Next Article in Journal
Temporal and Spatial Changes in Coupling and Coordinating Degree of New Urbanization and Ecological-Environmental Stress in China
Previous Article in Journal
Aggregate Stability under Long-Term Fertilization Practices: The Case of Eroded Ultisols of South-Central China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/su11041170
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Participative Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Mediating Role of Trust and Moderating Role of Continuance Commitment: Evidence from the Pakistan Hotel Industry

by
Misbah Hayat Bhatti
1,
Yanbin Ju
1,
Umair Akram
2,*,
Muhammad Hasnat Bhatti
3,
Zubair Akram
1 and
Muhammad Bilal
4
1
School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100875, China
2
Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
3
School of Management Science and Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116085, China
4
School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing 100876, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(4), 1170; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041170
Submission received: 9 February 2019 / Revised: 16 February 2019 / Accepted: 17 February 2019 / Published: 22 February 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The present study examines the mediating role of affective and cognitive trust, and the moderating role of continuous commitment on participative leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) relationships. Four hundred employees were recruited from the hotel industry in Pakistan. The bootstrapping method was used for an estimation of the mediation effect by the process macro. This study employs confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Results revealed that affective trust significantly mediates the relationship between participative leadership and OCB. Moreover, continuous commitment significantly plays a moderating role in the relationship between participative leadership and OCB. This study provides unique insight into the OCB in the hotel industry. Affective and cognitive trust as a mediator and moderator of continuance commitment are examined, which is the novel characteristic of this study. Managerial implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed.

1. Introduction

In today’s turbulent environment, where everything is changing swiftly, this change requires a modification of the relationship between leaders and followers, and espouses such a leadership style that is based on collaboration, involvement, and participation of employees in decision making and the problem-solving process.
According to Lamb [1], a participative leadership style gives opportunities to employees to share their creative ideas to improve a critical situation. A participative leader empowers followers and invites them to take part in decision making, and, as a result, their immersion leader will be able to get followers to be devoted towards goal achievement, thus increasing performance. One of the enormous benefits of participative leadership is that it motivates employees to perform organizational citizenship behavior because of empowerment and infatuation.
Organizational citizenship behavior is defined as the volitional behavior of an employee to perform extra role duties, not renowned by a formal reward system of organization, but contributes to the effective functioning of an organization [2].
Now, a new concept of organizational citizenship behavior has emerged. Organizational citizenship behavior is exhibited by employees based on social exchange with the expectation of “pay me forward”. Organizational citizenship behavior is related to the perception of an employee that the organization will look after his/her interest and it will contribute to employee career advancement opportunities [3]. A participative leader stimulates followers to perform organizational citizenship behavior to get future benefits. Therefore, research affirms that participative leadership has a positive impact on employee organizational citizenship behavior [4].
Trust plays a significant role in establishing a smooth relationship between a leader and followers. Trust can be defined as the willingness of one party to accept the vulnerability of the other with the expectation that the person will work for their best concern [5]. Past analyses reveled that trust in a leader is positively correlated to organizational citizenship behavior and negatively associated with turnover intensions [6,7].
Earlier studies have conceptualized trust as one-dimension and derelict other two important types of trust. Modern development in literature have introduced two imperative kinds of trust that make distinctive impact on subordinates; one is character based or cognitive trust and other one is relationship based or affective trust [8,9,10].
Cognitive trust is defined as a rational assessment of a leader’s characteristics, such as integrity, competence, credibility, and reliability. Cognitive trust promotes confidence in followers about a leader’s actions and reduces uncertainty that is associated with a leader’s actions [6,11]. Working with a leader in close proximity provides opportunities to subordinates to evaluate leader competency and reliability. By giving opportunities to followers in decision making and problem solving, a participative leader develops cognitive trust among subordinates. Through the development of cognitive trust, followers will be able to engage in OCB without any fear because the participative leader will truthfully recognize their extra efforts [12].
Affective trust is defined as the emotional attachment of a subordinate with the leader by showing true concern and care through a reciprocal social exchange process. When employees feel that they are treated well by a leader then they feel an obligation to reciprocate in the form of organizational citizenship behavior [2,13]. Therefore, affective and cognitive trust mediates the relationship between participative leadership and Organizational citizenship behavior.
Continuance commitment can be defined as an employee’s purposeful intention to continue his membership with the organization after an analysis cost of leaving the organization. It is a calculative type of commitment in which employee stay in an organization after an analysis of the benefits that he will sacrifice if he leaves the organization, like career advancement opportunities, participative decision making, and impartial performance appraisal [14]. Continuance commitment moderates between the relationship of participative leadership and Organizational citizenship behavior in such a way that an employee with continuance commitment rationally involves organizational citizenship behavior to obtain recognition from his/her leader for future benefits [15]. Employees with continuance commitment use trust to obtain surety about leader sincerity and trustfulness. Thus, a continuance committed employee can deliberately engage in OCB through a reliance on leader evaluation competency to obtain career development opportunities in an organization.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to identify the process by which participative leadership increases and elongates this relationship through the mediating effect of affective and cognitive trust. We added continuance commitment as a moderator that enhances the mediated relationship between cognitive trust and organizational citizenship behavior.
The hospitality industry is one of the largest and fastest growing industries in the 21st century. The hotel industry has emphasized sustainability as well as economic, social, and environmental impacts. To gain a competitive advantage at the global level, the hotel industry operates with the tagline of “friendly to the environment”. The sustainable hotel industry has created a brand image in the eyes of customers as it provides healthier services to their customers [16]. To attain sustainability, an origination requires efforts from all employees. That is why employees who show OCB are helpful for the sustainable hostel industry. Participative leadership helps to encourage and mentor employees for sustainability.
Our study makes an imperative contribution in several ways. First, this study will add significant value to the literature of participative leadership though the development of a moderated–mediation model through which a participative leader will able to increase organizational citizenship behavior. Second, the information about the mediating effect of affective and cognitive trust on employees’ OCB has relevance for managers and human resource development practitioners by providing guidance to determine which type of trust they should follow to amplify organizational citizenship behavior. Third, by identifying continuance commitment as a moderator, boundary conditions under which participative leadership can encourage employees to engage in organizational citizenship behavior will be stipulated. In sum, the present study extends the literature by examining a model that explores the underlying mediating and moderating mechanisms in the participative leadership and OCB relationship. The context of this study, that is, Pakistani managerial employees, adds further value to the research. By focusing on the Asian context, this work enriches the literature on OCB and participative leadership, which has traditionally been dominated by Western studies.
The manuscript is structured as follows. In the first section, we begin with a brief review of the variables used in this study. We discuss the arguments leading to the hypotheses in the second section. In the third section, the methods and results are presented in detail regarding the study sample, the measures used in the study, and the data analyses performed. The final section discusses the major findings, the implications of the results for both theory and practice, the limitations of the study, and the opportunities for future endeavors.

2. Conceptual Framework and Research Hypotheses Development

2.1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior

In today’s intensive era of competition, it is important for organizations to gain a competitive advantage. It is not easy for an organization to gain a competitive advantage by just relying on its own policy. An organization will be able to gain competitive edge when its employees are ready to go beyond the prescribed work duties without expecting any benefit. This is the discretionary behavior of an employee. In the field of organizational behavior, discretionary behavior has received much attention in the past [17]. Employees who perform organizational citizenship behavior help an organization to increase its efficiency. Dedicated and hardworking employees are assets of an organization that go beyond the expectation of the leader to increase the productivity of an organization [18].
OCB does not mean long working hours and taking on extra assignments without any contemplation of reward. Rather, it means employees will help in finding and providing innovative solutions to problems, and will provide valuable suggestions that will facilitate an organization in policy creation. This type of productive behavior of employees will result in an efficient improvement of an organization’s functioning [19].
Previously, OCB was known as the discretionary behavior of employee that was not part of his/her formal job description and was unrewarded. Now, a new concept of OCB has emerged. According to this new concept, OCB is a reward oriented and rational behavior of employees. Employees perform extra tasks with the intention of getting the leader’s attention, during which they will consider this extra role behavior in performance evolution and will allocate rewards accordingly. Now, OCB is known as “pay me forward” [20].
From previous findings, it is obvious that employees who are actively involved in performing altruistic tasks always pay less attention to absenteeism and organizational cynicism. OCB plays a significant role in performance evolution because only 9.5% of fluctuation is explained by objective performance, but 42.9% of variance is explained by employees’ OCB. Therefore, managers must pay attention to employees’ OCB when evaluating performance [2].
Previous research has identified the essential antecedents of OCB, including: Job satisfaction [20], organizational commitment [21], psychological empowerment [22], personality traits [23], work family balance [24], emotional intelligence [25], and trust [11].

2.2. Participative Leadership

Participative leadership is defined as a leader’s non-authoritative behavior that gives opportunities to subordinates to take part in the decision-making process and receive input from employees to make a quality decision [26]. In participative decision-making, the leader encourages employees to express their ideas and suggestions. A participative leader acts as a coach that facilitates all employees to openly demonstrate their ideas and utilizes this valuable information in decision-making. During the entire process, a participative leader empowers employees and eradicates all obstructions to achieve outcomes [13].
According to path goal theory [4], effective leaders are those who motivate subordinates to become involved in decision-making for the effective attainment of goals. The purpose is to increase employee motivation and empowerment and to make members of the organization more productive. Managers should adopt a participative leadership style because it is a consultative leadership style. Though this style of leadership, versatility and innovation can be concocted in the problem-solving process [27].
A participative leader builds human capability, ability, and a sense of responsibility through involvement in decision-making. Participation in decision-making creates self-efficacy, psychological empowerment, and enables subordinates to feel that they are valuable assets of an organization [28].
A participative leader develops a climate of open communication in which employees feel empowered and their resistance towards any organizational change can be handled. This leadership is characterized by less formalization, an inclination of respect, power sharing, mutual understanding, and eradication of reciprocal threats and antagonism [10].
This leadership style works best in an organic organizational structure, where employees are mostly involved in creativity and have a good sense of their job responsibilities. Participative leadership produces enviable results, where employees have the passion to learn from their leader. Some examples of companies who experience the benefits of this distinguished leadership style include Google, Apple, and Hindustan Computers Limited [29].
There is empirical evidence that participative leadership has a significant impact on work outcomes, such as an increase in employee performance [30], intrinsic motivation [31], knowledge sharing [32], and OCB [30].

2.3. Impact of Participative Leadership on OCB

A participative leader is characterized by actions that empower subordinates and provide opportunities to perform autonomous decision making. When employees feel they are empowered by their leader, they will reciprocate in a positive manner by putting extra effort into the accomplishment of goals delineated by the leader. Empowerment makes employees feel positive about a leader’s integrity. They believe that if they engage in citizenship behavior towards an organization, then it will be redeemed later [30].
An involvement in decision-making stimulates subordinates to believe that a leader has confidence in their skills and abilities. A participative leader promotes self-efficacy among employees and recognizes their self-worth. When employees gain experience, they get recognition and the leader acknowledges their innovative ideas and skills; this self-recognition by the leader urges them to perform extra roles and tasks that contribute to the organization’s growth and competitiveness [33].
A participative leader induces intrinsic motivation through involving subordinates in the decision-making process; this involvement makes them feel that the leader places value on the ideas and suggestions of subordinates. The autonomy of sharing ideas and the low control of a participative leader intrinsically motivates followers to exhibit citizenship behavior [4]. Therefore, the proposed hypothesis is:
H1: 
Participative leadership is positively related to organizational citizenship behavior.

2.4. Mediating Effects of Cognitive and Affective Trust in the Relationship of Participative Leadership and OCB

Trust plays a significant role in establishing a smooth relationship between leaders and followers. Trust can be defined as the willingness of one party to accept the vulnerability of the other with the expectation that the person will work in their best interests [5]. The origins of trust are strongly embedded in social exchange theory, as defined by Blau [34]; when employees feel they are treated well by a leader, they will recompense this by putting extra effort into increasing the competitiveness of an organization.
With the development of high trust in a leader, followers are more likely to provide extra effort in the attainment of goals and to percolate altruistic behavior, which is not formally prescribed by an organization because trust plays an important role in the reduction of uncertainty around reciprocation [35]. A participative leader promotes trust among followers through their involvement in decision-making and this manifest as confidence in employees’ creative ideas. Past research found that trust mediates the relationship between participative leadership and organizational citizenship behavior [30].
Prior studies have conceptualized trust as a one-dimensional construct and ignored the other two important types of trust [36,37]. Modern developments in the trust literature have suggested two types of trust, cognitive trust (character based) and affective trust (relationship based), which makes a distinguished impact on employees’ outcomes [11].
McAllister [38] defined two dimensions of trust as cognitive and affective trust. We prioritize the McAllister trust model over other existing trust models [38] for two reasons. First, this trust model is the most validated model in the divergent lexicon [8,9]. Second, in relation to the other trust model, the McAllister trust model is mostly used in leadership research and shows a supportive relationship with performance, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior [10,39]. Therefore, we propose a mediation effect of cognitive and affective trust between the relationship of participative leadership and OCB for distinct tentative inductions. That is, a participative leader may engender affective trust though the development of social ties with followers, which in turn may urge followers to engage in organizational citizenship behavior.
On the other hand, a participative leader arouses cognitive trust by making followers believe in his integrity in dealings and reduces risk in a hierarchical relationship, which motivates followers to perform OCB. The rational of these propositions are discussed in the following sections.

2.4.1. Mediating Role of Cognitive Trust:

Cognitive trust is defined as an evaluation of the personal characteristics of a leader, such as reliability, ability, integrity, and competence. Cognitive trust promotes confidence in followers regarding a leader’s actions and reduces any uncertainty that is associated with a leader’s actions [6,11].
An evaluation of a leader’s character is important to followers because a leader has authority to make decisions that have considerable impact on followers’ careers. Therefore, followers need to trust their leader for their own personal benefits because if they fail to trust their leader, the leader may use legitimate power to exploit followers’ resources. It is necessary for a follower to make a rational appraisal about the track record of a leader’s trustworthiness and integrity [6].
Cognitive trust develops confidence in followers about a leader’s competency and credibility. Followers can feel that their leader will have the right expertise to guide them through tasks, overcome obstacles, and motivate their demeanor, which can contribute to their career growth and the betterment of the organization [40].
Organizational citizenship behavior is regarded as the discretionary behavior of employees and is not customarily rewarded by an organization; subordinates show citizenship behavior to contrive a good rectitude and to obtain recognition from their leader when their performance is evaluated [41]. Followers can develop cognitive trust in a participative leader’s integrity and will perform extra roles and tasks without fear of being exploited by their leader [42].
The character-based aspect of trust makes a rational judgment about a leader’s character and prorogates followers’ work behavior. When followers believe that their leader is sincere, honest, and natural, they feel comfortable in engaging in OCB [43]. A participative leader develops cognitive trust among subordinates through participation in the decision-making process. Any involvement in the decision-making process develops subordinates’ perceptions about their leader’s reliability. The transparency of a leader in their dealings stimulates subordinates to perform the extra mile for the attainment of their leader’s goals [44]. Our proposed hypothesis is:
H2a: 
Cognitive trust will strongly mediate the relationship between participative leadership and OCB.

2.4.2. Mediating Role of Affective Trust

Yulk [45] defined affective trust as the relationship-oriented behavior of a leader in which his focal rationale is the development of a quality relationship between subordinates by showing genuine care and concern for their needs, which ultimately stimulates an emotional bond between a leader and their subordinates.
Through a social exchange relationship, a leader develops affective trust among their subordinates. The leader expresses care towards followers’ needs and works for their well-being. Realizations of such sentiments urge followers to reciprocate by engaging in desirable behavior that benefits the leader. Therefore, with a high level of affective trust, followers enact citizenship behavior, thus deepening the leader–follower social exchange process [6].
A participative leader fosters relationship-based trust through individual consideration, empowerment, and recognition of ideas expressed by followers. A participative leader shows recognition of followers, and this act of obeisance given by the leader motivates followers to reciprocate by showing citizenship behavior [46].
A participative leader promotes strong social ties with subordinates by showing true concern for employees’ duties. Through autonomy, the delegation of authority and an appreciation of the sharing of ideas with a participative leader endorses affect based trust in followers. A high-quality relationship demonstrated by a leader through affective trust will encourage followers to express positive actions towards their leader in the form of OCB [47].
Affective trust strongly mediates the relationship between participative leadership and OCB because of the benevolence behavior of participative leadership, the development of emotional bonds through genuine care and consideration, and the provision of a more comfortable climate for active involvement in OCB [10]. Thus, the proposed hypothesis is:
H2b: 
Affective trust will strongly mediate the relationship between participative leadership and OCB.

2.5. Moderating Role of Continuance Commitment

Continuance commitment is defined as an employee’s decision to continue his/her membership with an organization because of personal benefits. In the literature, it is known as ratiocinative continuance because an employee’s decision to stay is based on a careful analysis of the costs associated with leaving an organization [48].
With continuance commitment, an employee is acquainted with the high costs of leaving an organization. There are many reasons for an employee staying in an organization, which may be economical or social in nature. For example, a loss of benefits (pension, pay), supportive working environment, career development opportunities, participative leadership, job autonomy, and the fair distribution of rewards [49].
An employee with continuance commitment stays in an organization because of the activities of the participative leader. A participative leader provides opportunities to take part in decision-making, gives autonomy to craft a work schedule, supports skill development, and conducts fair performance appraisals, which has considerable impact on employees’ career advancement opportunities [15]. A withdrawal from their current organization may cause employees to lose such benefits. Therefore, the positive aspect of continuance commitment is an employee’s rational anticipation of future gains in term of money and knowledge [50].
With continuance commitment, an employee rationally engages in citizenship behavior with the intention of expected future reciprocated benefits, career advancement opportunities, and the obtainment of recognition by the leader so that the leader will appraise his extra role performance. A continuance committed employee stays in an organization because he/she is happy with the organization after realizing the benefits of staying and exhibits citizenship behavior for his/her personal gain [51].
Demonstrations by employees of citizenship behavior are a result of trust in a participative leader because the development of cognitive trust safeguards the self-interests of employees and provides surety about a leader’s character [11]. This relationship is strongly moderated by continuance commitment. This is because employees with a high continuance commitment are ready to engage in extra roles and tasks because of personal gain [52].
This implies that high continuance commitment employees use cognitive trust to make judgements about a leader’s integrity and decides to deliberately engage in OCB to obtain recognition from a leader, thus avoiding any potential exploitation [53]. The proposed hypothesis is:
H3: 
Continuance commitment will moderate the relationship between participative leadership and OCB. The relationship between participative leadership and OCB will be stronger (weaker) when continuance commitment is high (low).

3. Methods

3.1. Sample and Procedure

The hotel industry of Pakistan was selected for data collection. This industry is proliferating among the industries of Pakistan. According to the World Travel and Tourism Council [54], the contribution of the hotel industry to the Gross Domestic product (GDP) was as 6%. This industry is an eminent source of foreign exchange earnings in Pakistan. The hotel industry of Pakistan has the capacity to provide employment opportunities to a large number of people. The hotel industry’s contribution to employment grew by 3% in 2017 (WTTC, 2017).
We chose the hotel industry because this industry requires participative leadership to cope with external challenges, employees are involved in complex decision-making, and creative ideas are collected to make changes in the work process, methods, and services.
Survey data were collected from the hotel industry of Pakistan. Data were collected from the period of February 2018 to March 2018. The convenience sampling technique was used for this study. We used this sampling technique because it was easy for us to approach people that were readily available and compatible to our study’s aims. The focal point of the convenience sampling technique was the selection of a homogenous population. It is a time effective way to collect data from a large group of people in a quick way [55]. Managers and employees selected for our research study were convenient to approach because they demonstrated their concern for our study to be completed.
Four-star and five-star hotels were selected. These exclusive hotels were registered under the Pakistan Hotels and Restaurants Act 1976. These hotels were down town hotels, which provided the best competitive services. The human resource department, food and beverage, public relations, and front office were selected. These departments were enormous, having a large number of employees.
The sample study included both managers and subordinates. In this study, participative leaders were represented by a human resource manager, food and beverage manager, public relations manager, and a front office manager. Full time employees, such as guest relation representatives, reservation agents, front desk agents, Food & Beverage controller, and the section in charge were included for data collection. These employees were educated to understand the purpose of the study.
Firstly, emails were sent to the general managers of representative hotels to briefly explain the purpose of the study and obtain formal permission for data collection. Four-hundred-and-fifty employees were included for this sample study. The sample size of our study was coherent with other studies’ sample sizes [7,56].
Self-administrated questionnaires were used for data collection. There were two sets of questionnaires formulated, one for managers and the other for their subordinates. All participants were involved voluntarily and they could refuse to take part in the research. Between 10 to 20 employees were rated by one supervisor in each group. The supervisor’s role was to evaluate each employee’s performance and to provide work related guidance. To ensure the confidentiality, various steps were taken in the process. First, a secret code was created for each questionnaire; thus, no identity information was required. Second, to ensure anonymity among team members, questionnaires were collected immediately after completion. Leaders had no choice in knowing their response. Third, assurance was given to the respondents that their answers were not discussed with their supervisors and would not make an impact on their work performance.
The first page of the questionnaire included a cover letter that included the purpose of the study, the time to complete the survey, and the confidentiality of responses. The main body of the questionnaire was comprised of two sections. The first section included demographic information about the age, gender, education, tenure, and department. The second part incorporated questions about the leader’s participative behavior, intensity of cognitive and affective trust, continuance commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Survey questionnaires were administrated three times with a time interval of three weeks. At time 1, data collected from leaders was only about the demographic’s information. Information about the participative leader behavior was collected from randomly selected subordinates. At time 2, data about affective and cognitive trust (mediator) and continuance commitment towards an organization were collected through a second survey instrument that was administrated to the same subordinates 21 days later. At time 3, managers were exhorted to provide their rating for employees’ organizational citizenship behavior.
Questionnaires were distributed during lunch breaks. Four-hundred-and-fifty questionnaires were circulated, out of which 400 complete questionnaires were collected. Thus, the response rate was 89%.

