Decision making and producing results

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31, p. 1-28

DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.12500

ISSN: 1308-2140, ANKARA-TURKEY

Article Info/Makale Bilgisi

 Referees/Hakemler: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Süreyya ECE –

Yrd. Doç. Dr. Sinan YILMAZ

This article was checked by iThenticate.

THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS AND DECISION-MAKING STYLES ON TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR

Fetullah BATTAL* - İbrahim DURMUŞ** - Ertuğrul ÇINAR**

ABSTRACT

Organizational Citizenship, Decision-Making Styles and

Transformational Leadership concepts are increasingly important

paradigms in post-modern times in management science. The rapid

progress of technology and information age makes it very necessary to

plan ahead and develop the reflexes in this way in order to determine what kind of position the Company and Institutional managers should

determine in the hyper-competitive environment.

In our work, The organizational citizenship evaluated in accordance

with Otherness, (benevolence), Conscientiousness, Courtesy, Gentility

(Sportsmanship), Civil Virtue, and Spontaneous Decision Making,

Rational Decision Making, Intuitive Decision Making, Dependent Decision Making, Shyly Decision Making were considered types of

Decision-Making Styles.Finally, we tried to address the dimensions of the

concept of Transformational Leadership, which we have examined as a

dependent variable in our research model: "Mental Encouragement,

Charisma - Behavior, Instinctive Leadership, Interest at Individual Level and Charisma - Attribution Dimensions".

The universe of the research, the Faculty of Economics and

Administrative Sciences and Vocational Schools of Business

Administration, which are located in Gumushane and Bayburt provinces

and are candidates for the future, constitute day students. A total of 221

students from Gümüşhane University (110) and Bayburt University (111) participated in the research. The example of the research was formed in

this way. The turnover rate of the questionnaires is 74%.

Many previous conceptual and latent (dimensional) studies on

Organizational Citizenship, Decision-making Styles and

* Arş. Gör. Bayburt Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi İşletme Bölümü, El-mek: [email protected] ** Öğr. Gör. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Gümüşhane Meslek Yüksekokulu, İşletme Bölümü, El-mek:

[email protected] ** Arş. Gör. Bayburt Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi İşletme Bölümü,El-mek: [email protected]

2 Fetullah BATTAL - İbrahim DURMUŞ - Ertuğrul ÇINAR

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

Transformational Leadership have been conducted however in this study the effects of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Decision-Making

Styles on Transformer Leadership examined for he first time by using

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

STRUCTURED ABSTRACT

1. Introduction

The aquitivists, who are leading because of the dizzying changes

caused by the rapid change of the global world and who have to make the

right decisions at the same time, are under serious pressure.

In this environment where change is inevitable, managers have to maximize opportunities while minimizing internal and external risks. To

achieve this optimal level, managers need to know and interpret

Transformational Leadership behaviors, Decision-making Styles and

Organizational Citizenship behaviors. we will try to refer to the

relationship between the three concepts.

In our research, transformational leadership, organizational citizenship behavior and relationships between decision making styles

have been researched and tried to examine the influence dimensions of

these relations with the help of regression analysis.

The leadership behavior of managers is influential in increasing the

organizational commitment of human resources in enterprises. Employees who feel themselves as part of the business, that is, those who

have high organizational citizenship, are very important in terms of the

productivity of the enterprise and the creativity of the employees.

For this reason, previous studies have also revealed that

organizational citizenship has significant effects on organizational

success. Moreover, organizational behavior directly affects organizational commitment, job satisfaction and intention to leave work. (Kaya ve

Selçuk, 2007:181)

The number of studies that examine the decision-making styles in

Turkey and the decision-making bases of the managers are very few, so

in this research, we will examine the relationship between the transformational leadership and decision-making styles. (Vroom, Victor,

2000)

Also, after explaining dimensions in turn, we will try to examine the

relationship between organizational citizenship, decision-making styles

and the concept of transformational Leadership through the model we

have established.

The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Decision-Making Styles… 3

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

1. Method

Three original scales were used in this study1. The scales used in

our study were, respectively, 1- Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990)2;

‘Transformational leadership scale’ (20) question, 2- Podsakoff, P. M.,

MacKenzie et al. (1990)3; 'The Questionnaire on Organizational

Citizenship Behavior' (23) question, and Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A.

(1995)4; '' Decision Making Styles '' (25) questionnaires., all of these dimensions are given together with their explanations in the conceptual

framework above.

2.1 Universe and Sample

For our study, the universe size of 527 acceptable admissible errors

was pre-determined as 95% for our confidence level, and 223 for our sample size. When the error rate arising from the number of samples of

the later study is taken into account, it is observed that the sample size

is 221 persons, the universe size is 527 persons, and the 95% confidence

level error rate is 2.19%. It can be said that the size of the sample is

enough to move from these results.

2.2 Suggested Model and Hypotheses

The subject of our research is the impact of Organizational

Citizenship and Decision-Making Styles on the Transformational

Leadership. In our study, we tried to answer how coordinated (covariance)

dimensional relationship between organizational citizenship and

decision-making styles influence the transformational leadership behaviors. In establishing relations, the basic road model and theoretical

model have been established in the first place. In the theoretical model,

the latent variables of the basic variables in the theoretical model were

tried to be examined by using the Structural Equation Model to see how

and in what way the relation between them. Thus, in our model, after

defining '' Organizational Citizenship and Decision Making Styles '' as an Independent Variable; the concept of '' Transformational Leadership '' as

a dependent variable, we have carried out our analyzes in the Amos

structural equation model package program.

2.3 Hypotheses

Since our scales were used with their original shapes and sizes, we tried to make sub-hypotheses from the literature review in addition to

our basic hypotheses in order to be able to compare with the studies

abroad. The basic hypotheses and sub-hypotheses of work are as follows:

H1: There is a meaningful significant effect between Organizational

Citizenship Behavior and Transformational Leadership.

1 Hansen, J. (1987), "Cross-Cultural Research on Vocational Interests", Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 19, 163-176. 2 BASS, Bernard M.; AVOLIO, Bruce J. Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Consulting Psychologists Press, 1990. 3 PODSAKOFF, Philip M., et al. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The leadership quarterly, 1990, 1.2: 107-142. 4 Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818-831. doi: 10.1177/0013164495055005017

4 Fetullah BATTAL - İbrahim DURMUŞ - Ertuğrul ÇINAR

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

H2: There is a meaningful significant effect between conscience and Charismatic Behavior.

H3: There is a meaningful significant effect between conscience and

Forgiveness

H4: There is a meaningful significant effect between conscience and

Individual Interest

H5: There is a meaningful significant effect between conscience and Inculcatory

H6: There is a meaningful significant effect between conscience and

M. Encouragement

H7: There is a meaningful significant effect between Civic Virtue

and Charismatic Behavior.

H8: There is a meaningful significant effect between Civic Virtue

and Forgiveness

H9: There is a meaningful significant effect between Civic Virtue

and Individual Interest

H10: There is a meaningful significant effect between Civic Virtue

and Inculcatory

H11: There is a meaningful significant effect between Civic Virtue

and M. Encouragement

H12: There is a meaningful significant effect between

Gentlemanship and Charismatic Behavior.

H13: There is a meaningful significant effect between Gentlemanship and Forgiveness

H14 There is a meaningful significant effect between

Gentlemanship and Interest

H15: There is a meaningful significant effect between

Gentlemanship and Inculcatory

H16: There is a meaningful significant effect between Gentlemanship and M. Encouragement

H17: There is a meaningful significant effect between Courtesy and

Charismatic Behavior.

H18: There is a meaningful significant effect between Courtesy and

Forgiveness

H19: There is a meaningful significant effect between Courtesy and

Interest

H20: There is a meaningful significant effect between Courtesy and

Inculcatory

H21: There is a meaningful significant effect between Courtesy and

M. Encouragement

H22: There is a meaningful significant effect between Altruism and

Charismatic Behavior.

The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Decision-Making Styles… 5

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

H23: There is a meaningful significant effect between Altruism and Forgiveness

H24: There is a meaningful significant effect between Altruism and

Interest

H25: There is a meaningful significant effect between Altruism and

Inculcatory

H26: There is a meaningful significant effect between Altruism and M. Encouragement

H27: There is a meaningful significant effect between Decision Making Styles and Transformational Leadership.

