Transformational leadership and organizational commitment in Korean police station

Abstract

In comparison with research on the private sector, organizational commitment within the police has been rarely examined. Moreover, the leadership styles of police officials are not equal in all police studies across the world. Using data collected in 2009 from 236 Korean police officers, the purpose of this study is twofold: (a) to determine if the scale (multifactor leadership questionnaire, form 6-S [MLQ-6 S]) is applicable to police agencies internationally; and (b) to examine if leadership influences organizational commitment in law enforcement agencies. Results indicate that transformational leadership is positively linked to organizational commitment in Korean police agencies. However, the applicability of MLQ-6 S is controversial. Future research is required to examine comprehensively whether MLQ-6 S is a valid instrument for various types of organizations across the world.

Keywords

Organizational commitment Korea policing OCQ MLQ-6 S team manager transformational leadership transactional leadership laissez-faire leadership

Introduction

Organizational commitment is an employee’s psychological attachment to the achievement of the organization’s goals (Caught et al., 2000). Research has determined that it influences various employee behaviors, such as job satisfaction and performance, and reduces turnover and tardiness (Meyer et al., 2002). There has been growing recognition over the past two decades that human resources are key to organizational success (Grant, 1996; Hitt et al., 2001; Kehoe and Wright, 2010), and numerous studies have examined the organizational commitment of individual employees within the industrial sector (Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2003; Mowday, 1998; Mowday et al., 1982; Pollock et al., 2000). Mowday and colleagues (1982) found that organizational commitment received attention because it could predict organizational behaviors (such as turnover and absenteeism), and improve work atmosphere and culture. In comparison with private sector research, organizational commitment within the police has been studied relatively rarely and is under-examined (Baek and Hwang, 2011; Beck and Wilson, 1997; Crow et al., 2011; Johnson, 2012; Metcalfe and Dick, 2002; Pollock et al., 2000).

However, several studies on policing around the world have shown that law enforcement agencies with a higher level of organizational commitment have lower turnover and misconduct rates, less work stress, and improved job performance (Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2003; Harr, 1997; Jaramillo et al., 2005; Koslowsky, 1991; Metcalfe and Dick, 2002; Moon and Jonson, 2012; Shim et al., 2015). In addition, studies on organizational commitment in law enforcement agencies have demonstrated that organizational support, in particular supervisory support, is a crucial predictor of organizational commitment (Crow et al., 2011; Currie and Dollery, 2006; Deluga and Souza, 1991; Dick, 2011; Johnson, 2012; Metcalfe and Dick, 2002; Shim et al., 2015).

Since the introduction of Burns’ (1978) definition of transformational leadership, many studies have examined its influence on the emotion and behavior of subordinates (Bass, 1985a, 1985b, 1989, 1990; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Cherrington, 1994; Deluga, 1988; Harter and Bass, 1988; Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987; Podsakoff et al., 1982; Tracy and Hinkin, 1998). Studies on transformational leadership have been conducted among various private sectors in different countries (Boer et al., 2016; Borman and Rowold, 2016; Fischer, 2016; Mittal and Dhar, 2016; Mullen et al., 2017). Several studies have examined the growing application of transformational leadership in policing (Cockcroft, 2014; Dean and Gottschalk, 2013; Deluga, 1988; Deluga and Souza, 1991; Mazerolle et al., 2013; Shim et al., 2015); however, not all of Bass’s (1985a) leadership styles (transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership) have been included (Swid, 2013). Research has confirmed the positive influence of transformational leadership in contemporary policing, in areas such as job performance, effectiveness, and organizational commitment (Álvarez et al., 2014; Hawkins and Dulewicz, 2009; Johnson, 2012; Masal, 2014; Sarver and Miller, 2014; Shim et al., 2015; Swid, 2013). For instance, Pillai and Williams (2004) found that transformational leadership significantly increased organizational commitment in officers.