3.2. Measurements

A five-point Likert-scale was used for measuring responses. Scale ranged from 1, strongly disagree, to 5, strongly agree. According to the requirement of the sector, items were ameliorated. Wording of Items were modified according to the hotel industry setup. The instruments used for the variables are described below.

3.2.1. Participative Leadership

The six item Empowering Leadership Questionnaire developed by Arnold et al. [57] was used to measure participative leadership. Sample items included ‘My supervisor encourages us to express ideas and our suggestions are used by our supervisor to make decisions’.

3.2.2. Cognitive and Affective Trust

Cognitive and affective trust was delineated by subordinates using McAllister’s [38] constructed scale. Cognitive trust was measured by six items and affective trust was measured by five items. Sample items of cognitive trust included ‘My supervisor approaches his/her job with dedication’ and ‘I can rely on my supervisor not to make my job difficult’. Sample items of affective trust included ‘We have a sharing relationship with our supervisor’ and ‘A free exchange of ideas and suggestion between us’.

3.2.3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Organizational citizenship behavior is measured by a 10-item scale constituted by Spector and Bauer et al. [58]. Sample items included ‘Took time to advise or mentor a co-worker’ and ‘Shared knowledge with co-workers’.

3.2.4. Continuance Commitment

Continuance commitment was measured by a six-item scale developed by Mayer and Allen [59]. Sample items included ‘It would be very hard for me to leave this organization right now even if I wanted to and my life would be disrupted if I were to leave my organization.

3.2.5. Controlled Variables

We controlled the potential confounding effect of employees’ age, gender, tenure, and education with leader trust and OCB [8,9]. Age and gender both have a strong impact on trust and OCB [60]. Education has been found to be related to both types of trust and OCB [44]. The tenure of an employee with a leader has a considerable effect on affective trust.

3.3. Strategy of Analysis

Data was analyzed by the Statistical Tool for Social Sciences (SPSS version 22) and Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS version 22). Descriptive analysis (mean, standard deviation) was used to identify the specific characteristics of the sample data. A reliability test comprised of the Cronbach Alpha coefficient was applied to ensure the internal consistency of scales. Exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation was conducted. Factor loading was set at 0.70 for the reduction of data to obtain a high reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis used to estimate discriminate and convergent validity. The Pearson correlation coefficient was applied to verify the inter-correlation of the observed variables. Before testing the hypotheses, the Herman single factor test [61] was applied to evaluate the common method variance. To test the mediation, the preferable method of bootstrapping was used, as described by Preachers and Hayes [62]. This method enables observations of an indirect effect of mediating variables to be made. The Baron and Kenny [63] method of mediation has some shortcomings as the indirect effect of mediation is not measured by this method. Moreover, the confidence interval of the mediation effect is not provided. Hierarchal regression analysis was conducted to test the moderation. An interaction term mediating variable (cognitive trust × continuance commitment) and moderating variable was performed. A change in R2 showed a substance moderating effect of the moderator [64]. Figure 1 presents the relationship among the variables.

4. Results

4.1. Demographic Characteristic of Respondents

A total of 400 respondents were chosen for data collection, out of which 40 were supervisors. The sample of subordinates mostly consisted of males, 71%, of the younger age group (20–29 years) (45%), with 45% having a university education, and less than 5 years of experience. From the sample of 30 supervisors, 40% were male and were mostly younger from the age group of 25–35 years, with two years of experience.

4.2. Test of Normality

The normality test is conducted to determine whether research data are normally distributed. For this purpose, the Shapiro Wilk test was used, which calculated the total scores for all sub scales. According to Razali and Wha [65], a p value of the Shapiro Wilk test equal or greater than 0.05 shows that the data is equally distributed and we can reject the null hypothesis. The p value for all measures Was above 0.50 (0.52 > 0.50, 0.57 > 0.50, 0.64 > 0.50, 0.69 > 0.50, 0.72 > 0.50), WHICH shows that our data is normally distributed.

4.3. Common Method Variance

Common method variance is a serious concern for business researchers when collecting data from a single source [66]. All data except organizational citizenship behavior were collected from a single source. To avoid common method variance, we applied the Herman single factor test. Twenty-five percent of the variance was explained by the results of the un-rotated principle component analysis. If a latent variable explained 50% of the variance, then common method variance is presented. From the results, it is clear that common method variance is not a serious problem experienced by our data.

4.4. Exploratory factor analysis & Confirmatory factor analysis

Before testing the hypothesis, we conducted exploratory factor analysis. EFA is a method to condense data and a way to recognize construct validity. Nunnally [67] defined the criteria for the deletion of items: (1) A high cross loading greater than 0.40, (2) correlation among variables must be less than 0.40, (3) factor loading of all variables must be above 0.7 (Table 1) as a skewed estimation of the magnitude of an item to capture the sphere represented by a construct. All six items of participative leadership were loaded, and all items of affective and cognitive trust were loaded as one component. Ten items of OCB were loaded as one component and six items of continuance commitment were loaded as one component. All items were retained because of the high reported reliability.
Confirmatory factor analysis is a statistical method through which we the factor structure of observed variables can be verified. It allows identification of the underling relationship between observed variables and the testing of hypotheses. Therefore, we applied CFA to demonstrate the goodness of a model fit. Threshold values indicated that the overall model fitted Chi-square Mean/Degree of Freedom (CMIN/DF, <4, Comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.89, Normed fit index (NFI) > 0.92, Tucker Lewis index (TLI) > 0.80, Goodness of fit index (GFI) > 0.92, Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) > 0.91, Root mean square error of approximation (REMSA) < 0.50).

