Therefore, we hypothesize that this

Therefore, we hypothesize that this leadership style is negatively related to job
satisfaction and TOCB. Alternatively, job satisfaction may mediate the effect of aversive
leadership on TACB.
H6: Aversive leadership is negatively related to job satisfaction.
H7
a: Aversive leadership is negatively related to TOCB and positively related to
TACB.
H7
b: Aversive leadership is indirectly, negatively related to TOCB and positively
related to TACB through job satisfaction.
Similarly, directive leadership was assumed to be negatively related to job satisfaction
and OCB. Directive leaders are those who dictate or direct their followers regarding tasks. They
seize the situation, and their subordinates are passively expected to follow the leaders. This
leadership style is less likely to fit the changing expectation of today’s employees who
increasingly view their jobs as a means of personal fulfillment, not just a paycheck (Sims &
Manz, 1996). They increasingly expect more control and influence over their own jobs and
decision making. Directive leadership, as well as aversive leadership, is contradictory to this
changing expectation. Therefore, directive leadership has a negative relationship with job
satisfaction. Also, since directive leaders mainly assign goals regarding tasks and instruct and
command their followers, they make subordinates focus. Therefore, followers are less likely to
engage in extra-role behaviors. Alternatively, directive leadership indirectly influences OCB
through job satisfaction.
H8: Directive leadership is negatively related to job satisfaction.
H9 a: Directive leadership is negatively related to TOCB and positively related to
TACB.
H9
b: Directive leadership is indirectly, negatively related to TOCB and positively
related to TACB through job satisfaction.
The relationship between transactional leadership and TOCB seems unclear. At the
individual level, contingent reward patterns of leadership may create perceptions of a fair
exchange and good will which, in turn, may produce a positive citizenship response. However,
reward policies can sometimes generate only calculating compliance such that individuals do
only what they are paid to do. Under these conditions, compliance may not extend into good
citizenship or extra-role behaviors. Transactional behavior may be neutral at best, perhaps even
deleterious when it comes to TOCB. Therefore, we did not develop specific hypotheses
regarding transactional leadership and TOCB.
However, we hypothesized a positive relationship between transactional leadership and
job satisfaction. This type of leadership emphasizes contingent reward which may create
perceptions of a fair exchange which, in turn, may produce job satisfaction. Followers clearly
understand what they are expected to do and what they will get as a result of their performance.
In other words, transactional leaders eliminate uncertainty that their followers may encounter in their job. Therefore, we hypothesized a positive relationship between job satisfaction and
transactional leadership.
H10: Transactional leadership is positively related to job satisfaction.