LEADERSHIP STYLES AND ORGANISATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR AMONG ANGLICAN-BASED PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES IN UGANDA

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of directive, supportive, and participative leadership styles on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of lecturers in two Anglican-founded private universities in Uganda: Uganda Christian University and Ndejje University. The study also investigated organizational commitment to mediate. The data were collected using a mixed-methods approach, i.e., convergent parallel design, from 430 lecturers with structured questionnaires and from 14 department leaders with in-depth interviews. Quantitative data were calculated using SPSS, while qualitative answers were coded from content analysis and reported verbatim. Results revealed that directive leadership, as defined in terms of intensive control and close monitoring as how it is measured, had a weak but negative influence on OCB (r = -0.090, p = 0.046), which supports the argument that micromanagement discourages organizationally beneficial discretionary behavior. Supportive leadership, where employee care and guidance were focused upon, was the strongest positive predictor of OCB (r = 0.350, p = 0.000), reflecting how endorsement and support create employees who go that extra mile beyond the call of duty. Participative leadership, in which the workers are consulted in making decisions, positively but less strongly affected (r = 0.170, p = 0.001). Humanitarianism/egalitarianism did not predict OCB. Regression analysis confirmed supportive leadership as the best predictor of OCB (Beta = 0.350, p < 0.001), followed by participative leadership (Beta = 0.170, p < 0.001). Organizational commitment also positively and significantly contributed to the facilitation of OCB (Beta = 0.070, p = 0.028) and the enhancement of the positive effects of supportive and participative leadership. Commitment did not, however, reverse the negative impact of directive leadership (p = 0.183). In conclusion, the studies verify participative and supportive leadership to result in OCB induction, and directive leadership to be counter-productive.