4.5. Reliability and Validity

Construct reliability was measured by Cronbach Alpha and composite reliability. Validity was measured by convergent validity and discriminate validity. All values are given in Table 2. According to Nunnally [67], (1) all values of the Cronbach alpha must be greater than 0.70, and (2) values of the composite reliability must be greater than 0.80. Values of Table 1 distinctly indicated that the values of the Cronbach alpha and composite reliability were acceptable and showed internal consistency of measures. Convergent validity can be measured through the average variance extracted (AVE). AVE indicates the amount of variance from a construct. It can be estimated by taking the sum of a standardized factor loading divided by the sum of the standardized loading squared by adding the measurement errors of the indicator. If the value of AVE is greater than 0.50, it indicates good convergent validity. Values of AVE in Table 2 above 0.50 provide excellent evidence for convergent validity.
Discriminate validity indicates that the scales are not correlated due to a diverse construct. Discriminate validity can be obtained when there is no correlation. Fronell and Larcker [68] defined the criteria for the assessment of discriminate validity. It is verified by taking the square root of all AVE and it must be higher than the inter construct correlation. The results of Table 2 provide evidence for discriminate validity. It was found that the values of discriminate validity are larger than the inter correlation values.
The Pearson correlation, mean, standard deviation, and discriminate validity are shown in Table 2. Results indicated that there is a positive association among participative leadership, affective trust, and cognitive trust (r = 0.742, p < 0.01), (r = 0.665, p < 0.01). Compared to cognitive trust, affective trust is highly correlated with participative leadership. Values of OCB signified it is positively correlated with participative leadership (r = 0.782, p < 0.01). This confirmed our first hypothesis. Results indicated that OCB has a positive relationship between affective trust and cognitive trust (r = 0.786, p < 0.01), (r = 0.678, p < 0.01). Continuance commitment is also positively correlated with OCB (r = 0.753, p < 0.01).

4.6. Testing Hypotheses

4.6.1. Results of Structural Equation Modeling

Results of the structural equation modeling reveal that our hypothesized model fitted our data (CFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.91, GFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.5). Figure 1 clearly defines that participative leadership and OCB are significantly mediated by affective leadership (β = 0.36, p < 0.05) compared to cognitive trust (β = –0.24, p < 0.05).

4.6.2. Mediation through the Bootstrapping Method

To test the mediation effect of affective and cognitive trust, we applied the latest method of mediation recommended by Preacher and Hayes [62]. For the estimation of the mediation effect of affective and cognitive trust, we used the bootstrapping method with bias corrected confidence estimates using process macro [62]. The indirect effects of affective and cognitive trust on OCB were obtained through the estimation of the lower and upper limit confidence intervals. Five thousand bootstrap re-samples were used with a 95% confidence interval. Model 4 was adopted before conducting PROCESS analysis, as presented in Figure 2.
From the results of the Table 3, it was concluded that the confidence interval for the indirect effect of affective trust between the relationship of participative leadership and OCB was significant (LLCI 0.132, ULCI 0.246) and was not zero. The confidence interval for the indirect effect of cognitive trust between the relationship of participative leadership and OCB was insignificant (LLCI –0.023, ULCI 0.145). The unstandardized indirect effect in the bootstrapped confidence interval process and mediation was estimated by the inclusion of zero in the confidence intervals. In the case of affective trust, it does not exactly contain zero so it was concluded that affective trust mediates the relationship of participative leadership and OCB. However, cognitive trust does not mediate the relationship of participative leadership and OCB. This supports our hypotheses, H2a and H2b.
Hierarchical regression analysis was performed to test the moderation effect of continuance commitment. In the hierarchical regression analysis, the first linear and interaction term was conducted. Table 4 shows the results of the hierarchical regression analysis to demonstrate the main and interaction effects on organizational citizenship behavior. A change in R2 manifested the substance moderating effect of the moderator [64].
Hierarchical regression analysis was performed to test the moderating effect of continuance commitment between OCB and cognitive trust. Variables were entered in the following order: Cognitive trust, continuance commitment, and the interaction term between the mediator and the moderator (cognitive trust × continuance commitment). The value of beta for cognitive trust (β = 0.435) remained significant in the first and second steps. The interaction term between cognitive trust and continuance commitment (β = 0.467) remained significant. Continuance commitment positively moderated the relationship of OCB and cognitive trust, thus H3 was confirmed (see Figure 3).

5. Discussion

The core purpose of this research is to develop an understanding of the relationship between participative leadership and OCB though the mediating effect of affective and cognitive trust and the moderating role of continuance commitment. The results of this study manifested that affective trust more strongly mediates the relationship of participative leadership and OCB. The mediation effect of cognitive trust between the relationship of participative leadership and OCB was insignificant. Results indicated that the mediating effect of cognitive trust on OCB will be stronger under a high level of continuance commitment.

5.1. Relationship between Participative Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The findings of this study demonstrated that participative leadership is positively related to OCB (β = 0.782, p < 0.01). A possible explanation for this result is that a participative leader is characterized by actions that empower subordinates and provide opportunities for engaging in autonomous decision-making. When employees feel they are empowered by their leader, they will reciprocate in a positive manner by putting in extra efforts towards the accomplishment of goals delineated by a leader. A participative leader relies on a policy of consultation rather than an authoritative approach. The results of this study are consistent with a previous study [4].

5.2. Mediating Effect of Affective and Cognitive Trust

Second, the results provide strong evidence for the mediating effect of affective trust between participative leadership and OCB. This may be because a participative leader promotes strong social ties with subordinates and shows sincere concern and care towards subordinates’ well-being. Through interpersonal interactions and emotional bonding, these leaders urge subordinates to reciprocate though OCB. The development of affective trust is based on recognition, development, affiliation, and support, which is provided by a participative leader to act freely. Therefore, a high level of affective trust encourages subordinates to put in extra efforts without requiring leader pressure. The results of this study are compatible with a previous study [10].
Third, we found that cognitive trust has no significant power to mediate between the relationship of participative leadership and OCB. The is because subordinates give less importance to the personal characteristics of a leader. The personal characteristics of a leader, like benevolence, integrity, and sincerity, can provide a safe environment for decision-making, however, it does not provide results in favor of OCB. When subordinates over-rely on leader competence, they put less effort into the accomplishment of a task. Cognitive trust in a leader truncates cooperation among subordinates. Therefore, cognitive trust does not mediate between the relationship of participative leadership and OCB. The latest research of Miao [44] provides strong evidence for the insignificant mediation effect of cognitive trust between the relationship of participative leadership and OCB.

5.3. Moderating Effect of Continuance Commitment

The last finding allowed the conclusion that the mediating role of cognitive trust is high on OCB with a moderating effect of continuance commitment. When continuance commitment is high, then an employee can evaluate the personality features of a participative leader for an equitable assessment of the employee’s performance, which will help him/her, regarding the development of cognitive trust. Continuance commitment helps employees to perform extra role behavior without any fear of being exploited by their leader. Therefore, continuance commitment favorably moderates the relationship of participative leadership and OCB. The results of this study are consistent with a previous study [10].
The findings of our research are applicable to other sectors who have a similar work structure and polices. Our study reports a positive relationship between participative leadership and OCB with a meditating effect of trust in the hotel sector. Qing et al. [4] reported the same results using a sample from the textile industry. Therefore, other sectors who have a dedicated workforce should implement participative leadership in organizations to gain trust that buffers organizational citizenship.

5.4. Theoretical Implications

This manuscript makes important theoretical contributions in numerous ways. We believe our results corroborate and extend prior findings in several ways. First, our study heralds a distinctive leadership style that is conducive to employee behavior. Specifically, a participative leadership style promotes the development of a smooth relationship with subordinates to engender a positive employee response in the form of organizational citizenship behavior.
Second, the current study significantly adds value in the literature of trust by conceptualizing two different kinds of trust, which significantly mediate relationship between participative leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Affective trust and cognitive trust. Previous research only conceptualized trust as unidimensional, fully mediating between participative leadership and organizational citizenship behavior [30]. Our study implies that the integration of both cognitive and affective trust is a necessary intervening variable between participative leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, although both cause different effects.
Third, our study identifies continuance commitment as a new boundary condition that significantly moderates between participative leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Our study provides evidence that the relationship between participative leadership and organizational citizenship behavior is stronger with higher continuance commitment.
Finally, a complete picture of the mediation-moderation model between participative leadership and organizational citizenship behavior is demonstrated by our study, which properly explains the mediator and moderator buffering the positive impact of continuance commitment on organizational citizenship behavior.

5.5. Practical Implications

The findings of this study provide some important implications for organizations and managers. The results of our research accentuate the important features of participative leadership, and the development of two different types of trust to elicit organizational citizenship behavior.
Today’s changing environment helps managers to adopt a participative leadership style to quickly adopt internal as well as external changes. A participative leader, through his persuasive and collaborative style, may able to gain the compliance of subordinates to successfully implement change. Managers will find that a participative leadership style is a more trenchant way of leadership style by facilitating acceptability of an interdependence task.
By highlighting the importance of participative leadership, managers should adopt this leadership style by maximizing subordinates’ contributions in decision-making to admonish organizational citizenship behavior.
Managers should wisely choose from different sorts of trust (affective and cognitive trust) to urge subordinates to engage in organizational citizenship behavior. To obtain long term results to gain effectiveness, managers as participative leaders should develop affective trust through empowerment, appreciation of the sharing of creative ideas, individual support, and psychological safety. The development of affective trust creates enthusiasm for subordinates to share their knowledge with others and leaders without any exasperation.
If a manager is task oriented, he should develop cognitive trust among subordinates. To gain effective results from subordinates, managers should clearly define job descriptions to every subordinate such that every subordinate puts their own efforts into the accomplishment of a task rather than relying on the competency of their leader. In this way, leaders will able to get benefits from each individual and this will have a positive result on productivity.
Moreover, this research study provides an important admonition to human resource practitioners to positively increase OCB among subordinates with a high level of continuance commitment. They must emphasize the development of a supportive and equitable working relationship to subordinates. When subordinates realize that their side bet decision to stay with an organization will not go unrewarded, cognitive trust encourages subordinates to give a positive signal about a leader’s credibility and trustworthiness. Realization of leader trustfulness encourage subordinates to go extra mile.
Organizations should conduct training programs to create an awareness in managers regarding the participative style of leadership. Training sessions should place an emphasis on mutual decision-making, the development of different types of trust aggrandizing strategies, and reward strategies for employees who go the extra mile.

6. Limitations and Avenues for Future Research

The current study has numerous limitations. It is important to highlight the limitations of the study before providing important future opportunities.
First, the cross-sectional research design does not allow for a determination of the direction of causality among the variables. Longitudinal studies are needed to establish the casual directions among the relationships investigated in the study. Second, the hospitality industry was selected for data collection, which may affect the generalizability of the results to other business sectors. Future research should be conducted in a different business sector, like the banking sector, manufacturing industry, and telecommunications sector.
Finally, our research may be unable to include other possible mediators and moderators that may affect the relationships of participative leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Future studies’ portrayals of the integrative model hypothesized in this study could advance the understanding of new moderating (employee well-being, rational identification, and personality traits) and mediating (job autonomy, intrinsic motivations, and organizational justice climate) effects in the relationship between participative leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. To enhance the generalizability of the findings, this study should be replicated in a context similar (Asian nations) and different (Western nations) to Pakistan.

7. Conclusions

The core focus of this research study was to investigate the mediating role of affective and cognitive trust with the moderating effect of continuance commitment between the relationship of participative leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Trust in a leader is the most important thing to urge employees to perform organizational citizenship behavior. Very few studies have used a participative leadership style to identify its connection with organizational citizenship behavior. Rapid changes in the environment has made it an imperative for organizations to adapt a participative leadership style to remain competitive. Therefore, to remain competitive, the hotel industry must adopt participative leadership and effectively arouse trust among employees to encourage their engagement in organizational citizenship behavior.
For this purpose, data were collected from the hotel industry based in Pakistan to accomplish the results of our three hypotheses. Our study confirms that participative leadership has sufficient power to urge employees to engage in organizational citizenship behavior. Participative leaders are not able to urge employees to engage in organizational citizenship behavior without first promoting trust among employees.
Using affective and cognitive trust as mediators, the findings of our study show that affective trust is better able to mediate between participative leadership and organizational citizenship behavior because of the social exchange relation and emotional bonding. Cognitive trust has no significant power to mediate between the relationship of participative leadership and OCB because employees over rely on the abilities of their leader. This relation is stronger with the moderating effect of continuance commitment.
Results indicate that with the moderating effect of continuance commitment, employees will deliberately involve in OCB to promote the image of a good solider in front of their leader and to obtain future benefits. Cognitive trust in this regard helps to reduce the level of risk that may be exploited by a leader. Therefore, human resource practitioners should obtain the advantages of participative leadership and should consider the kinds of trust necessary to develop subordinates to perform organizational citizenship behavior.

Author Contributions

M.H.B. presented the idea and wrote the first draft of this paper. U.A. revised the first draft. Z.A. was involved in the literature review section and data collection along with Y.J. and M.H.B. Data analysis was done by the joint effort of U.A. and M.B. Finally, all authors revised, discussed and approved the manuscript.

Funding

This research is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (71873015), Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University of China (NCET-13-0037), and Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (14YJA630019).

Acknowledgments

The authors want to extent their gratitude toward the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their indispensable and valuable suggestions and comments that improved the quality of the paper significantly. Furthermore, the authors thank to Dr. Hassan Rasool and his suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lamb, R. How Can Managers Use Participative Leadership Effectively? Retrieved 17 March 2014. Available online: http://www.task.fm/participative-leadership (accessed on 19 January 2019).
  2. Organ, D.W.; Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, 6th ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2006; p. 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chiaburu, D.S.; Chakrabarty, S.; Wang, J.; Li, N. Organizational support and citizenship behaviors: A comparative cross-cultural meta-analysis. Manag. Int. Rev. 2013, 55, 707–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sagnak, M. Participative leadership and change-oriented organizational citizenship: The mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 2016, 62, 181–194. [Google Scholar]
  5. Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H.; Schoorman, F.D. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 709–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Colquitt, J.A.; LePine, J.A.; Piccolo, R.F.; Zapata, C.P.; Rich, B.L. Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? J. Appl. Psychol. 2012, 97, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Wat, D.; Shaffer, M.A. Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment. Pers. Rev. 2005, 34, 406–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, S.; Tomlinson, E.C.; Noe, R. The Role of Mentor Trust and Prote´ge´ Internal Locus of Control in Formal Mentoring Relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 358–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Yang, J.; Mossholder, K.W.; Peng, T.K. Supervisory Procedural Justice Effects: The Mediating Roles of Cognitive and Affective Trust. Leadership. Q. 2009, 20, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhu, W.; Newman, A.; Miao, Q.; Hooke, A. Revisiting the Mediating Role of Trust in Transformational Leadership Effects: Do Different Types of Trust Make a Difference? Leadersh. Q. 2013, 24, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dirks, K.T.; Ferrin, D.L. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 611–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Verburg, R.M.; Nienaber, A.-M.; Searle, R.H.; Weibel, A.; Den Hartog, D.N.; Rupp, D.E. The Role of Organizational Control Systems in Employees’ Organizational Trust and Performance Outcomes. Group Organ. Manag. 2017, 43, 179–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Somech, A. Participative decision making in schools: A mediating-moderating analytical framework for understanding school and teacher outcomes. Educ. Adm. Q. 2010, 46, 174–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Allen, N.J.; Grisaffe, D.B. Employee Commitment to the Organization and Customer Reactions: Mapping the Linkages. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2001, 11, 209–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yao, T.; Qiu, Q.; Wei, Y. Retaining hotel employees as internal customers: Effect of organizational commitment on attitudinal and behavioral loyalty of employees. Inter. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 76, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Baum, T.; Cheung, C.; Kong, H.; Kralj, A.; Mooney, S.; Nguyễn Thị Thanh, H.; Siow, M. Sustainability and the Tourism and Hospitality Workforce: A Thematic Analysis. Sustainability 2016, 8, 809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lam, C.F.; Wan, W.H.; Roussin, C.J. Going the extra mile and feeling energized: An enrichment perspective of organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 101, 379–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Paine, J.B.; Bachrach, D.G. Organization citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. J. Manag. 2005, 26, 513–563. [Google Scholar]
  19. Koichi, T.; Furukawa, H. A study of innovation—Promotive behavior: Influencing process of job autonomy. Jpn. Assoc. Ind./Organ. Psychol. J. 2009, 23, 43–59. [Google Scholar]
  20. Magdalena, S.M. The effects of organizational citizenship behavior in the academic environment. Proced.-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 127, 738–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fu, Y.K. High-performance human resource practices moderate flight attendants’ Organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Soc. Behav. Pers. Inter. J. 2013, 41, 1195–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Han, J.Y.; Kim, Y.J. The impacts of psychological empowerment on the organizational citizenship behaviors of hotel service employees: The moderating effect of need for achievement. Korean J. Manag. 2011, 19, 185–226. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lv, A.; Shen, X.; Cao, Y.; Su, Y.; Chen, X. Conscientiousness and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of organizational justice. Soc. Behav. Personal Int. J. 2012, 40, 1293–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Carlson, D.S.; Kacmar, K.M.; Grzywacz, J.G.; Bennett, T.; Dwayne, W. Work-family balance and supervisor appraised citizenship behavior: The link of positive effect. J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 2013, 14, 87–106. [Google Scholar]
  25. Titrek, O.; Polatcan, M.; Gunes, D.Z.; Sezen, G. The relationship among emotional intelligence, organizational justice, organizational citizenship behavior. Inter. J. Acad. Res. 2014, 6, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ogbonna, E.; Harris, L.C. Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: Empirical evidence from UK companies. Hum. Res. Manag. 2000, 11, 766–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sarti, D. Leadership styles to engage employees: Evidence from human service organizations in Italy. J. Workplace Learn. 2014, 26, 202–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Armstrong, M. Handbook of Human Resources Practice, 11th ed.; Innovation and Best Practice for Business Success: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yan, J. An empirical examination of the interactive effects of goal orientation, participative leadership and task conflict on innovation in small business. J. Dev. Entrep. 2011, 16, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Huang, X.; Iun, J.; Liu, A.; Gong, Y. Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? Differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. J. Organ. Behav. 2010, 31, 122–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Van den Broeck, A.; Lens, W.; De Witte, H.; Van Coillie, H. Unraveling the importance of the quantity and the quality of workers’ motivation for well-being: A person-centered perspective. J. Vocat. Behav. 2013, 82, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Xue, Y.J.; Bradley, J.; Liang, H.J. Team climate, empowering leadership and knowledge sharing. J. Knowl. Manag. 2011, 15, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lu, J.; Jiang, X.; Yu, H.; Li, D. Building collaborative structures for teachers’ autonomy and self-efficacy: The mediating role of participative management and learning culture. Int. J. Res. Policy Pract. 2015, 26, 240–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1964; pp. 352–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Burke, C.S.; Sims, D.E.; Lassara, E.H.; Salas, E. Trust in Leadership: A Multi-Level Review and Integration. Leadersh. Q. 2007, 18, 606–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jia, L.; Song, J.; Li, C.; Cui, R.; Chen, Y. Leadership Styles and Employees Job—Related Attitudes: An Empirical Study on the Mediating Effects of Reciprocity and Trust. Front. Bus. Res. China 2007, 1, 574–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pillai, R.; Schriesheim, C.A.; Williams, E.S. Fairness Perceptions and Trust as Mediators for Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Two-Sample Study. J. Manag. 1999, 25, 897–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. McAllister, D.J. Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 1995, 38, 24–59. [Google Scholar]
  39. Schaubroeck, J.; Lam, S.K.; Peng, A.C. Cognition-Based and Affect-Based Trust as Mediators of Leader Behavior Influences on Team Performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 863–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chou, H.L. Transformational leadership and team performance: The mediating roles of cognitive trust and collective efficacy. SAGE Open 2013, 3, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Grant, A.M.; Mayer, D.M. Good soldiers and good actors: Pro-social and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 900–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Poon, J.M.L. Trust-in-supervisor and helping coworkers: Moderating effect of perceived politics. J. Manag. Psychol. 2006, 21, 518–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jiang, W.; Zhao, X.; Ni, J. The Impact of Transformational Leadership on Employee Sustainable Performance: The Mediating Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Miao, Q.; Newman, A.; Huang, X. The impact of participative leadership on job performance and organizational citizenship behavior: Distinguishing between the mediating effects of affective and cognitive trust. Inter. J. Hum. Res. Manag. 2014, 25, 2796–2810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yukl, G.; Gordon, A.; Taber, T. A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half Century of behavior research. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2002, 9, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yulk, G. Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need More Attention. Acad. Manag. 2012, 26, 466–485. [Google Scholar]
  47. Chen, X.P.; Eberly, M.B.; Chiang, T.J.; Farh, J.L.; Cheng, B.S. Affective Trust in Chinese Leaders: Linking Paternalistic Leadership to Employee Performance. J. Manag. 2011, 40, 796–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chen, Z.X.; Francesco, A.M. The Components of Commitment and Employee Performance in China. J. Vocat. Behav. 2003, 62, 490–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Payne, S.C.; Huffman, A.H. A Longitudinal Examination of the Influence of Mentoring on Organizational Commitment and Turnover. Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 158–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, X.; Dong, K. Development of the Civil Servants’ Performance Appraisal System in China: Challenges and Improvements. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 2012, 32, 134–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Markovits, Y. The two ‘faces’ of continuance commitment: The moderating role of job satisfaction on the continuance commitment organizational citizenship behavior relationship. Intern. J. Acad. Organ. Behav. Manag. 2012, 3, 62–82. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lester, S.E.; Meglino, B.M.; Korsgaard, M.A. The role of other orientation in organizational citizenship behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 2008, 29, 829–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, Y.Y. Examining organizational citizenship behavior of Japanese employees: A multidimensional analysis of the relationship to organizational commitment. Intern. J. Hum. Res. Manag. 2015, 26, 425–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. World Travel and Tourism Council. TRAVEL & TOURISM Economic Impact 2017 Pakistan. 2017. Available online: https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic-impact-research/countries-2017/pakistan2017.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2019).
  55. Bornstein, M.H.; Jager, J.; Putnick, D.L. Sampling in Development Science, situation, shortcoming, solutions and standards. Dev. Rev. 2017, 33, 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Horng, J.-S.; Hsu, H.; Liu, C.-H.; Lin, L.; Tsai, C.-Y. Competency analysis of top managers in the Taiwanese hotel industry. Inter. J. Hosp. Manag. 2011, 30, 1044–1054. [Google Scholar]
  57. Arnold, J.A.; Arad, S.; Rhoades, J.A.; Drasgow, F. The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 2000, 21, 249–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Spector, P.E.; Bauer, J.A.; Fox, S. Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know? J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 781–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Allen, N.J.; Meyer, J.P. The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative commitment to the Organization. J. Occup. Psychol. 1990, 63, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tourigny, L.; Han, J.; Baba, V.V. Does gender matter? A study of trust and its outcomes in the manufacturing sector in mainland China. Gend. Manag. Inter. J. 2007, 32, 554–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Harman, H.H. Modern Factor Analysis; University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, USA, 1960; pp. 100–312. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1961-02904-000 (accessed on 13 December 2018).
  62. Hayes, A.F.; Preacher, K.J. Statistical mediation analysis with a multi categorical Independent variable. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 2014, 67, 451–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J. personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ayes, A.F.; Matthes, J. Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behav. Res. Methods. 2009, 41, 924–936. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  65. Razali, N.M.; Wah, Y.B. Power comparisons of the Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Andreson-Darling tests. J. Stat. Model. Anal. 2011, 2, 21–33. [Google Scholar]
  66. Williams, L.J.; McGonagle, A.K. Four Research Designs and a Comprehensive Analysis Strategy for Investigating Common Method Variance with Self-Report Measures Using Latent Variables. J. Bus. Psychol. 2016, 31, 339–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978; p. 701. Available online: http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1979/A1979HZ31300001.pdf (accessed on 13 November 2018).
  68. Fronell, C.G.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables and measure errors. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 11 01170 g001 550
Figure 1. Theoretical research model.
Figure 1. Theoretical research model.
Sustainability 11 01170 g001
Sustainability 11 01170 g002 550
Figure 2. Mediating model # 4.
Figure 2. Mediating model # 4.
Sustainability 11 01170 g002
Sustainability 11 01170 g003 550
Figure 3. Moderation plot of cognitive trust.
Figure 3. Moderation plot of cognitive trust.
Sustainability 11 01170 g003
Table
Table 1. Measurement of related constructs, factor loading, construct reliability, and convergent validity.
Table 1. Measurement of related constructs, factor loading, construct reliability, and convergent validity.
ConstructsItemsLoadingCronbach AlphaComposite ReliabilityAVE
Participative LeadershipPL10.7650.8320.9250.785
PL20.732
PL30.812
PL40.763
PL50.834
PL60.876
Organizational Citizenship BehaviorOCB10.8760.8720.8860.776
OCB20.823
OCB30.764
OCB40.821
OCB50.844
OCB60.872
OCB70.735
OCB80.794
OCB90.738
OCB100.865
Affective TrustAT10.8560.8640.8730.852
AT20.856
AT30.765
AT40.789
AT50.873
Cognitive TrustCT10.8390.8450.8630.834
CT20.829
CT30.845
CT40.741
CT50.848
CT60.721
Continuance commitmentCC10.7520.8430.8790.765
CC20.756
CC30.849
CC40.855
CC50.857
CC60.761
Table
Table 2. Mean, standard, discriminate validity, and correlation.
Table 2. Mean, standard, discriminate validity, and correlation.
ConstructsMeanSD12345
Participative Leadership4.310.760.835
Affective Trust4.230.830.7420.89
Cognitive Trust3.450.620.6650.6230.923
Continuance Commitment3.340.730.6340.7650.7450.875
OCB4.760.870.7820.7860.6780.7520.945
Note:p < 0.01, Diagonal values are square roots of AVE that should be higher than the inter-correlation for the estimation of discriminate validity.
Table
Table 3. Mediation analysis through the bootstrapping method.
Table 3. Mediation analysis through the bootstrapping method.
Dependent VariableEffect of IV on M (a)Effect of M on DV (b)Total Effect of IV on DV (c)Direct Effect of IV on DV(c)Bootstrap Result for Indirect Effect(ab)Decision
βtβtβtβtLL 95% CIUL 95% CI
OCB0.4211.450.7518.320.5622.540.1910.190.1320.246Supported
OCB0.3410.27−0.2613.450.4519.62−0.2312.23−0.0230.145Not supported
Note: IV: Participative leadership, DV: OCB, Mediators: Affective Trust, Cognitive Trust, Moderator: Continuance Commitment ** p < 0.001; * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Hierarchical multiple regression for the moderating effect.
Table 4. Hierarchical multiple regression for the moderating effect.
Constructsβt-ValueFR2Adjusted R2∆R2
CT0.4355.16528.3750.1670.1280.167
CC0.3282.74565.7360.1460.2340.021
CT× CC0.4672.98785.4370.1350.2560.011
Note: F value for overall model. CT = Cognitive Trust, CC = Continuance commitment, Dependent variable = Organizational citizenship behavior. p < 0.01, p < 0.05, p < 0.001.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hayat Bhatti, M.; Ju, Y.; Akram, U.; Hasnat Bhatti, M.; Akram, Z.; Bilal, M. Impact of Participative Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Mediating Role of Trust and Moderating Role of Continuance Commitment: Evidence from the Pakistan Hotel Industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1170. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041170

AMA Style

Hayat Bhatti M, Ju Y, Akram U, Hasnat Bhatti M, Akram Z, Bilal M. Impact of Participative Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Mediating Role of Trust and Moderating Role of Continuance Commitment: Evidence from the Pakistan Hotel Industry. Sustainability. 2019; 11(4):1170. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041170

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hayat Bhatti, Misbah, Yanbin Ju, Umair Akram, Muhammad Hasnat Bhatti, Zubair Akram, and Muhammad Bilal. 2019. "Impact of Participative Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Mediating Role of Trust and Moderating Role of Continuance Commitment: Evidence from the Pakistan Hotel Industry" Sustainability 11, no. 4: 1170. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041170

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop