Examining the Role of Personal Identification With the Leader in Leadership Effectiveness

Abstract

Although much research has been done on employee collective identification with the organization and the work unit, the role of followers’ personal identification with the leader in followers’ work outcomes has not been fully examined. Drawing on research on transformational leadership and social identity theory, the authors examined a partial nomological network of personal identification with the leader and its mediating effects. Results show that transformational leadership was positively related to personal identification with the leader, which was significantly associated with followers’ innovativeness, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intention. In addition, personal identification with the leader significantly mediated the relationships of transformational leadership with followers’ affective organizational commitment and turnover intention. Although personal identification with the leader did not significantly mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ work outcomes, transformational leaders might indirectly increase followers’ innovativeness through gaining followers’ personal identification.

Keywords

identification with the leader transformational leadership innovativeness

Organizational researchers have found that employees’ organizational identification and work group identification played profound roles in their task performance (e.g., Walumbwa, Avolio, & Zhu, 2008), citizenship behavior (e.g., O’Reilly III & Chatman, 1986), job satisfaction (e.g., van Dick et al., 2004), and various other work outcomes (see Riketta, 2005, for a complete review). Although much research has examined collective identification with the organization and the work unit (Riketta, 2005; Riketta & van Dick, 2005), surprisingly, limited attention has been paid to personal identification with the leader. Unlike collective identification with the organization or the work group, personal identification with the leader refers to followers, identifying with an individual (leader) rather than a social group. Hobman, Jackson, Jimmieson, and Martin (2011) defined personal identification with the leader as “A self-categorization process that involves an individual defining him or herself in terms of the attributes of the leader, shifting his or her focus on individual gains for the leader, and experiencing a high level of connection with the leader” (p. 556).

To our knowledge, only a few studies have examined the role of personal identification with the leader in effective leadership. For example, based on a sample of Israeli bank employees, Kark, Shamir, and Chen (2003) reported that personal identification with the leader was distinct from social identification with the work unit and significantly mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ dependence on the leader. Walumbwa and Hartnell (2011) found a mediating effect of role identification on the relationship between transformational leadership and self-efficacy, which mediated the relationship between role identification and follower performance. A close examination of the scale items that Walumbwa and Hartnell (2011) used to measure role identification suggests that it was essentially personal identification with the leader. Hobman et al. (2011) reported that identification with the leader mediated the positive relationships of supportive leadership, intellectual stimulation, and personal recognition with follower job satisfaction, job performance, and group identification. In addition, Wang and Rode (2010) reported a significant three-way interaction among transformational leadership, employee identification with the leader, and innovative climate in the prediction of follower creativity.

Findings of the above studies suggest that personal identification with the leader is distinct from organizational identification and thus deserves separate research attention (Kark & Shamir, 2002). Admittedly, the above studies contributed to our initial understandings of the mediating roles of personal identification with the leader in the relationships of transformational leadership with follower dependence, job satisfaction, and job performance. However, researchers called for more research to examine the effects of personal identification with the leader on other types of follower outcomes and to replicate extant findings using samples from other occupations and organizations (e.g., Hobman et al., 2011; Kark et al., 2003; Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011) to better understand the role of personal identification with the leader. In response to these calls, we investigate the direct effects of personal identification with the leader on key follower behavioral and attitudinal work outcomes, such as innovativeness, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intention in the current study. Accumulating evidence in organizational research suggests that these follower work outcomes are different from those previously studied and thus need to be examined (e.g., Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Rank, Nelson, Allen, & Xu, 2009; Wang & Howell, 2010; Zimmerman & Darnold, 2009). For instance, Meyer and colleagues (2002) theoretically argued and meta-analytically showed that affective organizational commitment was distinct from job satisfaction (ρ = .65, N = 23,656) and turnover intention (ρ = –.56, N = 17,282). In addition, Rank et al. (2009) showed that employee innovativeness and job performance (r = .50, N = 161) were distinct constructs.

To be noted, limited prior research exclusively focused on the mediating role of personal identification with the leader in effective leadership. This focus may be influenced by Conger and Kanungo’s (1998) widely accepted theoretical argument that personal identification with the leader is a central mechanism through which (charismatic) leaders affect their followers. This focused but narrow view on personal identification with the leader may prevent us from having a holistic and deep understanding of its nomological network. Thus, to extend prior research and solicit increased attention to the construct of personal identification with the leader itself, we think it is important and necessary to examine the direct relationships of personal identification with the leader with followers’ innovativeness, affective commitment, and turnover intention given the prominent and distinct roles played by these follower outcomes in organizational research (e.g., Amabile, 1998; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Meyer et al., 2002). Specifically, employee innovativeness is critical for organizational success in the global marketplace (Amabile, 1998; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; Washburn & Hunsaker, 2011). Nevertheless, extant research suggests that personal identification with the leader may lead followers to blindly obey the leader and thus give up independent and critical thinking (Howell, 1988; Kark et al., 2003). As such, personal identification with the leader may impede followers’ innovativeness but strengthen the leader’s control over followers. Under unethical leaders, followers who strongly identify with their leaders may even appoint themselves to the role of mind guards of their leaders so as to prevent other followers from engaging in innovative or ethical behavior (Brown & Treviño, 2006, 2009).

In addition, affective organizational commitment has been found to be significantly related to employee health and well-being, stress, turnover, and performance (Meyer et al., 2002). However, the potential influence of personal identification with the leader on affective organizational commitment has not been investigated. Research suggests that followers who score high on personal identification with the leader might spill their emotional bond with their supervisor to the organization as supervisors are usually regarded as agents of the organization and as subordinates tend to extend their positive feelings about their direct supervisor to the organization (e.g., Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). As such, these followers tend to be affectively committed to the organization. Meanwhile, although a substantial amount of research attention has been paid to turnover intention because of its strong correlation with employee turnover (Griffeth et al., 2000), the role of personal identification with the leader in followers’ turnover intention remains uninvestigated. We argue that followers who strongly identify with the leader are less likely to withdraw from work as these followers are personally attracted to the leader and are motivated to remain within the organization to contribute to the success of their work group (Kark & Shamir, 2002).

Moreover, factors that may affect followers’ personal identification with their leader need to be examined. In this study, we focus on transformational leadership because of its theoretical relevance. Although prior research has shown a positive relationship between transformational leadership and personal identification with the leader (Hobman et al., 2011; Kark et al., 2003; Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011), it is important to examine whether previous findings could be generalized to a sample from not only a different type of occupation and organization, but also a different culture to contribute to the existing body of research on personal identification with the leader and future meta-analysis (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).