H28: There is a meaningful significant effect between Sudden

Decision-Making and Charismatic Behavior.

H29: There is a meaningful significant effect between Sudden Decision-Making and Forgiveness

H30: There is a meaningful significant effect between Sudden

Decision-Making and Interest

H31: There is a meaningful significant effect between Sudden

Decision-Making and Inculcatory

H32: There is a meaningful significant effect between Sudden

Decision-Making and M. Encouragement

H33: : There is a meaningful significant effect between Rational

Decision-Making and Charismatic Behavior.

H34: There is a meaningful significant effect between Rational

Decision-Making and Forgiveness

H35: There is a meaningful significant effect between Rational

Decision-Making and Interest

H36: There is a meaningful significant effect between Rational

Decision-Making and Inculcatory

H37: There is a meaningful significant effect between Rational Decision-Making and M. Encouragement

H38: There is a meaningful significant effect between Intuitive

Decision-Making and Charismatic Behavior.

H39: There is a meaningful significant effect between Intuitive

Decision-Making and Forgiveness

H40: There is a meaningful significant effect between Intuitive Decision-Making and Interest

H41: There is a meaningful significant effect between Intuitive

Decision-Making and Inculcatory

H42: There is a meaningful significant effect between Intuitive

Decision-Making and M. Encouragement.

H43: There is a meaningful significant effect between Dependent

Decision-Making and Charismatic Behavior.

6 Fetullah BATTAL - İbrahim DURMUŞ - Ertuğrul ÇINAR

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

H44: There is a meaningful significant effect between Dependent Decision-Making and Forgiveness

H45: There is a meaningful significant effect between Dependent

Decision-Making and Inculcatory

H46: There is a meaningful significant effect between Dependent

Decision-Making and Interest

H47: There is a meaningful significant effect between Dependent Decision-Making and M. Encouragement.

H48: There is a meaningful significant effect between Hesitant

Decision-Making and Charismatic Behavior.

H49: There is a meaningful significant effect between Hesitant

Decision-Making and Forgiveness

H50: There is a meaningful significant effect between Hesitant

Decision-Making and Inculcatory.

H51: There is a meaningful significant effect between Hesitant

Decision-Making and Interest

H52: There is a meaningful significant effect between Hesitant

Decision-Making and M. Encouragement.

H53: There is a meaningful significant effect between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Decision-Making Styles.

3. Factor Analysis Findings

Factor analysis; many variables related to each other are few in

number, more meaningful, is one of the multivariate statistical

techniques that are widely used and make them easy to understand and independent of each other.

Factor analysis, especially when encountering very complex and

multi-dimensional relationship analysis canonical correlation analysis,

clustering analysis, and multidimensional scaling analysis (Albayrak,

2005: 86).

The validity and reliability of each of the measurement instruments

used in the research were determined using explanatory and

confirmatory factor analyzes and reliability analyzes, respectively. During

explanatory factor analysis for the scales, the factor load value, 40 and

higher were analyzed and the factor load, items below 40 were excluded

from the analysis (Balcı, 1995: 142-143).

Factor analysis was performed after the application of the scale

draft of 68 items Factor analysis showed that the main dimension factor

15 was 68.435% in size and 3 items (4-13-21) in which the factor load

value was below 0.40 in the post-rotation results were eliminated.

Although the factor load of the 3 items sought was over 0.40, the lower cut-off point was accepted as 0.40 in the survey and these items were

removed from the scale (Scherer, Robert, 1988:763-770). As a result, 65

items with a factor load greater than 0.40 were included to scale

arranging according to sorting and dimensions.

The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Decision-Making Styles… 7

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

In the first stage, explanatory factor analysis was applied in order to demonstrate the construct validity of the Decision Making Scale scale.

The suitability of the data for factor analysis was examined by the Kaiser-

Mayer-Olkin (KMO) test and the Bartlett sphericity test. The KMO value

is 87. The Bartlett sphericity test result is also significant (p <.01). These

results show that the research sample is adequate and that the scale-

related data are appropriate for factor analysis. As a result of the reliability analysis conducted to determine the reliability of the scale of

decision making, The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for all the scales was

found to be 0.931.

It is seen that the t-values for standardized charges of all items are

greater than 1.96. This shows that the loads of all items are statistically significant. When the fit criteria of the model were examined, the

theoretical structure of the model was found statistically verified.

Moreover, the calculated Cronbach's Alpha value (0.931) for the general

reliability of the scale indicates that the scale is reliable at a very good

level. When the reliability of the individual factors is evaluated, it is seen

that the reliability varies between 0,753 and 0,946. This indicates a good fit (Öner, 1994;10-39). Before doing the factor analysis, we also examined

whether the items of the original scales carry global content and we have

observed that items are highly consistent with the KMO value (0.904)

(Bartlett, 1950:77-85).

The exploratory factor analysis was followed by confirmatory factor analysis. The values of compliance goodness after the analysis performed

are shown in Table.4.1.1 below and tried to be explained.

4. Results and Suggestions

Similar to the basic models we have built in this study, there have

been some studies on decision-making styles and leadership

relationships in the past.

Carnevale, Inbar, Lerner (2011) investigated individual differences

in decision-making competence and cognitive need among leaders. A

questionnaire was conducted among 178 leaders / administrators

working at US institutions and attending a senior management training

program at Harvard, and 169 participants received valid responses. Decision-making competence in research is assessed in framing

resistance, confidence level, consistency in risk perceptions and

resistance to sunk costs. It has been observed that the decision-making

competence of high-ranking cognition requires better frame resistance

and resistance to sunk costs. Leaders were found to perform better than

the control group. It has come to the conclusion that individual differences in cognitive needs and leadership experiences balance the

tendency to fall into the wrong hands.

Cursesu and Schruijer (2012) examined the relationship between

rationality and indecision in decision-making through the five decision-

making styles in the General Decision-Making Competence Survey. The study was attended by 102 mid-level managers working in the Business

Administration graduate program in the Netherlands. In the study, it was

concluded that the rational style was positive for rationality and the

negative predictive value for uncertainty, and the avoidance of decision

8 Fetullah BATTAL - İbrahim DURMUŞ - Ertuğrul ÇINAR

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

making and subordinate decision making provided positive predictions about indecision.

Similarly, we have observed in our study that moderate and

meaningful impacts between decision-making styles and transformative

leadership behaviors (0.39), as seen in Figure 3.

Similarly, when we look at the relationship between Organizational

Citizenship Behavior and Transformational Leadership behaviors in our model:

According to Anton and Amos (2006), transformational leaders lead

employees to have goals that are consistent with organizational goals, to

have organizational commitment, and to demonstrate organizational

citizenship behavior.

Wagn (2005) argues that transformational leaders can be in

advanced duty consciousness by enabling them to adopt more

institutional and social goals than individual items of employees. They

also determined that the transformationist leadership has an indirect

influence through leader-member change over the relationship between

leader-member change and organizational citizenship behavior.

Piccolo and Colquitt (2006) concluded that there was a significant

relationship between transformational leadership and organizational

citizenship behavior in their work. As a minimum, (2008), they found that

the leader of the transformational leader has a decisive and direct

influence on the exhibitions of organizational citizenship behavior.

Bolat (2008) also concludes that there is a meaningful and positive

relationship between the transformationist leadership and organizational

citizenship behavior.

As a result, we observed in the study that we have a moderate and

meaningful effect between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and

Transformational Leadership Behavior (0.54), as shown in Figure 3.

Finally, when we looked at the relations between Decision-Making

Styles and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in our model, no studies

were found. This is the first time we have tried to examine this

relationship in this study and observed that there is a moderate and

significant impact between Decision Making Styles and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (0.34), as seen in Figure 3.

Decision-making styles and transformational leadership issues

that we build in our basic model can also be investigated via moderator

or mediator effects for future research.

Jel Classification Codes: M540,M30,M20

Keywords: Organizational Citizenship, Decision Making Styles, Transformational Leadership, Structural Equation Model.

The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Decision-Making Styles… 9

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

ÖRGÜTSEL VATANDAŞLIK DAVRANIŞLARI ve KARAR VERME TARZLARININ DÖNÜŞTÜRÜCÜ LİDERLİK DAVRANIŞLARI

ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

ÖZET

Örgütsel Vatandaşlık, Karar Verme Tarzları ve Dönüştürücü Liderlik kavramları yönetim biliminde post modern dönemlerden sonra

önemi gittikçe artan paradigmalarındandır. Teknolojinin ve Bilgi çağının

baş döndürücü bir şekilde ilerlemesi, Şirket ve Kurum yöneticilerinin

Hiper-Rekabet ortamında ne tür bir pozisyon belirlemeleri gerektiğini çok

önceden planlayıp bu yönde refleks geliştirmelerini zorunlu kılmaktadır.

Çalışmamız da; Örgütsel Vatandaşlık kavramını: ’’Diğerkâmlık, (yardımseverlik), Vicdanlılık, Nezaket, Centilmenlik (Sportmenlik) , Sivil

Erdem, boyutlarıyla ele alırken, Karar Verme Tarzlarını: Ani (spontane)

karar verme, Rasyonel (Akılcı) karar verme, Sezgisel Karar Verme,

Bağımlı Karar Verme, Çekingen Karar Verme olarak ele aldık. Son olarak

araştırma modelimizde bağımlı değişken olarak incelediğimiz Dönüştürücü liderlik kavramının boyutlarını da: Zihinsel Teşvik,

Karizma – Davranışı, Telkin Edici Liderlik, Bireysel Düzeyde İlgi ve

Karizma – Atfetme boyutları’’ ile ele almaya çalıştık.

Araştırmanın evrenini Gümüşhane ve Bayburt illerinde İktisadi

İdari Bilimler Fakültesi ve Gümüşhane Meslek Yüksekokulunda

öğrenimine devam eden, geleceğin yönetici adayları olan işletme gündüz öğrencileri teşkil etmektedir. Araştırmaya Gümüşhane Üniversitesinden

(110) ve Bayburt Üniversitesinden (111) öğrenci toplam da 221 öğrenci

katılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemi bu şekilde oluşturulurken Anketlerin

devir hızı% 74'tür

Daha önceden Örgütsel Vatandaşlık, Karar Verme Tarzları ve Dönüştürücü Liderlik üzerine kavramsal ve latent (boyutsal) olarak

birçok çalışma yapılmıştır ancak bu çalışmada Yapısal Eşitlik

Modellemesini (YEM ) kullanarak ilk defa Örgütsel Vatandaşlık

Davranışları ve Karar Verme Tarzlarının Dönüştürücü Liderlik üzerindeki

etkisi incelenmeye çalışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Örgütsel Vatandaşlık, Karar Verme Tarzları, Dönüştürücü Liderlik, Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli

1. INTRODUCTION

The aquitivists, who are leading because of the dizzying changes caused by the rapid change

of the global world and who have to make the right decisions at the same time, are under serious

pressure.

In this environment where change is inevitable, managers have to maximize opportunities

while minimizing internal and external risks. To achieve this optimal level, managers need to know

and interpret Transformational Leadership behaviors, Decision-making Styles and Organizational

Citizenship behaviors. we will try to refer to the relationship between the three concepts.

10 Fetullah BATTAL - İbrahim DURMUŞ - Ertuğrul ÇINAR

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

In our research, transformational leadership, organizational citizenship behavior and

relationships between decision making styles have been researched and tried to examine the influence

dimensions of these relations with the help of regression analysis.

The leadership behavior of managers is influential in increasing the organizational

commitment of human resources in enterprises. Employees who feel themselves as part of the

business, that is, those who have high organizational citizenship, are very important in terms of the

productivity of the enterprise and the creativity of the employees.

For this reason, previous studies have also revealed that organizational citizenship has

significant effects on organizational success. Moreover, organizational behavior directly affects

organizational commitment, job satisfaction and intention to leave work.(Kaya ve Selçuk,2007:181)

The number of studies that examine the decision-making styles in Turkey and the decision-

making bases of the managers are very few, so in this research, we will examine the relationship

between the transformational leadership and decision-making styles.(Vroom,Victor,2000)

Also, after explaining dimensions in turn, we will try to examine the relationship between

organizational citizenship, decision-making styles and the concept of transformational Leadership

through the model we have established.

2. Conceptual Framework

2.1. Transformational Leadership

In organizations, the behavior of the leader is crucial in reaching the goal of organization and

acting in this direction (Eren, 2001:5.Basım).When the literature is examined, regarding leadership

behavior; it is known that employee-oriented leadership, vision leadership, relationship-oriented

leadership, transformational leadership, risk-oriented leadership and control-oriented leadership are

defined (Yılmaz,2010:17).

Leadership behavior in organizations is crucial in achieving its goal of organizing and acting

in this direction. When the literature is examined, regarding leadership behavior; employee-oriented

leadership, vision leadership, relationship-oriented leadership, transformational leadership, risk-

focused leadership, and control-oriented leadership.

The mechanisms under which the right people who are good leaders need to be defined and

understood. In this regard, the Burns expressed transformational leadership as the interaction

between leaders and followers that combines both specific aspects of people and their aims(

Humphrey, 2012:247-249).Transformative leadership in this respect; Taking into account changes

in organizations at specific levels, has played a critical role in increasing productivity in business

units, reducing uncertainties, adapting to the creation of a more attractive and more willing vision

for the future, and increasing trust and competence ( Kim,2014:407-410).

Kim has shown that there is no meaningful relationship between transformational leadership

and organizational citizenship. In his work he achieved positive and meaningful relationships

between transformational leadership, emotional commitment and clan culture. Moreover, Kim has

found that there is a positive and significant relationship between organizational citizenship behavior

and emotional commitment and clan culture (Kim, 2014:407-410).

2.1.1. Mental Encouragement

In mental or intellectual incentive behavior; while orient individuals to their beliefs,

questioning the assumptions orienting them through innovation and creativity (Akt.Vicki, 2011:411).

Jessie Ho emphasized that transformative leadership is diverse both in groups and groups in terms of

The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Decision-Making Styles… 11

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

individual differences in the study. In this respect, there are various and mutual changes in the grading

of subordinates among the leaders. Thus, this situation suggests that a leader's behavior is a specific

perception for each subordinate (Ho, 2016:327). In this context, transformational leaders should act

taking into account each subordinate values and perception styles with respect to mental incentive

situations.

2.1.2. Charisma Behavior

Individuals with such leadership qualities emphasize trust by focusing on difficult issues,

and demonstrate beliefs that emphasize the importance of moral consequences in their goals and

decisions by exhibiting the most important values. These kinds of leaders as role models base on

pride, loyalty, trust, and gathering around a common purpose (Bass, 1997:133).

2.1.3. Inculcatory Leadership

Moon emphasizes that transformational leadership influences subordinates at the

organizational level by including their subordinate levels of organizational citizenship. In addition,

the study found that the main dimensions of transformational leadership (inculcatory leadership,

charisma behavior, mental incentive, interest at individual level and charisma- attribution) were

negatively correlated with gender and functional diversity levels of organizational citizenship

(Moon,2016:362-374).

2.1.4. Interest at Individual Level

Leaders are interest in others as individuals. They give advice, teach and coach them for their

development, taking into account their individual needs, talents and wishes (Bass, a.g.e:133).In

addition, leaders perform these activities in the direction of the organizational mission. This situation

is done as a component of transformational leadership (Bottomley, 2015:392).

2.1.5. Charisma- Attribution

In this type of behavior, the individuals (employees) are identified with their leaders, admired

and able to appeal to their leaders at an emotional level (Akt.Vicki.a.g.e:411).

In a study of a company's AR-GE department in China, transformational leadership with

both the creative performances of individuals and organizational citizenship behaviors was

examined. In the results of the study, organizational citizenship behaviors showed a positive

relationship between transformational leadership and individuals with low positive feelings.

However, transformational leadership behavior and individuals with high positive feelings did not

show any significant relationship with organizational citizenship behaviors (Gilmore, 2013:1070).

2.2. Organizational Citizenship

Organizational citizenship behavior was introduced by the Organ in 1988. Organizational

citizenship is expressed as voluntary actions that promote organizational effectiveness. In

organizational citizenship; It is important to help your colleagues with problems related to your

business, not to complain about minor problems, to give consent about statements of organization at outside by respecting to your colleagues (Zellars et.al. 2002:1068).

