to
ensure regular check ins and
sharing of best practices.
Goal Orientation
Theory – The TMT
should strive to
equip their team
with all the
necessary tools to
remove potential
stoppages to work.
N N Make it safe to take
risks (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006).

Model learning from
own errors by
accepting mistakes as
opportunities to learn
(Anderman &
Anderman, 2006).
Institute a collaborative
environment for the TMT
where they share and discuss
best practices for
encouraging learning.

Recommendation 1: Pair TMT Members With a Peer and Share Best Practices to Encourage
Learning
There is a motivational gap within the TMT in that participants do not put effort into
creating actions that positively impact team member’s behaviors. Attribution theory stresses the

109

importance of belief in one’s effort and actions to generate a desired outcome (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). According to Pintrich (2003), building supportive and caring personal
relationships in the community of learning can increase the learners’ motivation. This indicates
that the TMT should be grouped in such a way to develop relationships with their peers to
increase motivation. The recommendation is to pair TMT members with a peer and share best
practices to encourage learning. The buddy system should be integrated as part of the team’s
weekly activities to ensure regular check ins and sharing of best practices.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), having a positive belief in one’s abilities can
increase performance. Kidwell et al. (1997) highlight the importance of groups to reinforce
desired behaviors among the individuals. Likewise, Deckop et al. (2003) showed how groups
can lend assistance to each other in order to encourage one another. This implies that individuals
who have supportive structures surrounding them are more likely to believe they can bring about
desired outcomes.
No Gap in Motivation: Institute a Collaborative Environment for the TMT Where They Share
and Discuss Best Practices for Encouraging Learning
There was not a motivational gap within the TMT in this area, as they currently strive to
equip their team with all the necessary tools to remove potential stoppages to work. Goal
orientation theory suggests clear and challenging goals motivate team members (Rueda,
2011). Anderman and Anderman (2006) recommended that organizations should make it safe to
take risks; the TMT should learn from its own errors by accepting mistakes as opportunities to
learn. This suggests that the TMT should create a safe environment in which to experiment
without repercussions. The recommendation is to institute a collaborative environment for the
TMT where they share and discuss best practices for encouraging learning.

110

Social settings play an important role for how people choose which tasks to engage in
(Rueda, 2011). The author goes into further detail regarding how people will avoid risk
taking. Johnson et al. (2014) also found that many people avoid difficult tasks, which can inhibit
their learning. This study would imply that people may feel they are being judged in a group
setting and uncomfortable with learning through failure. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
risk avoidance would decrease active choice when in groups and eliminate an opportunity for
learning.
Organization Recommendations
For this study, four organizational influences were examined, which are listed in Table
11. Three of the four influences were validated revealing a gap. The organizational influences
examined how the culture at ECC impact the TMT’s ability to develop OCBs on their teams. As
with the knowledge and motivation influences, the organizational influences were selected to
have the most impact on the organization’s goal.

111

Table 12
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence

Validated
as a Gap
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
TMT needs to inspire
a culture of trust to
build effective OCB
relationships.
Y Y The more a leader acts in a way that
followers feel is appropriate ethical
leader behavior, the more a leader
will be trusted (Van den Akker et
al., 2009).

“Leaders should not focus on
culture change. Focus on the
business problem: what isn’t
working. The key to problem
identification is to become very
specific.” (Schein, 2017).
Assign TMT members
peer mentors to observe
how other leaders
operate.

TMT need time
outside of their work
responsibilities to
focus on OCB
improvements.
Y Y Organizational culture is created
through shared experience, shared
learning and stability of
membership.
It is something that has been
learned. It cannot be imposed
(Schein, 2017).
Create an innovation
committee to generate
improvement
strategies. Provide
leaders ideas and
scheduled time to execute
with a peer together.
TMT needs OCB role
models among other
organizations that
have effectively
implemented OCB
change
Y Y Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders are
knowledgeable about and are
consistently learning about
themselves and their business
(Mezirow, 1997, 2000).

Participants engaging in reflective
work need to have complete and
accurate information about the topic
for discussion, be free from bias,
and meet in an environment of
acceptance, empathy, and trust
(Mezirow, 1997, 2000).
Provide examples of
similar organizations and
their outcomes. Break
TMT into subgroups to
regularly reflect on how
similar changes might be
successful in ECC.

TMT needs to be
willing to change
their leadership style
to support OCB.
N N Effective leaders are aware of
various types of communication,
non-verbal communication,
storytelling, person centered
communication, and how these
communication modalities
influence change and the
environment within the organization
(Lewis, 2011).
Provide information on
leadership styles and the
impact on employees.

112

Recommendation 1: Assign TMT Members Peer Mentors to Observe How Other Leaders
Operate
There is an organizational gap within the TMT in that participants do not trust their
teammates. The more a leader acts in a way that followers feel is appropriate, ethical leader
behavior, the more a leader will be trusted (Van den Akker et al., 2009). According to this
principle, leaders should act appropriately and in ways that align with employee and
organizational values. This principle indicates that the TMT should work to bring their actions
into alignment with espoused organizational values. The recommendation is to assign TMT
members peer mentors to observe how other leaders operate. The TMT will meet with their peer
mentors as part of a larger plan to encourage learning, reflection, and reinforcement of positive
behavior. Each organizational recommendation will provide a piece of this overarching
implementation plan.
According to Quinn (1988), leaders need to be mentors in order to enable an
organization’s success. Pernick (2001) also pointed to the importance of having a mentor
program that allows for leaders to develop. The author continued to state that an organization
should implement the proper structures to reinforce learnings through mentor programs (Pernick,
2001). Additional research by Maier et al. (2015) revealed the importance of mentoring in
employee development. It was found that mentoring combined with a specific goal in mind was
found to be the most successful in building trust with teammates (Maier et al., 2015).
Recommendation 2: Create an Innovation Committee to Generate Improvement Strategies
There is an organizational gap within the TMT in which participants do not spend time
seeking to improve behaviors. Behaviors are part of an organization’s culture and are created
through a shared experience, and changing those behaviors and culture should be fostered and

113

reinforced (Schein, 2017). This study would indicate the TMT needs to spend time focusing on
improving behaviors and creating a culture that reinforces those behaviors. The recommendation
is to create an innovation committee to generate improvement strategies, and to provide leaders
ideas and scheduled time to execute with a peer together.
According to Eisend et al. (2016), organizations have many competing priorities. Many
of these priorities can be in competition with each other and require the organization to remain
flexible in achieving those priorities (Eisend et al., 2016). The key is to allow leaders to be
innovative while ensuring alignment to the organization’s goal. Choi (2007) found that leaders
who were more innovative also exhibited more positive behaviors. By providing a structure in
which leaders can innovate together, the organization can encourage and reinforce positive
behaviors (Choi, 2007).
Recommendation 3: Break TMT Into Subgroups to Regularly Reflect on how Similar
Changes Might be Successful in ECC
There is an organizational gap within the TMT in which participants do not seek role
models or similar organizations that have successfully undergone a cultural change of
behaviors. Organizational effectiveness increases when leaders are knowledgeable about and are
consistently learning about themselves and their business (Mezirow, 2000). This study indicates
that participants should increase their knowledge of their organization and other successful
organizations to reach their goals. The recommendation is to provide examples of similar
organizations and their outcomes. Breaking TMT into subgroups to regularly reflect on how
similar changes might be successful in ECC.
Research by Triandis (1989) indicated that people who view themselves as part of a
group are more likely to exhibit positive behaviors. By breaking members into subgroups, the

114

TMT can feel more connected to their peers. The subgroups reduce the chances of TMT
members feeling separate from the group, which can reduce OCBs (Moorman & Blakely,
1995). Improving inclusion among leaders would also help the organization reach a critical mass
required to implement change (Kotter, 2007).
No Gap in the Organization: Provide Training on Leadership Styles
There was not an organizational gap within the TMT, as participants currently work to
adapt their leadership styles. Effective leaders are aware of various types of communication,
non-verbal communication, storytelling, person centered communication, and how these
communication modalities influence change and the environment within the organization (Lewis,
2011). This study indicates participants should be aware of the impact they have on teammates
and how to adapt their leadership style to be successful. The recommendation is to provide
information on leadership styles and the impact on employees.
Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The implementation and evaluation framework for this study relies upon the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This model expands from the previous
Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation. In the new world model, the four levels are built in
reverse order (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This study uses this approach and will examine
the organizational goal and align those to the fourth level of the model (results). Stepping
backwards, the framework will then examine the critical behaviors (level three) required to reach
the organizational goal. Supporting the critical behaviors are the required drivers, also discussed
in level three. In level two, the learning examines how much has been absorbed along with
motivation and confidence of participants to achieve the desired results. Level one is the

115

reaction of participants in response to the training. This level looks at how engaging and
relevant the material was to participants.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
As ECC looks to transform leaders and OCBs within the organization, leading indicators
will be required to determine success. These leading indicators will ensure ECC remains on
track to reach its organizational goal. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016),
identifying and measuring leading indicators is critical to reaching the goal. The leading
indicators serve as markers along the route as ECC seeks to reach its goal. The indicators will
also reveal if the organization is off target.
As the organization sees the internal outcomes occurring, it should then see the external
outcomes. The external outcomes include customer metrics, employee retention, and overall
organizational performance. Table 12 lists the internal and external outcomes along with metrics
and methods of measurement.

116

Table 13
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Reduced employee turnover Number of employee departures per
year
Number of position vacancies per year
HR staffing and
retention data
Continued union-free
environment
Number of union cards signed
Number of votes initiated

HR labor relations
data
Increased desirability of
employment
Number of applications received per
month
HR staffing data
Internal Outcomes
Reduced employee to manager
ratio
Average number of employees per
manager
HR employment
data
Increased OCB score among
teams
Number of behaviors demonstrated Employee survey
Improved relationships
between employees and
leaders
Employee engagement score
Management trust score
Employee survey
Improved employee
satisfaction
Number of employees who indicate
positive association of organization
Employee survey

Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
The most significant portion of the implementation plan are the critical behaviors. These
are also the most difficult to ensure as it requires application of learnings and accountability
within the organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Because of the importance of critical
behaviors, it is important TMT members complete the required training and begin to apply
learnings regularly. The organization needs to monitor the progress of its leaders and provide
support throughout the process. The critical behaviors include regular interactions with
employees, development of leaders in a community of practice, and mentoring. Table 13
provides an overview of the critical behaviors, metrics, methods, and timing.

117

Table 14
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Conduct weekly team meetings, do
walk arounds, and carry out regular
check-ins on performance
Adherence to
schedule

Number of
misses
Present training for
team engagement

Regular follow ups with
leaders to evaluation
performance
Weekly
Formation of community of practice
for discussion, sharing of best
practices, and review of other
organizations
Number of
sessions
attended
Creation of community
of practice

HR to present best
practices
Quarterly
Leaders will form mentor
relationships to improve skill set
Successfully
pairing mentors

Number of
meetings
Discussion of leader
and team needs

Identify improvement
areas
Monthly

Required Drivers
The required drivers ensure the previously mentioned critical behaviors occur. These
drivers are used by the organization to scaffold leaders and to provide support. Within the
required drivers there are four types: reinforcing, encouraging, reward, and monitoring
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Reinforcing drivers encourage the learning of a new skill
into everyday interactions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Examples of these include job aids
that assist leaders with examples as they go about their day. Encouraging drivers are the policy,
procedures, and supports provided by the organization to ensure the new skills are adopted
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). These drivers are in the motivation space and are used to
support leaders in using what they have learned. Rewarding drivers acknowledge and appreciate
the adoption of the desired skills (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The drivers might look like
individual or team recognition for successfully demonstrating skills. Finally, monitoring drivers

118

are how the organization will hold leaders accountable to learning and demonstrating new skills
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The drivers will be an accountability system that ensures
compliance. Table 14 provides an overview of the four types of required drivers, the timing, and
which critical behavior they support.
Table 15
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing

HR to provide job aid to outline ways to do successful
walk arounds with employees
Ongoing 1
HR to provide job aid to show examples of OCBs in
the workplace
Ongoing 1
HR presentations on model organizations Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Encouraging

Mentor meetings to discuss questions and provide
reinforcement of training
Ongoing 1, 3
Peer examples during community of practice
discussions
Ongoing 2
Presentation on OCB impact on organizational goals
by TMT
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Rewarding

Recognition from TMT in monthly communication
and at leadership meeting
Monthly 1, 3
Recognition in monthly team newsletter Monthly 1, 3
Monitoring

Performance evaluation on OCBs Monthly 1, 2, 3
Leader and employee score on OCBs Semi-annually 1, 2, 3

Organizational Support
In order for an organization to successfully reach its goal, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) proposed both support and accountability. Support comes in the form of the required
drivers as discussed above. Accountability are the processes and scaffolding provided to leaders

119

in an effort to bring about the level four results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Regular
performance evaluations of leaders will provide an opportunity to reinforce behaviors and to
correct when necessary. The evaluations can also provide leaders with an opportunity to raise
questions or issues that may require additional organizational support. Another accountability
measure to be used is the employee survey and action plans. Those behaviors receiving lower
scores can be turned into action plans and leaders can receive help from other leaders facing
similar circumstances. The employee survey scores can also be used as a discussion point
amongst leaders in the community of practice meetings. Finally, the organization should provide
time for leaders to reflect on what they have learned and how they will act. This scheduling can
be accomplished at the individual team level and should be modeled by the TMT.
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals
Upon the completion of the development program, the TMT of ECC will be able to:
1. Know how organization climate impacts learning (declarative)
2. Determine how team structure impacts employee behaviors (declarative)
3. Know how to set effective goals (procedural)
4. Understand how to measure progress towards goals (declarative)
5. Be able to reflect on their leadership style and understand its impact on employee
behaviors (metacognitive)
Program
The development program is designed to assist leaders in understanding their impact on
OCBs and how to successfully foster OCBs in their organization. The program supports the
TMT in achieving their goal to have all teams demonstrating OCBs. Through the development

120

program, training, job aids, mentors, and supporting personnel will be connected with leaders to
enable their success. The program will take place on ECC’s campus and be ongoing throughout
the year. The structure of the program is to have up front training followed by setting up peer
and mentor relationships for participants. Additionally, throughout the year, supplemental
training and examples will be provided. Periodic checks of knowledge and motivation will be
done with participants to ensure they are engaged and learning through the program.
The primary support of the program will come through the peer and mentor
relationships. These will be in person meetings conducted monthly, for a total of two meetings
per month for each participant. In the session with their peers, participants can brainstorm ideas,
share best practices, and ask questions of each other. This forum will also allow for problem
solving for issues currently faced by TMT members. In the mentor relationships, participants
will have the opportunity to raise concerns, seek help, and provide feedback. This relationship is
designed to support participants throughout the program.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
As the TMT seeks to increase OCBs within the organization, they will need to know
specific facts. Because of this goal, it is important to understand which leaders have learned the
required knowledge to be successful. Table 15 provides a summary of evaluation tools to
measure learning along with the timing.

121

Table 16
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or Activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Evaluation of knowledge through mentoring
discussions
Monthly
Evaluation of knowledge in survey Quarterly; after community of practice
meeting
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Successful use by leaders of the provided job aids Semi-annual employee survey
Implementation of best practices presented Semi-annual employee survey
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Reinforce value during mentoring session Monthly
Discussion of value in community of practice Quarterly
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Employee survey on behaviors Monthly
Discussion of confidence in mentoring session Monthly
Discussion of confidence in community of
practice
Quarterly
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Written statements and review of individual goals Quarterly
Written statements and review of team goals Quarterly

Level 1: Reaction
In level one, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) measure engagement, relevance, and
satisfaction. The three measure how successful a program is likely to be. Higher scores in each
section should see better results in the program. Table 16 outlines the measures for this program.

122

Table 17
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Attendance During each training session
Completion of training materials Scheduled throughout development program
Relevance

HR to administer periodic survey pulses Scheduled throughout development program
End of program evaluation At the conclusion of development program
Customer Satisfaction

Periodic survey pulses Scheduled throughout development program
End of program evaluation At the conclusion of development program

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
Immediately following each training session, the TMT will be given a survey. These
surveys will evaluate their understanding of concepts, dedication to applying the concepts, and
how useful the concepts are to their everyday working environment (Level 2). Additionally, the
surveys will allow the TMT to grade how useful they found the training session including
material, facilitator, timing, and composition of the training (Level 1). Using this format,
surveys will gather both level one and level two feedback from the TMT.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
One month from the start of the program, a delayed evaluation will occur. This
evaluation will be a survey designed to evaluate all four levels of the New World Kirkpatrick
Model. The survey will include level one questions to gauge engagement, relevance, and
satisfaction. The next series of questions will evaluate level two including confidence of the
TMT and the usefulness of what they have learned. For level three, the questions will seek to
determine what has been applied in their everyday work. And finally, level four questions will

123

evaluate the impact to the work environment. A copy of a sample survey can be found in
Appendix E.
Data Analysis and Reporting
As the program progresses, it will be important to track progress towards the level four
results expected. Namely, reduced employee to manager ratio, an increased OCB score among
teams, higher employee satisfaction, and an improved relationship between employees and
leaders. It is important that these results remain the focus point of the program and are tracked
accordingly. For best results, a visual dashboard should be created to track progress and final
results. A sample of this dashboard can be seen in Figure 13.
Figure 13
Sample Dashboard for Displaying Results

124

Future Research
Future research could examine how change or crisis impact a leader’s ability to
encourage the adoption of OCBs. These factors could reduce or enhance OCB antecedents as
leaders navigate events. Several studies have looked at leaders during periods of change or even
leaders in crisis, but no studies examine the impact to OCBs in these times. In the current
environment, examining crisis would be a fitting study to examine the necessary steps leaders
need to take to successfully navigate their organization.
Previous research has indicated a leader’s style and behaviors can impact the adoption of
OCBs. Additionally, times of crisis often change a leader’s style and behaviors. Examining the
link between crisis and OCBs would be an excellent area for future research. Studies could
explore the different ways leaders respond in crisis and the outcome on OCBs.
Conclusion
Many organizations are seeking to train their leaders to successfully lead their employees
through changes, including behaviors and performance. This study used the Clark and Estes
(2008) model of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences to identify gaps in these
areas. Understanding and closing these gaps are important to develop leaders. This study used
The New World Kirkpatrick Model to begin with the organization’s goal in mind as it made
recommendations to close the identified gaps (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This study
began with the goal and then worked backwards to recommend learning, training, and
assessments to reach the goal. The use of this framework will allow the organization to develop
training programs for the next generation of leaders.

125

REFERENCES
Ahearne, M. J., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2004). Determinants of sales team
success: An empirical examination of the indirect effects of leadership empowerment
behaviors on sales team performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
Ancona, D., Ancona, D. G., & Bresman, H. (2007). X-teams: How to build teams that lead,
innovate, and succeed. Harvard Business Press.
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Education.com, 1-5.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness
(1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction:
Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 187.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. The leadership quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.
Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Collins, B. J., & Richey, R. G. (2006). Effects of task
interdependence on the relationship between helping behavior and group performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1396.
Bandura, A. (1986).The social learning perspective: Mechanisms of aggression. In H. Toch
(Ed.), Psychology of crime and criminal justice (pp. 198-236). Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American psychologist, 44(9),
1175.
Bandura, A., Lipsher, D. H., & Miller, P. E. (1960). Psychotherapists' approach- avoidance
reactions to patients' expression of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 1-8.

126

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26.
Beer, M., Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Tekie, E. B. (2005). Strategic management as
organizational learning: Developing fit and alignment through a disciplined process.
Long Range Planning; Long Range Planning, 38(5), 445-465.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge (1st ed.). New
York: Harper & Row.
Bernard, H. R. (1988). Research methods in cultural anthropology. Sage Publications.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. (2000). Support, commitment, and employee
outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1113-1132.
Blake, R. R., & McCanse, A. A. (1991). Leadership dilemmas: Grid solutions. Houston, TX:
Gulf Publishing Company.
Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the one minute manager.
London: Fontana.
Bommer, W. H., Miles, E. W., & Grover, S. L. (2003). Does one good turn deserve another?
Coworker influences on employee citizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and
Behavior, 24(2), 181-196.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements
of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in
organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of
citizenship performance. International journal of selection and assessment, 9(1‐2), 52-69.

127

Bossidy, L., Charan, R., & Burck, C. (2004). Execution: The discipline of getting things done.
Afp Exchange, 24(1), 26-29.
Bottomley, K., Burgess, S., & Fox, M. (2014). Are the behaviors of transformational leaders
impacting organizations? A study of transformational leadership. International
Management Review, 10(1), 9,66.
Burns, J. M. (2004). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of happiness (Vol. 213). Grove
Press.
Carlyle, T. (1840). Critical and Miscellaneous Essays (Vol. 5). James Fraser.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1960). Group dynamics: Research and theory. Evanston. Ill.: Row,
Peterson.
Chen, X., Lam, S. S. K., Naumann, S. E., & Schaubroeck, J. (2005). Group citizenship
behaviour: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of its antecedents and consequences.
Management and Organization Review, 1(2), 273-300.
Choi, J. N. (2007). Change‐oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of work
environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28(4), 467-484.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A
theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201-234). Academic Press.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct:
recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 58(6), 1015.

128

Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and
compliance.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. IAP.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of management, 31(6), 874-900.
Crossan, M., & Mazutis, D. (2008). Transcendent leadership. Business Horizons, 51(2), 131-139.
Crossan, M., Vera, D., & Nanjad, L. (2008). Transcendent leadership: Strategic leadership in
dynamic environments. The leadership quarterly, 19(5), 569-581.
Cruz, M. G., Henningsen, D. D., & Smith, B. A. (1999). The impact of directive leadership on
group information sampling, decisions, and perceptions of the leader. Communication
Research, 26(3), 349-369.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2014). Organization development and change. Cengage
learning.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship
behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241-
1255.
Dansereau, F., Jr,. Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to
leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making
process. Organizational behavior and human performance, 13(1), 46-78.

129

Daou, M., Lohse, K. R., & Miller, M. W. (2016). Expecting to teach enhances motor learning
and information processing during practice. Human Movement Science, 49, 336-345.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (2000). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life.
Cambridge, Mass: Perseus Books.
Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C., & Andersson, L. M. (2003). Doing unto others: The reciprocity of
helping behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(2), 101-113.
Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader‐member exchange and organizational
citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(4),
315-326.
Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473-490.
den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and
tools in education and training.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory. Education.com.
Detjen, J., & Webber, S. S. (2017). Strategic shifts that build executive leadership. Business
Horizons, 60(3), 335-343.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-
analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the
past with an eye toward the future. Journal of management, 38(6), 1715-1759.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological review, 95(2), 256.

130

Ehrhart, M. G., Bliese, P. D., & Thomas, J. L. (2006). Unit-level OCB and unit effectiveness:
Examining the incremental effect of helping behavior. Human performance, 19(2), 159-
173.
Ehrhart, M. G., Ehrhart, K. H., Roesch, S. C., Chung-Herrera, B. G., Nadler, K., & Bradshaw, K.
(2009). Testing the latent factor structure and construct validity of the Ten-Item
Personality Inventory. Personality and individual Differences, 47(8), 900-905.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A
group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 960.
Eidinow, E., & Ramirez, R. (2016). The aesthetics of story-telling as a technology of the
plausible. Futures, 84, 43-49.
Eisend, M., Evanschitzky, H., & Gilliland, D. I. (2016). The influence of organizational and
national culture on new product performance. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 33(3), 260-276.
Elshout, R., Scherp, E., & van der Feltz-Cornelis, C. M. (2013). Understanding the link between
leadership style, employee satisfaction, and absenteeism: a mixed methods design study
in a mental health care institution. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 9, 823.
Engineering Consultants of California Demographics. (2018).
Engineering Consultants of California Labor Statistics (2019).
Engineering Consultants of California Newsletter. (2006).
Engineering Consultants of California Newsletter. (2017).
Engineering Consultants of California Vision. (2018).
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace. Leadership, 65-114.

131

Erhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level
organizational citizenship behavior. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.
Farh, J., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship
behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management,
16(4), 705.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of
management review, 9(1), 47-53.
Ferris, G. R., Liden, R. C., Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Basik, K. J., & Buckley, M. R.
(2009). Relationships at work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic
work relationships. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7(2), 117-140.
Finkelstein, S. (2006). Why smart executives fail: Four case histories of how people learn the
wrong lessons from history. Business History, 48(02), 153-170.
Firestone, D. (2010). A study of leadership behaviors among chairpersons in allied health
programs. Journal of Allied Health, 39(1), 34-42.
Flynn, E., & Kearns, T. (2011). Assess the data: filing trends in bankruptcy, 2007-2011.
Executive Office for United States Trustees.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., Bruursema, K., & Kessler, S. R. (2012). The deviant citizen:
Measuring potential positive relations between counterproductive work behaviour and
organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 85, 199-220.

132

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). Authentic leadership development:
Emergent trends and future directions. Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins,
effects and development, 387-406.
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance,
and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of applied psychology,
75(6), 698.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human
performance, 10(2), 153-170.
Gilpin-Jackson, Y., & Bushe, G. R. (2007). Leadership development training transfer: A case
study of post-training determinants. Journal of management development, 26(10), 980-
1004.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative" description of personality": the big-five factor structure.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 59(6), 1216.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
sociological review, 161-178.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (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.
Graham, J. W. (1986). Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. Research in
organizational behavior.

133

Grenny, J., Patterson, K., Maxfield, D., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2013). Influencer: The
new science of leading change. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1997). Cultural variability in communication: An introduction.
Communication research, 24(4), 327-348.
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Hambrick, D. C., Davison, S. C., Snell, S. A., & Snow, C. C. (1998). When groups consist of
multiple nationalities: Towards a new understanding of the implications. Organization
studies, 19(2), 181-205.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its
top managers. Academy of management review, 9(2), 193-206.
Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2004). The development and validation of the GLOBE culture
and leadership scales. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of, 62,
122-151.
Harrison, C. (2018). Leadership theory and research A critical approach to new and existing
paradigms. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Hart, S. L., & Quinn, R. E. (1993). Roles executives play: CEOs, behavioral complexity, and
firm performance. Human relations, 46(5), 543-574.
Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 6-38.
Heracleous, L., & Werres, K. (2016). On the road to disaster: Strategic misalignments and
corporate failure. Long Range Planning, 49(4), 491-506.

134

Hitt, M. A., Haynes, K. T., & Serpa, R. (2010). Strategic leadership for the 21st century.
Business Horizons, 53, 437-444.
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Rowe, G. W. (2005). Strategic leadership: Strategy, resources,
ethics and succession. Handbook on responsible leadership and governance in global
business, 19-41.
Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. (1998). Navigating in the new competitive
landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(4), 22-42.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences, international differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.
Horowitz, L., Wilson, K., Turan, B., Zolotsev, P., Constantino, M., & Henderson, L. (2006).
How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised
circumplex model. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis?.
Journal of management, 23(3), 409-473.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.
Hunt, J. G. (2004). What is leadership. The nature of leadership, 19-47.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F., & Nahrgang, J. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being:
Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 373-394.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J., & Morgeson, F. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship
behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269-277.

135

Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (1999). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the
21st century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Perspectives,
13(1), 43-57.
Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & De Luque, M. S. (2006).
Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: a comparative review of
GLOBE's and Hofstede's approaches. Journal of international business studies, 37(6),
897-914.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of management journal, 44(2), 238-
251.
Jex, S. M., & Thomas, J. L. (2003). Relations between stressors and group perceptions: Main and
mediating effects. Work & Stress, 17(2), 158-169.
Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). The good and bad of being fair: Effects of
procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on regulatory resources. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 99(4), 635.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: a
qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 765.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating
role of job characteristics. Journal of applied psychology, 85(2), 237.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A
review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The leadership quarterly,
20(6), 855-875.
Kahn, R. L. (1956). The prediction of productivity. Journal of Social Issues, 12, 41–49.

136

Karambayya, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior: Contextual predictors and
organizational consequences.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral science, 9(2),
131-146.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1951). Human organization and worker motivation. In L. R. Tripp
(Ed.), Industrial productivity (pp. 146–171). Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research
Association.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in
higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? Journal of
Higher Education, 73(4), 435-60.
Kidwell, R. E., Jr,. Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and organizational
citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of
management, 23(6), 775-793.
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of applied psychology,
81(1), 36.
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on
teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of organizational
behavior, 16(4), 319-333.
Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of organizational behavior, 17(3), 253-266.

