Descriptive correlational research shows a positive relationship between visionary leadership and organizational citizenship behavior in staff nurses, suggesting enhanced workplace engagement.
Background Visionary leadership is crucial in promoting organizational citizenship behavior among staff nurses. It positively influences nurses’ organizational citizenship behavior by encouraging them to go beyond their formal job descriptions and contribute to the organization’s success. Aim To investigate visionary leadership and its relationship to organizational citizenship behavior as perceived by staff nurses. Study design A descriptive correlational research design was used. Sample A convenient sample of 252 staff nurses. Setting This study was carried out at El Hawamdeya General Hospital in Giza Governorate at the inpatient departments and ICUs. Tools Three tools were used for the study data collection as follows: (a) personal characteristics and work-related data sheet, (b) visionary leadership questionnaire, and (c) organizational citizenship behavior questionnaire. Results The main findings indicated that staff nurses had a high perception of visionary leadership (87.47%) and organizational citizenship behavior (92.58%). Furthermore, the findings showed a statistically significant positive correlation between visionary leadership and organizational citizenship behavior ( r =0.498, P =0.00). Conclusion The staff nurses highly perceived visionary leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Moreover, there was a positive correlation between visionary leadership and organizational citizenship behavior as perceived by staff nurses. Recommendations Provides workshops and programs that highlight the importance of visionary leadership practices for nurse managers, engaging staff nurses in creating a shared future, and continuous periodic training programs should be given for staff nurses to increase their awareness about the importance of demonstrating organizational citizenship behaviors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gahlan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: