"MY LEADER'S GROUP IS MY GROUP.

"
LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND EMPLOYEES’ BEHAVIOURS

ABSTRACT

The construct of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) always remains a fundamental point for
researchers for their research. In this era of emerging globalization, hectic and fast-paced,
competitive business world, unfortunately, people rarely realize the importance of these
relationships in their business and personal lives too. The present study has been conducted to
address the same (Leader-employee) relationship and its impact on employees' extra-role
behaviours (Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Knowledge Sharing Behaviour,
Innovative Work Behaviour) through a mediating mechanism of Work Engagement with
respect to Job-Demand Resource (JD-R) Model. Time lag based sample (n=367) was
collected from R&D and IT sector of Pakistan in three phases. The hypothetical-deductive
method was used to analyse the collected data to conclude the study outcomes. It has been
ascertained through results of the survey that under commands' extra-role behaviours are
positively proportionate with their exchange with the leader, and work engagement plays a
mediating role in these relationships. The study also offers venues for future research and
practical implications for business managers.

KEY TERMS: Leader-Member Exchange, Extra Role Behaviours, Work Engagement,

R&D, Pakistan
INTRODUCTION
The relationship between leader (supervisor) and subordinates (members) play an important
role for healthy work environment which leads to rapid organizational success, that's why this
area has gained extensive interest for research (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies, Nahrgang, &
Morgeson, 2007). Representing this relationship, through Leader–Member Exchange (LMX)
theory, (initially proposed as Vertical Dyadic Linkage theory) Graen and Uhl-Bien, (1995);
Gerstner and Day, (1997), argued that each supervisor has a unique relationship (Low or
High LMX) with his under command(s). LMX theory has been described by (Gerstner &
Day, 1997; Liden & Maslyn, 1998) as a ―process, focusing on the relationship between a
leader and follower‖. According to this theory, leader forms differential relationships with
different subordinates at their workplace (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Liden & Graen, 1980),
which results in a differentiated workgroup with respect tohigh and low quality of exchange.
High-quality relationships, based on reciprocity/social exchange of mutual liking, trust,
obligation, and respect along with formal monetary exchange. Based on the intensity of the
relationship, Dansereau, Graen, and Haga (1975); Dienesch and Liden, (1986); Liden and
Maslyn, (1998) classified employees as ―trusted subordinates‖ or ―in-group‖ employees.
According to Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995); Graen and Scandura, (1987) low-quality LMX,
based on the only monetary exchange between leader and employee, a transaction takes place
in exchange of time and money, where employees are considered as ―hired hands‖, or ―out-
group‖ employees. This variations in quality of LMX affect the employees‘ capabilities and
performance behaviours at workplace differently which also predict the leader‘s efficiency
and effectiveness indirectly, as contended by Van Knippenberg, Knippenberg, Cremer, and
Hogg (2004), Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995); Lo, Abang, Ramayah, and Wang, (2015). Every
discipline has defined employees' behaviour in its own way due to its diverse perspectives.
As per our concern, Zhu, (2013) define the behaviour of the employee as ―a series of dynamic
reactions of the employee, as a member of the organization, to the internal and the external
environmental stimulates‖. Katz (1964) in his book, titled ―The Social Psychology of
Organizations‖, and Organ (1988) in his research, further elaborate and divide these
behaviours into in-role and extra-role behaviours (ERBs), which open new ways for research
on employee behaviours and its antecedents (Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ 1990; Settoon,
Bennett, & Liden 1996). Tompson and Werner (1997) differentiate these behaviours as "core
behaviour" and the "arbitrary behaviour‖. Katz (1964) elaborated in-role behaviour as the
necessary or the expected behaviour for the accomplishment of job duties stated in work

[2]
statement. Extra-role behaviours have been defined by Rotundo and Sackett‘s (2002) as
"group of activities that are not necessarily task-related, but that contribute to the organization
in a positive way" (p. 67). ERBs can be described as the collection of a series of actions that
are not included in the work statement (Job Description), even don‘t have any direct concern
with employee‘s position or role in the organization. Yee, Guo, and Yeung, (2015) claim that
ERBs are more difficult/complex to perform, as these behaviours are not written or describe
in employees‘ job descriptions but at the same time, Katz, (1964) claims that these ERBs are
more important for the organization as compared to in-role performance behaviours as the
author concluded, ―an organization that depends solely upon its blueprints (Job Descriptions)
of prescribed behaviour is a very fragile social system‖ (p. 132) (Italic added). Researchers
claim that early mechanism of work performance did not cover full range of behaviours so,
now it has been changed from fixed tasks written in employee‘s job description (in-role) to
broader terms (extra-role) due to uncertain and dynamic work requirements, Campbell,
McCloy, Oppler, and Sager, (1993); Murphy and Jackson, (1999) and Katz, (1964).
Dominating facets fall in ERBs‘ category which are being addressed in this study are
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (cf. Van Dyne, Cummings and Parks, 1995),
Knowledge Sharing Behaviour, Olowodunoye, (2015); Van Dyne and LePine, (1998), and
Innovative Work Behaviour, Basu and Green, (1997).

Many researchers claim that LMX has a direct influence on employee in-role and extra-role
behaviours [c.f. Li, Sanders, and Frenkel (2012); Martin, Guillaume, Thomas, and Epitropaki,
(2016)], but at the same time some studies like Scandura and Pellegrini, (2008) reported non-
significant relationship between LMX and employee outcomes, which offers a broad venue
for mediating path between LMX and job outcomes. Although, same venue has been
addressed by Harris et al., (2009) by using Job embeddedness and Moss, Sanchez,
Brumbaugh and Borkowski (2009) by using feedback avoidance behaviour as mediator, but
still further gap was identified by Li et al., (2012) stating that emotional states like
―willingness to go extra mile‖ can be tested as a path through which LMX can motivate
employees to exert extra efforts towards their work and organization. Work engagement by
its definition fulfills the requirement of research call by Li and colleague. Work Engagement
(WE) has emerged from the research on job or employee burnout in 1970, which explains the
negative aspects of workplace job engagement (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Maslach
and Leiter (1997) expanded their revelation towards positive aspects of work engagement and
explored its positive aspects. Robinson, Perryman and Hayday, (2004) defined work

[3]
engagement as "a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organization and its
value. An engaged employee is aware of business context and works with colleagues to
improve performance within the job for the benefit of the institution. The organization must
work to develop and nurture engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between
employer and employee.‖ Similarly, Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, and Bakker‘s
(2002, p. 74) defined work engagement as ―a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption‖.

Macey and Schneider (2008) has also pointed out that “the relationships among potential
antecedents and consequences of engagement......have not been rigorously
conceptualized, much less studied” (p. 3-4). Similarly, Chen, Zhang, and Vogel (2011)
argued that it is doubtful that employee without engaging himself in work can exhibit
extra behaviours (e.g. OCB, KSB and IWB). Saks (2006) stated that it can be said that for
exhibiting ERBs, employee WE is predecessor because, if a person is not supposed to be
engaged in formal job descriptions (WE) it is unlikely that he will perform something extra or
beyond his job descriptions. Chen and Chiu, (2009) argued that WE is both personal energy
as well as one‘s own ability and how he express his honestly his tasks and organization,
which means that expression of loyalty through extra work is essential for WE. Similarly,
Simpson (2009); Zhu, Avolio, and Walumbwa, (2009) also suggested the mediating role of
WE for ERBs. Coming back to this research, WE (a combine construct of emotional state
and dispositions of a worker) is assumed to be a mediator between LMX and ERBs.
Although some studies mentioned below have tested WE as mediator but with other different
outcomes. Most of the studies are conducted in western settings, but as Truss, Alfes,
Delbridge, Shantz, and Soane, (2013) in their book ―Employee engagement in theory and
practice‖ claims that WE should be treated as ―etic‖ term (Universal term) but as ―emic‖ term
(culturally bound). While, referring collectivist societies like Pakistan, Lu, Siu, Chen, and
Wang, (2011) argued that mastery of a family is a main source of strength and sense of pride
for an individual, which can result in positive psychological experience and wel-being
leading towards high engagement.

The study sample comprised on employees of R&D and IT Sector of Pakistan. Service and
production sector of Pakistan is in generous need of highly work engagement by its workers,
as economic life cycle is in its growth stage being developing economy. Gallup (2013)
reported that only 13% of workforce in Pakistan is actually engaged in their work which is
almost 50% less, as compare to developed countries like US and Canada. As per Hewitt

[4]
Quarterly studies ―Organizations with high engagement rates are 78% more productive &
40% more profitable than those organizations with low levels of engagement.‖ This study is
an attempt to establish a link that whether and how leadership attributes can play any role for
engaging their under commands in their work in collectivist culture. Moreover, Pakistan as a
under-developed country,is under-researched also as it‘s in the stage of undergoing to
develop and refine institutional rules and policies. This study will provide insight into
management practice and will helpful for developing long-term and reliable organizational
values and policies in Pakistan.

[5]
LITERATURE REVIEW
LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND EXTRA-ROLE BEHAVIOURS

Leader-Member Exchange has been reported as one of the important antecedents of ERBs,
Basu and Green, (1997). For instance, Gerstner and Day, (1997); Shusha, (2013) claim that
LMX has the significant impact on ERBs. Similarly, Hackett, Farh, Song, and Lapierre
(2003), also reported the correlation of .32 for the same relationship.

Moving towards the 1st facet mentioned above of ERBs, OCB, has been defined by Organ
(1988, p. 4) as ―individual‘s behaviour 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. By discretionary, mean that the behaviour is not an
enforceable requirement of the role or the job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms
of the person‘s employment contract with the organization; the behaviour is rather a matter of
personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable". The
author further offers its five dimensions (Civic Virtue, Conscientiousness, Altruism,
Courtesy, and Sportsmanship). While taking the relationship between LMX and OCB into the
consideration it has been found by Duong, (2011) that leader/supervisor‘s high-level quality
of LMX with subordinates, lead to increase in OCB. The Same relation has been positively
reported in the meta-analysis by Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, and Shore (2012); Dulebohn,
Bommer, Liden, Brouer, and Liden (2012). While interpreting the reasoning Michael, (2011)
argued that ―Supervisors have been shown to confer favorable treatment upon subordinates
with whom they have high-quality LMX relationships, in return, aides have been shown to
reciprocate favorable treatment upon their behaviours and extra task effort‖ (p. 2).
Dienesch and Liden, (1986) added that high quality of LMX means high level of trust,
formal and informal support, interaction, and rewards (material and non-material) beyond
employee‘s job description and authority, Liden, Sparrowe and Wayne (1997); Liden and
Graen, (1980). In return, in the light of Social Exchange Theory (SET) by Blau (1964) to
reciprocate this relation, it is expected that employees/under-commands will perform beyond
in-role behaviour and engage in extra-role to maintain an equilibrium or justifiable social
exchange. Hackett et al., (2003) also posited that high-quality LMX should increase OCB on
the part of subordinates. By above-cited work and in view of SET following hypothesis can
be drawn:-

[6]
H1. The high quality of Leader-Member Exchange has significant positive relation with
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour of the employees.

Moving towards 2nd ERBs‘ facet, KSB, has been defined by Connelly and Kelloway (2003, p.
1) as ―a set of behaviours that involve the exchange of information or assistance to others…
knowledge sharing contains an element of reciprocity; information sharing can be
unidirectional and unrequested‖. According to this definition, individuals' willingness,
intention, or propensity to share knowledge at the workplace, is a complicated task, and
voluntarism of the individual is the primary condition. Employees cannot be bound to share
knowledge; however, they can be encouraged to do so, Ardichvili, Page, and Wentling
(2003), therefore, KSB has also been recognized as discretionary, voluntary and volitional
behaviour, Hansen and Avital, (2005), Lam and Lambermont (2010). Wasko and Faraj
(2005) in their study noted that ―in order to share knowledge, individuals must perceive that
sharing it would be worth the effort to others‖ (p. 39) also supported by Lin (2007a).
Similarly, it is also added by Cabrera and Canrera (2005) that sense of competence,
confidence and self-efficacy lead to share more knowledge. In the knowledge sharing domain
studies conducted by Thomas-Hunt, Ogden and Neale, (2003); Bock, Zmud, Young-Gul, and
Jae-Nam, (2005); Lu, Leung, and Koch, (2006) and Lin, (2007b) established the relation of
self-efficacy with knowledge sharing behaviour. In a study of 50 private sector organizations,
Lin (2007a) found that self-efficacy significantly correlated with employee‘s knowledge
sharing attitudes and behaviour. Self-efficacy is self-awareness which refers to the confidence
about the successful completion of the task by using internal or external resources or tools,
Eden and Sulimani, (2002). Olowodunoye (2015) has also provided support for this relation,
as he reported ß = .37, p<.001.
Individuals weigh the psychological returns and benefits before getting involved in sharing
their knowledge. In high LMX, substantial exchange of resources, psychological support by
the leader on behalf of organization creates a sense of obligations, confidence, and
competence and it is considered by the under commands as a psychological return of their
knowledge sharing, which leads them toward adoption of KSB. On the basis of above
assertion and evidence following hypothesis can be developed:-

H2. High quality of Leader-Member Exchange has significant positive relation with
Knowledge Sharing Behaviour of the employees.

Similar to OCB and KSB, researchers in past also identified Employee's Innovative Work
Behaviour (IWB) as a (discretionary) extra-role behaviour (Katz and Kahn 1978), because

[7]
creativity and innovativeness are eventually required to be started at employees end,
Amabile, (1988); Zhou and Shalley (2008). Messmann, Mulder, and Gruber, (2010),
comprehensively defined IWB as ―the sum of all physical or cognitive work activities
employees carry out solitarily or in a social setting in order to generate, promote, and realize
ideas that are new and applicable to their specific work context‖. Similarly, Podsakoff,
MacKenzie and Organ (2006) defined it as "the sum of the individual's intentional actions
which are aimed at generation, promotion and realization of new ideas within a work role,
group or organization, to benefit role performance, the group or the organization". IWB is a
construct through which employee‘s creativity took place, claimed by Scott and Bruce,
(1994); Yuan and Woodman, (2010). Further, De-Jong and Den Hartog, (2007) have divided
IWB into two stages. First one is idea creation to solve the problem, and 2 nd stage is the
practical implementation of that innovative idea. For the first stage i.e. idea creation, the
presence of a problem is required, (Janssen, 2000), while for implementation of that creative
idea (2nd stage), moral, ethical, financial, and appraising support is essential, (Kanter, 1988).
IWB has remained the focus of researchers and many of them suggested leaders‘ exchange
with subordinate as a key driving force for employee IWB, Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, and
Strange (2002); Scott and Bruce (1994); Tierney, Farmer, and Graen (1999). Previous studies
adopted LMX as one of the predictors of subordinates‘ creative and innovative behaviours.
For example, positive association between LMX and IWB for assorted sample i.e. for R&D
professionals (Lee, 2008), for bank professional staff (Akremi Akinlade, & Liden, 2011), and
for manufacturing sector managers (Pan, Sun, & Chow 2012). Moreover, researchers (e.g.,
Gerstner & Day, 1997; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Mumford et al., 2002; Nederveen, Knippenberg,
Schippers, and Stam, 2010; Yuan and Woodman (2010) and recently Ansari, and Aafaqi
(n.d.) on the LMX and IWB supported a positive relationship between these two phenomena.
The concept of LMX theory is known as the exchange of resource between managers and
subordinates (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Such exchange, manifested via extra support like
financial or non-financial resources (Graen & Scandura, 1987), opportunities for risk-taking
(Graen & Cashman, 1975), moral support for innovation (Amabile, 1988) along with highly
frequent interaction and trust (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). These extra supports are essential
requirements for creativity and employees' innovativeness (Kanter, 1988). Similarly,
connecting innovation with rewards Janssen, (2000) found that employees would response
more innovatively towards organizational problems when they feel that their efforts towards
novelty are being appraised fairly. Employees who perceive a fair balance between

[8]
supervisor's inducements about their work efforts will respond with more innovative work
behaviour. Keeping above contentions in view, following hypothesis can be developed:-

H3. High quality of Leader-Member Exchange has significant positive relation with
Innovative Work Behaviour of the employees.

LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT

Employee engagement has gained the extensive interest of researchers and practitioners
across the world (Shuck & Wollard 2010), because of its huge contribution to financial
returns, productivity, and overall organizational reputations (Saks 2006; Shuck, Reio and
Rocco, 2010). Extensive research has defined its antecedents and found Co-
worker/supervisor support and supportive organizational climate (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004;
Halbesleben, 2010), job control (Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruokolainen 2007), as a strong
predictor of WE. Similarly, recent research carried out by Karanges (2014) found that
perceived leader/supervisor support (β=.70, at p<.001), organizational identification (β=.84,
at p<.001), and internal organization communication (β=.48 at p<.001) as strong antecedents
of work engagement. Hume and Leonard (2013) found that relationship with supervisor or
leader and their communication (commonly referred to as social exchange relationships) as
one of the important predictor of WE. Meng, and Wu, (2015) also supported this relation with
β = .301, p<.01. Macey and Schneider, (2008); Zhang, Wang, and Shi (2012) explained that
leaders/supervisors play a critical role in WE of the under commands as they
(leader/supervisors) have control over job-related resources. On the other hand as explained
above concerning LMX theory, that employees those have good exchange with their leaders
(in-group employees), enjoy distinct advantages which may create a sense of responsibility to
repay to their leader thus employees feel the energy, mental resilience and more willingness
to remain engage in their work. Prior studies established that employees will greatly engage
themselves in their work, when their basic needs are met by their supervisor/organization as
stated by Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002). Pakistan currently has huge score on the
poverty line and according to Asian Develpoment Bank‘s report (Apr 2016). Pakistan has
employment-to-population ratio of 50.7%, which means basic fulfilling of basic needs of
families is one of the core objectives of current employees/workforce. Insuring fulfillment of
these requirements and provision of resources to the followers is one of important feature of
Leader-Member Exchange. So, keeping above cited work and arguments following
hypotheses can be drawn:-

[9]
H4. High quality of Leader-Member Exchange positively relates to Work
Engagement of the employee.

WORK ENGAGEMENT AND EXTRA-ROLE BEHAVIOURS

The Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli,
2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) a very comprehensive model, which explains that how Job
Demands (physical of psychological effort) or job strain (burnout) and Job Resources
(autonomy, support, feedback, person's self-efficacy, resilience) influence employees
outcomes/well-beings and extra-role performance like commitment, creativity, OCB, KSB,
IWB and financial outcomes. This model also explains that how job demands exhaust
employees' physical and mental resources, and how job resources boost employees' morale,
well-being and increases positive utilization of physical or psychological strengths. To
continue this stream of research, researchers like Borman and Motowidlo, (1997) further
explored that how employees‘ positive and negative behaviours result in overall
organizational performance directly or indirectly. Researchers like Rotundo and Sackett
(2002) and Martin et al., (2016), claim that these behaviours are the functions of contextual
behaviours (ERBs) such as OCB, KSB, IWB and CWB etc. To perform these behaviours,
employees are required to be highly motivated and engaged by focusing on their physical as
well as cognitive and emotional endeavor towards their work (Kahn, 1990; Ashforth &
Humprey, 1995; Salanova, et al., 2011). Further research on these triggers, carried out by
different researchers like Kompaso, and Sridevi, (2010) and Ariani, (2013) found that WE is
significantly linked with OCB at r = 0.312, p< 0.01 and with IWB at b = 0.26, p< 0.01 found
by Agarwal, (2014).
Bakker and Demerouti (2008) explained that engaged employees experience more optimistic
and pleasant emotions, and they have joy in their work thus they can easily adopt proactive
behaviour (OCB). Similarly, engaged employees experience good physical and psychological
health so they can use optimum level of their abilities and mental resources to exercise ERBs
(IWB). Additionally, they are supposed to be good in transferring their abilities and
knowledge to other colleagues as well (KSB). There are evidences in which WE contribute to
(ERBs) OCB, KSB, and IWB (c.f. Hakanen, Perhoniemi, & Toppinen-Tanner, 2008). This
engagement-ERBs (OCB, KSB, IWB) relation has been tested on a sample of 245 firefighters
and found positive by Rich, LePine, and Crawford (2010). On the basis of previous research
and in light of JD-R Model following hypothesis can be proposed:-

[10]
H5. Work Engagement positively relates to Organizational Citizenship Behaviour of
the employees.

H6. Work Engagement positively relates to Knowledge Sharing Behaviour of the

employees.

