Navigating the alignment of two leadership styles: implications for organizational citizenship behavior

Purpose – This study aims to bridge the gap in existing literature by investigating the potential addictive, cumulative or synergistic effects that arise from the combination of transactional and transformational leadership styles, often treated as distinct entities. While a few recent studies have started exploring this area, comprehensive research is lacking. This study addresses this gap by empirically analyzing the congruence or incongruence of these leadership styles and their impact on employees’ contextual performance, specifically focusing on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Design/methodology/approach – In order to examine our hypotheses, we employ polynomial regression and response surface modeling (Edwards and Parry, 1993). This approach is being employed due to its ability to capture the potential nonlinear relationship or intricate interactions including any curvilinear or synergistic patterns, between transformational and transactional leadership’s joint impact on OCB, aspects that traditional linear models may overlook. Findings – Findings suggest that the interplay between transactional and transformational leadership can either amplify or diminish their effects on OCB when combined. Moreover, these interactions align with employees’ levels of PSM. This research contributes to leadership theory and offers practical insights for leadership practices. Also, it would contribute to a deeper understanding of leadership complexities and offers valuable insights for leadership practices in fostering positive employee behaviors. Originality/value – Our research highlights a novel perspective, challenging the conventional assumption that transactional and transformational leadership styles invariably complement each other when combined. Instead, we illuminate a scenario where the ultimate combination of these styles produces truly synergistic impacts, thereby advancing the scope of leadership theory. Moreover, our study convincingly demonstrates a distinctive scenario in which the combination of these two leadership styles could result in counterproductive outcomes.