Self-Sacrificial Leadership and Employee Behaviours: An Examination of the Role of Organizational Social Capital
- 257 Downloads
Drawing on social exchange theory, this study examines a mechanism, namely organizational social capital (OSC), through which self-sacrificial leadership is related to two types of employee behaviours: organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs) and counterproductive behaviours (CPBs). The results of two different studies (a field study and an experimental study) in Egypt showed that self-sacrificial leadership is positively related to OSC which, in turn, is positively related to OCBs and negatively related to CPBs. Overall, the findings suggest that self-sacrificial leaders are more likely to achieve desirable employee behaviours through improving the quality of social relationships among employees.
KeywordsSelf-sacrificial leadership Organizational social capital Organizational citizenship behaviours Counterproductive behaviours
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire report. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.Google Scholar
- Choi, Y., & Yoon, J. (2005). Effects of leaders’ self-sacrificial behaviour and competency on followers’ attribution of charismatic leadership among Americans and Koreans. Current Research in Social Psychology, 11, 51–69.Google Scholar
- Dipboye, R. L. (1990). Laboratory vs. field research in industrial and organizational psychology. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 1–34.Google Scholar
- Ekeh, P. P. (1974). Social exchange theory: The two traditions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Matteson, J. A., & Irving, J. A. (2006). Servant versus self-sacrificial leadership: A behavioral comparison of two follow-oriented leadership theories. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(1), 36–51.Google Scholar
- McKenna, R., & Brown, T. (2011). Does sacrificial leadership have to hurt? The realities of putting others first. Organization Development Journal, 29(3), 39–50.Google Scholar
- Paillé, P., Mejía-Morelos, J. H., Marché-Paillé, A., Chen, C. C., & Chen, Y. (2016). Corporate greening, exchange process among co-workers, and ethics of care: An empirical study on the determinants of pro-environmental behaviours at coworkers-level. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(3), 655–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar