Leadership Style, Organizational Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Credit Union in Indonesia

This study investigates the relationship between transactional and transformational leadership styles, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the context of Credit Union. Respondents are 207 non-managerial employees of Credit Union in Indonesia. Data was collected by questionnaire and analysed by using SEM. The result shows that transformational leadership has positive effect on organizational commitment, and organizational commitment has effect on OCB-coworker targeted. However, transactional leadership has no significant effect on organizational commitment. The results of this study provide consideration suggestions regarding appropriate leadership styles to enhance employee commitment for achieving high performance and sustainability of CU in Indonesia.

Altruistic is one of the dimensions of OCB. According to Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume (2009), OCB have an impact on organizational effectiveness and can be generated by employee work attitude. One of the best determinants of OCB is organizational commitment which is a form of employee working attitude (Cohen, 2007;Fiorito, Bozeman, Young, & Meurs, 2007;Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Especially in the context of the CU, employees' commitment becomes more important because they must have the spirit of voluntary work. Some of previous studies found that organizational commitment has impact on OCB (e.g. Fu, 2013;Paul, Bamel, & Garg, 2016;Wang, 2015;Zhang, Di Fan, & Zhu, 2014).
According to Mowday, Steers, & Porter (1979), individuals who have organizational commitments identify themselves with the particular organization and the goals of the organization as well as wish to remain in the organization. Individuals with affective commitment still remain because they are willing to do so and the attachment of their feelings to the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1993). Based on the ASA (Attraction-Selection-Attrition) theory, individuals who have a fit between their expectations and goals, and organizational conditions will remain and attach themselves to the organization (Fiorito et al., 2007;Schneider, 1987). Therefore, organizational commitment is an important aspect in the social enterprise context because it will support a social enterprise -including its social and business missions (Gonin, Besharov, & Smith, 2013;Ohana, Meyer, & Swaton, 2013). In the context of Social Enterprise, employees' commitment will increase if they have the same goals as the organization, i.e. social and business goals. This is a challenge because it may not be easy for Social Enterprise to have employees with specific values, especially in CU, "Help through Self-Help" (Geelhoed, 2014). Moreover Fiorito et al. (2007) suggested that it is possible if different types of organizations need different levels of commitment. However, there was a lack of studies that investigate the role of commitment to increase OCB, especially in the context Credit Union.
One important factor in organizations that can increase organizational commitment is leadership. According to (McMurray, Pirola-Merlo, Sarros, & Islam, 2010), leaders in nonprofit organizations should share value to their followers. Therefore we argued that leaders who can share positive values directed at organizational success can increase employees' organizational commitment. Organizational context can require different behaviors of ideal leaders (Muralidharan & Pathak, 2018). Important characteristics in the social enterprise context require concern for human, environmental and economic well-being, and these characteristics will influence the characteristic of leader ideal behaviors (Muralidharan & Pathak, 2018). Besides that, social enterprise has social and economic goals that pose challenges for its leaders (Gibbons & Hazy, 2017). Moreover, there is a limited financial reward in social enterprise (Ohana et al., 2013). Therefore, it is possible to consider transformational leadership as a leader ideal behavior that appropriate to this context (Muralidharan & Pathak, 2018). The results of the study by Heinecke, Kloibhofer, & Krzeminska (2014) in the social enterprise showed the importance of transformational leaders in the social enterprise context. Transformational leaders can encourage collective action (Shadraconis, 2013), and encourage followers to be more concerned about group interests and build a work climate in teams (McMurray et al., 2010). However, transactional leaders can also encourage followers to build collective identities and produce high-performance teams (McMurray et al., 2010).
Study of Heinecke et al. (2014) in social enterprise shows that transformational and transactional leadership contributes to employee organizational commitment. They stated that both transformational and transactional leadership are needed in social enterprise. Transformational leadership is considered to play a side of "leadership" that inspires subordinates and encouragement followers to challenge themselves, but still in the same vision. While transactional leadership is the "managerial" side of running a business that is how to provide clarity and direction for organizational effectiveness. However, transactional leadership seems not to have been developed in the social enterprise context, although this behavior is also important. Furthermore, individuals who lead a social enterprise have the demand to carry out social missions and must understand business, but there are rare of studies on social enterprise that discuss leadership (Gravells, 2012) and demand for these two skills (Smith, Besharov, Wessels, & Chertok, 2012), including in the context of the Credit Union in Indonesia.
Based on the review, the issues that emerge are which leadership style that may increases organizational commitment and further OCB? Does CU as a social enterprise in Indonesia need a special leadership style to increase this commitment? This study examines the effect of transformational and transactional leadership on organizational commitment and the effect of organizational commitment on OCB, on Credit Union employees in Indonesia.

The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and organizational commitment
Burns defines transformational leadership as a process by which leaders and followers encourage each other to attain a high level of morality and motivation (Yukl, 1989). Leaders can transform their subordinates by awakening them about the importance and value of performance, encouraging them to put more importance on the organization and team, and activating their high-level needs (Yukl, 1989). According to Bass (1990), transformational leadership occurs when leaders encourage followers to be aware of and accept group missions, and prefer the group's interests. This leadership has four dimensions: idealized influence (charisma), inspirational, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1990). Bass (1999;1990) explains that charismatic leaders provide vision and mission; inspirational refers to giving high expectations and giving direction; intellectual stimulation refers to encouraging rational thinking and decision making, as well as creative thinking; while individualized consideration refers to giving advice and support and personal attention to followers. Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie (2006) explain that transactional leadership is supervisor's behaviors that apply "give and take" relationships with subordinates. Transactional leadership has three dimensions -contingent reward, management by exception, and laissez faire (Bass, 1990). Contingent reward refers to supervisor's explanation about his/her expectations and reward for business achievement; management by exception refers to the supervision of work and corrective action, and the imposition of sanctions for behavior that is not in line toward the standard; while laissez faire refers to supervisor who abandon his/her responsibilities and does not want to take decisions (Bass, 1990;Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). Followed by Podsakoff et al.(2006), leaders can motivate their subordinates by explaining their expectations and identifying the rewards that subordinates will receive if they meet those expectations or by taking corrective action if subordinates cannot meet those expectations. In addition, Yukl (1989) explains that transactional leadership emphasizes the value of honesty, fairness, responsibility, and mutual relationships. Furthermore, transactional leaders will give credit to the achievement of performance and provide recommendation of promotion and compensation (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004).
Porter and his colleagues define organizational commitment as the power of individual identification with, and involvement in, a particular organization (Yang, 2012). While Meyer & Allen (1993) define it as a psychological condition that (a) characterizes relationships employees with organization, and (b) have implications for the decision to continue membership in the organization. Furthermore, Allen & Meyer (1990) propose and test empirically the organizational commitment dimension of affective, continuous, and normative commitment. Affective commitment refers to the willingness of individuals to live in the organization because of the attachment of feeling to the organization, the continuance commitment refers to the willingness to stay in the organization because the individual considers the "cost" of leaving the organization, and the normative commitment refers to the willingness to stay in the organization because the individual feels it is his/her responsibility (Meyer & Allen, 1993). Specifically, affective commitment is conceptually similar to the organizational commitment offered by Porter (Allen & Meyer, 1990), and two basic commitments, namely identification and internalization offered by O'Reilly and Chatman (Cohen, 2007;Shore & Wayne, 1993). Identification refers to the desire for affiliation, while internalization refers to suitability of individual and organizational values (O'Reilly III & Chatman, 1986).
Organizations can increase affective commitment of their employees by supporting them (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Furthermore, organizational commitment is the effect of one's experience in the organization, for example the experience of followers with their leaders (Cohen, 1992(Cohen, , 2007. According to Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia (2004) transformational leaders are able to influence the affective commitment of their followers by increasing the level of intrinsic value associated with achieving goals; emphasizing the relationship between the efforts of their followers and the attainment of goals; and demonstrate a higher level of personal commitment to share vision / mission and organizational goals. Transformational leaders can increase their followers' commitment by providing inspiration, encouraging followers' involvement in work, and supporting followers' self-development (Avolio et al., 2004). Porter (2015) found that transformational leadership has effect on organizational commitment. In addition, McMurray, Pirola-Merlo, Sarros, & Islam (2010) in employees working in Social Enterprise shows that transformational leadership positively affects organizational commitment. However, Podsakoff et al. (2006) argue that transactional leadership also can contribute to generating work attitudes. SE has two missions, commercial and social (Smith et al., 2012). According to the context of SE, it needs leaders who can achieve these two missions. Transactional leaders will explain their expectation to, and reward the achievement of their subordinates. Meyer & Allen (1993) explain that experience in work that can give alignment to expectations will increase organizational commitment. Thus, it can be argued that the individual who gets the award in accordance with his/her performance will increase his/her affective commitment. Podsakoff et al. (2006) found that transactional leadership was positively associated with organizational commitment. Furthermore, study of Tarsik, Kassim, & Nasharudin (2014) found that transactional leadership positively correlates with organizational commitment. H1: Transformational leadership is positively related to organizational commitment H2: Transactional leadership is positively related to organizational commitment

The relationship between organizational commitment and OCB
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is "a performance that supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance is performed" (Organ, 1997, p.95). (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1993) introduced OCB dimensions, altruism and generalized compliance. Altruism refers to behaviors that aim to assist other individuals within the organization, whereas compliance refers to voluntary behavior undertaken to follow  Vol.11, No.14, 2019 the norms that apply as employees. Furthermore, in 1988, Organ introduced OCB dimensions namely altruism, conscientiousness (similar to generalized compliance), sportsmanship refers to employees' willingness to accept a less than ideal working environment, courtesy refers to employees' willingness to consult with others before acting, and civic virtue refers to employees' active behavior of concern for their organization (Lepine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002;Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Different dimensions are offered by Williams & Anderson (1991), OCB which directed to the organization and other individuals in the organization. OCB targeted to other individuals, such as co-workers, includes listening to coworkers' problems, caring and sharing information with colleagues. While OCB targeted at the organization includes behavior following informal rules, not complaining about things that are less important, and not using office equipment for personal gain (Williams & Anderson, 1991). According to Lepine et al. (2002) and Podsakoff et al. (2009), OCB which is directed to other individuals is similar to altruism, courtesy, interpersonal helping, and interpersonal harmony. While OCB which is directed to the organization is similar to compliance, civic virtue, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, job dedication, and promoting company image (Lepine et al.,2002;Podsakoff et al., 2009).
OCB is an employee's response to their employment relationship (Van Dyne & Ang, 1996). Social exchange theory is the foundation of OCB. It explains that if supervisors give social gifts (such as praise, confidence to subordinates' abilities, and privileges) to their subordinates, they will feel obliged to reciprocate, such as in the form of greater effort to the organization (Organ, 1974) and by engaging in behavior that beyond the requirements of their work (Van Dyne & Ang, 1996). Podsakoff et al. (2009) explain that OCB is a sign of employees' commitment to the organization. Individuals who are committed to the organization will engage in behaviors that show their personal sacrifice for the benefit of the organization and their attachment to the organization (Williams & Anderson, 1991). In the concept of social exchange, individual's replying can also be organizational commitment (Organ, 1974), because they get benefits from their organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). O'Reilly III & Chatman (1986) state that individuals who have a membership that shares values and goals will instinctively want to behave in ways that benefit their organization by doing OCB, as a form of their reciprocate. Even though their expectations (e.g. expected rewards) have not been fulfilled, individuals who have emotional attachments to the organization will continue to maintain their involvement in the organization (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Therefore, commitment is an important determinant of OCB when employee performance is less recognized in the formal reward system in the organization (Williams & Anderson, 1991). In the OCB concept, individuals perform this behavior voluntarily, although reward is not formally given.
Thus, people who have organizational commitment are likely to be involved in OCB (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Referring to Meyer & Allen (1991), individuals who have affective commitment, compared to continuance commitment and normative commitment, will give more effort to the interests of the organization. Individuals with affective commitment will also work for organizational success because it is consistent with their values (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The study of O'Reilly III & Chatman (1986) found that the dimensions of commitment in the form of identification and instrumental have an impact on OCB. Kim's study (2014) and Paul et al. (2016) found that organizational commitment has effect on OCB. H3: Organizational commitment is positively related to OCB

3.1Respondent
A total of 250 questionnaires were distributed to respondent who work as non-managerial staff at Credit Union (CU) under seconder CU -BKCU Borneo which spread from Sumatra Island to Papua. We distributed these questionnaires through Credit Union network in Indonesia and that can be processed as many as 207 questionnaires (response rate 83%).The characteristics of female and male respondents are almost equal (55.4%) and male (51.7%), most of them are between 25 to less than 35 years old (60.9%), undergraduate (49.3%), has worked in the company currently for 1 to less than 5 years (55.1%), and has unmarried status (50.2%).

Measures
Transformational leadership will use 21 indicators from Podsakoff et al. (1990) and Transactional Leadership will use 6 indicators from Mackenzie et al. (2001) used by Chiang & Wang (2012). Organizational commitment uses a scale with 8 indicators of affective commitment from Allen & Meyer (1990). Organizational Citizenship Behavior uses 7 OCB indicators (OCB addressed to other individuals within the organization) from Williams & Anderson (1991). All instruments use a 5-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).

Result
We conducted CFA by using Amos 24 to examine our variables. The result of construct validity test shows that all indicators are valid with critical ratio value above 2.58 ( = 1%). However, we should drop several indicators that have a loading value on standardized regression weight less than 0.5. In addition, indicators should be dropped because of indicated multicollinearity (Afthanorhan, 2013). The results of the reliability test with Cronbach Alpha show that all variables have the required reliability value (> 0.7), i.e. for organizational commitment > 0.875, OCB > 0.771, transformational leadership > 0.881, and transactional leadership > 0.838. CFA test results show good fit, CMIN /df = 2.15, RMSEA = 0.075, IFI = 0.924, TLI = 0.917, and CFI = 0.923. These results indicate that the data used in this study is in accordance with the research model.
Hypothesis testing is done with Structural Equation Modeling AMOS 24. Table 1 shows the results. We found that transformational leadership significantly positively related to organizational commitment ( = 0.326; p <0.01). This result shows support for the first hypothesis. However, transactional leadership has no significant relationship with organizational commitment ( = -0.014; ns.). Hence hypothesis 2 is not supported. Organizational commitment has a positive relationship with OCB (  = 0.292; p <0.01). This result supports hypothesis 3. Note. N = 207, ** p < .01 Figure 1. The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership, organizational commitment, and OCB.

Discussion
This study found that transformational leadership has a positive effect on organizational commitment. According to McMurray et al. (2010), in social enterprise (SE) such as CU, including those based on religion, individuals will be interested in working in organizations because they have value conformity with the mission of the organization. Transformational leaders will further encourage their subordinates to be more concerned with organizations and groups (Yukl, 1989). This is consistent with the concept of organizational commitment, that individuals who have affiliation and congruence with groups of people in the organization will increase their commitment (Becker & Billings, 1993;O'Reilly III & Chatman, 1986). Thus there is a corresponding value between individuals and organizations represented by their leaders. Therefore, leaders are more suited to using transformational leadership styles to increase the organizational commitment of their subordinates. We found that transactional leadership has no significant effect on organizational commitment. This result supports Heinecke et al.'s study (2014) in social enterprise, that transformational leaders are more highly valued by followers than leaders with transactional behavior. This result shows that some subordinates, who perceive their supervisors using the "give and take" principle, have organizational commitment. This is because they have the value to be respected by their superiors. Then it is possible that they experience some support from their leaders. But for some employees who perceive their leader using transactional style may not effect on their organizational commitment. According to McMurray et al. (2010), in SE such us CU, incentives based on traditional remuneration systems become less important than individual experience with peer community. Thus it can be argued that being with a colleague is a more important value than a reward for performance. Therefore the transformational style will be more suitable to increase individual commitment to the organization. Furthermore, these results show that in the context of CU in Indonesia, employees have a tendency to be more interested in achieving social missions than business missions. Podsakoff et al. (2006) found that the influence of leader contingent reward and punishment on organizational commitment is stronger in service contexts than in manufacturing situations. Therefore, in CU, which is a form of service business, superiors need to provide clarity of expectations and awards that follow it and make corrections to mistakes made by subordinates. The results of this study can also show that it is possible that, in CU in Indonesia, subordinates may not understand the expectations of their superiors and that transaction between supervisors and subordinates have not been accompanied by an adequate appreciation for subordinates. Thus, it is possible that subordinates do not perceive that their performance is rewarded accordingly. It is also possible that leaders in the CU context in Indonesia have not been strong enough yet to show commercial expectations, that CU must also generate financial benefits. Another possible explanation for this result is that transformational leadership enhances affective commitment, while transactional leadership further enhances instrumental commitment (Cohen, 2007). In this study organizational commitment uses instruments from Mowday, Steers, & Porter (1979), which conceptually refers to affective commitment (Cohen, 2007). This instrumental commitment conceptually resembles the continuance commitment of Allen and Meyer (Cohen, 2007).
This study also found that organizational commitment has an effect on increasing OCB directed against coworkers. These results are consistent with the findings of Kim (2014) and (Paul et al., 2016). Organizational commitment with affective dimension refers to the appropriateness of individual values with the organization. In SE such as CU, the welfare of all members is important. Therefore, there needs to be mutual support among members of the organization. Thus, if the individual employee has a high affective commitment, will be willing to behave that provide benefits to members within the organization.

Conclusions
The results showed that transformational leadership has a significant positive effect on organizational commitment. Thus the first hypothesis is supported. Transactional leadership has no significant positive effect on organizational commitment. Thus the second hypothesis is not supported. There is significant organizational commitment has a positive effect on OCB. Thus the third hypothesis is supported. Based on the results of research, we suggest supervisors in CU may use transformational leadership style. The transformational leadership style will further encourage subordinates to be more concerned with organizations and groups as well as to achieve the organizational mission. In addition, leaders in CU institutions should improve their managerial skills. Thus they are able to direct their employees towards achieving organizational goals, namely the welfare of CU members. Ward & Mckillop (2010) sugges that voluntary workers are needed in CU organizations including in Indonesia. Snyder & Omoto (2008) define voluntary work as freely chosen activities and to provide assistance in the long term, without expecting other rewards or compensation through formal organizations, and those carried out on behalf of individuals who want assistance. Transformational leadership is needed to encourage the spirit of volunteerism of their followers to realize and accept group missions and prefer group interests (Bass, 1999). Although this study found that transactional leadership does not significantly influence organizational commitment, CU needs to consider strengthening this leadership style. Referring to Heinecke et al. (2014), transactional leadership plays a role in managerial aspects and organizational effectiveness. In connection with the declining number of CUs in Indonesia, referring to the results of this study, it is possible that CU leaders focus more on bringing employees to care for the common welfare. Whereas CU has two important missions, not only mutual welfare, but also business benefits. In the context of CU in Indonesia, CU leaders need to clarify expectations of business profits and provide feedback in managing CU. However, this possibility needs to be tested empirically. Subsequent studies need to identify the role of transformational and transactional leadership in CU business performance.
In addition to the interesting results, this study is inseparable from weaknesses. This study uses cross-sectional data and only from one source is the CU non-managerial employee. The future studies may necessary to consider investigating research variables at different time frames. In addition, the future studies need to consider employee performance appraisal by supervisor. The study only considers OCB directed to colleagues as a consequence variable of organizational commitment. For future research, the model may consider examining other variables such as OCB directed at the organization.