In sum, the purpose of this study is threefold: first, this study examines the direct relationships between personal identification with the leader and followers’ innovativeness, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intention; second, this study replicates the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ personal identification with the leader in a Chinese context; third, we examine the mediating role of personal identification with the leader in the relationships of transformational leadership with these follower outcomes, given the established direct relationships of transformational leadership with these outcomes (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Figure 1 depicts the theoretical model tested in this study. We believe that our study contributes to the identification literature by examining the direct and mediating effects of personal identification with the leader, an important but overlooked construct in identification research (Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011). In addition, our study contributes to the transformational leadership literature by unboxing a possible new mechanism through which transformational leaders may influence followers. In the following section, we theoretically develop specific hypotheses.

Figure 1

Proposed theoretical model of the study

Theory and Hypotheses

Personal Identification With the Leader and Follower Outcomes

Innovativeness refers to employees’ creative performance, or the extent to which employees create and implement new ideas at work (George & Zhou, 2007). Borman and Motowidlo (1993) argue that task performance is mainly driven by “can-do” factors, such as general mental ability, whereas nontask performance (e.g., innovativeness) is mainly driven by “will-do” factors, such as personality and motivation. Accordingly, as a motivational state, personal identification with the leader might directly influence followers’ innovativeness. Research suggests that personal identification with the leader may have a negative relationship with followers’ innovativeness. As followers who strongly identify with the leader define themselves in terms of the attributes of the leader, share similar values and beliefs with the leader, and focus on the leader’s gains, they tend to be satisfied with the status quo and rely on the leader for guidance on how to creatively fulfill job responsibilities (Howell, 1988; Kark et al., 2003). Thus, the more the followers identify with the leader, the less likely they are to redefine existing problems and generate novel and new ideas that deviate from the norm (Kirton, 1976). This tendency is to be especially true for first-line employees who are expected to follow standardized procedures. Therefore, followers who strongly identify with the leader are likely to be low in innovativeness.

Hypothesis 1a: Personal identification with the leader will be negatively related to followers’ innovativeness.

Affective organizational commitment is defined as an “emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization” (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p. 67) and is seen as employees’ attitudes toward their organization. Ashforth and Mael (1989) argue that identification can “enhance support for and commitment to the organization” (p. 26). Prior research has shown that organizational identification is distinct from, yet related to, affective commitment (e.g., Riketta, 2005). However, Olkkonen and Lipponen (2006) argue that relationships found at one target of identification (e.g., organization or work unit) would not necessarily apply to another target of identification (e.g., leader). Thus, it is theoretically meaningful and practically important to examine the relationship between personal identification with the leader and affective organizational commitment. Followers who strongly identify with their leader tend to develop an emotional bond with their leader (Hobman et al., 2011; Kark et al., 2003). As employees view supervisors as representatives of the organization and attribute leaders’ values and beliefs to those of the organization (Levinsion, 1965), they are likely to extend their emotional bond with their supervisor to the organization as a whole. Therefore, followers who more highly identify with their leader will have higher levels of affective organizational commitment. Research on organizational support theory (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) suggests that followers may spill their emotional bond with the leader to the organization. For example, with a longitudinal panel design, Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, and Rhoades (2002) found that employees’ perceived supervisor support leads to the employees’ changes in perceived organizational support over time. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1b: Personal identification with the leader will be positively related to followers’ affective organizational commitment.

Turnover intention reflects employees’ propensity of job withdrawal (Zimmerman, 2008). Identification research implies that personal identification with the leader tends to be a proximal antecedent of turnover intention (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; van Dick et al., 2004). Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) suggests that when individuals identify with an organization or a person (a leader), they tend to support the organization or the person, and be attracted to the organization or the person. As such, individuals have increased willingness to remain within the organization or work with the person. Following this line of reasoning, we expect that when followers highly identify with a leader, they are likely to support the leader and are strongly emotionally attached to the leader. Therefore, their willingness to work for the leader will increase, and they will have a low turnover intention. Based on the above argument, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1c: Personal identification with the leader will be negatively related to followers’ turnover intention.

Transformational Leadership and Followers’ Personal Identification With the Leader

Followers are motivated to transcend self-interests to work for the good of the group and the organization by transformational leaders who exhibit four types of behavior: inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1985). Inspirational motivation refers to the extent to which transformational leaders articulate a shared vision and high expectations that are motivating, inspiring, and challenging. Idealized influence reflects the extent to which transformational leaders serve as role models by acting in ways that are consistent with the articulated vision. Intellectual stimulation means that transformational leaders stimulate their followers to challenge existing assumptions and solicit followers’ suggestions and ideas. Finally, individualized consideration indicates the extent to which transformational leaders attend to the specific needs of their followers and treat each follower as a unique individual. As one of the most widely studied leadership paradigms (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009), transformational leadership has been shown to play a positive role in followers’ attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Wang et al., 2011).

Transformational/charismatic leadership research (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1998; Kark & van Dijk, 2007) suggests that one way that transformational/charismatic leaders may affect follower outcomes is through influencing followers’ personal identification with the leader. According to Kark and colleagues (2003), personal identification with the leader means the extent to which the followers’ beliefs about a leader become self-referential or self-defining. Followers who highly identify with their leader tend to share similar values and beliefs with their leader and are willing to change their self-concepts to share more similar values and beliefs with the leader. Transformational/charismatic leadership theorists (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1998; Howell & Shamir, 2005) argue both transformational/charismatic leaders and followers help form a personalized identification relationship. Specifically, Conger and Kanungo (1987, 1998) contend that transformational/charismatic leaders appeal to followers’ higher values, beliefs, and goals and serve as role models toward the achievement of articulated visions to gain personal influence over followers. As such, followers are more likely to identify with or internalize their leaders’ values and beliefs. Furthermore, transformational leaders’ individualized consideration behaviors are likely to foster trust in the leader, which will contribute to followers’ emotional attachment to and bond with the leader that drives followers to personally identify with the leader (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). In addition, Howell and Shamir (2005) propose that followers, especially those low in self-concept clarity or high in relational self as opposed to collective self, may also want to form a personalized relationship with the leader. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Transformational leadership will be positively related to followers’ personal identification with the leader.

Mediating Role of Personal Identification in the Relationships Between Transformational Leadership and Followers’ Outcomes

Theoretical and empirical research suggests that transformational leadership relates to followers’ innovativeness, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intention. Transformational leaders intellectually stimulate followers to challenge the status quo, to question assumptions, to take risks, and to suggest innovative ideas (Bass, 1985). Furthermore, through role modeling, transformational leaders encourage followers to be creative problem solvers and to be willing to take risk and experiment with their creative ideas without fear of consequences (Bandura, 1976; Shin & Zhou, 2003). As such, transformational leadership positively relates to followers’ innovativeness. Empirically, prior studies reported that transformational leadership was positively associated with followers’ innovativeness (e.g., Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Moss & Ritossa, 2007; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Wang & Zhu, 2011).

Prior theoretical frameworks suggest that leadership is an antecedent of affective organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). We argue that transformational leadership will positively influence followers’ affective organizational commitment. Transformational leaders treat each employee as an individual and attend to his or her psychological and development needs and preferences (Bass, 1985). As social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) suggests, followers are likely to reciprocate the favorable treatment they receive from their supervisor with an increased emotional attachment to the organization as employees regard a supervisor’s coaching and helping behaviors as fulfilling responsibilities assigned by the organization and attribute supervisor’s favorable treatment to the organization (Levinson, 1965). Furthermore, transformational leaders connect followers’ values and beliefs with those of the organization (Bono & Judge, 2003) and make followers feel that they contribute to a larger cause and the success of the organization (Bass, 1985). As such, followers are likely to have a sense of being emotionally bonded or linked to the organization. Several studies have found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and affective organizational commitment (e.g., Liao & Chuang, 2007; Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003).

Turnover intention represents a conscious and deliberate willfulness to leave the organization. Contextual factors, such as supportive leadership, tend to decrease employees’ turnover intention (Zimmerman, 2008). Transformational leaders tend to support followers by providing individualized coaching and mentoring and career development opportunities. Thus, because of support from transformational leaders, followers are less likely to quit. Furthermore, transformational leaders empower followers by articulating an inspirational vision and serving as role models toward the achievement of the vision (Wang et al., 2011). Transformational leaders also encourage followers to be critical and innovative. Followers tend to have a sense of meaningfulness and affect at work and, as a result, are less inclined to quit (Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011; Spreitzer, 1995). Empirically, transformational leadership has been shown to be negatively associated with turnover intention (Hughes, Avey, & Nixon, 2010).

With reference to Hypotheses 2 and in line with Conger and Kanungo (1987), we expect that one mechanism through which transformational leadership may influence followers’ innovativeness, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intention is by increasing followers’ personal identification with the leader (James, Mulaik, & Brett, 2006). The hypothesized mediating effects of personal identification with the leader on the relationships of transformational leadership with followers’ affective organizational commitment and turnover intention have the same sign as the hypothesized direct effects of transformational leadership on followers’ affective organizational commitment and turnover intention. This type of mediation is frequently seen in organizational research (e.g., Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011), and regarded as consistent models (MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007).

In contrast, the mediating effect of personal identification with the leader on the transformational leadership-followers’ innovativeness has a different sign from the hypothesized direct effect of transformational leadership on followers’ innovativeness. MacKinnon et al. (2007) classify this type of mediations as inconsistent models and assert that inconsistent models are helpful to understand the overall relation between two variables. An example of empirical application of inconsistent mediation models is Sheets and Braver (1999), in which the authors examined the association between a perpetrator’s organizational status and the victim’s sexual harassment perceptions, and two mediators of this relationship: perceived power of the perpetrator and perceived social dominance of the perpetrator. The results showed that a perpetrator’s organizational status was positively related to the victim’s perceptions of the perpetrator’s social dominance, which decreased the victim’s perceptions that the perpetrator’s behavior was harassing. Moreover, the perpetrator’s organizational status was found to be positively associated with the victim’s perceptions of the perpetrator’s power, which led the victim to perceive that the perpetrator’s behavior was highly harassing. In the current study, the hypothesized inconsistent mediating effect of personal identification with the leader will contribute to a fine-grained understanding of the overall relation between followers’ transformational leadership perceptions and their innovativeness. In summary, the foregoing suggests the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a: Personal identification with the leader will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ innovativeness.

Hypothesis 3b: Personal identification with the leader will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ affective organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 3c: Personal identification with the leader will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ turnover intention.

Method

Sample and Procedures

Data for this study were collected from a Chinese garment manufacturing firm located in the Southeast of China and involved in the design, production, and marketing of women’s garments. It has over 1,200 retail stores in China and three independent brands. Its annual revenue reached over 600 million RMB (around 94 million U.S. dollars) in 2010. Its manufacturing operations employ around 2,500 people.

Respondents of this study were from 17 production teams in the production of garments. Each team was composed of one team leader and 12 to 28 team members and was responsible for one production line. A great deal of coordination was required between team members as they worked sequentially on the line, each specialized in a specific task. Team leaders were in charge of monitoring team members’ work processes, coaching them to enhance work performance, and motivating them to work more efficiently. Production employees in this firm were typically migrant workers from more underdeveloped regions in China.

The participants in this study were 318 employees and 17 supervisors. All respondents were employed in full-time positions. The teams were randomly selected from a list obtained from the firm’s HR department. Surveys were used to collect data from supervisors and subordinates. Prior to their distribution, the survey instruments were translated into Chinese from English by bilingual members of the research team using the back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1993). The questionnaires for subordinates and supervisors were administered separately. Subordinates reported their supervisors’ transformational leadership in the first week and reported identification with the supervisor, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intention in the second week. Three weeks later, supervisors rated followers’ innovativeness.

The sample characteristics for the employees and the supervisors are as follows: 47% of the employees were male; 84% employees were between 18 and 25 years old and received a high school education; employees’ average relationship tenure with the supervisor was 11 months; 54% of the supervisors were male; 75% of the supervisors were between 26 and 35 years old; and 95% of the supervisors had some college education.

Measures

Transformational leadership

Supervisory transformational leadership behavior was measured using 20 items adapted from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) form 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Respondents were required to rate their immediate supervisor’s transformational leadership behavior using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all and 5 = very frequently, if not always).The MLQ measures idealized influence with an eight-item scale and the remaining three components (inspirational motivation, intellectual consideration, and individualized consideration) with four-item scales. A sample item for idealized influence includes “My supervisor instills pride in me for being associated with him/her”; A sample item for inspiration motivation is “My supervisor talks optimistically about the future.” The scale showed very good reliability (α = .87).

Personal identification with the leader

Personal identification with the leader was measured with Kark et al.’s (2003) eight-item scale. A sample item includes “I view my supervisor’s success as my own success.” Employees were asked to report their personal identification with their supervisor using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The scale showed good reliability (α = .81).

Affective organizational commitment

Followers’ affective organizational commitment was measured with Meyer, Allen, and Smith’s (1993) affective organizational commitment scale. A sample item includes “I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to the organization.” Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Turnover intention

The turnover intention scale was drawn from Hom, Griffeth, and Sellaro (1984). Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are “I often think of quitting my present job.” and “I may leave this company and work for another company in the next year.” The reliability coefficient α of this scale was .63.

Innovativeness

Innovativeness was measured using the four-item scale developed by Tierney, Farmer, and Graen (1999), who adapted a four-item scale originally developed by Ettlie and O’Keefe (1982). Sample items are “This subordinate demonstrated originality in his/her work.” and “This team member searches out new ideas.” All responses were made on a five-point Likert-type scale format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale showed very good internal consistency (α = .93).

Control variables

Followers’ and leaders’ gender, age, and education level and the relationship tenure between leaders and followers were collected and controlled for, given that these variables may correlate with study variables and confound relationships between study variables (e.g., Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Puja, 2004; Walumbwa et al., 2008).

Evidence of Construct Validity

To further examine the distinctiveness of the scales used in this study, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with M-PLUS. More specifically, we compared the fit of a model in which the measures of all five factors (transformational leadership, personal identification with the leader, innovativeness, affective organizational commitment, turnover intention) were set to load on their respective factors with the fit of more constrained models in which some factors (e.g., personal identification with the leader and affective organizational commitment) were set to load on a single factor. CFA results demonstrate that the hypothesized five-factor model (χ² = 1145.49, df = 805, p < .01, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .92, TLI = .92, SRMR = .06) fits the data significantly better than all other alternative models, such as the four-factor (combining personal identification with the leader and affective organizational commitment) model (χ² = 1347.25, df = 809, p < .01, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .87, TLI = .87, SRMR = .07) or one general factor model (χ² = 2967.46, df = 819, p < .01, RMSEA = .10, CFI = .51, TLI = .59, SRMR = .11), providing evidence for the distinctiveness of the measures used in this study. In addition, we also computed the average extracted variance (AVE) for each of the five factors. As shown in Table 1, the AVEs for all of the five factors are greater than the suggested cutoff value of .50 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010), rendering support for the convergent validity of the factors.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables at Individual-Level of Analysis

	Mean	SD	AVE	1	2	3	4	5
1. Transformational leadership	3.5	.59	.64	(.87)	—	—	—	—
2. Personal identification with the leader	3.4	.66	.72	.58**	(.81)	—	—	—
3. Innovativeness	2.38	1.00	.79	.07	.05	(.93)	—	—
4. Affective organizational commitment	3.44	.71	.54	.29**	.40**	.03	(.77)	—
5. Turnover intention	2.97	.82	.51	−.21**	−.22**	−.01	−.36**	.63

Note. AVE = average variance extracted. N = 318. Cronbach alpha coefficients are reported in parentheses on the diagonal.

p < 05. **p < .01.

Levels of Analysis

In this study, we conceptualized transformational leadership as an individual-level construct because we were interested in how supervisory transformational leadership behavior as perceived by each follower might influence his or her innovativeness, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intention through his or her identification with the leader. Wang and Howell (2010) pointed out that “there is no consensus among researchers about whether TFL is an individual- or a group-level phenomenon” (p. 1134). Early transformational leadership theorists such as Bass (1985) conceptualized transformational leadership as an individual-level construct and focused on transformational leaders’ direct affect on each individual follower by exerting different behaviors (e.g., individualized consideration). Recently, some researchers (e.g., Kark & Shamir, 2002) have argued that followers’ shared perceptions of their leaders’ transformational leadership behavior may form a group-level construct. When followers’ reports of transformational leadership are aggregated to the group level as presented by the group mean, individual differences in followers’ reporting are treated as error. In the current study, we assume that individual differences in followers’ reports of their supervisors’ transformational leadership may explain variance in their personal identification with the leader and the outcome variables and, thus, should not be treated as error. Empirically, we computed ICC values for transformational leadership to see whether it is methodologically justifiable to aggregate it to the group level. The ICC(1) was .04 and the ICC(2) was .43. Both values were lower than suggested cutoff values (e.g., Bliese, 2000; Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993).

In addition, the mediating and outcome variables were conceptually individual-level constructs and treated as individual-level variables. In sum, we were interested in within-group relationships, rather than between-group relationships.

Analytic Techniques

Data for this study were nested in that the employees in the same work group shared the same supervisor and were thus not independent. As data nonindependence may confound within-group effects with between-group effects (Hofman, 1997), we decided to use Hierarchical Liner Modeling (HLM, version 7) to account for possible dependence in outcome variables when testing study hypotheses. Following HLM researchers (e.g., Bliese, 2000; Hofman, 1997; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002), we used unconditional means models in HLM models to examine the significance of between-group (leader) variance for each of the followers’ outcome variables and computed ICC(1) values to assess the magnitudes of dependence. The results show that the ICC(1) values for followers’ innovativeness and personal identification was .56 and .09 respectively and that the between-group variance for the two variables was statistically significant (p < .01). The ICC(1) values for affective organizational commitment and turnover intention was .01 and .02 respectively. The between-group variance for the two outcome variables was insignificant. Although there was no significant between-group variance in followers’ self-reports of affective organizational commitment and turnover intention, HLM could still be used to examine relationships related to the two variables (Hofmann, 1997). In this case, HLM is similar to ordinary least regression as the major difference between these two approaches is whether the intercept is considered to be random or fixed across groups (Hofmann, 1997; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

Given that a traditional HLM-based approach to testing multilevel mediation (e.g., Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011) is prone to confound within-group mediation effects with between-group mediation effects (for more details, see Zhang, Zyphur, & Preacher, 2009), we decided to use Zhang et al.’s (2009) HLM-based approach of “centered within context with reintroduction of the subtracted means,” or CWC(M), to test the mediation hypotheses (i.e., Hypothesis 3a, 3b, and 3c). Specifically, we used Zhang et al.’s (2009) CWC(M) approach for testing 1-1-1 multilevel mediation models as all variables in this study were measured at Level 1 and as we were interested in relationships at Level 1. In line with Hofmann and Gavin (1998), we used group mean centering when testing Hypotheses 1 and 2 because this centering approach allows us to separate within-group and between-group components and provides accurate estimates of within-group slopes.

Results

Table 1 reports descriptive statistics, alpha coefficients, and zero-order correlations among study variables at individual-level of analysis. As shown in Table 1, transformational leadership was significantly related to personal identification with the leader (r = .58, p < .01), providing initial support for Hypothesis 2. However, personal identification with the leader was not significantly related to followers’ innovativeness (r = .05, p > .10). We think this correlation needs to be interpreted carefully because the correlation is bivariate. All but one of the study’s variables demonstrate acceptable internal consistency reliabilities (i.e., coefficients α) that are higher than the suggested cutoff value of .70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The internal consistency reliability for turnover intention was a bit lower than .70. According to Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), the relatively large unreliability in the measure of turnover intention would attenuate the observed relationships of turnover intention with other variables and, thus, work against finding significant relationships. Therefore, results reported in this study about relationships of turnover intention are underestimated.

Table 2 presents HLM results concerning Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c, and 2. Contrary to Hypothesis 1a, HLM results show that personal identification with the leader was positively, rather than negatively, related to followers’ innovativeness (γ = .13, p < .05) after followers’ and leaders’ gender, age, education level as well as relationship tenure between followers and leaders were controlled for. Consistent with Hypotheses1b and 1c, HLM results show that personal identification with the leader was positively related to affective organizational commitment (γ = .44, p < .01), but negatively associated with turnover intention (γ = –.31, p < .01) after the follower and leader variables were controlled for. Supporting Hypothesis 2, HLM results indicate that transformational leadership was positively related to personal identification with the leader (γ = .60, p < .01) after the follower and leader variables were controlled for.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results: The Antecedent and Consequences of Personal Identification With the Leader

	Innovativeness	Affective organizational commitment	Turnover intention	Personal identification with the leader
Level and variable	Hypothesis 1a	Hypothesis 1b	Hypothesis 1c	Hypothesis 2
Level 1
Follower gender	−.11	.04	−.16	.05
Follower age	.05	.11*	−.08	−.01
Follower education level	.13	−.10	.03	−.05
Time with supervisor	.01	.00	.01*	.00
Personal identification with the leader	.13*	.44**	−.31**	—
Transformational leadership	—	—	—	.60**
Level 2
Leader gender	−.00	−.01	.00	−.00
Leader age	.00	.00	−.00	−.00
Leader education level	.00	.00	−.00	.00

Note. N = 318 (Level 1) and N = 17 (Level 2). All Level 1 variables were group-mean centered. Entries are estimates of the fixed effects ϒs.

p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 3 summarizes results of testing Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c based on Zhang et al.’s (2009) 1-1-1 CWC(M) approach, which includes three steps. Step 1 is to establish a relationship between a 1evel 1 independent variable (e.g., transformational leadership) and a Level 1 dependent variable (e.g., innovativeness) by group-mean centering the independent variable and including the group mean of the independent variable in the equation at level 2; Step 2 is to demonstrate a relationship between the Level 1 independent variable (e.g., transformational leadership) and a Level 1 mediator (e.g., personal identification with the leader) by group-mean centering the independent variable and including the group mean of the independent variable in the equation at level 2; Step 3 is to include both the independent variable (e.g., transformational leadership) and the mediator (e.g., personal identification with the leader) to predict the dependent variable by group-mean centering the independent variable and the mediator and adding the group means of the independent variable and the mediator to the equation at level 2. Level 1 mediation effects could be quantified as the product of the fixed effect regression coefficient of the independent variable (e.g., transformational leadership) obtained at Step 2 and the fixed effect regression coefficient of the mediator (e.g., personal identification with the leader) obtained at Step 3. The significance of the mediation effects could be tested using Sobel’s (1982) z statistic or Freedman and Schatzkin’s (1992) t statistic (Zhang et al., 2009). In addition, as Sobel’s (1982) test has been criticized for having low power and unrealistically assuming that the sample distribution of indirect effect is normal (e.g., Preacher & Hayes, 2008), we also used MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams’s (2004) Monte Carlo Method for Assessing Mediation (MCMM) to estimate the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mediation effects.

Table 3

Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results: Mediation Effects of Personal Identification With Leader on the Relationships of Transformational Leadership With Follower Outcomes

	Innovativeness		Affective organizational commitment		Turnover intention		Personal identification with the leader
Level and variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7
Level 1
Follower gender	−.11	−.11	.06	.04	−.16	−.15	.05
Follower age	.04	.04	.09	.09	−.07	−.07	−.01
Follower education level	.12	.12	−.13	−.11	.01	−.01	−.05
Time with supervisor	.01	.01	.00	.00	.01	.01	.00
Transformational leadership	.14*	.09	.33**	.09	−.27**	−.12	.60**
Personal identification with the leader	—	.09	—	.39**	—	−.24**	—
Level 2
Leader gender	.01	.02	−.02	−.02	−.01	.00	−.01
Leader age	−.01	−.01	.00	.00	−.01	.00	.00
Leader education level	.04	.04	.04	.03	.03	.03	.01
Mean transformational leadership	.08	.16	.02	.02	.00	.21	−.04
Mean personal identification with the leader	—	−.06	—	.01	—	−.18	—

Note. N = 318 (Level 1) and N = 17 (Level 2). All Level-1 variables were group-mean centered. Entries are estimations of the fixed effects ϒs.

p < .05. **p < .01.

As shown in Table 3, transformational leadership was significantly related to innovativeness (see Model 1) and personal identification with the leader (see Model 7) after the follower and leader demo variables were controlled for. Model 2 shows that personal identification with the leader had no significant relationship with innovativeness. Sobel’s (1982) test shows that the mediation effect (.05) of personal identification on the transformational leadership-innovativeness relationship was insignificant (Z = 1.27, p > .05). In addition, the 95% CI [–.03, 14] by Mackinnon et al.’s (2004) MCMM included zero. Thus, Hypothesis 3a was not supported. Model 3 shows that transformational leadership was significantly associated with affective organizational commitment (γ = .33, p < .01). Again, Model 7 demonstrates that transformational leadership was significantly related to personal identification with the leader (γ = .60, p < .01). Model 4 shows that personal identification with the leader had a significant relationship with affective organizational commitment after transformational leadership was added to the model and the follower and leader demo variables were controlled for. Sobel’s (1982) test shows that the mediation effect was significant (Z = 5.17, p < .01). The MCMM approach shows that 95% CI [.15, .33] of the mediation effect excluded zero. Thus, Hypothesis 3b was supported. Finally, Models 5 and 7 show that transformational leadership was significantly related to turnover intention (γ = –.27, p < .01) and personal identification with the leader. Model 6 illustrates that personal identification with the leader was significantly and negatively associated with turnover intention (γ = –.24, p < .01) after transformational leadership was added to the model and the follower and leader demo variables were controlled for. Sobel’s (1982) test shows that the mediation effect was significant (Z = −2.91, p < .01). The MCMM approach shows that 95% CI [–.24, –.05] of the mediation effect excluded zero. Therefore, Hypothesis 3c was supported.

Discussion

This study examined the role of personal identification with the leader in followers’ innovativeness, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intention. This study also investigated one antecedent of personal identification with the leader: transformational leadership. In addition, based on the first two research questions, this article also studied the mediating effects of personal identification with the leader on the relationships of transformational leadership with followers’ innovativeness, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intention using Zhang et al.’s (2009) advanced method, which allowed us to separate the within-group mediation effects from the between-group mediation effects. The results suggest that personal identification with the leader might increase followers’ innovativeness and affective organizational commitment and decrease followers’ turnover intention. Consistent with previous findings (e.g., Hobman et al., 2011; Kark et al., 2003; Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011), transformational leadership was significantly related to followers’ personal identification with their leader based on a sample of Chinese participants. Contrary to our expectation, personal identification with the leader didn’t have a significant inconsistent mediation effect on the transformational leadership-followers’ innovativeness relationship. However, a transformational leader may indirectly influence followers’ innovativeness by increasing their personal identification with the leader. In addition, personal identification with the leader significantly mediated the relationships of transformational leadership with followers’ affective organizational commitment and turnover intention.

As mentioned earlier, our study contributes to the literature in at least the following three ways. First, this study contributes to identification research. Like collective identification with the organization or the work unit (Riketta, 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2011), personal identification with the leader may also lead to positive work outcomes, such as increased innovativeness and affective organizational commitment and reduced turnover intention. This article adds to recent studies (e.g., Hobman et al., 2011; Kark & Shamir, 2002; Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011) on personal identification with the leader by showing that personal identification with the leader could have direct effects on followers’ outcomes other than job performance and satisfaction. Findings across existing studies suggest that personal identification with the leader deserves separate research attention from organizational identification, given its moderate correlation with organizational identification (Hobman et al., 2011) and organization targeted variables such as affective organizational commitment (Riketta, 2005). Thus, to have a clear understanding of the nomological network of personal identification with the leader, we think it is important to treat this construct as an independent construct rather than a construct affiliated with leadership behavior. As an example, this study focused on the direct roles of personal identification with the leader in followers’ innovativeness, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intention and found significant direct effects. In particular, if we focused only on the mediating effects of personal identification on the relationships of transformational leadership with the followers’ outcomes, we would have reported an insignificant inconsistent mediation effect on the transformational leadership-followers’ innovativeness relationship. We would not have found the significant direct effect of personal identification with the leader on followers’ innovativeness.

The finding that personal identification with the leader had a significant positive relationship with followers’ innovativeness does not support previous speculations that personal identification with the leader may result in detrimental consequences for organizations or work units (Howell, 1988; Howell & Shamir, 2005). This finding does not seem to be consistent with what was found in Kark et al. (2003).This result suggests that, in Chinese organizations, personal identification with the leader does not necessarily result in less creativity or innovativeness. The group-engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003) might help us understand the positive relationship between personal identification with the leader and innovativeness. This model posits that the extent to which one identifies with one’s work group may influence one’s attitudes and behaviors (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003). According to this model, group members who strongly identify with their group tend to be intrinsically motivated to contribute to the group’s viability and success. Empirically, Blader and Tyler (2009) found that social identity explained significant variance in extra-role behaviors and, thus, rendered support for this model.

With reference to the group-engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003), one possible explanation for the significant positive association between personal identification with the leader and innovativeness might be that followers who highly identify with the leader are intrinsically motivated to help their leader succeed. As a leader’s success is mainly based on the accomplishments of collective goals, these followers are likely to internalize the collective goals. Innovativeness has the potential of accelerating the accomplishments of group goals (Shin & Zhou, 2007). Thus, these followers are motivated to engage in innovative behaviors to make their work group and leader succeed even though doing so is risky and may require them to deviate from what they are expected to do. Moreover, in a high power-distance (Hofstede, 2001) culture such as China, followers may personally identify with their leader to a greater extent because it is inherent in Chinese cultural values. Thus, Chinese followers are more likely to internalize their supervisor’s success as their own success and be motivated to innovatively fulfill job responsibilities to make their work group and supervisor successful.

Second, this study contributes to the leadership literature. This study indicates that transformational leaders may influence followers’ behavior and attitudes by fostering personal identification with the leader among followers. Although personal identification with the leader did not significantly mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ innovativeness, it appears that transformational leaders may indirectly increase followers’ innovativeness by increasing followers’ personal identification with the leader. Thus, building personal identification among followers is particularly important for transformational leaders to elicit innovative behaviors from followers. Moreover, the results of the study suggest that one possible mechanism through which transformational leaders may affect followers’ affective organizational commitment and turnover intention is by influencing followers’ personal identification with the leader. Thus, this study contributes to our understandings of how transformational leadership may affect followers’ affective organizational commitment and turnover intention (Avolio et al., 2009).

Finally, echoing calls for replicating findings on the relationship between transformational leadership and personal identification with samples from different occupations and organizations (Hobman et al., 2011; Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011), we examined this relationship using a sample of first-line employees in a manufacturing firm in China and found this relationship to be significant. The findings of the study suggest that the significant effect of transformational leadership on personal identification with the leader might be generalizable across occupations, organizations, and cultures. Admittedly, we did not measure differences in occupation, organization, or culture and could not directly examine the generalizability of our finding. However, we believe our study will contribute to future meta-analysis that could test the generalizability of the positive effect of transformational leadership on personal identification with the leader (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).

Practical Implications

The findings of our study suggest a number of practical implications. To begin, followers’ personal identification with the leader matters in organizations. Given the significant positive relationships between personal identification with the leader and innovativeness, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intention, managers are advised to build personal identification among followers. One way to gain followers’ personal identification is by exhibiting transformational leadership behaviors, including inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Fortunately, evidence suggests that supervisors could be trained to demonstrate transformational leadership behaviors (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). Moreover, supervisors need to behave as role models for followers in that supervisors’ work behaviors could affect followers’ personal identification. Thus, managers are encouraged to treat followers with respect and dignity and especially to refrain from laissez-faire and abusive supervision (Tepper, 2007). Finally, given the significant direct associations between transformational leadership and the follower outcomes, organizations could promote transformational leadership behaviors among managers to effectively increase employees’ innovativeness and affective commitment and reduce dysfunctional turnover.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations. First, as data for this study were collected from a single manufacturing firm, findings in this study may not be generalizable to other types of organizations. Future research is needed to replicate our findings using samples from different industries and cultures. As we discussed above, culture might have played an important role in the positive association between personal identification with the leader and followers’ innovativeness. Thus, we caution readers to interpret our results as primary and especially encourage other researchers to reexamine the relationship between personal identification with the leader and innovativeness in a low power-distance culture. Second, this study focused only on followers’ personal identification with the leader because theoretical and empirical research suggests that personal identification is distinct from organizational identification and deserves separate research attention (e.g., Hobman et al., 2011; Kark et al., 2003; Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011). Thus, we could not examine the relative importance of identification with different targets in predicting these work outcomes. Future research may measure identification targeted at all three foci: organization, work unit, and leader, and compare their predictive validity. In addition, although personal identification with the leader (Tajfel, 1982) and Leader-Member-Exchange (LMX) are rooted in different theories (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975), both of them reflect followers’ emotional attachment to their leaders. Therefore, we encourage future research to investigate convergent and discriminant validities of the two constructs.

Third, like previous research (e.g., Hobman et al., 2011; Kark et al., 2003; Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011), we examined transformational leadership as an antecedent of personal identification with the leader because of theoretical relevance. However, other kinds of leadership (e.g., ethical leadership, servant leadership) might also influence followers’ personal identification with the leader. For example, given that ethical leaders serve as ethical role models and make ethical decisions (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005), we expect that followers are likely to develop personal identification with ethical leaders. Thus, future research is called for to explore other plausible determinants of personal identification with the leader to expand its nomological network. Fourth, like many published studies in the field of organizational research (e.g., Hobman et al., 2011; Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011), our study may suffer from less than optimal sample sizes as suggested by Kreft (1996). Particularly, our level 2 sample size is relatively small. However, given that Zhang et al.’s (2009) approach allows us to separate within-group (Level 1) effects from between-group (Level 2) effects, this should be less of a concern. Nevertheless, the less than optimal sample sizes at both levels might explain why the mediating effect of personal identification with the leader on the transformational leadership-followers’ innovativeness was insignificant. To increase power, we encourage future researchers to use large sample sizes at both levels to replicate our findings. Fifth, the design of this study was cross-sectional, which prevents us from inferring causality. In addition, follower individual differences characteristics (e.g., Big-Five personality) were not considered in this study. It is possible that followers with different personality traits may react differently when identifying with the leader. For example, as trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) suggests, identification with the leader may especially activate those followers who are high in openness to experience and engage in innovative behavior. Thus, future research needs to investigate the moderating role of follower individual differences.

Conclusion

The study indicates that personal identification with the leader was significantly related to followers’ innovativeness, affective organizational identification, and turnover intention and that transformational leadership significantly predicted followers’ personal identification with the leader based on a sample from a different industry and culture. In addition, transformational leadership could indirectly affect followers’ innovativeness through identification with the leader, which fully mediated the relationship of transformational leadership with followers’ affective organizational commitment and turnover intention.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Weichun Zhu is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Labor Studies and Employment Relations, Pennsylvania State University. His research interests include transformational/authentic leadership and their influence processes; crisis leadership and its antecedents, consequences, and functional mechanisms; and ethical leadership and decision making in organizations.

Gang Wang is an assistant professor in the Department of Business at the University of Idaho. He receibed earned his Ph.D. degree in management from the University of Iowa. His research interests focus on the roles of leaders’ emotion, emotional labor, personality, and human capital in leadership effectiveness at the individual, team, and organizational level of analysis.

Xiaoming Zheng is an Associate Professor of Human Resources and Organizational Behavior in the School of Economics and Management at Tsinghua University, China. He earned his Ph.D. degree from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. His main research interests include Leadership development, Organizational behavior, and strategic human resource management.

Taoxiong Liu is an associate professor of political Economy of the School of Humanities & Social Sciences, Tsinghua University, China. He is the executive director of the Center for Strategy and Policy. Dr. Liu received a B.S and Ph. D. both from Tsinghua University. He has published two books and dozens of papers both in Chinese and English.

Qing Miao is an Associate Professor of management at Zhejiang University, China. He received his Ph.D. degree from the Business School of Zhejiang University. His research interests include leadership effectiveness in the SMEs and leadership development in the public sector.

References

Amabile

T. M.

(1998). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Avolio

B. J.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Weber

T. J.

(2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.

Avolio

B. J.

Zhu

Koh

Puja

(2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951-968.

Bandura

(1976). Social learning perspective on behavior change. In Burton

(Ed.), What makes behavior change possible? (pp. 34-57). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Barling

Weber

Kelloway

E. K.

(1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827-832.

Bass

B. M.

(1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1997). Full range of leadership: Manual for the multi-factor leadership questionnaire. Palto Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Blader

Tyler

T. R.

(2009). Testing and expanding the group engagement model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445-464.

10.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Academic Press.

11.

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12.

Bono

J. E.

Judge

T. A.

(2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 554-571.

13.

Borman

W. C.

Motowidlo

S. J.

(1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Schmidt

Borman

W. C.

Howard

Kraut

Ilgen

Schneider

Zedeck

(Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

14.

Brislin

R. W.

(1993). Understanding culture’s influence on behavior. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

15.

Brown

M. E.

Treviño

L. K.

(2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 954-962.

16.

Brown

M. E.

Treviño

L. K.

(2009). Leader-follower values congruence: Are socialized charismatic leaders better able to achieve it? Journal of Applied Psychology, 9, 478-490.

17.

Brown

M. E.

Treviño

L. K.

Harrison

D. A.

(2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning theory perspective for construct development. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117-134.

18.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

(1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647.

19.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

R. N.

(1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

20.

Dansereau

Jr. Graen

Haga

W. J.

(1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.

21.

Eisenberger

Hungtington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.

22.

Eisenberger

Stinglhamber

Vandenberghe

Sucharski

Rhoades

(2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565-573.

23.

Ettlie

J. E.

O’Keefe

R. D.

(1982). Innovative attitudes, values, and intentions in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 163-182.

24.

Freedman

L. S.

Schatzkin

(1992).Sample size for studying intermediate endpoints within intervention trials of observational studies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 136, 1148-1159.

25.

George

J. M.

Zhou

(2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605-622.

26.

Griffeth

R. W.

Hom

P. W.

Gaertner

(2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlatesof employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488.

27.

Gumusluoglu

Ilsev

(2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 461-473.

28.

Hair

Black

Babin

Anderson

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

29.

Hobman

Jackson

C. J.

Jimmieson

Martin

(2011). The effects of transformational leadership behaviors on follower outcomes: An identity-based analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 553-580.

30.

Hofmann

D. A.

(1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723-744.

31.

Hofmann

D. A.

Gavin

M. B.

(1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623-641.

32.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences, comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

33.

Hom

P. W.

Griffeth

R. W.

Sellaro

C. L.

(1984). The validity of Mobley’s 1977 model of employees’ turnover. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 144-174.

34.

Howell

J. M.

(1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

R. N.

(Eds.), Charismatic leadership (pp. 213-236). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

35.

Howell

J. M.

Shamir

(2005). The role of followers in the charismatic process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96-112.

36.

Hughes

L. W.

Avey

J. B.

Nixon

(2010). Relationships between leadership and follower quitting intentions and job search behaviors. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 17, 351-363.

37.

Hunter

J. E.

Schmidt

F. L.

(2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

James

L. R.

Mulaik

S. A.

Brett

J. M.

(2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 233-244.

39.

Judge

T. A.

Piccolo

R. F.

(2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.

40.

Judge

T. A.

Thoresen

C. J.

Bono

J. E.

Patton

G. K.

(2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407.

41.

Jung

Chow

(2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525-544.

42.

Kark

Shamir

(2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In Avolio

Yammarino

(Eds.), Transformational leadership: The road ahead (pp. 67-91). Stamford, CT: JAI.

43.

Kark

van Dijk

(2007). Motivation to lead motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32, 500-528.

44.

Kark

Shamir

Chen

(2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246-255.

45.

Kirton

(1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622-629.

46.

Kreft

I. G. G.

(1996). Are multilevel techniques necessary? An overview, including simulation studies. Working paper, California State University, Los Angeles, CA.

47.

Levinson

(1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390.

48.

Liao

Chuang

A. C.

(2007). Transforming service employees and climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1006-1019.

49.

Lowe

K. B.

Kroeck

K. G.

Sivasubramaniam

(1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.

50.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Fairchild

A. J.

Fritz

M. S.

(2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593-614.

51.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Williams

(2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.

52.

Mathieu

J. E.

Zajac

(1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

53.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

54.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

Smith

C. A.

(1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551.

55.

Meyer

J. P.

Stanley

D. J.

Herscovitch

Topolnytsky

(2002). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.

56.

Moss

S. A.

Ritossa

(2007). The impact of goal orientation on the association between leadership style and follower performance, creativity, and work attitudes. Leadership, 3, 433-456.

57.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

58.

Olkkonen

Lipponen

(2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with the organization and the work-unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 202-215.

59.

O’Reilly

III Chatman

(1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.

60.

Ostroff

Schmitt

(1993). Configurations of organizational effectiveness and efficiency. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1345-1361.

61.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

62.

Rank

Nelson

N. E.

Allen

T. D.

(2009). Leadership predictors of innovation and task performance: Subordinates’ self-esteem and self-presentation as moderators. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 465-489.

63.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

64.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

(2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.

65.

Riketta

(2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358-384.

66.

Riketta

van Dick

(2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic comparison of the strength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identification and commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 490-510.

67.

Seibert

S. E.

Wang

Courtright

S. H.

(2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 981-1003.

68.

Shamir

House

R. J.

Arthur

M. B.

(1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-593.

69.

Shanock

Eisenberger

(2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689-695.

70.

Sheets

Braver

S. L.

(1999). Organizational status and perceived sexual harassment: Detecting the mediators of a null effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1159-1171.

71.

Shin

S. J.

Zhou

(2003). Transformational leadership, conversation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703-714.

72.

Shin

S. J.

Zhou

(2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709-1721.

73.

Sobel

M. E.

(1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural models. In Leinhardt

(ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

74.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.

75.

Tajfel

(1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

76.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.,), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

77.

Tepper

B. J.

(2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289.

78.

Tett

R. P.

Burnett

D. D.

(2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517.

79.

Tierney

Farmer

S. M.

Graen

G. B.

(1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relations. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591-620.

80.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. New York, NY: Psychology.

81.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349-361.

82.

Van Dick

Christ

Stellmacher

Wagner

Ahlswede

Grubba

. . . Tissington

P. A.

(2004). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15, 351-360.

83.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Hartnell

C. A.

(2011). Understanding transformational leadership-employee performance links: The role of relational identification and self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 153-172.

84.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Lawler

J. J.

(2003). Building effective organizations: Transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes, and withdrawal behaviors in three emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 1083-1101.

85.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Avolio

B. J.

Zhu

(2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61, 793-825.

86.

Wang

Courtright

S. H.

Colbert

A. E.

(2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36, 223-270.

87.

Wang

Rode

J. C.

(2010). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational climate. Human Relations, 63, 1105-1128.

88.

Wang

Zhu

(2011). Transformational leadership and individual/group creativity: Mediating role of follower individual/group creative identity. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18(1), 25-39.

89.

Wang

X.-H.

Howell

J. M.

(2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1134-1144.

90.

Washburn

N. T.

Hunsaker

B. T.

(2011). Finding great ideas in emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 89(9), 115-120.

91.

Zhang

Zyphur

M. J.

Preacher

(2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 695-719.

92.

Zimmerman

R. D.

(2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61, 309-348.

93.

Zimmerman

R. D.

Darnold

T. C.

(2009). The impact of job performance on employee turnover intentions and the voluntary turnover process: A meta-analysis and path model. Personnel Review, 38, 142-158.