137

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of
management journal, 37(3), 656-669.
Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change: How management differs from leadership. New York:
FreePress.
Kotter, J. (2007). Leading change why transformation efforts fail. Accountancy SA, 19-29.
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and
turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit‐level, longitudinal study. Personnel
psychology, 54(1), 101-114.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice,
41(4), 212-218.
Kunda, G. (2009). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation.
Temple University Press.
Kusy, M., & Holloway, E. (2010). Cultivating a culture of respectful engagement. Leader to
Leader. 2010(58), 50-56.
Lau, D. C., & Lam, L. W. (2008). Effects of trusting and being trusted on team citizenship
behaviours in chain stores. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(2), 141-149.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of
applied psychology, 87(1), 52.
Lewin, B. (1939). Some observations on knowledge, belief and the impulse to know. The
International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 20, 426.

138

Lewis, L. (2011). Organizational Change: Creating Change through Strategic Communication.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past
and potential for the future. Research in personnel and human resources management,
15, 47-120.
Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of
the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of
management journal, 55(5), 1187-1212.
Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between
personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization
procedures. Journal of applied psychology, 71(3), 402.
Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership
skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 591-615.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (2002). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions
and performance. Routledge.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional
leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the academy of Marketing Science,
29(2), 115.
Maier, T., Marco, T., Bombard, M., & Bradford, B. (2015). Millennial generation perceptions of
value centered leadership principles, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality &
Tourism, 14(4), 382-397.
Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Koopman, J., & Conlon, D. E. (2015). Does seeing “eye to eye” affect
work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on
LMX agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1686-1708.

139

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
McAllister, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24.
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Hartley, K. (2006). The effect of general relevance
instructions on shallow and deeper learning and reading time. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 74(4), 291-310.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 1997: 5-12.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress.
The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San
Francisco, CA.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1984). Designing strategic human resources systems.
Organizational dynamics, 13(1), 36-52.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?. Journal
of applied psychology, 76(6), 845.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism‐collectivism as an individual difference
predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of organizational behavior,
16(2), 127-142.

140

Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An
integration. Psychological bulletin, 115(2), 210.
Nguyen, T., Mia, L., Winata, L., & Chong, V. (2016). Effect of transformational-leadership style
and management control system on managerial performance. Journal of Business
Research. 70(2017), 202-213.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management
journal, 36(3), 527-556.
Nielsen, K., & Cleal, B. (2011). Under which conditions do middle managers exhibit
transformational leadership behaviors?—An experience sampling method study on the
predictors of transformational leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2),
344-352.
Nielsen, T. M., Hrivnak, G. A., & Shaw, M. (2009). Organizational citizenship behavior and
performance: A meta-analysis of group-level research. Small Group Research, 40(5),
555-577.
Northouse, P. G. (2017). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
O'Reilly III, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A
profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of
management journal, 34(3), 487-516.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Issues in organization and management series. Organizational citizenship
behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/D. C.
Organ, D. W. (1996). Leadership: The great man theory revisited.

141

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human
performance, 10(2), 85-97.
Organ, D. W., & McFall, J. B. (2004). Personality and citizenship behavior in organizations.
Personality and organizations, 291-314.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Sage Publications.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Washington, D.C.: Personnel
Psychology, Inc.
Pearce, C. L., & Herbik, P. A. (2004). Citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis: The
effects of team leadership, team commitment, perceived team support, and team size. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 144(3), 293-310.
Pernick, R. (2001). Creating a leadership development program: Nine essential tasks. Public
Personnel Management, 30(4), 429-444.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The
mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management journal, 49(2), 327-
340.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness Perceptions and Trust as
Mediators for Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Two-Sample Study.
Journal of Management, 25(6), 897–933.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation in
Learning and Teaching Contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.

142

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual-and
organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-
analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 94(1), 122.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader
behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,
commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of management,
22(2), 259-298.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. (1994). An examination of the psychometric properties and
nomological validity of some revised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 702.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. The leadership quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (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.
Popa, B. (2012). The relationship between leadership effectiveness and organizational
performance. Regional Department of Defense Resources Management Studies. 3(1),
123-127.
Porter, M. E. (2001). Strategy and the Internet.
Porter, R., & Samovar, L. (1997). Intercultural communication. Boston: A Reader.
Powell, T. C. (1992). Research notes and communications strategic planning as competitive
advantage. Strategic management journal, 13(7), 551-558.

143

Pratt, J., Mohrweis, L. C., & Beaulieu, P. (1993). The interaction between national and
organizational culture in accounting firms: An extension. Accounting, Organizations and
society, 18(7-8), 621-628.
Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance among
commission salespeople. Journal of applied psychology, 72(4), 615.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing
demands of high performance. Jossey-Bass.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing
approach. Journal of applied psychology, 87(1), 66.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
responsibilities and rights journal, 2(2), 121-139.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. Teachers College Press. New York, NY.
Ruggieri, S., & Abbate, C. S. (2013). Leadership style, self-sacrifice, and team identification.
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 41(7), 1171.
Salam, S., Cox, J., & Sims, H. (1996). How to make a team work: Mediating effects of job
satisfaction between leadership and team citizenship. Briarcliff, NY: Academy of
Management.

144

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes
and task design. Administrative science quarterly, 224-253.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture (Vol. 45, No. 2, p. 109). American Psychological
Association.
Schein, E. H. (2017). In Schein P. (Ed.), Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.).
Hoboken: Wiley.
Schnake, M., Dumler, M. P., & Cochran, D. S. (1993). The relationship between" traditional"
leadership," super" leadership, and organizational citizenship behavior. Group &
Organization Management, 18(3), 352-365.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied
psychology: an international review, 48(1), 23-47.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence. The
Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 147-160.
Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artifacts in the assessment of
counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know
what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 781-790.
Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A
lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56-77.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature.
The Journal of psychology, 25(1), 35-71.

