Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 663 Volume and Issues Obtainable at Center for Sustainability Research and Consultancy Review of Economics and Development Studies ISSN:2519-9692 ISSN (E): 2519-9706 Volume 5: No. 4, 2019 Journal homepage: www.publishing.globalcsrc.org/reads Impact of Passive Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Turnover Intentions; Mediating Effect of Organizational Interpersonal Trust 1 Omer Azam, 2 Hafiz Ghufran Ali Khan, 3 Asif Khan, 4 Abdul Zahid Khan 1 Program Incharge, Virtual Campus Comsats University, Islamabad, Pakistan: omerazam@vcomsats.edu.pk 2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management Sciences, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan: hafiz.ghufran@iiu.edu.Pk 3 Assistant Professor, Departmrnt of Education Karakoram International University, Gilgit Baltistan: asifbaseen@gmail.com 4 Assistant Professor, Department of Technology Management, Faculty of Management Sciences, International Islamic University, Islamabad Pakistan: zahidkhan.fms@iiu.edu.pk ARTICLE DETAILS ABSTRACT History Revised format: 30 Nov 2019 Available Online: 31 Dec 2019 This study investigates the impact of passive leadership on organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions with the mediating effect of organizational interpersonal trust. Data has been collected from a sample of 180 working at managerial levels in public and private sector universities based in Islamabad. Findings of the current study confirms that passive leadership is negatively associated with organizational citizenship behavior and employee turnover intentions and the mediating role of organizational interpersonal trust confirms the partial mediation between these relationships. The study provided with new insights into the body of knowledge and also provided with practical implications. Limitations of the current study along with the future directions of research also discussed at the end. © 2019 The authors, under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 Keywords Passive Leadership, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Turnover Intentions, Organizational Interpersonal Trust JEL Classification: D23, D29, J63 Corresponding author’s email address: omerazam@vcomsats.edu.pk Recommended citation: Azam, O., Khan, H. G. A., Khan, A. and Khan, A. Z.,(2019). Fragility Impact of Passive Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Turnover Intentions; Mediating Effect of Organizational Interpersonal Trust. Review of Economics and Development Studies, 5 (4),663-674 DOI: 10.26710/reads.v5i4.663 1. Introduction Leadership can be represented as an exceptional resource that enables an organization to perform multi- lateral role and to deliver outstanding performance (Viitala, Kultalahti, & Kangas 2017). Passive leadership style or management by exception (passive) can be characterized as hesitant, uncertain and reluctant to take organizational decisional, being absent when needed to take important decision. Passive leadership, laissez faire leadership, passive management by exception- passive style has found to be ineffective and poor style of leadership (Lee. 2018). Passive leadership can be termed as avoidant leaders, management by exception (passive) generally provides the group members with the complete freedom to make decision and to complete the work in whatever they see fit to perform. Passive leaders possess passive behavior, acquire less information, http://www.publishing.globalcsrc.org/reads Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 664 remain reluctant to share information and do not truly involve in organizational decision making, takes corrective action to prevent mistakes which may result in employee distrust, poor management, engagement into some negative outcomes like bad perception for seeking organization justice (Adeel, Khan, Zafar & Rizvi 2018). Moreover, it has been found that those leaders who engaged in transformational leadership are consistent in their performance and productivity related issues, providing feedback and encouragement, building strong network and maintain effective organizational citizenship behavior. while leaders who seems to be engaged in management by exception and passive leadership might be consistent and find to be engaged in harassment related issues, keeping intentions of quitting and leaving their job and organization (Frooman, Mendelson & Kevin Murphy, 2012). The full range of leadership was developed by (Bass 1985). Cole, Theories of leadership describe range of leadership styles such as transformational, transactional, laissez faire, authentic, servant leadership that directly affects the projects and organizational performance (Raziq, Borini, Malik, Ahmad, Shabaz. 2018). 2. Literature Review 2.1 Passive Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Passive leadership, laissez faire leadership, passive management by exception- passive style has been found to be ineffective and poor style of leadership (Lee. 2018). Passive leaders avoid intellectual simulation that can be achieved by encouraging employees to participate, performing creative behavior; promote morally uplifting values (Frooman, Mendelson & Kevin Murphy, 2012). Organizational citizenship can be characterized as voluntary practices that tap to result in improved functioning of organization’s tasks and duties (Malik, Saleem, & Naeem 2016). While employees engaged in passive or avoidant style, laissez faire leadership and management by exception-passive exhibited extended extent, generally fail to intervene until problem become severe or serious, abdicate responsibility, absent when needed, or fail to follow upon request (Nguni, Sleegers & Denessen, 2006). Laissez faire is non- leadership that has almost no influence over the groups and makes difficult to distinguish the leaders from the followers (Holtz & Hu 2017). It is expected that laisses faire or passive leadership style leads an employee to little modification in OCB level of subordinates. Hence it has been hypothesized that H1; Passive leadership has negative impact on organizational citizenship behavior. 2.2 Passive Leadership and Turnover Intentions Passive leadership avoids supervisory responsibility along with decision making that always be an inappropriate way to lead. Empirical evidence suggests the facets of effective and inactive behavior are often to be referred as passive avoidant leadership (Holtz et al. 2017). Passive avoidant leadership that often termed as management by exception (passive) takes corrective action and devised strategies only when problem become retrospective and significant, reluctant to express his view and gratitude on important and controversial issues but there might be the cases where passive leader can be considered as transformational leader that aim to let followers learn from making mistakes (Horwitz, Horwitz, Daram et al. 2008). The word turnover intentions describe as one’s intentions and propensity to quit or leave an organization (Long, Thean, Ismail, & Jusoh 2012). Turnover can be classified as voluntary and non- voluntary, functional and dysfunctional that impact to make decision of employee whether to stay or leave the organization. Puni, Agyemang, & Asamoah, (2016) concludes that employee or any subordinate under the laissez faire or passive leadership style will have less turnover intentions,hence it has been conceptualized H2; Passive leadership has negative impact on turnover intention. 2.3 Passive Leaders and Interpersonal Organizational Trust Passive leadership has unattractive characteristics towards the trust building process and interpersonal organizational trust. Passive leader can be characterized as non-leadership and absence of leadership with Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 665 a certain behavior that involves procrastination shown by an individual who has got power in his position. “Interpersonal trust can be termed as the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectations that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor that other part.” (Guinot, Chiva & Roca-Puig 2014) While distrust can be termed as opposite of trust, various academic scholars considered distrust to be as an exception that others will not act or work in the best interest of other party, by engaging and indulging other person in potentially injurious behavior (Guinot, Chiva & Roca-Puig 2014). Interpersonal trust is a multi- dimensional construct of cognition-based and affect based trust (Lewis and Weigert, 1985; McAllister, 1985). Hassan, Toylan, Semerciöz, & Aksel (2012) claimed that interpersonal trust as the degree to which one is confident and willing to act upon the actions, words and decisions of others. From above discussion it can be concluded that passive leadership on part of leadership will lower up the sense of trust building process or upon interpersonal organizational trust H3. Passive leadership is negatively associated with interpersonal organizational trust. 2.4 Organizational Interpersonal Trust and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Trust can be expressed as set of beliefs or expectations, about choice, willingness and beliefs of having trusting behavior Singh, & Srivastava (2009). Worked on following five types of citizenship behaviors included in the study were civic virtue, courtesy, sportsmanship, altruism and conscientiousness (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter 1990). Den Hartog, Schippers, & Koopman (2002) examined subordinate trust as a sort of mediating variable in organizational citizenship behavior and transformational leadership. A great nature of theoretical work has shown evidence that organization trust is a significant driver of OCB (Yoon, Jang & Lee 2016). Organizational citizenship behavior is the discretionary behavior of an employee that is not to be on the part of a workers and employee formal job requirement but nevertheless promotion the effective functioning of the job (Appelbaum, Bartolomucci, Beaumier, Boulanger, Corrigan, Dore, Girad & Serroni 2004). Studies have shown strong and positive association between OCB and interpersonal trust. Singh, & Srivastava (2009) found that subordinates perception of their “leaders” trust in them influenced performance and OCB. A great nature of theoretical work has shown evidence that organization trust is a significant driver of organizational citizenship behavior (Yoon, Jang & Lee 2016). Hence, based upon the above discussion it has been hypothesized that H4; Organizational interpersonal trust is significantly and positively related with organizational citizenship behavior. 2.5 Organizational Interpersonal Trust and Turnover Intention Turnover has received significant attention from academia and practitioners (Dubey, Gunasekaran, Altay, Childe, & Papadopoulos 2016). Turnover refers to those employees who are considering and thinking to quit a job (Long, Thean, Ismail & Jusoh 2012). Turnover from the job for such kind of employees require adequate higher cost to retrain, reskill, and hidden cost in completing different tasks and projects with in a group (Dubey et al. 2016). There are various factors that constitute to frame and impacting employee turnover as personal factors, work-related factors and external factors. When an employee feels safe, sound and morally protected about his job than fell highly satisfied and secured about the job (Balkan, Serin, & Soran 2014). Hence, based on above considerations it has been hypothesized that H5: Organizational interpersonal trust is negatively related with employee turnover intentions. 2.6 Passive Leadership, Organizational Interpersonal Trust and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Management by exception (passive) comes under the construct of transactional leadership is a situation in which leader waits passively until deviation occurs from the set standards. Errors, mistakes and omissions Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 666 are to be controlled when their severity become highly offensive only then make the corrections (Mesu, Riemsdijk & Sanders 2009). Passive leadership is a sort of least positive style of leadership and contrast a negative effect on organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational leadership can be viewed as employee’s disbursing positive behavior in response to leader’s positive behavior and attitude towards justice, job satisfaction, work environment and positive feedback (Spence, Ferris, Brown & Heller 2011). In accordance to the social exchange theory an employee feels pleased and delighted about developing an exchange and reciprocate relationship by voluntary giving benefits and then expecting returns in future (Compeer, Smolders, & De Kok 2005). Literature suggest that trust can be developed by perceive organizational processes and outcomes to be fair, since trust must be present to foster OCB and to engage the employees actively in voluntary behavior (Appelbaum et al., 2014). Hence based on the supportiveness of above theory it can be hypothesized that H6; Significant negative relationship between passive leadership and OCB is mediated by organizational interpersonal trust. 2.7 Passive Leadership, Organizational Interpersonal Trust and Turnover Intentions Turnover intentions are defined as the cessation of membership in an organization by which an individual who receive monetary compensation by an organization (Watrous, Huffman, & Pritchard, 2006). Researchers typically identify two forms of negative turnover which is to be believed as voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary turnover is the form of turnover intentions which begin by the employee i.e. an employee quitting the organization whereas involuntary turnover is initiated by the organization i.e. an employee is “laid off” due to downsizing (Balkan, Serin, & Soran, 2014). Transactional leadership where an employee strongly focusses on contingent rewards and passive management by exception with employee turnover intention’s in large financial and multinational organizations (Alzubi, 2018).. Employees who trust each other are likely to be more willing to synchronize, working together constructively and help each other. Mbah, & Ikemefuna (2011) suggested that poor leadership style as passive leadership caused reason that why employees resort to portraying a deviant behavior and why employees leave their jobs. The link between passive leadership and turnover intentions can be studied by justice theory which explains that if employees are satisfied, trusted and perceive the procedures and processes to be fair then they will remain or stay productive and connected with their organization. Therefore, on the basis of all above discussion it can be hypothesized that, H7; Significant negative relationship between passive leadership and turnover intentions is mediated by organizational interpersonal trust. Research Model Figure: 01 3. Research Methodology 3.1 Sampling Size & Sampling Technique Simple random sampling technique was applied, a total of 330 questionnaires were distributed out of which 180 fully filled questionnaires were received back from the respondents of public and private sector universities based in Islamabad. Passive leadership Turnover Intentions Organizational Interpersonal trust Organizational citizenship behavior Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 667 3.2 Measures and Scales Used All study variables were measured in a uniform way with using a 5 points likert scale whereas 1 represented strongly disagree, 2 represented disagree, 3 represented neither agree/neither disagree, 4 represented agree whereas 5 represented strongly agree. 3.3 Passive Leadership Passive leadership of participants was carried out and measured using a 7-items scale developed by Hartog, Muijen, & Koopman (1997). Sample items included were “As long as work meets minimal standards, he/she avoids trying to make improvements”. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the 7 scale items was .772. 3.4 Interpersonal Trust Organizational Interpersonal trust was measured using 6 items scale developed by Hill, Chenevert, & Poitras, (2015). Sample items included were “I think my colleagues are worthy of trust”. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the 6 scale items was .825. 3.5 Organizational Citizenship Behavior A 16 items scale was adopted from Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). was used to measure organizational citizenship behavior. Sample items included “Help others who have been absent”. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the 16 scale items was .900 3.6 Turnover intentions Turnover intentions were measured using a 4 items scale adopted from Wu, Lin, Hsu, & Yeh (2009) that was developed by Salanova, Agut, & Peiró (2005). Sample items included “I often consider leaving my organization”. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the 4 scale items was .823 Table 01: Correlation Analysis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Gender Marital status -.157 ** Age - .347** -3.47 Position type - .167** -.134 .346** Experience - .368** .407* * .637** .141 Education .269** .- .150* -.112 .006 -.218** PL - 2,52** .075 .016 - .192* * .164* .022 (.772) OIT - 3.39** .109 .219** .066 .196* .021 .070 (.825) OCB -.076 .126 .218** -.075 .166 .042 .149* .449** (.900) TI .021 .070 .035 .141 .064 .205* * .116 - .242** .162* (.823 Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 668 N = 180. The reliabilities of variables are given in parentheses.**correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Hypothesis of first variable was assumed to be negative and this was found to be in line with H3 as the passive leadership (r = .070, p < 0.01) has very weak correlation with organizational interpersonal trust while the value of scale reliability was found to be .772 considers to be as good reliability. H1 was assumed to be negative and this was found to be contradictory as the passive leadership (r = .149, p < 0.01) has significant and positive correlation with organizational citizenship behavior. Turnover intentions have assumed to have a negative relationship with passive leadership in H2 and this provide preliminary support of hypothesis as (r = .116, p < 0.01). Organizational interpersonal trust has positive correlation with organizational citizenship behavior as the organizational interpersonal trust has positive correlation (r = .449**, p < 0.01) and this provide initial support of H4. The scale reliability (α) of organizational interpersonal trust found to be .825. Organizational interpersonal trust has assumed to be negative relationship with turnover intention, this found to be in line with H5 as the organizational interpersonal trust (r = -.242**, p < 0.01) has negative correlation. 4. Regression Analysis The results indicate that passive leadership is significantly related to organizational citizenship behavior, where p = 0.46 and (β =.149, p >.001), thus hypothesis 1 is supported. Organizational interpersonal trust was also found to be significant predictor of organizational citizenship behavior with approximately 20.2 percent of variance in organizational citizenship behavior was accounted by organizational interpersonal trust with p = .000 and (β =.449, p >.001), thus hypothesis 4 is accepted. Passive leadership wasn’t found to be significant predictor of organizational interpersonal trust as the sig-value is marginally beyond .05 with (β =.370, p < .001) β also found to be insufficient, thus hypothesis 3 is supported. For the path of organizational interpersonal trust with turnover intentions results are shown in table (vii). Further, organizational interpersonal trust has found to be significant forecaster of turnover intentions with approximately about 59 percent of variance in turnover intention was accounted by organizational interpersonal trust as the p = 0.01 and (β = -2.42, p >.001), Hence hypothesis 5 is supported. Passive leadership found to be significant predictor of turnover intention as the p = .120 and (β =, 116 p <.001), Hence hypothesis 2 is not supported. Table 02: Results of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for H1 and H4 Organizational Citizenship Behavior β R2 ΔR2 F t Sig Step 1 Controls .049 .049 4.514 Step 2 OIT .449 .202 .202 44.92 6.70 .000 Step 3 Passive leadership .149 .022 .022 4.057 2.014 .04 Table 03: Results of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for H3 Organizational interpersonal trust β R2 ΔR2 F t Sig Step 1 Controls .127 .127 8.535 Step 2 Passive leadership 3.70 .005 .005 .888 .942 .034 Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 669 Table 04: Results of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for H2 and H5 Turnover Intention β R2 ΔR2 F t Sig Step 1 Controls 0.64 .004 .004 .721 Step 2 OIT -.242 .059 .059 11.16 -3.334 .001 Step 3 Passive leadership .116 .014 .014 2.438 1.561 .120 Table 05: Results of Mediated Linear Regression Analysis for H6 Organizational citizenship behavior β R2 ΔR2 F t Sig Step 1 Controls .049 .049 4.514 Step 2 OIT .414 .216 .168 16.204 6.141 .000 Step 3 Passive leadership .322 .231 .014 13.119 1.801 .020 Table 06: Results of Mediated Regression Analysis for H7 Turnover Intentions β R2 ΔR2 F t Sig Step 1 Controls .004 .004 .721 Step 2 OIT -.270 .072 .068 6.829 -3.669 .000 Step 3 Passive leadership .119 .085 .014 5.483 1.632 .104 Control variables were entered and controlled in step 1 of mediated regression analysis, For step 2 mediating variables was entered and in step 3 predictor variable or criterion variable was entered that provide firm evidence that organizational interpersonal trust mediates the relationship between passive leadership and organizational citizenship behavior where (β = .322, p > .001, ΔR2 = .014, p > .001) and there is full mediation exist, hence H6 is supported. Similarly, the mediated effect between passive leadership and turnover intention was found to be insignificant with (β = .119, p < .001, ΔR2 = .014, p < .001) and there is partial mediation and H7 is not supported. 5. Discussion and Findings Results of the current study indicates that passive leadership and organizational citizenship behavior are significantly related to each other and hypothesis 1 was found to be supported but very weak relationship was between passive and organizational interpersonal trust. The results of this study are consistent with (Malik, Saleem & Naeem 2016) where findings of study suggest that passive leadership style causes a permanent state of tension, dissatisfaction, conflict and decreased interest in subordinate. The result of our 2nd hypothesis was found to be supported, and the results of this study are in line with the study of (Puni, Agyemang & Asamoah 2016). The results of passive leadership and organizational interpersonal trust for Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 670 this hypothesis found to be supported and was linked with the previous study of (Adeel, Khan, Zafar, & Rizvi, 2018) which concluded that passive leadership is negatively associated with affect based trust and claimed that abusive behavior of supervisor may result in negative experience which can lower the affective commitment towards job and other psychological problems. Likewise, the results of our 4th hypothesis for organizational interpersonal trust and organizational citizenship behavior found to be supported and the results of this study are in support of (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter 1990) in trust was conceptualized as faith and loyalty with the leader.. Similarly, the results of 5th hypothesis, organizational interpersonal trust and turnover intention found to be insignificant, passive leadership influence personnel intention to leave or stay in the organization. Similarly, the results of 6th hypothesis of passive leadership and organizational citizenship behavior through organizational interpersonal trust found to be supported as the organizational interpersonal trust is fully mediating the relationship between passive leadership and organizational interpersonal trust and these results are consistent with the study of (Compeer, Smolders, & De Kok, 2005). Moreover, the results of 7th hypothesis of passive leadership and turnover intentions through organizational interpersonal trust found to be insignificant but organizational interpersonal trust is partially mediating the relationship between passive leadership and turnover intentions. 6. Limitations and Direction for Future Research For the current study data was cross sectional and collected from managerial level employees and to assure the generalizability of findings and results for future research, it is suggested to undertake larger and diversified pool of employees representing different public and private sector organizations. Future researchers are directed to explore the relationship of passive leadership on organizational commitment to change job satisfaction, psychological change, organizational justice, varied dimensions of trust and performance of employees by using bootstrapping, smart PLS, network and path coefficients with structural equation modeling using AMOS. References Adeel, M. M., Khan, H. G. A., Zafar, N., & Rizvi, S. T. (2018). Passive leadership and its relationship with organizational justice: verifying mediating role of affect-based trust. Journal of Management Development, 37(2), 212-223. Alzubi, Y. Z. W. (2018). Turnover intentions in Jordanian Universities: The role of leadership behaviour, organizational commitment and organizational culture. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(1), 177-192. Appelbaum, S., Bartolomucci, N., Beaumier, E., Boulanger, J., Corrigan, R., Dore, I., ... & Serroni, C. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior: a case study of culture, leadership and trust. Management decision, 42(1), 13-40. Armstrong, M. (2006). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice (10 ed.). London: Kogan Page. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re‐examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 72(4), 441-462. Balkan, M. O., Serin, A. E., & Soran, S. (2014). The relationship between trust, turnover intentions and emotions: An application. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 10(2). Balkan, M. O., Serin, A. E., & Soran, S. (2014). The relationship between trust, turnover intentions and emotions: An application. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 10(2). Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Collier Macmillan. Bovee, C. L. Thill, John V.-Dovel, George P.-Wood, Marian B. (1993). Management. International Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 671 edition. Chaudhry, A. Q., & Javed, H. (2012). Impact of transactional and laissez faire leadership style on motivation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7). Cole, G. A. (2004). Management theory and practice. Cengage Learning EMEA. Compeer, N., Smolders, M., & De Kok, J. (2005). Scale effects in HRM Research; a discussion of current HRM research from an SME perspective. EIM Scales Paper N, 200501. Daniel Muijs, (2011) "Leadership and organisational performance: from research to prescription?" , International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 25 Issue: 1, pp.45-60, Den Hartog, D. N., Schippers, M. C., & Koopman, P. L. (2002). The impact of leader behaviour on trust in management and co-workers. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28(4), 29-34. Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 611-628. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Altay, N., Childe, S. J., & Papadopoulos, T. (2016). Understanding employee turnover in humanitarian organizations. Industrial and Commercial Training, 48(4), 208-214. Farrel, D. (1983), “Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: a multidimensional scaling study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 596-607. Frooman, J., Mendelson, M. B., & Kevin Murphy, J. (2012). Transformational and passive avoidant leadership as determinants of absenteeism. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(5), 447-463. Gillespie, N.A., & Mann, L. (2004) Transformational leadership and shared values; The building blocks of trust. Journal of managerial Psychology, 19 (6), 588-607. Guinot, J., Chiva, R., & Roca-Puig, V. (2014). Interpersonal trust, stress and satisfaction at work: an empirical study. Personnel Review, 43(1), 96-115. Hartog, D. N., Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 70(1), 19-34. Hassan, M., Toylan, N. V., Semerciöz, F., & Aksel, I. (2012). Interpersonal trust and its role in organizations. International Business Research, 5(8), 33. Hill, K., Chênevert, D., & Poitras, J. (2015). Changes in relationship conflict as a mediator of the longitudinal relationship between changes in role ambiguity and turnover intentions. International Journal of Conflict Management, 26(1), 44-67. Holtz, B. C., & Hu, B. (2017). Passive leadership: relationships with trust and justice perceptions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(1), 119-130. Horwitz, I. B., Horwitz, S. K., Daram, P., Brandt, M. L., Brunicardi, F. C., & Awad, S. S. (2008). Transformational, transactional, and passive-avoidant leadership characteristics of a surgical resident cohort: analysis using the multifactor leadership questionnaire and implications for improving surgical education curriculums. Journal of Surgical Research, 148(1), 49-59. Katou, A. A. (2015). Transformational leadership and organizational performance: Three serially mediating mechanisms. Employee Relations, 37(3), 329-353. Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 595-604. Lee, J. (2018). Passive leadership and sexual harassment: Roles of observed hostility and workplace gender ratio. Personnel Review, 47(3), 594-612. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of applied psychology, 87(1), 131. Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 672 Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. A. (1991). The dark side of trust: Conceptualizing and measuring types of communicative suspicion. Communication Quarterly, 39(4), 325-340. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4), 967-985. Long, C. S., Thean, L. Y., Ismail, W. K. W., & Jusoh, A. (2012). Leadership styles and employees’ turnover intention: Exploratory study of academic staff in a Malaysian College. World Applied Sciences Journal, 19(4), 575-581. Malik, S. Z., Saleem, M., & Naeem, R. (2016). Effect of Leadership Styles on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in Employees of Telecom Sector in Pakistan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 54(2), 385. Mbah, S. E., & Ikemefuna, C. O. (2012). Job satisfaction and employees’ turnover intentions in total Nigeria plc. in Lagos State. International journal of humanities and social science, 2(14), 275-287. Mesu, J., Riemsdijk, M. V., & Sanders, K. (2009). OCB’s in small businesses: a matter of leadership. In Paper HRM Conference, November. Morrow, P. et al., 2005. The role of leader-member exchange in high turnover work environments. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(8), pp. 681-694 Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School effectiveness and school improvement, 17(2), 145- 177. Norris, N. (2007) Evaluation and Trust, Dilemmas of Engagement: Evaluation and the New Public Management Advances in Program Evaluation, Volume 10, 139–153, Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The leadership quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. Puni, A., Agyemang, C. B., & Asamoah, E. S. (2016). Leadership styles, employee turnover intentions and counterproductive work behaviours. International Journal of innovative research and development, 5(1). Raziq, M. M., Borini, F. M., Malik, O. F., Ahmad, M., Shabaz, M. (2018). Leadership Styles, Goal Clarity, and Project Success: Evidence from Project-based Organizations in Pakistan.Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Singh, U., & Srivastava, K. B. (2009). Interpersonal trust and organizational citizenship behavior. Psychological Studies, 54(1), 65-76. Spence, J. R., Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2011). Understanding daily citizenship behaviors: A social comparison perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 547-571. Stacey, R. D. (2002). Complexity and management. Routledge. Suliman, A., & Al Obaidli, H. (2013). Leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the financial service sector: The case of the UAE. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 5(2), 115-134. Viitala, R., Kultalahti, S., & Kangas, H. (2017). Does strategic leadership development feature in managers’ responses to future HRM challenges? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(4), 576-587. Watrous, K. M., Huffman, A. H., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). When coworkers and managers quit: The effects of turnover and shared values on performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(1), 103-126. Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 673 Wu, W. L., Lin, C. H., Hsu, B. F., & Yeh, R. S. (2009). Interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing: Moderating effects of individual altruism and a social interaction environment. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 37(1), 83-93. Xirasagar, S. (2008). Transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership among physician executives. Journal of Health organization and management, 22(6), 599-613. Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 81-102. Yasir, M., Imran, R., Irshad, M. K., Mohamad, N. A., & Khan, M. M. (2016). Leadership Styles in Relation to Employees’ Trust and Organizational Change Capacity: Evidence From Non-Profit Organizations. SAGE Open, 6(4), 2158244016675396. Yoon, D., Jang, J., & Lee, J. (2016). Environmental management strategy and organizational citizenship behaviors in the hotel industry: The mediating role of organizational trust and commitment. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(8), 1577-1597. Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education India. Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 674