H7. Work Engagement positively relates to Innovative Work Behaviour of the

employees.

MEDIATING ROLE OF WORK ENGAGEMENT

The verdict and definition of WE by Robinson et al., (2004) mentioned above, supported by
Institute of Employment Studies, clarifies that WE is mainly a result of two-way employee-
employer relation and things are to be done by both the parties. Robinson‘s comprehensive
definition also triggers outcomes of WE elaborated that engaged employees are more likely
to go and perform beyond his in-role performance as they much concern about organizational
performance (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997).

Mediating role of WE between different contextual/dispositional predictors other than LMX

and employee ERBs has been tested for example Xanthopoulou, Baker, Heuven, Demerouti,
and Schaufeli, (2008) found that the significant relation turned to non-significant (t =1.76, p =
.08, z=2.24, p=.05) when WE has been entered as mediating between self-efficacy and employee
in-role behaviours. Moreover, leader‘s interactive and supportive behaviour has been
identified as a key factor to develop and forming a context for knowledge sharing at
followers end (as cited by Hassanzadeh, 2014). Sulea et al., (2012) has also supported that
WE mediate between organizational/supervisor support and OCB (ERBs). Another study
carried out by Salanova, Lorente, Chambel, and Martínez, (2011) on the directions provided
by Zhu, Avolio, and Walumbwa, (2009) found a full mediating role of work engagement
between transformational leadership style and subordinate's ERBs. Their study was carried
out on a paired sample comprised of nurses and their supervisors (supervisors were 17 and
nurses were 364). Similarly, research conducted by Song, Kolb, Lee, and Kim (2012) on
Transformational Leadership and KSB, concluded mediating role of WE (SPC= 0.75, t=1.96)
between Transformational Leadership and KSB. Leadership style, specifically
transformational style, and our proposed predictor i.e. LMX are neighboring/overlapping
concepts as both are leader's attributes Yukl, (1999), so it can be suggested that we is likely to
play mediating role in our case as it was found by Salanova, et al., (2011). The mediating role

[11]
of WE between LMX and employee's ERBs has been found, or in some cases, it has been
found only for in-role performance behaviours as in above-cited studies. So, to generalize of
those findings and to test WE as the mediator between LMX and ERBs this attempt is being
carried out.
As stated above, that employees with high LMX gain more perks/privileges, support,
feedback and encourage, thus they are supposed to take greater responsibility with high
probability to experience greater WE which result in increased contributions to organization
in form of Positive ERBs. It is proposed that employees with high WE will share more
knowledge. In this support, the reasons were explained by Chen, Zhang, and Vogel (2011)
that typically engaged employees are more dedicated towards their work and gain more
professional knowledge and share it with their co-workers. The second reason is that,
Individual‘s self-efficacy is strongly required for KSB, if the individual is confident about his
sharing and consider it worthwhile for others he will share his knowledge fearlessly. Third,
when individual feel energy and enthusiasm about his work, he will improve his work
through his experience and likely to go extra mile. On the other hand, Robinson et al., (2004)
as pointed above, that for better WE there must be leader or supervisor‘s support (resources +
moral) so the employee shows his willingness to go extra mile (ERBs). While moving
towards IWB it has been well researched that that engaged employees feel more
compelled/bound to strive to accomplish comparatively more challenging goals, and essential
parts of their work engagement, i.e. energy and focus, motivate them to exert extra work
effort (Leiter and Bakker 2010). On the other hand engaged employees have high LMX with
their leader and have access to additional resources, support for innovativeness and positive
emotions along with trust as claimed by Graen and Scandura, (1987); Harter, Schmidt, and
Hayes (2002); Graen and Cashman, (1975), which ultimately, lead employees towards
innovativeness. Additionally, in the light of Conservation of Resources Theory, Halbesleben
and Wheeler (2008) claims that employees with provision of high level of work related
resources are expected to go extra-mile. Rich et al., (2010) and Christian, Garza, and laughter
(2011) also supported Halbesleben and Wheeler‘s arguments. So on the basis of above
mentioned calls by Simpson (2009); Zhu, Avolio, and Walumbwa, (2009); Macey and
Schneider, (2008); Chen, Zhang, and Vogel, (2011) for mediating role of WE and on the
basis of above assertions, following hypothesis for mediation of WE can be drawn:-

H8. Work Engagement mediates between Leader-Member Exchange and

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour of the employees.

[12]
H9. Work Engagement mediates between Leader-Member Exchange and Knowledge
Sharing Behaviour of the employees.

H10. Work Engagement mediates between Leader-Member Exchange and Innovative

Work Behaviour of the employees.

FIGURE 1: RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

Organizational
Citizenship
Behaviour

Knowledge
Leader- Sharing
Member Work Engagement Behaviour
Exchange

Innovative
Work
Behaviour

[13]
METHODOLOGY
The study is causal research and to check the hypotheses, so the hypothetical deductive
method was used to analyze the data. Data was collected through questionnaires using time-
lagged design, in three different phases with a gap of two months between each phase. The
population for proposed study was employees of various organizations including 3 x private
IT (Information Technology) related, 2 x banks and 2 x R&D (Research and Development)
related organizations of Pakistan. Unit of analysis of this study was individuals/employees of
different growing organizations specifically those are working in R&D and IT Sector of
Pakistan. The main reason for selection of this population is as day by day innovativeness is
required by employees of these areas. Secondly, as working in IT and R&D sector is usually
on assignment/project based, so sometimes workers have to work for extra hours after office
timings, on the other hand, this sector offers more flexible work arrangements (flex time, flex
place like virtual networks), so employees have open option to perform beyond their job
descriptions. Convenience sampling technique was used because the sampling frame covered
a vast number of suitable respondents as respondents were chosen on their ease to access
the base. Data related to LMX (Independent Variable) was collected in phase one. Data
related to WE (Mediator) was collected in the second phase while data related to all
dependent variables (OCB, KSB and IWB) was collected in the third phase. Total 511
questionnaires were distributed in three episodes. The cumulative response rate was 72%.
Apart from written covering letter of the questionnaire submitted to the respondents, author
(s) of the studyor some representative on the behalf of the author(s), was present during
distribution and filling of the questionnaires to explain the purpose of the study and to answer
queries raised by the respondents. Respondents have been also ensured that their personal
information/affiliation provided through questionnaire will remain confidential and will not
be shared with anyone at any cost. They were also taken in confidence that if they wanted to
withdraw their response/duly filled questionnaire, they are authorized to do so within two
months after their submission. The descriptive analysis shows that majority (65.2%) of
respondents were male. Most of the respondents were master degree holders (46.3%).
Dominating age ranged between 31 to 40 years (41%). More than 29% of the respondents
were having 5 to 10 years of job experience. Measuring scales used in the study and their
detail is as under:-
 Leader-Member Exchange was measured using six items, 5 points likert scale developed
by Graen, Novak and Sommerkamp, (1982 & 1995) was used. The Cronbach‘s Alpha of
this scale was 0.865. A Sample question is “My supervisor understandmy problems and
needs”.
 Work Engagement (WE) was measured with 17 items, 5 points likert scale by Schaufeli,
Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker, (2002) was used. The Cronbach‘s Alpha of this