145

Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire-Form XII: An
experimental revision. Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and
Administration, Ohio State University.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. Free Press.
Thibaut, J., & Kelly, H. (1959). Social Exchange Theory en Griffin, E.(Ed.) A First Look at a
Commnunication Theory.
Ting‐Toomey, S. (2015). Identity negotiation theory. The international encyclopedia of
interpersonal communication, 1-10.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological
review, 96(3), 506.
Triandis, H. C., & Bhawuk, D. P. (1997). Culture theory and the meaning of relatedness.
Trompenaars, F. (1996). Resolving international conflict: Culture and business strategy. Business
Strategy Review, 7(3), 51-68.
Turnipseed, D. L. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Review
of" good Soldier" Activity in Organizations. Nova Science Publishers.
Van den Akker, L., Heres, L., Lasthuizen, K., & Six, F. (2009). Ethical leadership and trust: It's
all about meeting expectations. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(2), 102-
122.
Van Der Vegt, G. S., Van De Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and
organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team
identification. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 715-727.

146

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of management Journal,
37(4), 765-802.
Van Dyne, L., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M. E., & Cummings, L. (2000).
Collectivism, propensity to trust and self‐esteem as predictors of organizational
citizenship in a non‐work setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 3-23.
van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness
in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243-295.
Van Maanen, J., & Kunda, G. (1989). Real feelings. emotional expression and organizational
culture [in:] LL cummings, BM staw (ed.), research in organizational behaviour, vol. 11.
Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Tekie, E. B. (2006). Managing purposeful organizational misfit:
Exploring the nature of industry and organizational misfit to enable strategic change.
Journal of Change Management, 6(3), 257-276.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-meditated interaction: A relational
perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52-90.
Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to
organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(3), 301-319.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee
citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46(12), 1431-1440.
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role of upward influence
tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 979-1006.
Wheatley, M. J. (1994). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an
orderly universe. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.

147

Williams, S., Pitre, R., & Zainuba, M. (2002). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior
intentions: Fair rewards versus fair treatment. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(1), 33-
44.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management.
Academy of Management Review, 14, 361-384.
Wren, D. A., Bedeian, A. G., & Breeze, J. D. (2002). The foundations of henri fayol's
administrative theory. Management Decision, 40(9), 906-918.
Yin, H. H., Ostlund, S. B., & Balleine, B. W. (2008). Reward-guided learning beyond dopamine
in the nucleus accumbens: The integrative functions of cortico-basal ganglia networks.
European Journal of Neuroscience, 28(8), 1437.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:
Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of leadership & organizational
studies, 9(1), 15-32.
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The leadership
quarterly, 12(4), 451-483.
Zaleznik, A. (1986). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 64,
48.

148

Appendix A
Interview Protocol

Thanks for being willing to sit down with me and be involved in my dissertation. I appreciate
your time and helpfulness. Through this interview we will touch on you as a leader and our
organization in an effort to expand our understanding. This interview should take about an hour
depending on our conversation.

Before we jump into, I’d like to give you an overview of my study and touch on a few logistics.
My study is examining how leaders influence the behaviors of their teams. As you know, the
leadership traits are the center of focus for us. As an organization, we are looking to have our
leaders exemplify these traits and to encourage the behaviors on our teams. But how do teams
decide which behaviors they want to adopt? We’ll be taking a look at you as a leader to better
understand your thoughts as a leader. Throughout this study I will be the principle investigator.
This study is part of the requirements from the University of Southern California to complete a
doctorate of education through the Rossier School of Education. Data collection has been
approved by USC and ECC. Publication of data will be worked through our release of
information process. Any personal information, including information about participants, will be
confidential. Any information you provide to me will also be confidential. Please note, none of
what you say will be shared with anyone else in our organization. Data collected will be
aggregated with other participants and published as part of my dissertation.

Do you have any questions about my study? Any questions about the data collection or release?

Should you have any further questions about the study or if you have any concerns, you can
contact my dissertation chair: Tracy Tambascia. If you have any questions about the approval of
this study, you may contact USC IRB. If you are uncomfortable at any point during this
interview, please let me know. You have the ability to withdraw at any point.

Finally, a few points on the interview. I will be recording this interview to ensure I’m accurately
hearing you. If at any point you’d like to have the recording paused or stopped, please let me
know. Again, your participation in the study and recording is voluntary. Do I have your
permission to record our session today?

Interview Items

To begin, I’d like to start with the concept of leadership
1) In your opinion, what makes an ideal leader in this organization?
- Behavior
- Traits
- Values
If we were to reverse that and look at the negative side of leadership
2) What does failure look like as a leader in this organization? What constitutes poor
leadership?

149

Now, let’s transition to your experience as a leader
3) Please describe your leadership style
- Have you had any personal experiences that influenced your style?
- How would your team describe you as a leader?
- How does your leadership style influence employee behaviors?
As a leader, you can encounter some tough spots or times of crisis.
4) How do times of crisis such as schedule constraints change how you interact with
your employees?
How, if at all, do you influence people to see your point of view?
- Would you walk me through a recent example?
- When does it work?
- When is it difficult?
5) And what would you say is the most difficult part of being a leader in this organization?
Let’s transition to discuss more about your team.
6) In a typical day, what do your interactions with your direct reports look like?
7) How would you describe your relationship to your direct reports?
How do you encourage individuals on your team to continue their own development?
- How do you prepare them for upcoming organizational changes, if at all?
Next, let’s take a look at behaviors on your team and an overview of organizational citizenship
behaviors (OCBs).
OCB overview:
- Discretionary acts by the employee that are not formally rewarded by the
organization, but contribute to the effective functioning of the organization
- Innovative and spontaneous activity that goes beyond role prescriptions necessary for
effective organizational functioning
- Acts of helping, sharing, donating, cooperating, voluntarily promoting the
organization’s interests and positive social acts carried out to produce and maintain
the well-being and integrity of others

8) Would you consider these behaviors as normal for individuals on your team to
demonstrate?
- If yes, how did these become norms?
- If no, are they behaviors you are seeking to encourage? What does this look like?
9) How important would you say these behaviors are to the team’s success?
- How important are they to your success as a leader of the team?
a. Would you provide me an example of what these behaviors would look like on
your team?
- Is this a regular occurrence?
How does the organization’s climate impact your team’s behaviors?

150

Appendix B
Survey Protocol

How often have you done each of the following things on your present job?

Never
Once or twice
Once or twice per
month
Once or twice per

1. Picked up meal for others at work 1 2 3 4 5
2. Took time to advise, coach, or mentor a co-worker. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Helped co-worker learn new skills or shared job knowledge. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Helped new employees get oriented to the job. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Lent a compassionate ear when someone had a work problem. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Lent a compassionate ear when someone had a personal problem. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Changed vacation schedule, work days, or shifts to accommodate co-
worker’s needs.
1 2 3 4 5
8. Offered suggestions to improve how work is done. 1 2 3 4 5
9. Offered suggestions for improving the work environment. 1 2 3 4 5
10. Finished something for co-worker who had to leave early. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Helped a less capable co-worker lift a heavy box or other object. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Helped a co-worker who had too much to do. 1 2 3 4 5
13. Volunteered for extra work assignments. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Took phone messages for absent or busy co-worker. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Said good things about your employer in front of others. 1 2 3 4 5
16. Gave up meal and other breaks to complete work. 1 2 3 4 5
17. Volunteered to help a co-worker deal with a difficult customer, vendor, or
co-worker.
1 2 3 4 5
18. Went out of the way to give co-worker encouragement or express
appreciation.
1 2 3 4 5
19. Decorated, straightened up, or otherwise beautified common work space. 1 2 3 4 5
20. Defended a co-worker who was being "put-down" or spoken ill of by other
co-workers or supervisor.
1 2 3 4 5

151

Appendix C
Recruitment Email

Hello,

You are invited to participate in in this study which comprise of a survey and interview
about employee behaviors. This is part of a dissertation research project investigating the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that affect a leader’s impact on
organizational change behaviors.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and your responses will be kept
confidential. During the survey, you may decline to answer any question on the survey. You may
also choose to end your participation at any time. No personally identifiable information will be
associated with your responses to any reports of these data.
Interview participation is completely voluntary. If you choose to volunteer, you will be
asked to provide contact information. Your contact information will be used to contact you to
schedule a video or audio conference or in-person interview. You may decline to participate at
any time. The identity of all interview participants will be kept confidential.
Thank you for your time and willingness to participate in this dissertation research
project.
Sincerely,
Jordan Clarke

152

Appendix D
Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Leadership and the Impact on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
that affect a leader’s impact on organizational change behaviors.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey which is
anticipated to take approximately 5 minutes. You will also be asked to participate in an
interview that will take approximately 1 hour. You do not have to answer any questions in the
survey or interview that you do not wish to.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Data will be kept securely on the primary investigator’s laptop. This device is only accessible by
the primary investigator. The device is encrypted with whole disk encryption and requires a
multifactor authenticated login. A backup of the data is kept on an encrypted hard drive kept
locked by the principal investigator. Data will be kept indefinitely for future use in follow up
studies.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Jordan Clarke via email at [redacted]. Faculty Advisor Tracy Tambascia
via email at [redacted].

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board, 1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700,
Los Angeles, CA 90033-9269. Phone (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.

153

Appendix E
Sample Delayed Four Levels Evaluation Survey
Survey Items (5 point Likert scale: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree)
Engagement, relevance, and satisfaction
1. I found the content relevant to me
2. The content improved my understand of employee behaviors
3. I found the program to be a good use of my time
Learning
4. My understanding of employee behaviors has increased because of the training
5. My understanding of how to reflect on my leadership style has increased because of the
training
6. I feel confident in my ability to implement lessons I have learned
Behavior
7. I have used what I learned in my daily interactions with teammates
8. I have used one of the job aids in my daily interactions with teammates
Results
9. I have made positive progress towards my goals
10. I have worked with my team to adopt concepts I learned
Other
11. How can the next session be improved?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Sustaining faith-based organizations through leadership pipelines and programs: an evaluation study

PDF

Equitable schooling for African American students: an evaluation study

PDF

Lack of diversity in leadership: An organizational problem

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

The inconsistency of teachers reporting and intervening in bullying situations: an evaluation study

PDF

The organizational impacts of executive technology leadership role proliferation

PDF

Online graduate-level student learning and engagement: developing critical competencies for future leadership roles: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation study of the retention of company grade officers in the Western Volunteer Rifles

PDF

The mentorship of instructors and its impact on computer science interest among middle school girls: an evaluation study

PDF

Measuring the impact of short-term campus exchange programs: an evaluation study

PDF

Gender inequity and leadership in the large state militia: an innovation study

PDF

Aligned leadership attributes and organizational innovation: an evaluation study

PDF

Initial and continuing physical and behavioral health and wellness education in the fire service: an innovation study on heart attack, suicide, and cancer prevention for Howard County Fire and Rescue

PDF

Affluent teens and school stress: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing organizational capacity at a small college to deploy revenue diversification strategies: an evaluation study

PDF

IEP stakeholder communication and collaboration and its effects on student placement

PDF

Managing successful organizational change for faculty in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level in the Air Force: an innovation study

PDF

Improving the representation of women in the independent school headship

PDF

Implementing standards-based grading in the era of common standards: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Clarke, Jordan (author)

Core Title Leadership and the impact on organizational citizenship behaviors: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/19/2020

Defense Date 07/22/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag employee behavior,leadership,leadership style,OAI-PMH Harvest,OCB,organizational citizenship behavior

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Maddox, Anthony (committee member)

Creator Email clarkej@usc.edu,jclar152@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-337492

Unique identifier UC11663621

Identifier etd-ClarkeJord-8697.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-337492 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ClarkeJord-8697.pdf

Dmrecord 337492

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Clarke, Jordan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA