Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tedl20

International Journal of Leadership in EducationTheory and Practice

ISSN: 1360-3124 (Print) 1464-5092 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedl20

Organizational citizenship behavior in the Arabeducation system in Israel: personal factors vs.intra-organizational factors

Muhammed Abu Nasra

To cite this article: Muhammed Abu Nasra (2019): Organizational citizenship behavior in the Arabeducation system in Israel: personal factors vs. intra-organizational factors, International Journal ofLeadership in Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2019.1566575

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1566575

Published online: 22 Feb 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 16

View Crossmark data

Organizational citizenship behavior in the Arab educationsystem in Israel: personal factors vs. intra-organizationalfactorsMuhammed Abu Nasra

Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

ABSTRACTThe study examines the effects of personal factors (gender, maritalstatus, education and seniority) and intra-organizational factors(transformational leadership, job satisfaction and trust in supervisor)on Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) in the Arab educationsystem in Israel. This is a quantitative study, based on question-naires given to 211 teachers in the Arab education system in Israel.The results show a positive relationship between gender and OCB.A positive relationship was found between all intra-organizationalfactors and OCB. In addition, it was found that intra-organizationalfactors contribute more to explain OCB than personal factors do.Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Introduction

The concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) has been discussed in manystudies in the fields of organizational behavior and education system (e.g. Abu Nasra &Heilbrunn, 2015; Cohen & Keren, 2010; DeConinck, 2010; El Majid & Cohen, 2015;Khalili, 2017; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2018; Sechudi & Olivier, 2016; Yui-Tim, Hang-Yue, & Chi-Sum, 2006). OCB typically reflects activities initiated byemployees by personal choice, which are outside their job definition and do notnecessarily incur direct rewards, but nevertheless contribute to the organization, itsdevelopment (Abu Nasra & Heilbrunn, 2015; Bogler & Somech, 2004; Organ, 1997;Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Podsakoff et al., 2018; Turnipseed, 2018) and organizationalefficiency and effectiveness (Bass, 1999; Finkelstein & Penner, 2004; Podsakoff,MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Podsakoff et al., 2018; Sechudi & Olivier, 2016;Turnipseed, 2018). The importance of this issue is its impact on organizational func-tioning, development and effective management of organizations (Abu Nasra &Heilbrunn, 2015; Bass, 1999; Bogler & Somech, 2004; Kumari & Thapliyal, 2017;Podsakoff et al., 2018; Sechudi & Olivier, 2016). Consequently, the literature hasbrought into focus the factors that affect the level of employees’ OCB, and indicatestwo groups of factors: intra-organizational factors and personal factors. The intra-organizational factors include: job satisfaction, trust in supervisor, transformational

CONTACT Muhammed Abu Nasra abonasram@gmail.com The center For Academic Studies in Or Yehuda, TheHebrew University of Jerusalem, Jatt Village, Jerusalem P.O. Box 2236, Israel

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATIONhttps://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1566575

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

leadership, participation in decision-making and organizational commitment (AbuNasra & Heilbrunn, 2015; Devece, Palacios-Marqués, & Alguacil, 2016; El Majid &Cohen, 2015; Musringudin, Akbar, & Karnati, 2017; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013,2000; Wat & Shaffer, 2005; Wong, Ngo, & Wong, 2006; Xiu & Sang-Woo, 2017;Zeinabadi, 2010). Personal factors are gender, marital status, education and seniorityin the organization (Amin, Razieh, Hashemi, & Dehghani, 2013; Beauregard, 2012;Kidder, 2002; Kidder & Parks, 2001; Pavalache-Ilie, 2014; Yin Ho, Gaur, Chew, & Khan,2017). Few studies comprehensively examined the factors that affect the level ofemployees’ OCB in organizations in general (Vigoda-Gadot, 1999) and educationalorganizations in particular. The model of the relationships proposed in the presentstudy is summarized in Figure 1.

The aim of the present study is to examine the impact of personal factors (gender,marital status, education, seniority in the school and seniority in the education system)and intra-organizational factors (job satisfaction, trust in supervisor and transforma-tional leadership) on the degree of OCB among teachers, as well as the contribution ofeach of these factors to the explanation of OCB.

Most of the studies on OCB and the factors have been more confined to the Westernsocieties than in non-Western societies (Abu Nasra & Heilbrunn, 2015; Nguni, Sleegers,& Denessen, 2006). highlight the importance of examination organizational phenomenain different socio-cultural backgrounds, due to the influence of the cultural context onthe organizational behavior of employees (Arar & Massry-Herzllah, 2016). It is there-fore now more appropriate to confirm the effects of transformational and transactionalleadership and more so in the Arab education system and ethnic educational contexts.The Arab community is described as a collectivist society (Dwairy, 2006), characterizedby a high level of dependency between the individual and the collective; therefore,individuals are willing to give up personal benefits for the collective. In addition,patriarchal structures are customary in public and private spheres (Abu-Baker, 2012).Due to this patriarchalism, Arab women are restricted to movements, lifestyles, work

Personal Factors:

1. Gender

2. Marital status

3. Education

4. Seniority in the school

5. seniority in the education system

Organizational Citizenship

BehaviorIntra-organizational factors:

1. Job satisfaction

2. Trust in supervisor

3. Transformational leadership

Figure 1. Research model.

2 M. ABO-NASRA

and education (Abu-Rabia-Queder and Weiner-Levy, 2013). Therefore, high propor-tions (35%) of Arab women have entered the teaching profession (CBS, 2018). Teachingenables the women to juggle between still present patriarchal structures while at thesame time realizing an occupational career (Shapira and Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2009).

Theoretical framework

OCB: definition and construct

Organ defined OCB (Organ, 1988, p. 4) as ‘individual behaviour that is discretionary,not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in theaggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization’. Most scholars agreeon the multidimensionality of this construct, a review of the literature reveals a lack ofconsensus about its dimensionality (Organ, 1988, 1990; Somech & Drach-Zahavy,2000). Podsakoff et al. (2000) have identified almost 30 potentially different forms ofOCB. However, they have also asserted that the constructs greatly overlap, so that theymight be captured in five common dimensions: (a) altruism: behavior that aims to helpcomplete an assignment or to solve a work-related problem, for instance helping anoverloaded co-worker; (b) conscientiousness: whereas altruism is aimed at individuals,conscientiousness is aimed at the organization, specifically devotion and loyalty to theorganization; (c) sportsmanship: also aimed at the organization and represents situa-tions in which an employee accepts certain uncomfortable conditions without criticismor complaints; (d) civic virtue: the employee’s concern for the organization and itseffective functioning; and (e) courtesy: behavior aimed at the individual, which entailscooperation and consultation with co-workers regarding activities that affect theorganization.

Nevertheless, Williams and Anderson (1991) distinguish between OCBI, referring tohelping-behavior toward individual colleagues, for example, employees helping collea-gues who have been absent or employees helping colleagues cope with work-relatedproblems, and OCBO, referring to helping-behavior directed toward the organization asa whole, for example, when an employee volunteers to perform additional tasks asneeded at a given time, or helps to organize informative gatherings on topics that arerelevant to all employees, like new teaching methods or new rules and regulations. Thiscategorization covers most other OCB-related constructs (Podsakoff et al., 2009).

In the education context, Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2000) distinguished theoreti-cally between three levels of OCB: the individual level (e.g. donating behaviors), theteam level (e.g. sharing and cooperative behaviors) and the organizational level (e.g.volunteering for unpaid tasks). The definition of teachers’ OCB emphasizes three mainfeatures: First, the behavior must be voluntary; that is, neither role-prescribed nor partof formal job duties. Second, the focus is on behaviors that do not simply happen in anorganization but are directed toward or seen as benefiting the organization. Third, bythis definition OCB is multidimensional by nature.

The theoretical roots of OCB consist of two main scientific theories: The SocialExchange Theory and the Fairness and Social Justice Theory. Social Exchange assertsthat there is a mutual relationship between the organization and the employee (Blau,1964). Accordingly, a system of social and economic exchanges develops between the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 3

employee and some officials in the organization, and OCB is one of the positive outputsthat are created when the exchange relationship is based on justice and fairness(Moorman, 1991). Exchange can be divided into economic exchange and socialexchange. Economic exchange includes the employee’s financial remuneration. In thisframework, the relationship is rooted in personal interests and a short-term relationship(Blau, 1964; Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2011). In contrast, social exchangeis anchored in trust, a perception of justice, confidence in the employer, commitmentand a long-term relationship, and emphasizes the emotional links in the organization(Blau, 1964; Somech and Oplatka, 2014; Walumbwa et al., 2011). The Fairness andSocial Justice theory claims that helping others in the organization is a result of theemployee’s perception of fairness (Adams, 1965), and stems from personal considera-tions about the ratio between investment in work and the compensation received incomparison to co-workers’ investment and their compensation. The closer the ratiobetween the employee’s investment and compensation is to that of other workers, themore his or her perception of fairness increases. A perception of unfairness in anorganization prevents the employee from assisting others (Welster et al., 1978). Thus,a perception of fairness is a necessary condition for the existence of OCB (Oplatka,2006).

OCB and personal factors

A review of the literature indicates two groups of factors that affect the level ofemployees’ OCB. The first group includes personal factors—gender, marital status,education and seniority. The second group comprises intra-organizational factors—transformational leadership, job satisfaction and trust in supervisor.

Personal factors

GenderA number of studies have examined the effect of gender on OCB (Amin et al., 2013;Beauregard, 2012; Kidder & Parks, 2001; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Pavalache-Ilie, 2014; YinHo et al., 2017), although their results did not indicate a conclusive direction. Somestudies indicated differences in the level of OCB between men and women in women’sfavor (Allen & Rush, 2001; Beauregard, 2012; Kidder, 2002; Pavalache-Ilie, 2014; Yin Hoet al., 2017), primarily as a result of differences in their value systems and social roles. Atwork, women emphasize values of cooperation, care for others, empathy, mutual depen-dence and maintaining good relationships with co-workers and superiors, as opposed tomen who rely more on values of autonomy, promotion and rewards (Arnania-Kepuladze,2010; Lovell et al., 1999; Patel & Biswas, 2016; Steven, Lynda, & Joanne, 2003). Walker,Ilardi, McMahon, and Fennell (1996) and Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt (2001) foundthat men tend more than women to realize their leadership attitudes. In addition toseeking leadership positions (Patel & Biswas, 2016; Sapp, Harrod, & Zhao, 1996), femalecharacteristics are the foundation of OCB, and therefore the scope of OCB among womenis greater than among men. Eagly (1987) and Cloninger and his collogues (Cloninger,Ramamoorthy, & Flood, 2011) claim that the differences between men and women’ssocial behavior stems from the different social roles they fulfill: the woman takes care of

4 M. ABO-NASRA

the children and thus develops nurturing skills, whereas men develop assertiveness andaggression skills. This reality allows women to exhibit higher levels of OCB than men. Inhis research of Vigoda-Gadot (1999) that conducted on the in a health center in Israel,found that there was no link between gender and OCB. Similar findings were foundamong teachers (Lev & Koslowsky, 2012).

Marital statusPrevious studies have found a connection between the employee’s marital status andincidence of OCB. Organ and Ryan (1995), Bolino, Turnley, Gilstrap & Suazo (2010)and Mercado and Dilchert (2017) found that married employees engage in less OCBbecause they are busy with a number of roles and have many obligations outside theorganization too. On the other hand, unmarried employees have fewer commitments,and therefore devote more time to the organization, and are characterized by a highlevel of OCB. Similar findings were reported in the Israeli context by Cohen andAvrahami (2006), who conducted research in a hospital in the north and found thatunmarried male and female nurses reported higher levels of OCB than their marriedcounterparts did. Contradicting results were found by Vigoda-Gadot (1999).

EducationEmployees’ level of education affects their performance, due to the connection betweeneducation and mental capacities. High mental capacities give employees the ability tothink, remember and process complex information (Ceci, 1991). Thus, educatedemployees develop professional careers, manifested by high pay, promotion and devel-opment opportunities and employment mobility (Cappelli, 2000; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, &Feldman, 2005). In this context, Vigoda-Gadot (1999) claims that the social conditionsassured to educated employees allow them to focus on developing social exchangerelationships in the organization, expressed by help and support of their colleagues,which are the basis for OCB. Thomas and Feldman (2009) examined the effect ofeducation on employees’ organizational performance. They found a positive relation-ship between education and OCB, as opposed to a negative relationship betweeneducation and absenteeism and other unacceptable behaviors that disrupt organiza-tional performance (i.e. drinking alcohol or using drugs at work). These findingscontradict those found by Organ and Konovsky (1989) and Vigoda-Gadot (1999).

Seniority in the organizationFew studies have directly addressed the effect of seniority on OCB, although this factorhas often been used as a control variable. van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994) andYoung-Hee and Ryan (2016) indicated a positive relationship between seniority in theorganization and OCB, affected by the establishment of a connection between theemployee and the organization. Senior workers identify with the organization and itsneeds, and tend to contribute to the organization above and beyond job requirements.The findings concerning the seniority-OCB relationship are conflicting. Polat (2009)studied teachers and principals in Turkey, and found that employees with less senioritydisplayed lower OCB than employees with more seniority did, especially on measures ofconscientiousness and civic virtue. Other studies, on the other hand, have found no

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 5

relationship between seniority in the organization and OCB (Bozkurt & Bal, 2012;Vigoda-Gadot, 1999).

Consequently, one finds some ambiguity concerning the relationship between per-sonal factors and OCB. Thus, it is important to include personal factors in the presentresearch, in order to clarify the nature of the relationship between the variables, and toprovide a wider perspective of the consequence of personal factors to OCB.

OCB and personal and intra-organizational factors

Job satisfactionJob satisfaction is defined as the employee’s positive feeling toward the organiza-tional environment and satisfaction with the current situation (Bogler, 2001;Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959; Nobile, 2017; Rossmiller, 1992).Rossmiller (1992) and Bogler (2001) and Nobile (2017) found that open commu-nication channels with employees and their inclusion in work-related decision-making increases their job satisfaction. Employees’ attitude to the workplace,expressed by job satisfaction, organizational commitment and a perception of justice,affects their OCB (Musringudin et al., 2017; Netemeyer, Boles, McKee, &McMurrian, 1997). In the education context, it was found that increase in teachers’satisfaction with their job and work at school increases the frequency of OCBstoward the school, the pupils and other teachers (Bogler, 2001; Salimi & Abdi,2018; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000; Zeinabadi, 2010).

Transformational leadershipTransformational leadership has been defined by Bass (1999, p. 11) as ‘moving thefollower beyond immediate self-interest through idealized influence (charisma), inspira-tion, intellectual stimulation, or individualized consideration’. Transformational leader-ship is a leadership pattern that provides subordinates with recognition of theimportance of the mission in order to raise their performance level (Bass, 1985). Itinstills in subordinates high aspirations, concern for the welfare of others and identi-fication with the importance of the organization’s achievements and success (Bass,1999). To spur employees to action, transformational leaders exhibit at least one ofthese leadership factors: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual sti-mulation and individualized consideration.

The literature indicates a positive relationship between transformational leader-ship and OCB (Khalili, 2017; Khasawneh, Omari, & Abu-Tineh, 2012; Mackenzie,Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001; Nguni et al., 2006). This relationship probably stems fromthe fact that transformational leaders serve as role models to their employees:Employees perceive their behavior as exceeding the job and emulate them (Koh,Steers, & Teborg, 1995), and are confident in their superior (Podsakoff et al., 1990).Nguni et al. (2006) found that it explains a significant degree of the OCB variable’svariance. Koh et al. (1995), Ross and Gray (2006), Shatzer et al. (2014) and Day andhis colleagues (Day, Gu, & Sammons, 2016) examined the effect of transformationalleadership on educational processes in schools, and found that schools that were runby principals who were transformational leaders had higher learning achievementsthan other schools.

6 M. ABO-NASRA

Trust in supervisorRotter (1971) defined trust as the ability to rely on another person by means of word,promise, verbal or written statement. McAllister (1995) described two central dimensionsof trust: cognition and affect. The emotional-affect aspect is expressed in the specialrelationship that forms between the superior and his or her employees, in which thesubordinates care about their superior and their superior’s welfare. The cognitive aspect isexpressed in employees’ fairness, honesty and trustworthiness. The term ‘trust’ includestrust in the direct superior and trust in the organizational management team (Mayer &Gavin, 2005). Studies indicate a positive relationship between trust in one’s superior andOCB (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Min & Ko, 2016; Podsakoff et al.,1990; Zeinabadi & Salehi, 2011). The effect is noticeable among charismatic transforma-tional leaders (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Podsakoff et al., 1990).

The relationship between trust in one’s superior and organizational performance relieson the employee’s willingness to be open with management. Employees that perceive theirsuperior as having integrity and being dependable are willing to engage in behaviors thatmight put them at risk such as sharing sensitive information. An additional explanation ofthe connection between trust and organizational performance is the Social ExchangeTheory, because consideration and concern for employees encourages them to invest intheir work beyond job requirements (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994).

Consequently, to summarize, the effect of intra-organizational factors on organiza-tional performance and on OCB has been widely supported, unlike the effect ofpersonal factors. The literature review leads us to a number of general hypothesesregarding the relationship between personal factors (gender, marital status, educationand seniority) and intra-organizational factors (transformational leadership, job satis-faction and trust in superior) with OCB:

Hypothesis 1: There is a relationship between personal factors (gender, marital status,education and seniority) and OCB. Women, single people, educated people and peoplewith seniority in the organization exhibit more OCB than men, married people,uneducated people and people new to the organization do.

Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between intra-organizational factors(transformational leadership, job satisfaction and trust in superior) and OCB. Teachersthat define the principal’s leadership as transformational, express job satisfaction andtrust in management will report a higher level of OCB.

Hypothesis 3: The contribution of intra-organizational factors to explain the occur-rence of OCB is higher than that of personal factors.

The context: the Arab education system in Israel

The Arab population in Israel is a national minority that constitutes about 20% of thepopulation in Israel (CBS, 2018). Arab community distinguished from the Jewishmajority in social and cultural structure, employment and place of residence (AbuNasra & Heilbrunn, 2015). The Israeli governments used ongoing discriminatory

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 7

policies toward the Arab population, especially with regard to resource distribution, aswell as land and infrastructure distribution (Abu-Asbah and Abu-Nasra, 2013; Haider,2005; 2009; Khamaisi, 2003).

A number of studies that were conducted on the Arab education system in Israel(e.g., Arar & Haj-Yehia, 2016; Abu-Asbah, 2007, 2008; Svirsky and Degan-Bouzaglo,2009) indicated that the Israeli education system discriminates against Arab education.The government uses the educational system in order to reinforce control over the Arabpopulation, maintaining that prevailing policy does not aim to increase mobility but israther reproducing the gaps between Jewish and Arab pupils (Al Haj, 1996). Inaddition, the Arab historical narrative is absent in schoolbooks (Peled-Elhanan, 2012)and appointment policy of teacher and management staff is discriminative (Al Haj,1996; Amara, 2005).

The achievements of the Arab educational system are very low compare to the Jewisheducation system in the national exams (e.g. GEMS, Matriculation and Psychometric)as well as international exams (e.g. TIMSS and PISA). Where there are 79.5% ofstudents in the Jewish system eligible for a matriculation certificate, in comparisonthere is only a stagnant 64.2% among Arab students (CBS, 2018). According to theNational Institute for Testing and Evaluation, in the year 2017, the gap between the twoeducation systems was 92 points (580 compared to 488 respectively). Arab students’lesser eligibility for matriculation, and their low score in the Psychometric EntranceTests, limits their acceptance to academic institutes of higher education in general and,in particular, to the exclusive academic disciplines. These low educational performancesare due to various reasons: First, the Arab education system suffers from discriminatorygovernment policies that expressed in limited educational and budgetary resourcescompare to the Jewish education system (Abu Nasra & Heilbrunn, 2015; Abu Asbah,2013). The inequality is evident in the insufficiency of teachers per students, limitedallocation of school hours, and lack of development of informal and special education.Secondly, appointment policy of teaching and management staff is according to familialor political affiliation (Arar, Shapira, Azaize & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2013). In addition, theinadequate access of Arab academics to the Jewish labor market and the fairly limitedemployment opportunities in the local Arab market (Arar & Haj-Yehia, 2016) broughthigh percentage of academics reluctantly turn to teaching in the Arab education system.This phenomenon produces on the one hand high profile of teachers in Arab education,and on the other hand damage on the occupational perception and even alienationfrom the teaching profession (Abu-Asbah, 2007).

The traditional, patriarchal and collective social structure of Arab society has giventhe ‘Hamulla’ (extended families) the ability to influence the decision-making process invarious life cycles, including in the education field (Abu-Rabia-Queder & oplatka, 2008;Arar & Abu-Asbe, 2013). The influence of strong ‘hamullas’ often dictate appointmentsto school staffs and may prevent teacher dismissal irrespective of professional consid-erations (Arar & Abu-Asbe, 2013). The review of the characteristics of Arab society andthe Arab education system suggests that the Arab teachers in Israel encounter threecategories of difficulty: (1) difficulties stemming from the school climate, (2) difficultiesstemming from Arab culture and (3) difficulties stemming from the government’scentralized education policy (Arar, 2012). These difficulties hurt the performance ofArab teachers and their motivation for teaching (Arar & Massry-Herzllah, 2016).

8 M. ABO-NASRA

Methods

Participants

The sample included 211 male and female teachers from seven locations in theNorthern region of Israel. These locations were selected while taking into accounta number of variables such as size (number of residents), socio-economic status andeducation level. We randomly sampled one elementary and one junior high school ateach location. The Northern region was chosen since 60% of Israel’s Arab populationresides in this geographical area.

Most of the respondents were women (58.0%). In total, 68% of the respondents havea bachelor’s degree, 18% have a teaching certificate, 12% have a master’s degree and 2%have a PhD degree. In total, 44% of the respondents are class educators, 43% of themare professional teachers and 13% of them are profession coordinators. The averageseniority in the school is 10.71 years, compared to an average of 14.85 years in theeducation system. The response rate was 78%; 211 out of 270 teachers agreed toparticipate in the study.

Variables and instruments

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)These variables were based on a scale suggested by Williams and Anderson (1991).Respondents were asked to evaluate teachers’ behavior on a five-point Likert-type scaleranging from 1–strongly disagree to 5–strongly agree. The sub-scale was measured by theaverage response to the items. The scale was measured by the mean response to the items;high scores indicate a high level of OCB. This approach was patterned after similar studies(Nguni et al., 2006; Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). Reliability of the scale was 0.85.

Personal factorsMaking use of Vigoda-Gadot’s (1999) questionnaire, the following variables were asked:gender (0–male, 1–female), marital status (0–single, 1–married), education (1–teachingcertificate, 2–BA degree, 3–MA degree, 4–PhD), seniority in the school (in years) andseniority in the education system (in years).

Vigoda-Gadot (1999) examined the effect of seniority in the organization on OCB;however, in the current paper, in order to enable a broad contemplation of the effect ofseniority on OCB, we examined the effect of seniority in the education system inaddition to seniority in the school.

Intra-organizational factors

Transformational leadershipThis variable was measured using the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)(Bass, 1985). Respondents were asked to evaluate the transformational leadershipbehavior of their principal by using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1–never to 5–always. The sub-scale was measured by the average response to the items. Thisapproach was patterned after similar studies (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). Reliability of thisscale was 0.85.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 9

Job satisfactionJob satisfaction was measured using an instrument developed by Schriesheim and Tsui(1980). Respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with their currentjob, co-workers, supervisors, current salary, opportunities for promotion and work ingeneral on a response scale ranging from 1–strongly disagree to 5–strongly agree. Thesub-scale was measured by the average response to the items. High scores indicatea high level of job satisfaction. Reliability of the scale was 0.78.

Trust in supervisorThis variable was measured using an instrument developed by Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (2003). Respondents were asked to evaluate the level of trust in management.Responses were given on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1–strongly disagree to5–strongly agree. The sub-scale was measured by the average response to the items.High scores indicate a high level of trust in the school management. The questionnairewas originally intended to examine the teachers’ trust in students and parents. Wemodified the questionnaire so that the questions focus on the level of teachers’ trust inthe school management. Reliability of this scale was 0.89.

Procedure

The research was conducted during the 2014/2015 school year. Data collection wascoordinated with schools and continued for one month. Principals and teachers wereprovided with a detailed explanation of the research and its goals in general terms,emphasizing confidentiality of collected data and the importance of candid answers.The questionnaire was administered in Hebrew by research assistants enlisted andtrained especially for this purpose. The teachers filled in the questionnaire duringbreak time. Answering the entire questionnaire took about 30 min.

Findings

Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed on the 14 items ofthe OCB to determine if the various behavioral dimensions pro-posed by Williams andAnderson (1991) would replicate for this sample. The factor analysis yielded twofactors: OCBO and OCBI.

Table 2 contains information about the means and standard deviations of the mainstudy variables. The results show that the teachers expressed high levels of OCB(M = 3.48), job satisfaction (M = 3.80), transformational leadership (M = 3.91), andtrust in supervisor (M = 3.93).

The correlations between each of the personal factors (gender, marital status, education,seniority in the school and seniority in the education system) and intra-organizationalfactors (transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and trust in supervisor) and OCB arepresented in Table 3. As can be seen, these correlation coefficients range from nil to high(−0.01–0.79). A weak correlation was found between gender and OCB (r = 0.14; p < 0.05).Nevertheless, no statistically significant correlation was found between the personal factors:marital status, education, seniority in the school and seniority in the education system andOCB. The correlation coefficients received indicate a correlation close to zero in the range

10 M. ABO-NASRA

of (−0.01 to −0.07). Nevertheless, a high correlation was found between OCB and trans-formational leadership (r = 0.54; p < 0.001), job satisfaction (r = 0.52; p < 0.001) and trust insupervisor (r = 0.51; p < 0.001). We also found a high correlation between transformationalleadership and trust in supervisor (r = 0.70; p < 0.001).

The influence of the personal factors and the intra-organizational factors on OCBwas examined by conducting hierarchical regression analysis (see Table 4). Model 1included the personal factors (gender, education, seniority in the school and seniority inthe education system). Model 2 included, in addition to the personal factors, intra-organizational factors (transformational leadership, job satisfaction and trust in super-visor). As can be seen in the first regression equation, female teachers engage in OCBmore than male teachers do. In addition, no statistically significant relationship wasfound between the variables: marital status, education, seniority in the school, seniorityin the education system and OCB. The personal factors explained 4% of the OCBvariance.

Table 1. Exploratory factor analysis (Principal Component with Varimax Rotation)of organizational citizenship behavior questionnaire.Items OCBI OCBO

Helps others who have been absent 0.694 0.362Helps others who have heavy work loads 0.672 0.349Assists supervisor with his\her work (when not asked) 0.641 0.320Takes time to listen to co-workers’ problems and worries. 0.618 0.312Goes out of way to help new employees. 0.573 0.245Takes a personal interest in other employees. 0.564 0.150Passes along information to co-workers. 0.498 0.101Attendance at work is above the norm. 0.252 0.755Gives advance notice when unable to come to work. 0.224 0.710Takes undeserved work breaks. 0.245 0.701Great deal of time spent with personal phone conversations. 0.265 0.693Complains about insignificant things at work. 0.194 0.680Conserves and protects organizational property. 0.086 0.628Adheres to informal rules devised to maintain. 0.174 0.544

Table 2. Means and standard deviation of main study variables.Variable Mean Standard deviation

OCB 3.48 0.54Transformational leadership 3.91 0.73Job satisfaction 3.80 0.61Trust in supervisor 3.93 0.63

Table 3. Correlation matrix (Pearson’s) for the research variables.Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Gender2. Marital status 0.103. Education 0.02 0.07-4. Seniority in the school *0.15- 0.11 0.06-5. Seniority in the educational system ***0.28- **0.18 0.01- ***0.796. OCB *0.14 0.08- 0.07- 0.08- 0.07-7. Transformational leadership 0.07 0.04- 0.05- 0.04- 0.11- ***0.548. Job satisfaction *0.16 0.01- 0.01- 0.12- 0.11- ***0.52 ***0.639. Trust in supervisor 0.01- 0.07- 0.04- 0.03 0.03- ***0.51 ***0.70 ***0.57

* = p ≤ 0.05; ** = p ≤ 0.01; *** = p ≤ 0.001

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 11

Model 2 shows that female teachers still engage in OCB more than male teachers do.Furthermore, no statistically significant relationship was found between the variables:marital status, education, seniority in the school, seniority in the education system andOCB. Thus, we partially accepted Hypothesis 1. In addition, the findings of Model 2indicate a positive relationship between transformational leadership and OCB, namely,teachers who perceive executive leadership as transformational tend to have a high levelof OCB. Finally, a positive relationship was found between the variables: trust insupervisor and job satisfaction, and OCB. Teachers that have a high level of trust insupervisor and job satisfaction tend to have a high level of OCB. These results supportHypothesis 2. The personal factors and intra-organizational factors together explained39% of the OCB variance.

Hence, it can be said that intra-organizational factors are more influential thanpersonal factors. This conclusion seems evident from the analysis of the contributionof the personal factors and intra-organizational factors. Personal factors explained only4% of the OCB variance, while intra-organizational factors explained 35%. Therefore,the contribution of intra-organizational factors to explain the variable OCB is greaterthan that of personal factors. Thus, support was found for Hypothesis 3.

Conclusions and discussion

The primary goal of this study was to examine the effect of personal factors (gender,education, seniority in the education system and seniority at school) and intra-organizational factors (transformational leadership, job satisfaction and trust insupervisor) on OCB among teachers. The findings indicate a relationship betweengender and OCB. Women exhibit OCB more than men do. Thus, the first hypothesiswas partially substantiated. These findings are in line with previous findingsdescribed in the literature (Kidder, 2002). In contrast, our findings show that norelationship was found between the variables: education, seniority at school, seniorityin the education system or marital status and OCB. Similar results were found ina list of previous studies (Bozkurt & Bal, 2012; Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Vigoda-Gadot, 1999).

Table 4. Hierarchical regression models for predicting OCB by personal factors and intra-organizational factors.

Model 1 Model 2

Variable B SE B ß B SE B ß

Personal factorsGender (0- male) *0.15 0.10 0.20 *0.12 0.08 0.16Marital status (0-single) 0.10- 0.16 0.23- 0.08- 0.13 0.18-Education 0.08- 0.06 0.07- 0.06- 0.05 0.05-Seniority in the school 0.14- 0.01 0.01- 0.16- 0.00 0.01-Seniority in the educational system 0.10- 0.01 0.01- 0.17 0.00 0.01Intra-organizational factorsTransformational leadership **0.26 0.06 0.19Trust in supervisor *0.20 0.07 0.17Job satisfaction **0.21 0.06 0.19R2 0.04 0.39

* = p ≤ 0.05; ** = p ≤ 0.01

12 M. ABO-NASRA

The gender component has a crucial effect on OCB among the Arab teachers, due tothe fact that women constitute a high ratio of employees in the Arab education system,namely, 38% of Arab women are employed in the education system (CBS, 2018). Thisstructure affects the performance of Arab schools and the scope of OCB, as a result ofthe values held by women. In their work, women lay emphasis on values of cooperation,care for others, empathy, mutual dependence and maintaining a good relationship withcolleagues and superiors. Men, on the other hand, emphasize values of autonomy,promotion and rewards (Arnania-Kepuladze, 2010; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt,2001; Lovell et al., 1999; Patel & Biswas, 2016). Feminine qualities are the foundationof OCB, and therefore the scope of OCB is greater among women than among men.Moreover, Eagly (1987) and Cloninger et al. (2011) stated that the differences betweenmen and women’s social behavior are rooted in the social roles they fulfill. The womantakes care of the children, thus developing nurturing and growth skills, whereas mendevelop assertiveness and aggression. Hence, nurturing, empathy, and giving skills arean integral part of women. These differences are particularly prominent in Arab societythat still affected by a certain extent of patriarchal hegemony that authorizes men’sdomination of women (Abu Asbah, Abu Nasra, & Abu-Baker, 2014). Despite thechanges that have occurred in recent years, the traditional social structure of Arabsociety in Israel continues to restrict Arab women’s movement and their lifestyles,limiting their work to the vicinity of their homes and restricting women’s education(Abu Asbah et al., 2014). Arab society limits the women function to two traditionalroles—wife and mother, namely responsibility for household duties and raising children(Haj-Yahia-Abu Ahmad, 2006). Hence, nurturing, empathy and giving skills are anintegral part of Arab women.

The negative relationship between seniority in the education system and at school,and OCB, is a result of the structure of occupation opportunities available to Arabacademics. The Arab population in Israel suffers from discriminating employmentpolicies in both the public and private sectors (Haider, 2009). This policy has causeda high percentage of Arab academics to seek employment in the Arab education systemfor lack of choice, as a refuge from unemployment (Agbaria, 2013). Thus, teachers—despite their many years in the profession—do not develop an affinity with the schooland the system, which in turn damages their motivation to contribute to the organiza-tion beyond the job definition. The influence of ‘hamulla’ dominated politics of localArab governments on the appointment of teachers and power relations within theschool reduces the motivation of many teachers in the Arab schools (Arar & Abu-Asbe2013; Tajasom & Ariffin Ahmad 2011).

Additionally, our findings support the positive relationship between intra-organizational factors (transformational leadership, job satisfaction and trust of superior)and OCB. Teachers that define the principal’s leadership type as transforming andrewarding, are satisfied with their job, and trust their management reported a higherlevel of OCB. These findings corroborate the results of various studies described in theliterature (Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000).

The joint effect of the intra-organizational factors on OCB among Arab teacherscould stem from support and inspiration. It could be that this situation is a result of thecollectivism of Arab society (Dwairy, 2006), characterized by a high level of dependencebetween the individual and the collective, to the point that individuals are willing to

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 13

forgo their personal interests for the good of the collective. The collectivist orientationis expressed in ideals such as solidarity, cooperation, commitment, mutual trust, sup-port, and a sense of belonging that are believed to be present in the Arab nuclear andextended family and in the community (El Majid & Cohen, 2015). Erez and Earley(1993) found that the degree of OCB in collectivist societies is higher than in indivi-dualist societies, due to the individual’s strong ties to society and willingness to makesacrifices for the collective in order to belong. In traditional societies such as the Arabsociety, commitment is a complex attitude influenced by the norms, sanctions andpressures of the small group, family and community (Pines and Zaidman, 2003). Valuesprized in such groups include a preference for more personal ties to supervisors,acceptance of more paternalistic treatment and a sense that power relationships shouldbe hierarchical. These factors may influence the attitudes and the behaviors of employ-ees who are members of traditional societies, resulting in greater commitment to thefirm and, potentially, a higher level of performance (El Majid & Cohen, 2015). Thecollectivist values upon which Arab teachers were raised and socialized—namely thatthe individual should act so as to achieve collective goals—affect the Arab teachers’perception of their role and the border between behaviors that are part of the job andthose that are above and beyond it, for the good of the students. The collectivist natureof Arab society could therefore explain the strong positive relationship between intra-organizational factors and OCB.

The finding that personal factors explained 4% of the OCB variance, while intra-organizational factors explained 35%, indicates the importance of the intra-organizational factors and their effect on OCB. This finding supports previous findings(Vigoda-Gadot, 1999). Our findings stress the impact of intra-organizational factors onthe OCB level of teachers. The effect of intra-organizational factors on the level of OCBemphasizes the importance of strengthening human relationships between schoolprincipals and teachers. School principals that adopt transformational leadership,namely involving teachers in decision-making processes, increase their security, displayfeelings of respect, consideration and appreciation, and treat them fairly and justly. Inaddition, they increase teachers’ trust in their supervisor, job satisfaction, loyalty, andidentification with the school and its goals, and OCB behaviors. In the Arab context, theinfluence of teachers’ relationship with the principal on their performance is reinforcedby the collective-traditional nature of society. The social structure of the Arab societyreinforces personal relationships with principals, regardless of the leadership style theyadopt. Hence, the principal’s influence on teacher performance is high (El Majid &Cohen, 2015). The principals’ adoption of the transformative leadership style adds tothe impact of the social stratum, the influence of the organizational stratum, meaningthat the influence of the principal on teachers’ performance stems not only from socialpressure but from internal motivation resulting from satisfaction with work and trust inmanagement.

The findings of this research also support the Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964),in the sense that building a relationship with teachers based on trust, job satisfactionand social exchange creates a very powerful connection, which in turn causes teachersto invest in their work well beyond their job definition; in other words, they expressa high level of OCB. Furthermore, positive teacher perceptions and attitudes towardtheir principal, the relationship between teachers and the principal, and teachers’ job

14 M. ABO-NASRA

satisfaction indicated high levels of OCB. This finding emphasizes the significant role ofthe school management in promoting OCB among teachers. In other words, principalshave the power to create working conditions encouraging teachers to engage in OCBs.These conditions may flourish in a context that is based on mutual trust betweenprincipals and teachers and meaningful relationships reinforcing satisfaction with thework environment. Promoting teachers’ OCB is especially important in the Arabeducation system in Israel, which suffers from a number of problems, including thescarcity of educational and economic resources. Thus, teachers’ desirable organizationalcitizenship behaviors are needed more than ever, especially since they can improveeducational quality and performance and make schools a better places.

In conclusion the performance of Arab teachers in Israel is influenced by four mainfactors: 1) The marginal status of the Arab society in Israel; 2) the discriminatorygovernment policy; 3) the social, political and cultural characteristics of the Arabsociety; and 4) work condition.

The contribution of this paper to current research in the field of education is betterunderstanding of education institutions. This is a pioneering study because it is the firstto examine the issue of OCB among teachers, and to observe the effect of personal andintra-organizational factors.

Apart from that, this study adds to the existing body of knowledge about the effect ofintra-organizational factors on OCB and emphasizes the argument regarding the effectof organizational context on employees’ performance (Cohen & Keren, 2010; DiPaola &Tschannen-Moran, 2001; O’reilly, 1991; Somech & Ron, 2007). These findings encou-rage researchers to focus more attention on intra-organizational factors related to OCB,especially among teachers, because they work in isolation from their peers and manage-ment making it difficult to encourage them to perform OCB (Somech & Ron, 2007). Inaddition, our study focused on the interrelationships between the investigated variablesin educational organizations, in contrast to most studies, which were conducted inbusiness organizations. Thus, the differences in the organizational context impact theinterrelationships between the variables.

Teacher’s OCB has great importance to schools, especially as it contributes toa school’s effectiveness (Bogler & Somech, 2005; DiPaola & Hoy, 2005), studentachievement (Jurewicz, 2004, as cited in DiPaola & Mednes Da Costa Neves, 2009)and adapting changes (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Therefore, the success of schoolsdepends on teachers and their engaging in OCB, especially in the light of cutbacksin education and multiple educational reforms and changes. The results of thestudy demonstrate the effect of intra-organizational factors on teachers’ OCB.Hence, decision makers and school principals might benefit from the findings andconclusions of this study when they attempt to design policies regarding theorganizational behavior of both teachers and principals. The study could helppolicy makers and principals to understand the influence of intra-organizationalfactors on teachers’ readiness to perform above and beyond formal job definitionsand to contribute to the school in order to achieve its educational goals. Thisunderstanding would help them to build programs and strategies to improve theeducational and organizational performance of the education system—programsthat take these important factors into account. Principals must build a work planaimed to creating a work environment that leads teachers to contribute to the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 15

school and to willingness to engage in OCB. Such a work environment should bebased on principals’ supporting teachers, treating them fairly and positively,respecting them, appreciating their work and contribution, caring for their needsand wellbeing, collaboration and teamwork, and having them participate in deci-sion-making processes. Policy makers should therefore develop training programsfor principals aimed at exposing them to the concept of OCB and its importancefor school. Principals may then receive tools assisting them to achieve goals byfostering teachers’ OCB—motivation via intra-organizational factors (transforma-tional leadership, trust in supervisor and job satisfaction), and thus succeed inestablishing a supportive work environment.

Research limitations and recommendations for future studies

Some limitations should be mentioned: First, OCB of followers was rated by theteachers; it would have been better if the variable had also been measured by usingprincipals’ rating, so as to avoid same-source bias. Second, the study examined the effectof trust in supervisor on organizational citizenship behavior, but it might have beenbetter if other types of trust such as ‘trust in organization’ that have the potential toeffect organizational citizenship behavior were considered. Third, the research wasconducted among Arab Israeli teachers, a group with unique characteristics that itsnational minority is characterized by a collectivist way of life. This distinctive qualityshould be kept in mind when attempting to generalize the current findings to othersocial groups. Finally, the research sample did not include Arab teachers from theSouthern/Central regions of Israel. Inclusion of teachers from these regions may exposeadditional viewpoints. It is therefore recommended that future research on this issuecovers populations from other regions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Muhammed Abu Nasra is assistant to Vice-President for Study Programs and Projects, Al-Qasemi Academic College and a lecturer at The Center for Academic Studies, Or Yehuda. AbuNasra is currently PhD student in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem, Israel. Abu Nasra received BA and MA Degrees from Ben-GurionUniversity of the Negev. Her main research interests include two major areas, entrepreneurshipof minorities and employee performance.

ORCID

Muhammed Abu Nasra http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3032-1895

16 M. ABO-NASRA

References

Abu Asbah, K. (2013). The gaps in inputs and their impact on the outputs of the Arab educationsystem in Israel. In Y. Yonah, N. Mizrachi, Y. Feniger (Eds.), Practices of Difference in IsraelEducation: A View from Below (59–82). Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv: Van Leer Jerusalem Instituteand Hakibbutz Hameuchad.

Abu Asbah, K., Abu Nasra, M., & Abu-Baker, K. (2014). Gender perceptions of male and femaleteachers in the Arab education system in Israel. Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, 10(3),109–124.

Abu Nasra, M., & Heilbrunn, S. (2015). Transformational leadership and organizational citizen-ship behavior in the Arab educational system in Israel: The impact of trust and jobsatisfaction. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 43(2), 1–17.

Abu-Baker, K. (2012). The Palestinian family in Israel, Unit 5. In Hebrew. In, I. Kaufman, and A.Sa’ar (Eds), Arab Society in Israel Vol. 2: Social Fabric: Ethnicity, Family, Gender. Raanana:The Open University of Israel. (Hebrew).

Abu-Rabia-Queder, S, & Oplatka, I. (2008). The power of femininity- Exploring the gender andethnic experiences of Muslim women who accessed supervisory roles in a Bedouin society.Journal of Educational Administration, 16 (3), 396–415.

Abu-Rabia-Queder, S, & Weiner-Levy, N. (2013). Between local and foreign structures: exploringthe agency of palestinian women in israel social politics: International studies in gender. State& Society, 20(1), 88–108.

Adams, S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowiz (Ed.), Advances in experimentalpsychology (pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academy Press.

Agbaria, A. (2013). Teacher education policy in Israel: The demand for national and pedagogicalrecognition. In A. Agbaria (Ed.), Teacher Education in the Palestinian Society in Israel:Institutional Practices and Educational Policy (pp. 11–47). Tel Aviv: Resling. (Hebrew).

Allen, T., & Rush, M. (2001). The influence of rate gender on rating of organizational citizenshipbehavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(12), 2561–2587.

Amin, B., Razieh, M., Hashemi, G., & Dehghani, T. (2013). Demographic determinants oforganizational citizenship behavior among hospital employees. Global Business andManagement Research, 5(4), 171–178.

Arar, K. (2012). Israeli Education Policy since 1948 and the State of Arab Education in Israel.Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 1, 113–145.

Arar, K, & Abu-Asbe, K. (2013). Not just location: Attitudes and perceptions of education systemadministrators in Local Arab Governments in Israel. International Journal of EducationalManagement, 27(1), 54–73.

Arar, K, & Massry-Herzallah, A. (2016). Motivation to Teach: The case of arab teachers in Israel.Educational Studies, 42(1), 19–35.

Arar, K, Shapira, T, Azaize, F, & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2013). Arab women into leadership andmanagement. New York, NY: Palgrave Mcmilan.

Arnania-Kepuladze, T. (2010). Gender stereotypes and gender feature of job motivation:Differences or similarity? Problems and Perspectives in Management, 8(2), 84–93.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.Bass, B. (1999). Current developments in transformational leadership: Research and applications.

The Psychologist Manager Journal, 3(1), 5–21.Beauregard, A. (2012). Perfectionism, self-efficacy and OCB: The moderating role of gender.

Personnel Review, 41(5), 590–608.Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662–683.Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational

commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools.Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 277–289.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 17

Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior in school: How does itrelate to participation in decision making? Journal of Educational Administration, 43(5),420–438.

Bolino, M., Turnley, W., Gilstrap, J., & Suazo, M. (2010). Citizenship under pressure: What’sa “good soldier” to do? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 835–855.

Bozkurt, S., & Bal, Y. (2012). Investigation of the relationship between corporate social respon-sibility and organizational citizenship behavior: A research. International Journal ofInnovations in Business, 1(1), 40–59.

Cappelli, P. (2000). A market-driven approach to retaining talent. Harvard Business Review, 78,103–111.

Ceci, S. (1991). How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitivecomponents? A reassessment of the evidence. Developmental Psychology, 27, 703–722.

Central Bureau of Statistics.(2018). The Annual Statistical Abstract for Israel – No. 69, CBS,Jerusalem.

Cloninger, P. A., Ramamoorthy, N., & Flood, P. C. (2011). The influence of equity, equality, andgender on organizational citizenship behaviors. Advanced Management Journal, 76(4), 37–47.

Cohen, A., & Avrahami, A. (2006). The relationship between individualism, collectivism, theperception of justice, demographic characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior. TheService Industries Journal, 26(8), 889–901.

Cohen, A., & Keren, D. (2010). Does climate matter? An examination of the relationship betweenorganizational climate and OCB among Israeli teachers. The Service Industries Journal, 30(2),247–263.

Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: Howsuccessful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make adifference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221–258.

DeConinck, J. (2010). The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational support, andperceived supervisor support on marketing employees’ level of trust. Journal of BusinessResearch, 63(12), 1349–1355.

Devece, C., Palacios-Marqués, D., & Alguacil, M. (2016). Organizational commitment and itseffects on organizational citizenship behavior in a high-unemployment environment. Journalof Business Research, 69(5), 1857–1861.

DiPaola, M. F., & Hoy, W. K. (2005). Organizational citizenship of faculty and achievement ofhigh school students. The High School Journal, 88(3), 35–44.

DiPaola, M. F., & Mednes Da Costa Neves, P. (2009). Organizational citizenship behaviors inAmerican and Portuguese public schools: Measuring the construct across cultures. Journal ofEducational Administration, 47(4), 490–507.

DiPaola, M. F., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Organizational citizenship behavior in schooland its relationship to school climate. Journal of School Leadership, 11, 424–447.

Dwairy, M. (2006). Counseling and Psychotherapy with Arabs and Muslims: A CulturallySensitive Approach. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Eagly, A. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eagly, A., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal ofSocial Issues, 57, 781–797.

El Majid, E., & Cohen, A. (2015). The role of values and leadership style in developing OCBamong Arab teachers in Israel. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 36(3),308–327.

Erez, M, & Earley, P.C. (1993). Self-Identity and Work. New York: Oxford University Press.Finkelstein, M. A., & Penner, L. A. (2004). Predicting organizational citizenship behavior:

Integrating the functional and role identity approaches. Social Behavior and Personality, 32(4), 383–398.

Haj Yahia-Abu, Ahmad, N. (2006). Couplehood and parenting in the Arab family in Israel:Processes of change and preservation in three generations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).The University of Haifa (in Hebrew).

18 M. ABO-NASRA

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York, NY:Wiley.

Hoy, W., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of facultytrust in schools: The omnibus T-Scale. In W. K. Hoy & C. G. Miskel (Eds.), Studies in leadingand organizing schools (pp. 181–208). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

Jurewicz, M. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behaviors of Virginia middle school teachers: astudy of their relationship to school climate and student achievement”, unpublished doctoraldissertation, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Khalili, A. (2017). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Themoderating role of emotional intelligence. Leadership and Organization DevelopmentJournal, 38(7), 1004–1015.

Khasawneh, S., Omari, A., & Abu-Tineh, A. M. (2012). The relationship between transforma-tional leadership and organization commitment: The case of vocational teachers in Jordan.Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 40(4), 494–508.

Kidder, D. (2002). The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenshipbehaviors. Journal of Management, 28(5), 629–648.

Kidder, D., & Parks, J. (2001). The good soldier: Who is (s)he? Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 22, 939–959.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismaticleadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36–51.

Koh, W., Steers, R., & Teborg, J. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacherattitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(4),319–326.

Konovsky, M., & Pugh, D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy ofManagement Journal, 37, 656–669.

Kumari, P., & Thapliyal, S. (2017). Studying the impact of organizational citizenship behavior onorganizational effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 4(1), 9–21.

Lev, S., & Koslowsky, M. (2012). Teacher gender as a moderator of the on-the-job-embeddedness- OCB relationship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 81–99.

Lovell, S., Kahn, A., Anton, J., Davidson, A., Dowling, E., Post, D., & Mason, C. (1999). Doesgender affect the link between organizational citizenship behavior and performanceevaluation. Sex Roles, 41(5–6), 469–478.

Mackenzie, S., Podsakoff, P., & Rich, G. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadershipand salesperson performance. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 29(2), 115–135.

Mayer, R., & Gavin, M. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shopwhile the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874–888.

McAllister, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal coop-eration in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.

Mercado, B., & Dilchert, S. (2017). Family interference with work and its relationship withorganizational citizenship and counterproductive work behaviors. International Journal ofSelection and Assessment, 25(4), 406–415.

Min, P., & Ko, S. (2016). The structural relationship among authentic leadership, trust insupervisor, innovative behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Indian Journal ofScience and Technology, 9(25), 1–8.

Moorman, R. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenshipbehaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of AppliedPsychology, 76, 845–855.

Musringudin, M., Akbar, M., & Karnati, N. (2017). The effect of organizational justice, jobsatisfaction, and organizational commitment on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) ofthe principles. Indonesian Journal of Educational Review, 4(2), 155–165.

Netemeyer, R., Boles, J., McKee, D., & McMurrian, R. (1997). An investigation into the ante-cedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal ofMarketing, 61(3), 85–98.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 19

Ng, T., Eby, L., Sorensen, K., & Feldman, D. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective careersuccess: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367–408.

Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadershipeffects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizen-ship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement: an International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 17(2), 145–177.

Nobile, J. (2017). Organisational communication and its relationships with job satisfaction andorganisational commitment of primary school staff in Western Australia. EducationalPsychology: an International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 37(3), 380–398.

O’reilly, C. (1991). Organizational behavior: Where we’ve been, where we’re going. AnnualReviews Psychology, 42, 427–458.

Oplatka, I. (2006). Going beyond role expectations: Toward an understanding of the determi-nants and components of teacher organizational citizenship behavior. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 42(3), 385–423.

Organ, D. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 12, 43–72.

Organ, D. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It`s construct clean-up time. HumanPerformance, 10, 85–97.

Organ, D., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizationalcitizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 157–164.

Organ, D., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictionof organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.

Patel, D., & Biswas, U. (2016). Stereotyping of effective male and female Leaders:A concomitant of Gendered workplaces. Journal of the Indian Academy of AppliedPsychology, 42(1), 53–62.

Pavalache-Ilie, M. (2014). Organizational citizenship behaviour, work satisfaction and employees’personality. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127, 489–493.

Pines, A. M, & Zaidman, N. (2003). Gender, Culture, and Social Support: A Male-female, IsraeliJewish-Arab Comparison. Sex Roles: a Journal of Research, 49(11–12), 571–586.

Podsakoff, N.P, Blume, B.D, Whiting, S.W, & Podsakoff, P.M. (2009). Individual- and organiza-tional-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141.

Podsakoff, P, MacKenzie, S, Moorman, R, & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviorsand their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenshipbehaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Paine, J., & Bachrach, D. (2000). Organizational citizenshipbehaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions forfuture research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Podsakoff, N. (2018). The oxford handbook of organizationalcitizenship behavior. New York, NY: Oxsford University Press.

Polat, S. (2009). Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) display levels of the teachers atsecondary schools according to the perceptions of the school administrators. Procedia Socialand Behavioral Sciences, 1, 1591–1596.

Ross, J., & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects ofteacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 798–822.

Rossmiller, R. (1992). The secondary school principal and teachers’ quality of work life.Educational Management and Administration, 20(2), 132–146.

Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26(5), 443–452.

Salimi, J., & Abdi, A. (2018). On the relationship between psychological empowerment and jobsatisfaction of teachers: Investigating the mediator role of organizational citizenship behavior.Journal of School Psychology, 6(4), 70–98.

20 M. ABO-NASRA

Sapp, S., Harrod, W., & Zhao, L. (1996). Leadership emergence in task groups with egalitariangender role expectations. Sex Roles, 34, 65–80.

Schriesheim, C., & Tsui, A. S. (1980). Development and validation of a short satisfactioninstrument for use in survey feedback interventions. Paper presented at the WesternAcademy of Management Meeting, Phoenix, AZ.

Sechudi, O., & Olivier, B. (2016). The influence of transformational leadership on organisationalcitizenship behaviour in a South African combat military unit. Journal of Psychology in Africa,26(4), 363–367.

Shapira, T., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2009). Obstruction and empowerment of Arab women inthe educational and public sphere: Women in the Arab education system in Israel. In F.Azaiza, K. Abu-Baker, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & A. Ganem (Eds.), Arab women in Israel:Current Status and future trends. (pp. 291–318). Tel Aviv, Israel: Ramot. (Hebrew).

Shatzer, R., Caldarella, P., Hallam, P., & Brown, B. (2014). Comparing the effects of instructionaland transformational leadership on student achievement: Implications for practice, EducationalManagement Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 445–459.

Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: Therelationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior.Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 649–659.

Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Organizational citizenship behaviour and employee’sstrain: Examining the buffering effects of leader support and participation in decision making.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(2), 138–149.

Somech, A, & Oplatka, I. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior in schools. London: Taylorand Francis.

Somech, A., & Ron, I. (2007). Promoting organizational citizenship behavior in schools: Theimpact of individual and organizational characteristics. Educational Administration Quarterly,43(1), 38–66.

Steven, A., Lynda, A., & Joanne, M. (2003). Gender and leadership? leadership and gender?A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership and Organization DevelopmentJournal, 24(1), 43–51.

Tajasom, A, & Ariffin Ahmad, A. (2011). Principals' leadership style and school climate: teachers'perspectives from Malaysia. International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 7(4), 314–333.

Thomas, W. H., & Feldman, D. (2009). Age, work experience, and the psychological contract.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1053–1075.

Turnipseed, D. (2018). Emotional intelligence and OCB: The moderating role of work locus ofcontrol. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(3), 322–336.

van Dyne, L., Graham, J., & Dienesch, R. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior. Academyof Management Journal, 37, 765–802.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (1999). Good organizational citizenship behavior: Characteristics of voluntarybehavior at work and factors that affect it. Megamot, 39(4), 535–561. (Hebrew).

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees’ performance:An empirical examination of two competing models. Leadership Style, 36(5), 661–683.

Walker, H., Ilardi, B., McMahon, A., & Fennell, M. (1996). Gender, interaction, and leadership.Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 255–272.

Walster, E, Walster, G. W, & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: theory and research. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Walumbwa, F., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. (2011). How leader–Member exchange influ-ences effective work behaviors: Social exchange and internal–External efficacy perspectives.Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 739–770.

Wat, D., & Shaffer, M. (2005). Equity and relationship quality influences on organizationalcitizenship behaviors: The mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment.Personnel Review, 34(5), 406–512.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 21

Williams, L., & Anderson, S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as pre-dictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3),601–617.

Wong, Y. T., Ngo, H. Y., & Wong, C. S. (2006). Perceived organizational justice, trust, and OCB:A study of Chinese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enterprises. Journal of WorldBusiness, 41, 344–355.

Xiu, J., & Sang-Woo, H. (2017). The effect of employee’s perception of supervisor’s character-istics on organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating role of trust in supervisor.Information, 20(7), 5143–5152.

Yin Ho, J., Gaur, S., Chew, K., & Khan, N. (2017). Gender roles and customer organisationalcitizenship behaviour in emerging markets. Gender in Management: an International Journal,32(8), 503–517.

Young-Hee, K., & Ryan, A. (2016). Should more senior workers be better citizens? Expectationsof helping and civic virtue related to seniority. SpringerPlus, 5(1687), 1–12.

Yui-Tim, W., Hang-Yue, N., & Chi-Sum, W. (2006). Perceived organizational justice, trust, andOCB: A study of Chinese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enterprises. Journal ofWorlds Business, 41, 344–355.

Zeinabadi, H. (2010). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as antecedents of organi-zational citizenship behavior (OCB) of teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5,998–1003.

Zeinabadi, H., & Salehi, K. (2011). Role of procedural justice, trust, job satisfaction, andorganizational commitment in Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) of teachers:Proposing a modified social exchange model. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Science, 29,1472–1481.

22 M. ABO-NASRA