The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business

Korea Distribution Science Association (한국유통과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Organizational Citizenship and Visionary Leadership on Contextual Performance: A Case Study in Indonesia

  • Received : 2021.02.20
  • Accepted : 2021.05.02
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The aim of the study is not only to explore the empirical effect of visionary leadership, quality of work-life (QWL), and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) on teachers' contextual performance, but also to prove the theoretical model regarding OCB as a mediator between visionary leadership, QWL, and teachers' contextual performance. This research uses a quantitative approach to the survey method through a Likert scale model questionnaire. The questionnaire for all research variables is reliable with an alpha coefficient >0.7. The research participants are comprised of 460 teachers at private schools in Indonesia selected by accidental sampling. Data analysis uses path analysis supported by descriptive statistics and correlational matrices. The research results indicate that visionary leadership, QWL, and OCB have a significant effect on teachers' contextual performance. Besides, OCB is also indirectly mediating the effect of visionary leadership and QWL on teachers' contextual performance. Thus, a new model regarding the effect of visionary leadership and QWL on contextual performance mediating by OCB was confirmed. The research suggested that the teachers' contextual performance can improve through visionary leadership, QWL, and OCB. Therefore, researchers and practitioners can adopt the new empirical model to develop contextual performance in the future in various organizations' contexts.

Keywords

1. Introduction

One of the critical issues that have consistently captured the academics, researchers, and practitioners’ attention is performance. This is related to individual performance, which strongly determines the life of the organization, both profit, and non-profit organizations. Individual performance is proven to increase organizational growth (Vosloban, 2012), organizational productivity (Raza, Anjum, & Zia, 2014), organizational effectiveness (Tahsildari & Shahnaei, 2015), and organizational performance (Fahmi, Musnadi, & Nadirsyah, 2019). Performance is about behavior or what employees do (Aguinis, 2018), the value of the set of employee behavior that contributes, either positively or negatively, to organizational goal accomplishment (Colquitt, Lepine, & Wesson (2019), and a set of employee work-related behaviors designed to accomplish organizational goals (Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson 2018). Likewise, Byars, Rue, and Ibrahim (2016) state performance as the degree of accomplishment of the task that makes up an employee’s job. It reflects how well an employee is fulfilling the requirements of a job. Performance can be viewed from a perspective on contextual performance, which includes those behaviors that contribute to the organization’s effectiveness by providing a good environment in which task performance can occur (Aguinis, 2018). The contextual performance also involves those behaviors not directly related to job tasks, but that have a significant impact on organizational, social, and psychological contexts. These behaviors serve as catalyzers for the efficient undertaking of the entrusted tasks (Díaz-Vilela et al., 2015). Contextual performance includes behaviors such as the following: persisting with enthusiasm and exerting extra effort as necessary to complete one’s own task activities successfully; volunteering to carry out task activities that are not formally part of the job; helping and cooperating with others; following organizational rules and procedures; and endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives (Aguinis, 2018).

In Indonesia, teachers’ performance does not contribute to the maximum quality of education output as part of school performance organizations’ results. As an illustration, the results of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2018 show that the reading scores of Indonesian students have been at the lowest point during their participation in PISA since 2000. Students with basic math competencies are also low (below Level 2 on the PISA scale), with a total of 71.9 percent. One of the reasons is the low competence of teachers. For example, the average 2019 DKI Jakarta teacher competency test results are 54 (scale 0–100). Therefore, it is crucial and urgent to investigate the determinants of teachers’ contextual performance, especially visionary leadership, QWL, and OCB.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Visionary Leadership and Contextual Performance

In reality, a significant buzzword in leadership and management is a vision, the ability to imagine different and better future conditions and ways to achieve them (DuBrin, 2015). Therefore, every organization needed visionary leadership. According to Robbins and Coulter (2016), visionary leadership can create and articulate a realistic, credible, and attractive future vision that improves the present situation. Visionary leadership also reflects a leaders’ action that can influence or encourage others to create and articulate realistically, credibly, and attractively about future visions that can improve the current state (Anshar, 2017). Visionary leadership can describe how a leader seeks intellectual ways of managing issues and empowering subordinates to develop and apply new ideas to achieve the stated goals and objectives (Kadir, Adebayo, & Olumide, 2020).

Visionary leadership is vital to the organization, so visionary leadership has been referred to as quality transcending the institution (Molina, 2018). Hence, visionary leadership offers the opportunity to grow an organizations’ capacity to meet its constituents’ needs (Khoiri, 2020). Visionary leadership also encourages motivation to enhance individual and team spirit by communicating encouragement to workers so they can achieve their vision (Saba, Tabish, & Khan, 2017). Visionary leadership creates high cohesion, trust, motivation, commitment, and enhanced performance in the new organizations (Zhu, Chew, & Spangler, 2005). Therefore, Breevaart et al. (2014) contend that visionary leadership is considered a type of transformational leadership because it can quickly achieve the task to meet the organizations or company’s standards. Visionary leadership can measure through multi-indicators, such as setting superior standards and reflecting high ideas, clarify goals and direction, inspire the spirit and keep a commitment, have good pronunciation and easy to understand (effective communication), reflect the uniqueness of various organizations and competencies, and ambitious (have a strong determination to realize the ideals (Joseph, 2007; Anshar, 2017). In suitable conditions, this indicator enhance teacher contextual performance, manifested in persisting with enthusiasm and exerting extra effort as necessary to complete one’s task activities successfully; volunteering to carry out task activities that are not formally part of the job; helping and cooperating with other; following organizational rules and procedures; and endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives (Aguinis, 2018). The scholars’ studies (e.g., Anshar, 2017; Ali et al., 2019; Kurniadi, Lian, & Wahidy, 2020; Esfarjani, Hoveida, & Abedi, 2020) also concluded that visionary leadership influences performance. Similar studies in leadership contexts also indicated that leadership related to performance (Paais & Pattiruhu, 2020) and transformational leadership affects job performance (Kusumaningrum, Haryono, & Handari, 2020; Astuty & Udin, 2020). Based on the arguments and studies above, the first hypothesis in this study is:

H1: Visionary leadership had a direct effect on contextual performance.

2.2. QWL and Contextual Performance

Quality of work-life (QWL) is a very needed by workers, including the teachers in the school organization context. QWL refers to a somewhat general concept, encompassing several aspects of the job experience. These include management and supervisory style, freedom and autonomy to make decisions on the job, good physical surroundings, job safety, good working hours, and meaningful tasks. A sound QWL program assumes that a job and the work environment should be structured to meet as many workers’ needs as possible (Ivancevich & Konopaske, 2013). QWL is also the degree to which members of a work organization can satisfy important personal needs through their organizations’ experience (Daniel, 2019). According to Cascio (2016), QWL can describe in two ways. One way equates QWL with a set of objective organizational conditions and practices (e.g., promotion-from within policies, democratic supervision, employee involvement, safe working conditions). The other way equates QWL with employees’ perceptions that they are safe and relatively well satisfied, they have a good work-life fit, and can grow and develop as human beings. This way relates QWL to the degree to which the full range of human needs is met. Martel and Dupuis (2006) also state that QWL, at a given time, corresponds to the condition of an individual in active pursuit of his or her hierarchically organized goals within work domains where the reduction of the gap separating the individual from these goals is reflects by a positive impact on the individuals’ general quality of life, organizational performance, and consequently to the overall functioning of society. Moreover, QWL is an organizational development technique designed to improve organizational functioning by humanizing the workplace, making it more democratic, and involving employees in decision-making (Greenberg & Baron, 2010). QWL is also concerned overall work climate and the impact on work and people as well as on organization effectiveness (Chaturvedi & Saxena, 2017).

QWL includes a safe and healthy environment; work that develops human capabilities; opportunities for personal growth and security; the social environment that shapes personal identity, freedom from suspicion, views as part of society and upward mobility; constitutionalism, or the right to privacy, reciprocity, and dissent; work roles that reduce violations of personal pleasure and family needs; and socially responsible organizational action (Bateman, 2014). This condition, if it can be realized in the life of the school organization, can encourage teachers to improve their contextual performance, manifested in persisting with enthusiasm and exerting extra effort as necessary to complete one’s task activities successfully; volunteering to carry out task activities that are not formally part of the job; helping and cooperating with others; following organizational rules and procedures; and endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives (Aguinis, 2018). The scholars’ studies (e.g., Chanana & Gupta, 2016; Tripathy, 2017; Suyantiningsih, Haryono, & Zami, 2018; Al-Shawabkeh & Hijjawi, 2018; Daniel, 2019; Bakhshi et al., 2019; Mohammadi & Karupiah, 2019; Thakur & Sharma, 2019) also concluded that QWL affects contextual performance. Based on arguments and studies above, the second hypothesis in this study is:

H2: QWL had a direct effect on contextual performance.

2.3. OCB and Contextual Performance

OCB is a crucial factor for the organization, including school organizations. Several studies proved that OCB influences productivity (Barsulai, Makopondo, & Fwaya, 2019) and organizational performance (Sadeghi, Ahmadi, & Yazdi, 2016; Aval, Haddadi, & Keikha, 2017). High levels of OCB have positively affected creativity and change outcomes (Seppala et al., 2012). OCB is defined as actions that support the social and psychological environment where task performance unfolds (Bolino & Grant, 2016). OCB also refers to the set of behaviors that sustain or enhance the cooperative system of the organization, but are not systematically or generally recorded in the formal system of the organization or tied in any consistent way to specific rewards (Organ, 2018). The scholars (e.g., Slocum & Hellriegel, 2007; Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013; McShane & Von Glinow, 2018) also state OCB is employee behavior that is beyond the call of duty, exceeds formal job duties, such as cooperation and helpfulness to others that support the organization’s social and psychological context, but is often necessary for the organizational survival.

OCB includes all organizational members’ contributions that may add to members’ positive socialization and leads to extra-role behavior. Hence, OCB must be within the discretion of the individual member; that the member does not expect that the particular behavior in itself, if noticed, will lead to direct or timely benefits mediated by the formal organization; or if the behavior is performed by a sufficient number of members, it will render the organization capable of higher levels of performance and effectiveness in achieving its goals (Organ, 2018). Besides, OCB also includes such behaviors as taking on additional assignments, voluntary assisting other people at work, keeping up with the developments in one’s field or profession, following company rules even when no one is looking, promoting and protecting the organization, and keeping a positive attitude and tolerating inconveniences at work (Schultz & Schultz, 2016). According to Klotz et al. (2018), employees in different organizations may engage in different patterns of citizenship, depending on the organizational context. OCB consist of five indicators: altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). These indicators, if at a high level, can be someone who increases their contextual performance. The investigation by researchers (Mallick et al., 2014; Andrew & León-Cázares, 2015; Sadeghi, Ahmadi, & Yazdi, 2016; Aval, Haddadi, & Keikha, 2017; Hidayah & Harnoto, 2018; Lestari & Ghaby, 2018; Hermawan, Thamrin, & Susilo, 2020; Udin & Yuniawan, 2020) shows that OCB influences job performance, including contextual performance. Based on arguments and studies above, the third hypothesis in this study is:

H3: OCB had a direct effect on contextual performance.

2.4. Visionary Leadership and OCB

Visionary leadership, besides affects contextual performance, is also influences OCB. While school principals are setting superior standards and reflecting high ideas, clarify goals and direction, inspire the spirit and keep a commitment, have good pronunciation and easy to understand, reflect the uniqueness of different organizations and competencies, and have a strong determination to realize the ideals (Joseph, 2007; Anshar, 2017) can stimulate teachers’ OCB reflected in altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). The research conducted by Dhammika (2014) also indicated that visionary leadership affects OCB. Various other studies of leadership also supported that spiritual leadership influences OCB (Hunsaker, 2016), transformational leadership affects OCB (e.g., Lofquist & Matthiesen, 2018; Vipraprastha, Sudja, & Yuesti, 2018; Bottomley et al., 2016), and servant leadership related to OCB (Setyaningrum, 2017). All these studies show that leadership is an important determinant for OCB. Based on arguments and studies above, the fourth hypothesis in this study is:

H4: Visionary leadership had a direct effect on OCB.

2.5. QWL and OCB

Like visionary leadership, QWL is also affecting OCB besides contextual performance. For example, the school has a work that develops human capabilities, opportunities for personal growth and security, the social environment that shapes personal identity, freedom from suspicion, constitutionalism, or the right to privacy, reciprocity, and dissent; and socially responsible organizational action (Bateman, 2014) tend to enhance teachers’ OCB, such as altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). The research carried out by researchers (e.g., Pio & Tampi, 2017; Hermawati & Mas, 2017; Chaturvedi & Saxena, 2017; El-Sayed, Abd El-Fattah, & Mohamed, 2018; Farub & Purwanto, 2019; Ruhana et al., 2019; Rivera, Sari, & Damayanti, 2019; Moestain, Hamidah, & Kadir, 2020; Ojo, Zaccheaus, & Luqman, 2020) also indicates that QWL has a significant correlation with OCB. Based on arguments and studies above, the fifth hypothesis in this study is:

H5: QWL had a direct effect on OCB.

2.6. Visionary Leadership and Contextual Performance Mediating by OCB

From the various results of the research above, OCB mediates visionary leadership’s effect on contextual performance. The school principal who has adequate setting, superior standards, and reflecting high ideas, clarifies goals and direction, inspires the spirit and keeps a commitment, has good pronunciation and is easy to understand, reflects the uniqueness of different organizations and competencies, and has a strong determination to realize the ideals (Joseph, 2007; Anshar, 2017) potentially stimulating teachers’ OCB manifested in altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). It then implicates to teachers’ contextual performance manifested in persisting with enthusiasm and exerting extra effort as necessary to complete one’s task activities successfully; volunteering to carry out task activities that are not formally part of the job; helping and cooperating with others; following organizational rules and procedures; and endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives (Aguinis, 2018). The studies carried out by Dhammika (2014) proved that visionary leadership has a significant correlation with OCB, while the studies conducted by scholars (Mallick et al., 2014; Andrew & León-Cázares, 2015; Hidayah & Harnoto, 2018; Lestari & Ghaby, 2018) claimed that OCB affects contextual performance. Based on arguments and studies above, the sixth hypothesis in this study is:

H6: Visionary leadership had an indirect effect on contextual performance mediating by OCB.

2.7. QWL and Contextual Performance Mediating by OCB

OCB also mediates the effect of QWL on contextual performance. The school offers work that develops human capabilities, opportunities for personal growth and security, the social environment that shapes personal identity, freedom from suspicion, constitutionalism, or the right to privacy, reciprocity, and dissent; and socially responsible organizational action (Bateman, 2014) can enhance teachers’ OCB, such as altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). It then implicates to their contextual performance manifested in persisting with enthusiasm and exerting extra effort as necessary to complete one’s task activities successfully; volunteering to carry out task activities that are not formally part of the job; helping and cooperating with others; following organizational rules and procedures; and endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives (Aguinis, 2018). The investigation by researchers (e.g., Rivera, Sari, & Damayanti, 2019; Moestain, Hamidah, & Kadir, 2020, Ojo, Zaccheaus, & Luqman, 2020) that QWL influences teachers’ OCB, while the scholar’s studies (Sadeghi, Ahmadi, & Yazdi, 2016; Aval, Haddadi, & Keikha, 2017; Hidayah & Harnoto, 2018; Lestari & Ghaby, 2018) concluded that OCB related to contextual performance. Based on arguments and studies above, the seventh hypothesis in this study is:

H7: QWL had an indirect effect on contextual performance mediating by OCB.

3. Research Methods

This research uses a quantitative approach to the survey method through a Likert scale model questionnaire with five option answers: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree to verify the hypotheses (Hair et al., 2018). The questionnaire is designed by researchers themselves based on the theoretical dimensions or indicators from the experts. Visionary leadership indicators are setting superior standards and reflecting high ideas, clarify goals and direction, inspire the spirit and keep a commitment, have good pronunciation and easy to understand, reflect the uniqueness of different organizations and competencies, and have a strong determination to realize the ideals (Joseph, 2007; Anshar, 2017). QWL consists of indicators: safe and healthy environment; work that develops human capabilities; opportunities for personal growth and security; the social environment that shapes personal identity, freedom from suspicion, views as part of society and upward mobility; constitutionalism, or the right to privacy, reciprocity, and dissent; work roles that reduce violations of personal pleasure and family needs; and socially responsible organizational action (Bateman, 2014). OCB consists of five indicators: altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). The contextual performance consists of five indicators: persisting with enthusiasm and exerting extra effort as necessary to complete one’s own task activities successfully; volunteering to carry out task activities that are not formally part of the job; helping and cooperating with others; following organizational rules and procedures; and endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives (Aguinis, 2018). The visionary leadership questionnaire consists of 12 items with an alpha coefficient = 0.938, QWL consists of 16 items with an alpha coefficient = 0.945, OCB consists of 10 items with an alpha coefficient = 0.900, and contextual performance consists of 10 items with an alpha coefficient = 0.864. All variables have an alpha coefficient > 0.7, so it is reliable as a research instrument (Griethuijsen et al., 2014; Hair et al., 2018).

This research participants comprise 460 teachers at private school in Indonesia spread across eight provinces; they are Jakarta, Banten, West Java, Central Java, Riau Island, Lampung, East Nusa Tenggara, and East Kalimantan determined by accidental sampling based on participant’s willingness to fill in the questionnaire at the time the research was conducted (Widodo, 2019). Description of the participants is shown in Figure 1. The majority of participants are female (65.43%), aged 26–35 years (41.09%), bachelor education (86.96%), and length of teaching ≤ five years (40.00%). Besides, 70.87% of participants were married.

OTGHEU_2021_v8n6_377_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1: Personal Characteristics of the Research Participants

Data analysis by path analysis and to test the significance of the path coefficient uses a t test supported by correlational and descriptive statistics. Descriptive analyzes were performed by SPSS version 26, while the path analysis by LISREL 8.80.

4. Results and Discussion

The descriptive statistical analysis and correlations of the four research variables are present in Table 1. The mean values of the four variables from the lowest to the highest in succession are contextual performance (39.92), OCB (40.90), visionary leadership (51.75), and QWL (69.13). Meanwhile, the standard deviation values of the four variables from the lowest to the highest in succession are OCB (5.322), contextual performance (5.344), visionary leadership (7.474), and QWL (7.898). The correlation analysis results in all variables had significant relationships with the other variables at level p < 0.01. This condition indicates that all the variables have a mutual relationship with each other. The correlation coefficients from the lowest to the highest in succession are QWL and OCB (0.369), QWL and contextual performance (0.371), visionary leadership and OCB (0.373), visionary leadership and contextual performance (0.381), visionary leadership, and QWL (0.565), OCB and contextual performance (0.750).

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix of Variables

OTGHEU_2021_v8n6_377_t0001.png 이미지

**p < 0.01

The results of hypothesis testing with path analysis of the effects of visionary leadership and QWL on contextual performance mediating by OCB are summarized in Table 2 and visualized in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The hypothesis testing results show that all hypotheses were supported (t value > t table at α = 0.05 and 0.01). Therefore, this study shows that visionary leadership, QWL, and OCB had a significant direct effect on teachers’ contextual performance, and then visionary leadership and QWL had a significant direct effect on teachers’ OCB. This study also showed that visionary leadership and QWL had a significant indirect effect on teachers’ contextual performance mediating by OCB.

Table 2: Summary of Path Coefficients and T values

OTGHEU_2021_v8n6_377_t0002.png 이미지

*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01.

OTGHEU_2021_v8n6_377_f0002.png 이미지

Figure 2: Path Coefficients

OTGHEU_2021_v8n6_377_f0003.png 이미지

Figure 3: T values

In Figure 1 and Figure 2, the test results of the model with the goodness of fit statistics show the significant with Chi-Square = 0.000, df = 0, p-value = 1.00000 > 0.05 and RMSEA = 0.000 < 0.08. That means the model tested is fit. This result indicates that the theoretical model being test is supported by empirical data from teachers of teachers at Private School in Indonesia spread across eight provinces (Jakarta, Banten, West Java, Central Java, Riau Island, Lampung, East Nusa Tenggara, East Kalimantan).

This research proved that visionary leadership and QWL significantly affected teachers’ contextual performance, directly or indirectly mediating by OCB. This evidence is that OCB plays a significant role as a mediator of the effect of visionary leadership and QWL on teachers’ contextual performance. This research also indicates the vitality of visionary leadership, QWL, and OCB for contextual performance. That means the existence of visionary leadership, QWL, and OCB are important determinants for enhancing teachers’ contextual performance. This is similar and consistent with studies conducted by researchers that contextual performance is influenced by visionary leadership (e.g., Kurniadi, Lian, & Wahidy, 2020; Esfarjani, Hoveida, & Abedi, 2020), QWL (e.g., Daniel, 2019; Bakhshi et al., 2019; Mohammadi & Karupiah, 2019), and OCB (e.g., Hidayah & Harnoto, 2018; Lestari & Ghaby, 2018; Hermawan, Thamrin, & Susilo, 2020).

This empirical fact confirms that visionary leadership, QWL, and OCB are vital to teachers’ contextual performance, so that it needs to manage and develop optimally and adequately. Consequently, school principals need to more seriously increase their visionary leadership capacity and QWL in the school that potentially enhance teachers’ OCB. In the visionary leadership context, school principals need to be better in setting superior standards and reflecting high ideas, clarify goals and direction, inspire the spirit and keep a commitment, have good pronunciation and easy to understand, reflect the uniqueness of different organizations and competencies, and have a strong determination to realize the school’s ideals, vision, and goals. Likewise, regarding QWL, school principals need to encourage schools to grow into learning organizations, which is possible work becomes a place for the development of human capabilities, opportunities for personal growth and security, the social environment that shapes personal identity, freedom from suspicion, constitutionalism, or the right to privacy, reciprocity and dissent; and the actions of school organizations that are socially responsible for all school members and school stakeholders. Both of these efforts, visionary leadership and QWL, are expected to stimulate increasing teachers’ OCB so that teachers truly have good altruism, awareness, sportsmanship, politeness, and civic virtue to improve teachers’ contextual performance. This kindness will have implications for the growth, effectiveness, and performance of the school organization as a strategic education unit responsible for improving the quality of education output and human resources of a nation.

Finally, the research results found a new empirical model of visionary leadership and QWL on contextual performance mediating by OCB based on the private school teachers’ data in Indonesia. This model can be discussed among researchers and educational practitioners to built models of contextual performance. Moreover, the model also can adopt new approaches to increase teachers’ contextual performance.

5. Conclusion

This research result concluded that visionary leadership, QWL, and OCB significantly affect teachers’ contextual performance. Besides, OCB is indirectly mediating the effect of visionary leadership and QWL on teachers’ contextual performance. Thus, a new model regarding the effect of visionary leadership and QWL on contextual performance mediating by OCB was confirmed. The research suggested that the teachers’ contextual performance can improve through visionary leadership, QWL, and OCB. Therefore, researchers and practitioners can adopt the new empirical model to develop contextual performance in the future and various organizations’ contexts.

References

  1. Aguinis, H. (2018). Performance management (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: Chicago Business Press.
  2. Ali, F., Nursyamsi, I., Sumardi, S., & Madris, M. (2019). The Effect of Visionary Leadership on Study Program Performance in LLdikti IX Sulawesi. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS), 6(10), 242-246. https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.610.37
  3. Al-Shawabkeh, K. M., & Hijjawi, G. S. (2018). Impact of quality of work-life (QWL) on organizational performance: An empirical study in the private Jordanian Universities. Asian Social Science, 14(6), 145-156. https://doi:10.5539/ass.v14n6p145
  4. Andrew, S. A., & Leon-Cazares, F. (2015). Mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: Empirical analysis of public employees in Guadalajara, Mexico. Econo Quantum, 12(2), 71-92.
  5. Anshar, M. (2017). The impact of visionary leadership, learning organization, and innovative behavior to performance of customs and excise functional. International Journal of Human Capital Management, 1(2), 52-60. https://doi.org/10.21009/IJHCM.01.02.07
  6. Astuty, I., & Udin, U. (2020). The effect of perceived organizational support and transformational leadership on affective commitment and employee performance. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(10), 401-411. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no10.401
  7. Aval, S. M., Keikha, A., & Haddadi, E. (2017). Investigating the effect of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) components on organizational agility. Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 1(2), 59-67.
  8. Bakhshi, E., Gharagozlou, F., Moradi, A., & Naderi, M. R. (2019). Quality of work-life and its association with job burnout and job performance among Iranian healthcare employees in Islamabad-e Gharb, 2016. Journal of Occupational Health and Epidemiology (JOHE), 8(2), 94-101. https://doi.org/10.29252/johe.8.2.94
  9. Barsulai, S. C., Makopondo, R. O. B., & Fwaya, E. V. O. (2019). The effect of organizational citizenship behavior on employee productivity in star-rated hotels in Kenya. European Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 7(1), 1-8.
  10. Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. (2014). Management: Leading & collaborating in a competitive world (11th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Education.
  11. Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 599-670. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520. 2016.1153260
  12. Bottomley, P., Mostafa, A. M. S., Gould-Williams, J. S., & Leon-Cazares, F. (2016). The impact of transformational leadership on organizational citizenship behaviors: The contingent role of public service motivation. British Journal of Management, 27, 390-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12108
  13. Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 87(1), 138-157. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12041
  14. Byars, L. L., Rue, L. W., & Ibrahim, N. A. (2016). Human resource management (11th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
  15. Cascio, W. F. (2016). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work-life, profits (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
  16. Chanana, M., & Gupta, K. (2016). Quality of work-life and its impact on job performance: A study of S.B.I. & HDFC banking professionals. International Research Journal of Management, IT & Social Sciences, 3(5), 16-24. https://doi.org/10.21744/irjmis.v3i5.12.
  17. Chaturvedi, S. K., & Saxena, H. M. (2012). Impact of quality of work-life on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) with reference to higher education teachers in Lucknow City. International Journal of Applied Research, 3(7), 395-399.
  18. Colquitt, J. A., Lepine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2019). Organizational behavior: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education Limited.
  19. Daniel, C. O. (2019). Analysis of quality work life on employees performance. International Journal of Business and Management Invention (IJBMI), 8(2), 60-65.
  20. Dhammika, K. A. S. (2014). Visionary leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: an assessment of impact of sectarian difference. Proceedings of the First Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking (ME14 DUBAI Conference) Dubai, 10-12 October 2014, 1-10.
  21. Diaz-Vilela, L. F., Rodriguez, N. D., Isla-Diaz, R., Diaz-Cabrera, D., Hernandez-Fernaud, E., & Rosales-Sanchez, C. (2015). Relationships between contextual and task performance and interrater agreement: Are there any? PLoS ONE, 10(10), 1-13. https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0139898
  22. DuBrin, A. J. (2015). Principles of Leadership (7th ed.). New Zealand: South-Western Cengage Learning.
  23. El-Sayed, H. A. E. M., Abd El-Fattah, M. A. E., & Mohamed, W. M. (2018). The relationship between quality of work-life and organizational citizenship behavior among nurses at El-Mansoura health insurance hospital. Zagazig Nursing Journal, 14(1), 148-157. https://doi: 10.21608/znj.2018.37973
  24. Esfarjani, M. R. A., Hoveida, R., & Abedi, A. (2020). Structural modeling effect of visionary leadership on principals' performance (Study in Isfahan Educational Organization). The journal of Public Management Researches, 13(48), 87-106. https://doi: 10.22111/jmr.2020.26662.4165
  25. Fahmi, H. K., Musnadi, S., & Nadirsyah. (2019). Role conflict, self efficacy, employees' performance, and organizational performance. Journal of Accounting Research, Organization and Economics, 2(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.24815/jaroe.v2i1.13013
  26. Farub, A., & Purwanto, A. (2019). Effect of compensation, training, and quality of work-life on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). International Conference on Business, Economics, and Governance (ICBEG), Semarang, Indonesia, October 12th, 53-58.
  27. Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2010). Behavior in organizations (10th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
  28. Griethuijsen, R. A. L. F., et al. (2014). Global patterns in students' views of science and interest in science. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 581-603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6
  29. Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. C. (2018). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). India: Cengage India.
  30. Hermawan, H., Thamrin, H. M., & Susilo, P. (2020). Organizational citizenship behavior and performance: the role of employee engagement. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(12), 1089-1097. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no12.1089
  31. Hermawati, A., & Mas, N. (2017). Mediation effect of quality of work-life, job involvement, and organizational citizenship behavior in relationship between transglobal leadership to employee performance. International Journal of Law and Management, 59(6), 1143-1158. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-08-2016-0070
  32. Hidayah, S., & Harnoto. (2018). Role of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), perception of justice, and job satisfaction on employee performance. Jurnal Dinamika Manajemen, 9(2) 2018, 170-178. https://doi.org/10.15294/jdm.v9i2.14191
  33. Hunsaker, W. D. (2016). Spiritual leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: relationship with Confucian values. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2016.1159974
  34. Ivancevich, J. M., & Konopaske, R. (2013). Human resources management (12th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
  35. Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2018). Organizational behavior & management (11th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
  36. Joseph, P. T. (2007). EQ and leadership. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited.
  37. Kadir, A. N. J., Adebayo, T. A., & Olumide, S. A. (2020). Visionary leadership and staff innovative behaviour in public colleges of education in Kwara State, Nigeria. International Journal of Education, 12(2), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.17509/ije.v12i2.18998
  38. Khoiri, M. (2020). Visionary leadership on transforming organizational change in the era of disruption. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 7(10), 490-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v7i10.2053
  39. Klotz, A. C., Bolino, M. C., Song, H., & Stornelli, J. (2018). Examining the nature, causes, and consequences of profiles of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(5), 629-647. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2259
  40. Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2013). Organizational behavior (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
  41. Kurniadi, R., Lian, B., & Wahidy, A. (2020). Visionary leadership and organizational culture on teachers' performance. Journal of Social Work and Science Education, 1(3), 249-256. Retrieved from http://ejournal.karinosseff.org/index.php/jswse/article/view/112 https://doi.org/10.52690/jswse.v1i3.112
  42. Kusumaningrum, G., Haryono, S., & Handari, Rr. S. (2020). Employee performance optimization through transformational leadership, procedural justice, and training: The role of self-efficacy. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(12), 995-1004. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no12.995
  43. Lestari, E. R., & Ghaby, N. K. F. (2018). The influence of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) on employee's job satisfaction and performance. Industria: Jurnal Teknologi dan Manajemen Agroindustri, 7(2), 116-123. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.industria.2018.007.02.6
  44. Lofquist, E. A., & Matthiesen, S. B. (2018). Viking leadership: How Norwegian transformational leadership style affects creativity and change through organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595818806326
  45. Mallick, E., Pradhan, R. K., Tewari, H. R., & Jena, L. K. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior, job performance, and HR practices: A relational perspective. Management and Labour Studies, 39(4) 449-460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X15578023
  46. Martel, J. P., & Dupuis, G. (2006). Quality of work life: theoretical and methodological problems, and presentation of a new model and measuring instrument. Social Indicators Research, 77, 333-368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-5368-4
  47. McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2018). Organizational behavior: Emerging knowledge, global reality (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
  48. Moestain, I., Hamidah, H., & Kadir, K. (2020). Leadership, quality of work-life, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior in PT. Pertamina. Management Science Letters, 10, 1213-1224. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.11.037
  49. Mohammadi, S., & Karupiah, P. (2019). Quality of work-life and academic staff performance: A comparative study in public and private universities in Malaysia. Studies in Higher Education, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1652808
  50. Molina, O. A. M. (2018). Visionary leadership in the administrative staff of the Guapan Educational Unit. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 8(2), 115-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926 /jotse.413 https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.413
  51. Ojo, S., Zaccheaus, O., & Luqman, B. (2020). Influence of quality of work-life on organizational citizenship behavior: A case study of selected ministries in state secretariat, Abere, Osogbo, Osun state Nigeria. World Journal of Business and Management, 6(1), 87-103. https://doi.org/10.5296/ wjbm.v6i1.17288
  52. Organ, D. W. (2018). The roots of organizational citizenship behavior. In: Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., and Podsakoff, N. P. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of organizational citizenship behavior. Oxford Library of Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190219000.013.2
  53. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  54. Paais, M., & Pattiruhu, J. R. (2020). Effect of motivation, leadership, and organizational culture onsatisfaction and employee performance. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(8), 577-588. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.577
  55. Pio, R. J., & Tampi, J. R. E. (2017). The influence of spiritual leadership on quality of work-life, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Law and Management, 60(2), 757-767. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-03-2017-0028
  56. Raza, H., Anjum, M., & Zia, S. M. (2014). The impacts of employee's job performance behavior and organizational culture on organizational productivity in pharmaceutical industries in Karachi. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 5(12), 385-400.
  57. Rivera, V. A., Sari, J. P., & Damayanti, N. A. (2019). The effect of quality of work-life on organizational citizenship behavior of the employees. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development, 10(8), 1469-1474. https://doi.org/10.37506/ijphrd.v10i8.9025
  58. Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2016). Management (13th ed.). London: Pearson Educated Limited.
  59. Ruhana, I., Astuti, E. S., Utami, H. N., & Afrianti, T. W. (2019). The effect of quality of work-life (QWL) on job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (a study of nurse at numerous hospitals in Malang, Indonesia). Journal of Public Administration Studies, 4(2), 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.21776/ub.jpas.2019.004.02.2
  60. Saba, S., Tabish, A., & Khan, A. B. (2017). Role of visionary leadership in the performance of the employees at a workplace: Moderating effect of organizational citizenship behavior. Australasian Journal of Business, Social Science and Information Technology, 3(2), 62-70.
  61. Sadeghi, G., Ahmadi, M., & Yazdi, M. T. (2016). The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational performance (Case study: Agricultural Jihad Organization of Mazandaran Province). Problems and Perspectives in Management, 14(3), 317-324. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.14(3-si).2016.03
  62. Schultz, D., & Schultz, S. E. (2016). Psychology and work today. London: Routledge.
  63. Seppala, T., Lipponen, J., Bardi, A., & Pirttila-Backman, A. (2012). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: an interactive product of openness to change values, work unit identification, and sense of power. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 36-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02010.x
  64. Setyaningrum, R. P. (2017). Relationship between servant leadership in organizational culture, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and customer satisfaction. European Research Studies Journal, 20(3A), 554-559.
  65. Slocum, Jr., J. W., & Hellriegel, D. (2007). Fundamentals of organizational behavior. New York: Thompson South-Western.
  66. Suyantiningsih, T., Haryono, S., & Zami, A. (2018). Effects of quality of work-life (QWL) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) on job performance among community health center paramedics in Bekasi City, Indonesia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 9(6), 54-65.
  67. Tahsildari, A., & Shahnaei, S. (2015). Enhancing organizational effectiveness by performance appraisal, training, employee participation, and job definition. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(12), 56-67.
  68. Thakur, R., & Sharma, D. (2019). A study of impact of quality of work-life on work performance. Management and Labour Studies, 44(3), 326-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X19851912
  69. Tripathy, L. K. (2017). Impact of quality of work-life on job performance. International Journal of Business Marketing and Management (IJBMM), 2(10), 11-14. http://doi.org/10.22146/ae.31491
  70. Udin, U., & Yuniawan, A. (2020). Psychological capital, personality traits of big-five, organizational citizenship behavior, and task performance: Testing their relationships. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(9), 781-790. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no9.781
  71. Vipraprastha, T., Sudja, I. N., & Yuesti, A. (2018). The effect of transformational leadership and organizational commitment to employee performance with citizenship organizational behavior (OCB) as intervening variables (At PT Sarana Arga Gemeh Amerta in Denpasar City). International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, 9(02), 20503-20518. https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2018/9/02/435
  72. Vosloban, R. I. (2012). The influence of the employee's performance on the company's growth - a managerial perspective. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 660-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00211-0
  73. Widodo, W. (2019). Popular & practical research methodologies. Depok: Rajawali Pers.
  74. Zhu, W., Chew, I. K. H. & Spangler, W. D. (2005). CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.06.001