Podsakoff and his colleagues examined 16 items in four dimensions in their studies of

organizational citizenship behaviors. They have dimensioned their work as altruism, conscience,

virtue and gentlemen. In this study, Cronbach alpha reliability was 0.87 (Akt. Kim, 2014:406).

12 Fetullah BATTAL - İbrahim DURMUŞ - Ertuğrul ÇINAR

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

2.2.1. Altruism (Self Sacrifice, Helpfulness)

In Tonkin's study, he found a positive relationship between job satisfaction and altruism.

Moreover, in the study results, it was revealed that the concept of ethics and morals did not act as a

stronger prejudice than the transformational leadership in respect of altruism (Tonkin, 2013:52-56).

2.2.2. Conscientiousness

Advanced Task Awareness (Conscientiousness): Behaviors at this dimension are behaviors

that employees exhibit more than their role requirements (Çerik,2008:175-211).As Organ (1990)

points out, advanced task awareness indicates that members of the organization are willing to

volunteer for more positive behavior beyond their expected minimum role behaviors

(Özdevecioğlu,2013:117-135). A conscientious worker will not be disruptive to the relevant role

behaviors, even if there is the possibility of abuse in the environment or not under supervision and

observance (Kamer,2001) It can be given an example of what constitutes the advanced task-oriented

dimension of organizational citizenship behavior: when it is needed, it is necessary to work in the

office until late at night, to come to work early in the morning, not to lose time with conversations

outside work, to come to work regularly every day (Özkalp,2003). Another example of behaviors at

this dimension is; regular attendance to the meeting for the benefit of the organization can be given

(Çerik, 2008:175-211).

2.2.3. Courtesy

It refers to the concept of "courtesy" of the Organ, which includes taking measures to prevent

the emergence of possible problems of colleagues and helping others (Podskoff a.g.e, 1996). In other

words, courtesy is to propose solutions for an employee by predetermining the problems of other

employees and to prevent the emergence of problems by respecting employee rights (Organ and

Lingl, 1995:339-351).Courtesy includes notifying others in their behavior and decisions that may

affect others, and avoiding problems by conveying this information to those who may be useful when

informed (Yassine, 2013:11-12).

2.2.4. GentlemanShip (Sportsmanship)

It means not attach to the inevitable problems of the nature of the work and do not complain

about them (Organ, 1990:94-98). In other words, it is called "gentlemanship or sportsmanship" when

an employee does not spend time with troubles at work in order to concentrate more on solutions to

be done with work.

2.2.5. Civic Virtue

Organ and colleagues have shown that there is an indirect relationship between

transformational leadership and gentlemanship, civil virtue, job satisfaction, conscientiousness, and

altruism (Organ et.al. 2006:404). Park et al. have found significant relationships between the

transformational leadership behaviors and psychological ownership of employees, and between their

organizational citizenship behavior and psychological ownership in their work. In addition, a

significant relationship between transformational leadership behaviors and organizational citizenship

behaviors of employees in the study was found when employees were assigned to mediate

psychological ownership (Park, 2013:567-568).

When viewed theoretically, behaviors that characterize transformational leadership will have

a positive impact on organizational citizenship behaviors (Bottomley, 2016:393). Rodrigues and

Ferreira obtained positive relationships between transformative leadership and organizational

citizenship behaviors. They also reached the conclusion that they lead more in their subordinates in

order to go beyond the roles of transforming leaders (Rodrigues, 2015:497-500). Çetin and his

The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Decision-Making Styles… 13

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

colleagues have concluded that transformational leadership has a positive influence on organizational

citizenship behaviors in their studies on teachers and school administrators in Turkey (Çetin,

2012:23-24). However, Ölçer et al. has reached the conclusion from their studies on a company

employees that transformational leadership behaviors have no effect on organizational citizenship

behavior. They found that the leader's emotional intelligence in work has a positive effect on

organizational citizenship behavior (Ölçer, 2014:392-394).

2.3. Decision Making Styles

Individual differences in thinking and information processing styles can lead to differences

in decision-making (Jabeen, 2013:273). In this respect, experimental and criticized approaches tend

to solve the concept of decision making (Laroche, 1995:64). For example, Hansson and Anderson

describe the decision-making style in their work as a combination of perceptual and judgmental

functions. In this respect, it depends on the use of problem-solving, thinking and feeling functions in

terms of decision-making styles (Hanson, 2007:2-3). Galotti et al. studied how college students made

decisions in college elections (taking Scott and Bruce's decision-making styles into account). They

obtained significant individual differences between the students in their studies (future orientation,

intuitive empathy, trust and objectivity to others). In the study, it was revealed that to what extent

students used the rational (alpha coefficient reliability; .77), intuitive (.82), withdrawn (.87),

dependent (.81) and sudden (.87) decision-making styles (Katheleen, 2006:634-637).

2.3.1. Sudden (Spontaneous) Decision-Making

Individuals tend to make quick decisions when they cannot trust others and have a lot of

uncertainty (Gati, 2012:9). In addition, individuals at high risk tendency tend to make quick

decisions. For this reason, spontaneous decision makers spend less time in information gathering and

evaluation of the decision-making process (Taşdelen, 2001:41).

2.3.2. Rational Decision-Making

Decision makers need more knowledge in rational decisions (Etzioni, 1976:385). In this

context, rational decision-making is to have a full knowledge of alternatives and to evaluate the

results in terms of the business objectives (Choo, 1996:329). Thus, uncertainty in the decision-

making process is kept at lower levels by rational decisions, and control over the decision process

becomes more (Martin, 2012:37). Herbert Simon emphasized that the limited rationale in the decision

of the individual is restricted to the ability of the present time and information processing operation

of mind. In other words, it is emphasized that between alternatives and outcomes; perfect preference,

perfect knowledge, optimal choice, in short, the ability to act rationally has a limitation (Mcalister,

2011:235). In this respect, if there is limited rationality, it will be impossible to consider all the factors

(Bayazıt, 2005:817).

2.3.3. Intuitive Decision-Making

Intuition can be defined as a way of making sense of the world that cannot be easily obtained

by being aware of a deeper sense, feeling, understanding and thoughts in a bodily sense (Sadler et.al.,

2004:81). These kinds of decision makers are acting with confidence in their hunches and emotions

(Kao, 2012:2). In other words, the person making the intuitive decision chooses the trial-and-error

method focusing on the general problem and introduces it non-verbally (Henderson, 1980:372).

Burke and Miller study sixty experienced professional managers in the US and come to

decision that making intuitive decisions accelerate decisions, improve final decisions, facilitate

personal development, and improve decisions that suitable with organizational culture (Miller et.al.,

1999:95). The famous psychologist Carl Jung, in his study, has shown that experienced individuals

14 Fetullah BATTAL - İbrahim DURMUŞ - Ertuğrul ÇINAR

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

who use intuition tend to have particular decision-making skills and are not suppressed by someone

else. This shows that managers have the ability to see new possibilities with their intuition and have

a good vision that ensures the continuity of their organization with their future sentiment (Agor,

1986:6).

2.3.4. Dependent Decision-Making

It is the decisions given by someone else's support before making a decision (Rehman and

Waheed, 2012:259). Decisions given with the support, guidance, and protection of others show that

the decision maker is not intellectually and practically independent (Jokar, et.al. 2014:119).

2.3.5. Hesitant Decision-Making

These kinds of decisions cause individuals to delay their decisions because of lack of

confidence, and to transfer their responsibilities to others. In addition, the individual (manager,

leader) hesitant to make a decision hopes that the situation related to the work will be satisfactorily

completed (Khasawneh, 2011:311).

In the study of Hestand with 240 entrepreneurs for five decision-making styles, It was come

up that participants used two of decision-making styles overwhelmingly. These were rational (29%)

and intuitive (23%) decision-making styles. The closest to them were dependents (21%), and sudden

(15%) decision-making styles. Those who have the latest one was hesitant (12%) (Hestand, 2012:53).

3. Method

Three original scales were used in this study (Hansen, 1987:163-176). The scales used in our

study were, respectively, 1- Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990)5; ‘Transformational leadership scale’

(20) question, 2- Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie et al. (1990)6; 'The Questionnaire on Organizational

Citizenship Behavior' (23) question, and Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995)7; '' Decision Making

Styles '' (25) questionnaires., all of these dimensions are given together with their explanations in the

conceptual framework above.

In the survey conducted, the questionnaires were handed out and returned in the same way.

Then a new model was created considering the studies and explanations made. Structural equilibrium

path analyzes were applied to the generated model with the help of Amos package program. In

addition, our model was subjected to explanatory factor analysis and validity test with the help of

SPSS 20.0 program. In this quantitative research study, the primary data collection method was used.

Structural equilibrium modeling (SEM) analysis was done. Cronbach's Alpha method was used in

order to identify the validity and reliability of the scale (Cronbach, 1951:297-334).

The reason why SEM is used in this study is that the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

is able to explain the cause and effect relationship of the variables in the integrated hypotheses related

to models based on statistical dependence and allows the theoretical models to be tested as a whole.

The SEM model allows the researchers to determine the direct and indirect effects between variables

(Ullman, 2003).

5 BASS, Bernard M.; AVOLIO, Bruce J. Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Consulting Psychologists Press, 1990. 6 PODSAKOFF, Philip M., et al. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The leadership quarterly, 1990, 1.2: 107-142. 7 Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818-831. doi: 10.1177/0013164495055005017

The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Decision-Making Styles… 15

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

3.1 Universe and Sample

For our study, the universe size of 527 acceptable admissible errors was pre-determined as

95% for our confidence level, and 223 for our sample size. When the error rate arising from the

number of samples of the later study is taken into account, it is observed that the sample size is 221

persons, the universe size is 527 persons, and the 95% confidence level error rate is 2.19%. It can be

said that the size of the sample is enough to move from these results.

3.2 Suggested Model and Hypotheses

The subject of our research is the impact of Organizational Citizenship and Decision-Making

Styles on the Transformational Leadership. In our study, we tried to answer how coordinated

(covariance) dimensional relationship between organizational citizenship and decision-making styles

influence the transformational leadership behaviors. In establishing relations, the basic road model

and theoretical model have been established in the first place. In the theoretical model, the latent

variables of the basic variables in the theoretical model were tried to be examined by using the

Structural Equation Model to see how and in what way the relation between them. Thus, in our model,

after defining '' Organizational Citizenship and Decision Making Styles '' as an Independent Variable;

the concept of '' Transformational Leadership '' as a dependent variable, we have carried out our

analyzes in the Amos structural equation model package program.

Figure 1. The Effects of Organizational Citizenship and Decision Making Styles on

Transformational Leadership, Amos Path Diagram (Basic Model)

Figure 2. The Effects of Organizational Citizenship and Decision Making Styles on

Transformational Leadership; Theoretical Model

TRF.

LEADE

OCB

DMS

16 Fetullah BATTAL - İbrahim DURMUŞ - Ertuğrul ÇINAR

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

Upper models are given in Fig.1 and Fig.2. While Figure 1 shows what the model basically

examines among the variables, in Figure 2, dimensions of the effects of '' Organizational Citizenship

and Decision Making Styles '' on '' the Transformational Leadership '' will be tried to be examined

under the concepts of decision making styles, organizational citizenship behavior, and

transformational leadership.

3.3 Hypotheses

Since our scales were used with their original shapes and sizes, we tried to make sub-

hypotheses from the literature review in addition to our basic hypotheses in order to be able to

compare with the studies abroad. The basic hypotheses and sub-hypotheses of work are as follows:

H1: There is a meaningful significant effect between Organizational Citizenship Behavior

and Transformational Leadership.

H2: There is a meaningful significant effect between conscience and Charismatic Behavior.

H3: There is a meaningful significant effect between conscience and Forgiveness

H4: There is a meaningful significant effect between conscience and Individual Interest

H5: There is a meaningful significant effect between conscience and Inculcatory

H6: There is a meaningful significant effect between conscience and M. Encouragement

H7: There is a meaningful significant effect between Civic Virtue and Charismatic Behavior.

H8: There is a meaningful significant effect between Civic Virtue and Forgiveness

H9: There is a meaningful significant effect between Civic Virtue and Individual Interest

H10: There is a meaningful significant effect between Civic Virtue and Inculcatory

C. Behavior

Forgiveness

Individual Interest

Inculcatory

M. Encouragement

TRF.

LEADE

OCB

DMS

SDMS RDMS INDMS HDMS

CONS C.VIR GNTL COUR ALTU

The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Decision-Making Styles… 17

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

H11: There is a meaningful significant effect between Civic Virtue and M. Encouragement

H12: There is a meaningful significant effect between Gentlemanship and Charismatic

Behavior.

H13: There is a meaningful significant effect between Gentlemanship and Forgiveness

H14 There is a meaningful significant effect between Gentlemanship and Interest

H15: There is a meaningful significant effect between Gentlemanship and Inculcatory

H16: There is a meaningful significant effect between Gentlemanship and M.

Encouragement

H17: There is a meaningful significant effect between Courtesy and Charismatic Behavior.

H18: There is a meaningful significant effect between Courtesy and Forgiveness

H19: There is a meaningful significant effect between Courtesy and Interest

H20: There is a meaningful significant effect between Courtesy and Inculcatory

H21: There is a meaningful significant effect between Courtesy and M. Encouragement

H22: There is a meaningful significant effect between Altruism and Charismatic Behavior.

H23: There is a meaningful significant effect between Altruism and Forgiveness

H24: There is a meaningful significant effect between Altruism and Interest

H25: There is a meaningful significant effect between Altruism and Inculcatory

H26: There is a meaningful significant effect between Altruism and M. Encouragement

H27: There is a meaningful significant effect between Decision Making Styles and

Transformational Leadership.

H28: There is a meaningful significant effect between Sudden Decision-Making and

Charismatic Behavior.

H29: There is a meaningful significant effect between Sudden Decision-Making and

Forgiveness

H30: There is a meaningful significant effect between Sudden Decision-Making and Interest

H31: There is a meaningful significant effect between Sudden Decision-Making and

Inculcatory

H32: There is a meaningful significant effect between Sudden Decision-Making and M.

Encouragement

H33: : There is a meaningful significant effect between Rational Decision-Making and

Charismatic Behavior.

H34: There is a meaningful significant effect between Rational Decision-Making and

Forgiveness

H35: There is a meaningful significant effect between Rational Decision-Making and

Interest

H36: There is a meaningful significant effect between Rational Decision-Making and

Inculcatory

18 Fetullah BATTAL - İbrahim DURMUŞ - Ertuğrul ÇINAR

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

H37: There is a meaningful significant effect between Rational Decision-Making and M.

Encouragement

H38: There is a meaningful significant effect between Intuitive Decision-Making and

Charismatic Behavior.

H39: There is a meaningful significant effect between Intuitive Decision-Making and Forgiveness

H40: There is a meaningful significant effect between Intuitive Decision-Making and Interest

H41: There is a meaningful significant effect between Intuitive Decision-Making and Inculcatory

H42: There is a meaningful significant effect between Intuitive Decision-Making and M. Encouragement.

H43: There is a meaningful significant effect between Dependent Decision-Making and

Charismatic Behavior.

H44: There is a meaningful significant effect between Dependent Decision-Making and Forgiveness

H45: There is a meaningful significant effect between Dependent Decision-Making and Inculcatory

H46: There is a meaningful significant effect between Dependent Decision-Making and Interest

H47: There is a meaningful significant effect between Dependent Decision-Making and M. Encouragement.

H48: There is a meaningful significant effect between Hesitant Decision-Making and Charismatic Behavior.

H49: There is a meaningful significant effect between Hesitant Decision-Making and Forgiveness

H50: There is a meaningful significant effect between Hesitant Decision-Making and Inculcatory.

H51: There is a meaningful significant effect between Hesitant Decision-Making and Interest

H52: There is a meaningful significant effect between Hesitant Decision-Making and M.

Encouragement.

H53: There is a meaningful significant effect between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Decision-Making Styles.

4. Findings and Testing The Model

52,6% of the respondents (111) were female, 47,4% (100) were male. The majority of the

educational status was composed of the undergraduate students with 77.3% (163), and vocational

high school students with 22.7% (48). Age group was between 22 and 24 years old with% 37,4, and

it was observed that the minimum age range was 17-19 with 10.0% among the age groups. Majority’s

income level was between TL 200-400 per month with the rate 55.9%, and the minimum income

The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Decision-Making Styles… 19

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

status scale (TL 801-1000) was 1.9%. When we look at academic major of the participating students,

the business administration was 44.5%; (94) and economics 42,2%; (89), and public administration

students were in the minority with 13.3% (28).

4.1. Factor Analysis Findings

Factor analysis; many variables related to each other are few in number, more meaningful,is

one of the multivariate statistical techniques that are widely used and make them easy to understand

and independent of each other.

Factor analysis, especially when encountering very complex and multi-dimensional

relationship analysis canonical correlation analysis, clustering analysis, and multidimensional

scaling analysis (Albayrak, 2005: 86).

The validity and reliability of each of the measurement instruments used in the research were

determined using explanatory and confirmatory factor analyzes and reliability analyzes, respectively.

During explanatory factor analysis for the scales, the factor load value, 40 and higher were analyzed

and the factor load, items below 40 were excluded from the analysis (Balcı, 1995: 142-143).

Factor analysis was performed after the application of the scale draft of 68 items Factor

analysis showed that the main dimension factor 15 was 68.435% in size and 3 items (4-13-21) in

which the factor load value was below 0.40 in the post-rotation results were eliminated. Although

the factor load of the 3 items sought was over 0.40, the lower cut-off point was accepted as 0.40 in

the survey and these items were removed from the scale (Scherer, Robert, 1988:763-770). As a result,

65 items with a factor load greater than 0.40 were included to scale arranging according to sorting

and dimensions.

In the first stage, explanatory factor analysis was applied in order to demonstrate the

construct validity of the Decision Making Scale scale. The suitability of the data for factor analysis

was examined by the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) test and the Bartlett sphericity test. The KMO

value is 87. The Bartlett sphericity test result is also significant (p <.01). These results show that the

research sample is adequate and that the scale-related data are appropriate for factor analysis. As a

result of the reliability analysis conducted to determine the reliability of the scale of decision making,

The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for all the scales was found to be 0.931.

It is seen that the t-values for standardized charges of all items are greater than 1.96. This

shows that the loads of all items are statistically significant. When the fit criteria of the model were

examined, the theoretical structure of the model was found statistically verified. Moreover, the

calculated Cronbach's Alpha value (0.931) for the general reliability of the scale indicates that the

scale is reliable at a very good level. When the reliability of the individual factors is evaluated, it is

seen that the reliability varies between 0,753 and 0,946. This indicates a good fit. (Öner, 1994; 10-

39). Before doing the factor analysis, we also examined whether the items of the original scales carry

global content and we have observed that items are highly consistent with the KMO value (0.904)

(Bartlett, 1950:77-85).

The exploratory factor analysis was followed by confirmatory factor analysis. The values of

compliance goodness after the analysis performed are shown in Table.4.1.1 below and tried to be

explained.

20 Fetullah BATTAL - İbrahim DURMUŞ - Ertuğrul ÇINAR

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

4.1. Testing The Theoretical Model

In Table 4.1 below, the general fit criteria for the model and the fit criteria for the model are

given together.

Table.4.1.1. Value Ranges on Compliance Indices Fit Criterion Model Good Fit Values Acceptable Adaptability Result

2,047

0 ≤ χ2/sd ≤ 2 2 < χ2/sd ≤ 5

Acceptable

Adaptability

RMSEA 0,071 0.<RMSEA<0.05 ,06 ≤ RMSEA ≤ ,08 Acceptable

Adaptability

NFI 0,96

0.90≤ NFI<0.95 Good Fit

IFI 0,95 0.95≤ IFI ≤1.00 0.90≤ IFI≤0.94 Good Fit

CFI 0,95 0.97≤ CFI ≤1.00 0.95≤ GFI ≤ 0.96 Acceptable

Adaptability

GFI 0.97 0.90≤ GFI ≤1.00 0,85 ≤ GFI ≤ 0,89 Good Fit

S-RMR 0.045 0.00<SRMR<0.05 0,06 ≤ SRMR ≤ ,08 Good Fit

Kaynak: Meydan ve Şeşen, 2011: 37

To analyze the interactions between research variables in a collective way, the path analysis

was performed with the help of structural equation modeling. As a result of the analysis, the goodness

of fit values are as follows: CMIN / DF = 2,047, RMSEA = 0,071, NFI = 0,96, IFI = 0,95, CFI = .95,

GFI = .97, and SRMR = 0,045

In order to accept a model in structural equation modeling, RMSEA value should be below

0.08 (Şimşek, 2007). However, RMSEA is also very sensitive to the number of samples as it is in

other comparative compliance indices. In models that are defined as small samples (less than 250

samples), RMSEA seems to reject a model that should actually be accepted. In such a case, the SRMR

index, which is more sensitive and therefore gives better results, has been shown to be more effective

in determining the goodness of fit (Iacobucci, 2010, 96). When we consider that our model is made

with 221 people, we can see that the S-RMR value demonstrates "Perfect Fit".

2

sd 

0,95 1, 00NFI 

The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Decision-Making Styles… 21

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

Figure 3: Effect of Organizational Citizenship and Decision Making Styles on the

Transformational Leadership; Relationship model

As seen in Figure 3 above, as the basic concepts, DMS represents Decision Making Styles,

OCB, indicates Organizational Citizenship Behavior, T.LEADER specifies Transformational

Leadership concepts. We also aimed to make the model more understandable by calculating the

average of the sub-dimensions in the Spss.20.0 program. So the sub-dimensions respectively are as

follows:

,58

OCB

e1 e1 e1 e1 e1

Conscientious Civic virtue Gentlemanship Courtesy Altruism

T.LEADE

R

,13 ,45 ,66 ,65

,76

,36 ,67 ,81

,54

DMS

inculcatory

Forgiveness

I.Incentive

M.Encourage ment

C.Behavior e6

e7

e8

e9

e1

e1

,80

,80

,80

,90

,95

,68

Sudden Rational Intuitive Dependant Hesidant

e2 e2 e1 e1 e1

,26 ,25 ,41 ,21 ,35

,51 ,50 ,64

,46 ,59

,34

,39

,64

,65

,80

,90

,47

22 Fetullah BATTAL - İbrahim DURMUŞ - Ertuğrul ÇINAR

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

SUDDEN (averages of sudden decision-making styles), RATIONAL (averages of rational

decision making styles), INTUTIVE (averages of intuitive decision-making styles), DEPENDANT

(averages of dependant decision-making styles), HESIDANT (averages of hesitant decision-making

styles).

C.Behavior, (averages of charismatic behavior), Forgiveness (averages of forgiveness

behavior), inculcatory behavior (averages of inculcatory behavior), I.Incentive (averages of interest at individual Level, M.Encouragement, (averages of mental encouragement behavior).

Conscientious, (averages of conscientious behavior), Civic virtue, (averages of civic virtue

behavior), Gentlemanship, (averages of gentlemanship behavior), Courtesy, (averages of courtesy

behavior), Altruism, (averages of altruism behavior).

First of all, when we look at the relationship model we have established in Figure 3, we can

see a positive and meaningful significant relationship between DMS and OCB (0.34). When we look

at the relationship between OCB and TRF.LEADER, we can see that there is also a positive and

significant relationship (0.54). Finally, when we look at the relationship between DMS and

TRF.LEADER, we can see that their relationship is again positive and significant (0.39). It is possible

to say; H1, H27, H53 hypotheses have been confirmed in the model, and when examined, we have

also found that all the t-values obtained for the structural coefficients are greater than the critical

value of 1.96. which can be seen in table 4.1.2.

We also used the '' modification '' method which is frequently used in structural equation

modeling. The modification process is called the process of linking dimensions or items together by

combining the error shares of the nearest perceived question items instead of making a question from

a model with a high level of underlying sub-structure and factor analysis reliability (Byrne,2016).

Table 4.1.2. Research Hypotheses, t Values, 2

R Hypothesis Interaction Path

Coefficient

t -Value Result

H1 OCBTL 0.54 7.87 Verified H27 DMSTL 0.39 5.79 Verified H53 OCBDMS 0.34 4.40 Verified

As seen in Table.4.1.2 above, the positive effect on Hypothesis, H (1); the positive effect on

(OCBTL) statistically verified (γ=0.54;t=7.87). H (27); the positive effect on (DMSTL) was

statistically verified (γ= 0.39;t=5.79). Finally, H (53); the positive effect on (OCBDMS) was

statistically verified (β = 0.34, t = 4.40). Thus, (H1, H27, H53) hypotheses have been verified within

the model, and it was also observed that all t-values obtained for the structural coefficients were

greater than the critical value of 1.96. In the scope of the model, there is a positive and moderate

relationship between (DMS) and (OCB), a positive and strong relationhip between (OCB) and

(TRF.LEADER) Organizational Citizenship, and a positive and strong relationship between (DMS)

and (TRF.LEADER) has been observed.

5. Results and Suggestions

Similar to the basic models we have built in this study, there have been some studies on

decision-making styles and leadership relationships in the past.

Carnevale, Inbar, Lerner (2011) investigated individual differences in decision-making

competence and cognitive need among leaders. A questionnaire was conducted among 178 leaders /

The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Decision-Making Styles… 23

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

administrators working at US institutions and attending a senior management training program at

Harvard, and 169 participants received valid responses. Decision-making competence in research is

assessed in framing resistance, confidence level, consistency in risk perceptions and resistance to

sunk costs. It has been observed that the decision-making competence of high-ranking cognition

requires better frame resistance and resistance to sunk costs. Leaders were found to perform better

than the control group. It has come to the conclusion that individual differences in cognitive needs

and leadership experiences balance the tendency to fall into the wrong hands.

Cursesu and Schruijer (2012) examined the relationship between rationality and indecision

in decision-making through the five decision-making styles in the General Decision-Making

Competence Survey. The study was attended by 102 mid-level managers working in the Business

Administration graduate program in the Netherlands. In the study, it was concluded that the rational

style was positive for rationality and the negative predictive value for uncertainty, and the avoidance

of decision making and subordinate decision making provided positive predictions about indecision.

Similarly, we have observed in our study that moderate and meaningful impacts between

decision-making styles and transformative leadership behaviors (0.39), as seen in Figure 3.

Similarly, when we look at the relationship between Organizational Citizenship Behavior

and Transformational Leadership behaviors in our model:

According to Anton and Amos (2006), transformational leaders lead employees to have goals

that are consistent with organizational goals, to have organizational commitment, and to demonstrate

organizational citizenship behavior.

Wagn (2005) argues that transformational leaders can be in advanced duty consciousness by

enabling them to adopt more institutional and social goals than individual items of employees. They

also determined that the transformationist leadership has an indirect influence through leader-

member change over the relationship between leader-member change and organizational citizenship

behavior.

Piccolo and Colquitt (2006) concluded that there was a significant relationship between

transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior in their work. As a minimum,

(2008), they found that the leader of the transformational leader has a decisive and direct influence

on the exhibitions of organizational citizenship behavior.

Bolat (2008) also concludes that there is a meaningful and positive relationship between the

transformationist leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.

As a result, we observed in the study that we have a moderate and meaningful effect between

Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Transformational Leadership Behavior (0.54), as shown in

Figure 3.

Finally, when we looked at the relations between Decision-Making Styles and

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in our model, no studies were found. This is the first time we

have tried to examine this relationship in this study and observed that there is a moderate and

significant impact between Decision Making Styles and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (0.34),

as seen in Figure 3.

Decision-making styles and transformational leadership issues that we build in our basic

model can also be investigated via moderator or mediator effects for future research.

24 Fetullah BATTAL - İbrahim DURMUŞ - Ertuğrul ÇINAR

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

REFERENCES

Agor, W. H. (1986), ‘‘The Logic of Intuition: How Top Executives Make Important Decision’’,

Organizational Dynamics, 14 (3), s. 5-18.

Allwood, C. Martin ve Ilkka Salo (2012), ‘‘Decision-Making Styles and Stress’’, Internetional

Journal of Stress Management, 19 (1), pp. 34-47.

Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and

Statistical Psychology, 3(2), 77-85.

Bass, B. M. (1997), ‘‘Does The Transactional – Transformational Leadership Paradigm Transcend

Organizational and National Boundaries?’’, American Psychological Association, 52 (2),

pp.130-139.

Bass, B. M.; Avolio, Bruce J. Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor

leadership questionnaire. Consulting Psychologists Press, 1990.

Bayazit, O. (2005) ‘‘Use of AHP in Decision-Making for Flexible Manufacturing Sysytems’’,

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 16 (7), pp.808-819.

Bolat, O. İ., & Bolat, T. (2008). Otel işletmelerinde örgütsel bağlılık ve örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı

ilişkisi. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(19), 75-94.

Bottomley, P. – A.M.S. M. – J.S. Gould-Williams – F. L. Cazares (2016), ‘‘The Impact of

Transformational Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behaviours: The Contingent

Role of Public Service Motivation’’, British Journal of Management, 27, pp.390-405.

Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and

programming. Routledge.

Burke, L. A. – Monica K. MİLLER (1999), ‘‘Taking the Mystery out of Intuitive Decision Making’’,

Academy of Management Executive, 13 (4), pp. 91-99.

Carnavale J. J., Inbar, Y., & Lerner, J. S. (2011). Individual differences in need for cognition and

decision-making competence among leaders. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3),

274-278

Carter, M. Z. – D.R.Self – D.F. Bandow – R.L. Wheatley – W.F. Thompson – D.N. Wright – J. Lİ,

(2014), ‘‘Unit-Focused and Individual-Focused Trasformational Leadership: The Role of

Middle Leaders in The Midst of Incremental Organizational Change’’, Journal of

Management Policy and Practice, 15 (5), pp. 44-53.

Choo, C. W. (1996), ‘‘The Knowing Organization: How Organizations Use Information to Construct

Meaning, Create Knowledge and Make Decisions’’, International Journal of Information

Management, 16 (5), pp. 329-340.

Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 1951, 16.3: 297-

334.

Curşeu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. (2012). Decision styles and rationality: An analysis of the predictive

validity of the General Decision-Making Style Inventory. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 72(6), 1053-1062.

Çetin, Ş. - Mehmet Korkmaz – Cahit Çakmakçi (2012), ‘‘Dönüşümsel ve Etkileşimsel Liderlik ile

Lider-Üye Etkileşiminin Öğretmenlerin Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı Üzerindeki Etkisi’’,

Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 18 (1), pp.7-36.

The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Decision-Making Styles… 25

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

Dasgupta, S. (2003), ‘‘Mulidisciplinary Creativity: The Case of Herbert A. Simon’’, Cognitive

Science, (27), pp. 683-707.

Etzioni, A. (1976), ‘‘Mixed-Scaaing: A ‘‘Third’’ Approach to Decision-Making’’, Public

Administration Review, 27 (5), s. 385-392.

Engelbrecht, A. S., & Schlechter, A. F. (2006). The relationship between transformational leadership,

meaning and organisational citizenship behaviour. Management Dynamics: Journal of the

Southern African Institute for Management Scientists, 15(4), 2-16.

Eren, E. Yönetim ve Organizasyon (Çağdaş ve Küresel Yaklaşımlar), 5. Bası, 2001, İstanbul: Beta

Basım Yayım Dağıtım A.Ş.

Galotti, K. M. – Elizabeth Ciner – Hope E. Altenbaumer – Heather J. Geerts – Allison Rupp, Julie

Woulfe (2006), ‘‘Decision-making Styles in A Real-life Decision: Choosing A College

Major’’, Personality and Individual Differences, 41, pp. 629-639.

Gati, I. – Reuma Gadassi – Rona Mashiah-Cohen (2012), ‘‘Career Decision-Making Profiles vs.

Styles: Convergent and İncremental Validity’’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81 (1), s.

2-16.

Gilmore, P. L. – X. Hu – F. Wei – L.E.Tetrick – S.J. Zaccaro (2013), ‘‘Positive Affectivity

Neutralizes Transformational Leadership’s Influence on Creative Performance and

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors’’, Journal of Organizational Behavioe, J. Organiz.

Behav., 34, pp. 1061-1075.

Goodwin, V. L. – J.L. Whittington – B. Murray – T. Nichols (2011), ‘‘The Significance of Trust in

The Leader-Follower Relationship’’, Journal of Managerial Issues, 23 (4), pp. 409-425.

Hansson, P. H. – Jon Aarum ANDERSON (2007), ‘‘The Swedish Principal: Leadership Style,

Decision-Making Style, and Motivation Profile’’, International Electronic Journal for

Leadership in Learning, 11 (8), pp. 1-13.

Hansen, J. (1987), "Cross-Cultural Research on Vocational Interests", Measurement and Evaluation

in Counseling and Development, 19, 163-176.

Hatchuel, A. (2001), ‘‘Towards Desing Theory and Expandable Rationality: The Unfinished

Program of Herbert Simon’’, Journal of Management and Governance, 5 (3-4), pp. 260-

273.

Henderson, J. C. – Paul C. NUTT (1980), ‘‘The Influence of Decision Style on Decision Making

Behavior’’, Management Science, 26 (4), pp. 371-386.

Hestand, Y. (2012), ‘‘Entrepreneurial Decision Making Styles and Learning Strategies Preferences’’,

Doctor of Education, Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma

State University.

Ho, J.(2016), ‘‘Influence of Organizational Context and Follower’s Deposition on The Effectiveness

of Transformational Leadership’’, International Journal of Organization Theory and

Behavior, 19 (3), pp. 308-343.

Humphrey, A. (2012), ‘‘Transformational Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors:

The Role of Organizational Identification’’, The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 15,

pp.247-268.

Iacobucci, D., (2010). Structural Equations Modeling: Fit Indices, Sample Size, and Advanced

Topics, Joıurnal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90-98.

26 Fetullah BATTAL - İbrahim DURMUŞ - Ertuğrul ÇINAR

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

Jabeen, S.– Mahr Muhamma Saeed Akhtar (2013), ‘‘Decision Making Styles of University

Leadership’’, Academic Journal, 8 (3), pp. 273-284.

Jokar, K. – Davoud Hosseinzadeh – A.H. Mohammad Davoudi (2014), ‘‘The Relationship Between

Manager’s Decision Making Styles and Teachers Empowerment in Saveh Primary School’’,

International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 4 (4), pp. 116-126.

Kao, H.– Sean P.H. Kao – Shih-Chih Chen – Kevin K.S. Chiu (2012), ‘‘Decision Making Models

and Knowledge Management Preferences: Taiwanese Expatriates in China’’, Australian

Journal of Busiöness and Management Research, 2 (4), pp. 1-11.

Khasawneh, S., A. Alomari and A. Abu-tineh (2011), ‘‘Decision-Making Styles of Department

Chairs at Public Jordanian Universities: A High-Expectancy Workforce’’, Tertiary

Education and Management, 17 (4), pp.309-318.

Kim, H., (2014), ‘‘Transformational Leadership, Organizational Clan Culture, Organizational

Affective Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A case of South Korea’s

Public Sector’’, Public Organiz Rev, 14, pp.397-417.

Laroche, H. (1995), ‘‘From Decision to Action in Organizations: Decision-Making as a Social

Representation’’, Organization Science, 6 (1), pp. 62-75.

Meydan, C. H. ve Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları. Ankara:

Detay Yayıncılık

Mcalister, J. (2011), ‘‘The Disruption Management Model’’, Journal of Business Continuity &

Emergency Planning, 5 (3), pp. 231-236.

Moon, K.-K. (2016), ‘‘The Effects of Diversity and Transformational Leadership Climate on

Organizational Citizenship Behavior in The U.S. Federal Government: An Organizational-

Level Longitudinal Study’’, Public Performance & Management Review, 40 (2), pp.361-

381.

Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington

MA: Lexington Books.

Organ AND L,” Personality, Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior”, The Journal of Social

Psychology, 1995, 339-351

Organ, D. W. (1990). The subtle significance of job satisfaction. Clinical laboratory management

review, 4(1), 94-98.

Ölçer, F. - M.S. Florescu - Marian Nastase, (2014), ‘‘The Effect of Transformational Leadership and

Emotional Intelligence of Managers on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors of

Employees’’, Review of International Comparative Management, 15 (4), pp.285-401.

Öner, N. Güvenirliği ve/veya Geçerliği Sınanması Psikolojik Testler. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi

Yayınları, 3. Basım, İstanbul. 1994;10-39

Park, C. H. - J.H. Song - S.W. Yoon - J. Kim, (2013), ‘‘A Missing Link: Psychological Ownership

As A Mediator Between Transformational Leadership and Organizational Citizenship

Behaviour’’, Human Resource Development International, 16 ,(5), pp. 558-574.

Pıccolo, R. F., ve Colquitt, J. A. (2006). “Transformational Leadership and Job Behaviours: The

Mediating Role of Core Job Characteristics”, Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327-

340.

The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Decision-Making Styles… 27

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

Pıllaı, R., Scandura, T.A. ve Williams, E.A. (1999). Leadership and Organizational Justice:

Similarities and Differences across Cultures. Journal of International Business Studies,

30(4): 763-779.

Podsakoff, P.M. - S.B. Mackenzie,– R.H. Moorman, - R. Fetter (1990), ‘‘Transformational Leader

Behaviors and Their Effects on Foolowers Trust in Leader, Satisfaction and Organizational

Citizenship Behaviors’’, Leadership Quarterly, 1, pp. 107-142.-a

Podsakoff P.M., Mackenzie S.B., Bommer W.H.,”Transformational Leader Behaviors and

Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants of Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust,

and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors”,Journal of Management, v22 no2, 1996

Podsakoff, P. M., et al. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in

leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The leadership quarterly,

1990, 1.2: 107-142.-b.

Rehman, R. – Ajmal Waheed (2012), ‘‘Transformational Leadership Style as Predictor of Decision

Making Styles: Moderating Role of Emotional Intelligence’’, Pakistan Journal of

Commerce and Social Sciences, 6 (2), pp. 257-268.

Rodrigues, A. O. and M.C. Ferreira, (2015), ‘‘The Impact of Transactional and Transformational

Leadership Style on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors’’, Psico-USF, Bragança

Paulista, 20 (3), Pp.493-504.

Sadler-S., Eugene – Erella Shefy (2004), ‘‘The Intuitive Executive: Understanding and Applying

‘Gut Feel’ in Decision-Making’’, Academy of Management Executive, 18 (4), pp. 76-91.

Scherer, R. F., et al. Dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the ways of coping

questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 1988, 62.3: 763-770.

Scott, S.G. and R.A. Bruce (1995), ‘‘Decision-Making Style: The Development and Assessment of

A New Measure’’, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55 (5), pp.818-831.

Şimşek, Ö. F., (2007). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş: Temel İlkeler ve Lisrel Uygulamaları,

Ankara: Ekinoks Yayıncılık

Taşdelen, A. (2001), ‘‘Öğretmen Adaylarının Bazı Psiko Sosyal Değişkenlere Göre Karar Verme

Stilleri’’, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (10), pp. 40-52.

Tonkin T. H., (2013), ‘‘Authentic Versus Transformational Leadership: Assessing Their

Effectiveness on Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Followers’’, International Journal

of Business and Public Administration, 10 (1), pp. 40-61.

Ullman, J.B.; Bentler, Peter M. Structural equation modeling. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003.

Vroom, V. “Leadership and decision making process”, Organizational dynamics, 2000

Yassine, F. L. Y. A., Hammouri, A. A., & Aljaradat, O. M. (2013). The Impact of Organizational

Justice on the Behavior of Organizational Citizenship An Applied Study on the

Employees of the Department of Income and Sales Tax in Jordan. Australian Journal of

Business and Management Research, 3(11), 12.

Zellars, K. L., Bennett J. Tepper and Michelle K. Duffy (2002), ‘‘Abusive Supervision and

Subordinates Organizational Citizens hip’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (6), pp.

1068-1076.

28 Fetullah BATTAL - İbrahim DURMUŞ - Ertuğrul ÇINAR

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 12/31

Wang, H., Law, K.S, Hackett, R.D., Wang, D. ve Chen, Z.H. (2005). “Leader-member Exchange as

a Mediator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Followers’

Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour”, Academy of Management Journal,

48(3), 420-432.

Copyright of Electronic Turkish Studies is the property of Electronic Turkish Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.