[14]
 scale was 0.718. A Sample question of this scale is ―At my job, I feel strong and
energetic.‖
 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) was measured with nine items 5 ponts likert
scale developed by Lee and Allen (2002). The Cronbach‘s Alpha of this scale 0.732.
Sample question of this scale is “I express loyalty toward the organization”.
 Knowledge Sharing Behaviour (KSB) was measured with the help of 5 points likert scale
developed by Bock and Kim, (2002). The Cronbach‘s Alpha of this scale was 0.677.
Sample question of this scale is “I share my report templates and models with members
of my group/organization”.
 Innovative Work Behaviour (IWB) was measured with the help of scale developed by
Scott and Bruce (1994) by using five points likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1
represents "Very Ineffective", and 5 represents "Very Effective". The Cronbach's Alpha
of this scale was 0.801. Sample question of this scale is “Tackling unsolved problems”.

[15]
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
CORRELATION ANALYSIS

Results of correlation analysis presented in Table 1 revealed that independent variable LMX
is significantly positively correlated with first dependent variable, OCB (r=.368**, p≤0.01).
This provides initial support to hypothesis 1, which is “Leader-Member Exchange has a
positive relationship with Organizational Citizenship Behaviour of the Employees‖. LMX
was significantly positively correlated with 2nd dependent variable, KSB (r=0.756**, p≤0.01).
This provides initial support to hypothesis 2, which is "Leader-Member Exchange has a
positive relationship with Knowledge Sharing Behaviour of the Employees‖. LMX has been
found significantly positively correlated to the 3rd dependent variable, IWB (r=0.255**,
p≤0.01). This provides initial support to hypothesis 3, which is Leader-Member Exchange
has a positive relationship with Innovative Work Behaviour of the Employees. Results also
revealed that LMX is significantly positively correlated to the mediator, WE (r=.668**,
p≤0.01), which provides initial support to hypothesis 4, which is ―Leader-Member Exchange
has a positive relationship with Work Engagement of the Employees." Similarly, WE has
been found significantly positively correlated to 1st dependent variable OCB (r=.226**,
p≤0.01), which provides initial support to hypothesis 5, which is ―Work Engagement
Positively relates to Organizational Citizenship Behaviour of the Employees‖. WE was
significantly positively correlated to 2nd dependent variable KSB (r=.744**, p≤0.01), which
provided initial support to hypothesis 6, which is Work Engagement Positively relates to
Knowledge Sharing Behaviour of the Employees. WE has been found significantly positively
correlated to 3rd dependent variable, IWB (r=0. .239**, p≤0.05), which provided initial
support to hypothesis 7, which is Work Engagement Positively relates to Innovative Work
Behaviour of the Employees.

[16]
 TABLE 1: CORRELATIONS
PREDICTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Gender 1
2. Education .067 1
3. Age .012 -.095 1
4. Experience .071 -.088 .549** 1
* **
5. Organization .109 .183 -.094 -.207** 1
** ** **
6. LMX -.155 .009 .171 .237 -.062 1
** ** **
7. WE -.177 .081 .151 .217 -.094 .688** 1
8. OCB -.124* .104* .111* .059 .026 .364** .226** 1
* ** ** * ** **
9. KSB -.101 .012 .192 .274 -.108 .756 .744 .560** 1
* ** ** **
10. IWB -.091 -.053 .102 -.002 .028 .255 .239 .260 .319** 1
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
n=376
Gender (1 = Male, 2 = Female)
Education (1=Matric, 2=Intermediate, 3=Graduation, 4=Masters and 5=MS /PhD)
Age (20 to 30 Years = 1, 31 to 40 Years=2, 41 to 50 years=3, 51 to 60 years=4, 61 to 70 years=5)
Experience (1 = 0 to 5 years, 2=6 to 10 years, 3=11 to 15 Years, 4=16 to 20 years, 5= to 21 to 30 years)
Organization Type (1 = Public Organization, 2 = Private Organization)
LMX (Leader-Member Exchange) (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3 Neutral, 4=Agree, 5 Strongly Agree)
OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behaviour) KSB (Knowledge Sharing Behaviour) and WE (Work Engagement), (1=Never, 2=Once, 3=More than
Once, 4=Often and 5=Always)
IWB (Innovative Work Behaviour), (1= Very Ineffective, 2= Slightly Ineffective, 3=Somewhat Effective, 4= Moderately Effective and 5=Extremely
Effective)
 TABLE 2: MEDIATION ANALYSIS RESULTS
Bootstrap
Effect of M on Total effect of IV Direct effect of
Effect of IV on M results for
DV on DV IV on DV
DV (a path) indirect
(b path) (c path) (c' path)
effects
LL UL
B T B T B t B t 95% 95%
CI CI
OCB .885*** 60.083 .511*** 8.442 .924*** 44.745 .471*** 8.670 .347 .557

KSB .885*** 60.083 -.0103 -.1589 .705 34.241 .714 11.030 -.152 .125

IWB .885*** 60.083 .325*** 4.9216 .739*** 42.690 .450*** 7.2163 .173 .398
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, No. of bootstrap resample = 5000, *IV = LMX, M = WE

REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Our model is a meditational model so we used a nonparametric bootstrapping method with

95% confidence interval presented by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Through this method, a
non-zero value between lower and upper limit conclude that the effect is significantly
different from zero at p<.05 (two-tailed). To overcome the shortcomings of step-wise
approach, this bootstrapping method is considered more appropriate (Hayes, 2008, p. 166).
Furthermore, a resampling approach used by this method has also been examined smarter
than any other approach. 5000 bootstrap resamples with 95% confidence intervals were
employed in this analysis. Model 4 of PROCESS Macro for SPSS has been separately
performed for each dependent variable to check the direct and indirect effect on it.

Regression results presented in Table 2 revealed that LMX has a direct positive significant
relationship with first dependent variable i.e. OCB. As the analysis shows β=.471***,
p≤0.001 and t=8.670, whereas there is non-zero bootstrap range i.e. from .347 to .557, so H1
"Leader-Member Exchange has a positive relationship with Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour of the Employees‘ is supported. Regression analysis for H2 ―Leader-Member
Exchange has a positive relationship with Knowledge Sharing Behaviour of the Employees‖
indicates β=.714 (ns), and bootstrap between -.152 and .125 (which contains 0 value), so the
hypothesis is not supported. H-3 that ―Leader-Member Exchange has a positive and
significant relationship with Innovative Work Behaviour of the Employees‖, shows its β
value at .450***, t=7.2163, with none zero bootstrap value; thus it is supported. Besides these
three hypotheses between the independent variable (LMX) and dependent variables, (OCB,
KSB and IWB), H4 of LMX (IV) with WE (Mediator) was also tested and supported at β
=.855*** with t=60.083. H5 of WE (mediator) to KSB (dependent 1) that ―Work
Engagement Positively relates to Organizational Citizenship Behaviour of the Employees‖ is
supported at β=.511*** and t=8.442 with non-zero in bootstrap lower and upper range. H6,
WE (Mediator) to KSB (Dependent-2) ―Work Engagement Positively relates to Knowledge
Sharing Behaviour of the Employees‖ is not supported as β= -.0103 with t= -.1589, and
bootstrap value also contains 0 value in it. H7 of WE (mediator) on IWB (dependent 3) that
―Work Engagement Positively relates to Innovative Work Behaviour of the Employees‖ is
supported at β=.325*** and t=4.9216 with non-zero in bootstrap values.

H8, ―Work Engagement mediates between Leader-Member Exchange and Organizational

Citizenship Behaviour of the Employees" was tested, and its β value was found at .924***,
P=<.001, and t=44.745. Besides, the upper and lower limit confidence were .347 and .557
which do not contain zero value, effect size (β) has been increased from .471*** to .924***,
due to WE as a mediator so the H-8 is supported. H9, ―Work Engagement mediates between
Leader-Member Exchange and Knowledge Sharing Behaviour of the Employees‖ was tested
and its β value was found at .705(ns), t=34.241, (earlier β was .714,ns) and its bootstrap value
contains zero value as the lower value is -.152 and upper value is .125, so the hypothesis is
not supported. H10, ―Work Engagement mediates between Leader-Member Exchange and
Innovative Work Behaviour of the Employees" was tested, and its β value has been increased
to .739***, P=<.001, and t=42.690 (earlier β was .450***) with upper and lower limit
confidence between .173 and .398, so the hypothesis is supported.

DISCUSSION
ERBs are more important than in-role behaviours, Yee, et al., (2015), but at the same time,
these ERBs are more difficult or complicated. In this competitive business era, no
organization can grow well without expecting/accomplishing these behaviours by its
employees. To address the gap mentioned above, and to answer the research call by Martin et
al., (2016), the current study was carried out focusing on Extra-Role Behaviours of the
employees and to explore that how the leader‘s role or exchange can positively
influence/mold followers/employees‘ motivation towards these behaviours.

In hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 it was hypothesized that LMX has direct and positively influence on
ERBs (H1 for LMX to OCB, H2 for LMX to KSB and H3 for LMX to IWB). Results, on the

[19]
basis of data collected for this study from different R&D and IT related business
organizations supported first and third hypotheses aligned with previous studies like Basu and
Green, (1997); Gerstner and Day, (1997); Hackett et al., (2003); Shusha, (2013), Rockstuhl et
al., (2012). The strong relationship between leader or manager's exchange with his/her
subordinates can be described since social exchange theory (SET) by Blau (1964). In the light
of SET, when a leader/manager extends his financial, social and moral support towards his
subordinates, it creates a sense of reciprocity among them. To balance out those favors,
employees extend their extra efforts to accomplish organizational goals through performing
behaviours which are even beyond their job descriptions (in-role).

In H4 it was proposed that LMX is positively related to Work Engagement of the employees,
which has been supported through data. Previous researchers have also established this link
in their studies in different contexts like Hume and Leonard (2013); Karanges (2014); more
recently Meng, and Wu, (2015) also supported this relation. This relationship may occur as
an outcome of LMX theory itself, that employees those have a good exchange with their
leaders (also called in-group employees), enjoy distinct advantages. Employees feel the
energy and mental resilience which leads them towards willingness to remain to engage in
their work. On the other hand as argued in the light of JDR-Model, Harter, Schmidt, and
Hayes (2002), argued that for engagement of employee there are some essential resources,
provision of those resources is on leader‘s end so it can be concluded that provision of better
resources (mental, social, safety and financial) may result in better engagement of under
commands.

Next three hypotheses (H5, H6 and H7) proposed that Employees‘ Work Engagement has
positive relationship with ERBs (OCB, KSB and IWB), out of which H5 and H7 have been
supported through data analysis in this study as previously it was concluded by Bakker and
Demerouti (2008); Hakanen et al., (2008), Rich, et al., (2010) in different contexts and
population. Engaged employees feel more pleasant and experience more optimism and
pleasant emotions as they feel joy in their work and have pleasant and positive feelings about
their work and organization thus they are more expected to perform more proactively.
Moving further towards the hypotheses of mediation H8, and H9 and H10 i.e. WE mediate
between LMX and ERBs (OCB, KSB and IWB), H8 and H10 are supported, and H9 (KSB)
was not supported. The major reason can be that for creativity and innovativeness, both
external and internal resources, support and energies are required at the same time. 2ndly,

[20]
when a person remains engaged in his/her work, he/she will persist day by day expertise and
experience which may lead him to continuous improvements in his work and results in
creativeness leads towards innovative behaviour. 3rd to be a creative one should know prone
and cons of the work tasks, so for learning about those prone and cons one's engagement in
his/her, work task is essential. When we talk about mediating role of WE, this research
attempt fill the gap cited by Saks (2006), Chen and Chiu, (2009), Chen et al., (2011) in
which they claimed that it is doubtful or unrealistic a person without engaging himself in his
core required job activities will exhibit something extra.

Moving toward the H3 and H9, which have been not supported, it can be evidenced (as
narrated above) that KSB is dominantly dependent on personal willingness and motivation of
the individual, so, it may possible that person besides having all other real characteristics may
not share his expertise and knowledge with his colleagues. Secondly, more than 65 % of
study population is male, and it has been well established in literature that men are more
concerning about their success and have stronger concept of edge taking over to other
colleagues while women more socialized to be more expressive, having strong ―ethic of
care,‖ and to be more interdependent, compassionate, nurturing, cooperative, and helpful in
caregiving roles (Lu & Koch, 2006; Gilligan, 1982). So it can be concluded that male
respondents may hide their knowledge and expertise considering them as their own property
and a source of competitive edge over other office colleagues. On the other hand, when team
members perceived a leader‘s favourable treatment with some specific (in-group) person(s),
this variability may create a relational problem between team members which may lead all
the co-workers towards disrespect, knowledge hiding, and poor communication (Hooper &
Martin, 2008) and this differential treatment with subordinates by a particular leader may
create ambiguity and doubt about the leader‘s integrity (cf. Lind & Tyler 1992). In this
situation, it is high likely that employees deliberately stop putting effort toward their work
which may stop sharing his or her knowledge.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

The focus of this study was WE and ERBs, which are critical to organizational success, as
Katz (1964) claims that organizations depending on only in-role performance (job
description) are not supposed to successful in their future. ERBs are assumed as an important
and crucial pathway towards organizational performance and success, but at the same time,
these behaviours are much difficult to be performed by the employees as these are required
[21]
many resources, support, and efforts by organization and leaders/managers. Leader's
exchange (LMX) has been studied as a predictor of ERBs of the under commands/employees.
The study concluded that leader‘s interactional style and his personal attentions towards
subordinates' personal, social and work life plays very critical role in molding their
behaviours. It has been found through this research attempt that leaders act as role model for
employees and sets an example for their subordinates and signaled them that how they are
supposed to act and behave in their workplace. Moreover, WE vitally predict ERBs;
organizational leaders need to pay attention to this part despite whatever the industry is and
whatever the leadership style is there in the organization. In Pakistan, being a
poor/developing country fulfilling necessary psychological needs can result in better
engagement at employees end. Study findings have importance with the view of training and
development as while conducting supervisor's training or succession planning/training,
organizational managers/trainers, must incorporate strategies/lessons through which
leaders/managers/supervisors may be trained about how they have to build good relations
with their subordinates. Secondly, this study carried significance for policymakers that while
making policies for organizations, as they consider Deviant Work Behaviours (DWB) as
dangerous phenomena, at the same time they need to recognize the importance of Extra-Role
Behaviours, and there must be appropriate rewarding policies for employees those who
perform these behaviours.

[22]
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Like other studies, this study also has some limitations. Data related to dependent variables
(OCB, KSB and IWB), specifically and for the whole model generally, was collected through
self-reported questionnaire, leading toward self-serving bias at respondents end, as
exaggeration/manipulation in responses is highly expected, which may result in wrong
statistical outcomes. Second, the most considerable theoretical limitation of the study is the
mediating role of WE between LMX, and KSB has not been proven, but same mediating role
has been found in case of OCB and IWB which is beyond understanding as all dependent
variables are actually different facets of ERBs. Lastly, data for the study variable has been
collected from R&D and IT related organizations only, which can question the
generalizability of the survey to other sectors/organizations.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Limitations mentioned above, suggest directions for future research, so keeping above
limitations in view, the first direction is that the extended time limit for the study on the same
model may give some different results especially in the case of mediation of WE. Secondly,
paired data (supervisor and supervisee/under-commands rated) can be a suitable and
appropriate way to answer this type of research questions. Thirdly, a study on ample sample
size is required to investigate the non-significant role of WE between LMX and KSB, as this
has been established for two other ERBs (OCB and IWB), the reasoning behind this rejection
given above, is in need of empirical evidence. Fourth, the sample from other types of
organizations may result in a change in conclusions. Lastly, most of the research on LMX has
been conducted concerning job outcomes of in-group employees; there is a generous need to
check the job outcomes (like ostracism, deviant work behaviours, cynicism) of out-group
employees.
***THE END***

NOTE: WORDS LIKE "BOSS", "MANAGER", AND "SUPERVISOR" ARE USED AS SUBSTITUTE WORDS FOR
"LEADER".
WORDS LIKE "EMPLOYEE(S)" AND "UNDER COMMAND", ARE USED AS SUBSTITUTE WORDS FOR
"MEMBER".

[23]
 REFERENCES

A. Agarwal, U. (2014). Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work
engagement. Personnel Review, 43(1), 41-73.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
organizational behaviour, 10(1), 123-167.
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in
virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of knowledge
management, 7(1), 64-77.
Ariani, D. W. (2013). The relationship between employee engagement, organizational
citizenship behaviour, and counterproductive work behaviour. International Journal
of Business Administration, 4(2), 46.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A Reappraisal.
Human Relations, 48, 97–125.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career
development international, 13(3), 209-223.
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader‐member exchange and transformational leadership:
an empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader‐member dyads. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 27(6), 477-499.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bock, G., Zmud, R., Young-Gul, K., & Jae-Nam, L. (2005). Behavioural intention formation
in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-
psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87- 111
Borman, W.C., & dan Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual
performance: the meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance,
10(2), 99-109.
Cabrera, E. F., & Canrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people
management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
16(5), 720-735.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of
performance. Personnel selection in organizations, 3570.
Chen, C. C. & Chiu, S. F. (2009). The mediating role of job involvement in the relationship
between job characteristics and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of
Social Psychology, 149, 474–494.
CHEN, Z. J., Zhang, X., & Vogel, D. (2011). Exploring the underlying processes between
conflict and knowledge sharing: a work‐engagement perspective1. Journal of applied
social psychology, 41(5), 1005-1033.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel
Psychology, 64(1), 89-136.
Connelly, C. E., & Kevin Kelloway, E. (2003). Predictors of employees' perceptions of
knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
24(5), 294-301.

[24]
Dansereau, F., 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.
De Jong, J. P., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees' innovative
behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41-64.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A
critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11: 618-634.
Dulebohn, J.H., Bommer, W.H., Liden, R.C., Brouer, R.L. and Liden, 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.
Duong, Julie, (2011), Leaders‘ conceptions and evaluations of followers as antecedents of
leadership style, leader-member exchange, and employee outcomes, Unpublished
doctoral thesis.
Eden D, Sulimani R. (2002). Pygmalion training made effective: Greater mastery through
augmentation of self- efficacy and means efficacy. In Avolio BJ, Yammarino FJ
(Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead, 67–91.
El Akremi, A., Akinlade, D., & Liden, R. (2011). Leader-member exchange and creativity:
the role of creative self-efficacy and power distance. In Academy of Management
Annual Meeting (p. 3).
Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational
citizenship behaviour: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of
Management, 16(4), 705-721.
Gerstner, C. R. & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of Leader-Member-Exchange
theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-
844.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L.
Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour 9, 175– 208.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal
organizations: A developmental approach. Leadership frontiers, 143-165.
Graen, G.B. and 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', The Leadership Quarterly 6(2):
219–247.
Hackett, R. D., Farh, J.-L., Song, L. J., & Lapierre, L. M. (2003). LMX and organizational
citizenship behaviour: Examining the links within and across Western and Chinese
samples. In G. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with Diversity: LMX leadership The series, 1:
219– 263.
Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The Job Demands-Resources model: A
three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work
engagement. Work & Stress, 22(3), 224-241.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with
burnout, demands, resources and consequences. In A.B. Bakker & M.P.

[25]
Hansen, S., & Avital, M. (2005). Share and share alike: The social and technological
influences on knowledge sharing behaviour. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information
Environments, Systems, and Organizations, 5(1), 1-19.
Harris, Kenneth, J., Wheeler, Anthony, R., & Kacmar, Michele, K., (2009), ―Leader–
member exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job
satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance‖. The Leadership Quarterly, 20:
371-382.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279.
Hassanzadeh, J. F. (2014). Leader-member exchange and creative work involvement: The
importance of knowledge sharing. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 7(2), 377.
Hayes, A. F. (2008). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press, 166.
Hoon Song, J., Kolb, J. A., Hee Lee, U., & Kyoung Kim, H. (2012). Role of
transformational leadership in effective organizational knowledge creation practices:
Mediating effects of employees' work engagement. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 23(1), 65-101.
Hume, J., and Leonard, A. (2013). Exploring the strategic potential of internal
communication in international non-governmental organizations. Public Relations
Review, 40(2), 294-304
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and
citizenship behaviours: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269-
277.
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour. Journal of Occupational and organizational psychology, 73(3), 287-302.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 692–724
Kanter, R. 1988. When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social
conditions for innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behaviour, 10:
169–211.
Karanges, E. R. (2014). Optimizing employee engagement with internal communication: a
social exchange perspective.
Katz, D. 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behaviour. Behavioural Science, 9:
131– 133.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations.
Kompaso, S. M., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving
performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12).
Lam, A., & Lambermont-Ford, J. P. (2010). Knowledge sharing in organizational contexts: a
motivation-based perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 51-66.
Lee, J. (2008). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on innovativeness.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(6), 670-687.
Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: Recent developments in theory and research. New York:

[26]
 Psychology Press
Leiter, M. P., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Work engagement: Introduction. Work Engagement:
A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, 1-9.
Len, T. S., & Aafaqi, R. Leader-Member Exchange and employee creativity: The role of
positive emotion Mahfooz A. Ansari.
Li, X., Sanders, K., & Frenkel, S. (2012). How leader–member exchange, work engagement
and HRM consistency explain Chinese luxury hotel employees‘ job performance.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1059-1066.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of
leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An
empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.
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, 47-119.
Lin, H. F. (2007a). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study.
International Journal of Manpower, 28 (3), 315-332.
Lin, H.F. (2007b), ‗‗Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on employee intentions to
share knowledge‘‘, Journal of Information Science, 33 (2), 135-149
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in
experimental social psychology, 25, 115-92.
Lo, M. C., Abang Azlan, M., Ramayah, T., & Wang, Y. C. (2015). Examining the Effects of
Leadership, Market Orientation and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) on
Organisational Performance. Engineering Economics, 26(4), 409-421.
Lu, C. Q., Siu, O. L., Chen, W. Q., & Wang, H. J. (2011). Family mastery enhances work
engagement in Chinese nurses: A cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 78(1), 100-109.
Lu, L., Leung, K., & Koch, P. T. (2006). Managerial knowledge sharing: The role of
individual, interpersonal and organizational factors. Management and Organization
Review, 2, 15-42.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology,1, 3-30
Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–Member
exchange (LMX) and performance: A Meta‐Analytic review. Personnel Psychology,
69(1), 67-121.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397-422.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U. & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as
antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, 70, 149-171.
Meng, F., & Wu, J. (2015). Merit pay fairness, leader-member exchange, and job
engagement evidence from mainland China. Review of public personnel

[27]
 administration, 35(1), 47-69.
Messmann, G., Mulder, R. H., & Gruber, H. (2010). Relations between vocational teachers‘
Characteristics of professionalism and their innovative work behaviour. Empirical
Research in Vocational Education and Training, 2(1), 21–40.
Michael, D. (2011), Supportive supervisor communication as an intervening influence in the
relationship between LMX and employee job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and
performance. Journal of Behavioural Studies in Business, 4, 1-28.
Moss, S. E., Sanchez, J. I., Brumbaugh, A. M., & Borkowski, N. (2009). The mediating role
of feedback avoidance behaviour in the LMX—performance relationship. Group &
Organization Management, 34(6), 645-664.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705-750.
Murphy, P. R., & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Managing work-role performance: Challenges for
21st century organizations and employees.
Olowodunoye, S. A. (2015). Knowledge Sharing Behaviour: the Role of Self-efficacy,
Organisational Justice and Organisational Tenure. European Scientific Journal,
11(17).
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: The Good Soldier Syndrome,
Lexington Books
Pan, W., Sun, L. Y., & Chow, I. H. S. (2012). Leader-member exchange and employee
creativity: Test of a multilevel moderated mediation model. Human Performance,
25(5), 432-451.
Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational
and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of
psychological empowerment. Journal of organizational behavior, 31(4), 609-623.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship
behaviour on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future
research. Human performance, 10(2), 133-151.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Organ, D. W. (2006). Organizational citizenship
behaviour: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behaviour research
methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and
effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004) The Drivers of Employee Engagement.
Brighton, Institute for Employment Studies.
Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader–member exchange
(LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1097.
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), 66-80.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
[28]
 Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
Salanova, M., Lorente, L., Chambel, M. J., & Martínez, I. M. (2011). Linking
Transformational leadership to nurses' extra‐role performance: the mediating role of
self‐efficacy and work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(10), 2256-
2266.
Scandura, T. A., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2008) Trust and leader-member exchange (LMX): A
closer look at relational vulnerability. Journal of leadership & organizational studies,
15, 101-110.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 25, 293-315
Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I., Marqués-Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. (2002).
Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of
Cross Cultural Psychology, 33, 464-481.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behaviour: A path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 580–
607.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations:
Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee
reciprocity. Journal of applied psychology, 81(3), 219.
Shuck, B. and Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of
the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89-110
Shuck, B., Reio Jr, T. G., & Rocco, T. S. (2011). Employee engagement: An examination of
antecedent and outcome variables. Human resource development international,
14(4), 427-445.
Shusha, A. (2013). The Mediating Role of Leader-Member Exchange in the Relationship
between Transformational Leadership and Job performance. European Journal of
Business and Management, 5(8), 157-164.
Simpson, M. R. (2009). Engagement at work: A review of the literature. International
journal of nursing studies, 46(7), 1012-1024.
Sulea, C., Virga, D., Maricutoiu, L. P., Schaufeli, W., Zaborila Dumitru, C., & Sava, F. A.
(2012). Work engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive and
negative extra-role behaviors. Career Development International, 17(3), 188-207.
Thomas-Hunt, M. C., Ogden, T. Y., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Who's Really Sharing? Effects
of Social and Expert Status on Knowledge Exchange within Groups. Management
Science, 49(4), 464-477.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and
employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology,
52(3), 591-620.
Tompson, H. B., & Werner, J. M. (1997). The impact of role conflict/facilitation on core and
discretionary behaviours: Testing a mediated model. Journal of Management, 23(4),
583-601.
Truss, C., Alfes, K., Delbridge, R., Shantz, A., & Soane, E. (2013). Employee engagement in
theory and practice. Routledge.

[29]
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of
construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management journal, 41(1), 108-119.
Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004).
Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15(6), 825-856.
Vandyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors-in pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in
organizational behavior: an annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews,
17 (17), 215-285.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and
knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 35-57.
Xanthopoulou, D., Baker, A. B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008).
Working in the sky: a diary study on work engagement among flight attendants.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4), 345.
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behaviour in the workplace: The role of
performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal,
53(2), 323-342.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and
charismatic leadership theories. The leadership quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
Zhang, Z., Wang, M. O., & Shi, J. (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive
personality and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader-member exchange.
Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 111-130.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2008). Expanding the scope and impact of organizational
creativity research. Handbook of organizational creativity, 28, 125-147.
Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). The moderating role of follower
characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement.
Group & Organization Management.
Zhu, Y. (2013). Individual behaviour: In-role and extra-role. International Journal of
Business Administration, 4(1), p23.

[30]