Although several studies have shown benefits in law enforcement agencies that use transformational leadership, there is no examination of whether scales of leadership style (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Form 6-S [MLQ-6 S]; Bass and Avolio, 1992) are appropriate to those agencies. Abundant studies in the industrial sector have discussed measurement issues concerning the MLQ (Muenjohn and Armstrong, 2008; Tejeda et al., 2001; Vinger and Cilliers, 2006) and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Allen and Meyer (1990) (Caught et al., 2000; Jaros, 2007; Meyer et al., 2002). For instance, using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Carless (1998) demonstrated that the MLQ has three dimensions of transformational leadership: charismatic leadership, individual consideration, and intellectual stimulation. By contrast, Densten and Sarros (1997) stated that transformational leadership was composed of four second-order factors (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation). Thus, the actual number of MLQ components is needed to reduce this uncertainty. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) as well as EFA, this study attempts to explore this issue. In addition, there are few English language publications about leadership styles and organizational commitment that use Korean police samples (Crow et al., 2011; Shim et al., 2015). In response to these issues, this study examines whether leadership styles influence organizational commitment in Korean law enforcement agencies and whether application of the MLQ-6 S is appropriate for those agencies.

Literature review

Since the 1950s, organizational commitment has been defined and examined in numerous studies (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Caught et al., 2000; Cohen, 2003). Although organizational commitment has been used in different research areas, most studies have used its general conception, which is a psychological attachment to an organization (Baek and Hwang, 2011; Caught et al., 2000; Peng et al., 2016). By contrast, disagreement about appropriate research models remains (Bergman, 2006; Cohen, 2007; Markovits et al., 2014; Meyer and Herscovich, 2001). Despite these disagreements, Allen and Meyer’s (1990) three-component model (OCQ) has been widely used in support of the organizational commitment model (Cohen, 2007; Herrbach, 2006). Allen and Meyer (1990) tested aspects of a three-component model examining organizational commitment using affective, continuance, and normative factors. They defined the affective component as emotional attachment to and identification with an organization by an employee or member. The continuance component represented the perceived costs that employees or members associate with leaving an organization. The normative component referred to employee’s or member’s feelings of obligation to remain with an organization. In addition, scales examined the interactive relationships between these three components (Allen and Meyer, 1990). The results of these studies revealed that the affective and continuance components are detectable constructs with different correlates, whereas the affective and normative components are distinguishable but appear only mildly related (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Several studies on policing across the world have examined organizational commitment in law enforcement agencies (Baek and Hwang, 2011; Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2003; Crow et al., 2011; Currie and Dollery, 2006; Koslowsky, 1991; Shim et al., 2015). More specifically, a few policing scholars have examined associations between organizational commitment and leadership (Crow et al., 2011; Currie and Dollery, 2006; Johnson, 2012; Shim et al., 2015).

Although there are numerous definitions and theories of leadership, Burns (1978) demonstrated “leadership as inducing followers to support goals that represent the values and motivations (the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations) of both leaders and followers” (p. 19). In support of Burns’ (1978) definition, numerous studies have examined a leader’s influence on subordinates’ emotion and behavior (Bass, 1985a, 1985b, 1989, 1990; Bass and Avolio, 1992; Boer et al., 2016; Borman and Rowold, 2016; Deluga, 1988; Fischer, 2016; Harter and Bass, 1988; Mittal and Dhar, 2016; Mullen et al., 2017). In particular, Bass’s (1985b) transformational leadership is deemed to be a theory that many leadership scholars have acknowledged (Muenjohn and Armstrong, 2008). Bass (1985a) examined transactional leaders and developed the concept of transformational leadership as a method of achieving higher levels of employee improvement and change within an organization. By contrast transactional leaders led employees to lesser degrees of improvement or marginal growth that was not as substantial as transformational leaders. Bass (1985a) found that transformational leadership had numerous shortcomings within the parameters of organizational leadership but contributed greatly to the manager–employee relationship when used correctly. Furthermore, based on Burns’ (1978) definition, Bass and Avolio (1992) proposed three subscales of leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire). Transformational leadership has four components: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation. Transactional leadership combined two components, contingent reward and management by exception. Laissez-faire or non-leadership, did not have subscales.

Studies on these leadership styles, more specifically transformational leadership, and officers’ organizational commitment in law enforcement agencies have increased (Crow et al., 2011; Currie and Dollery, 2006; Deluga and Souza, 1991; Dick, 2011; Johnson, 2012; Metcalfe and Dick, 2002; Shim et al., 2015). Swid (2013) used all the types of leadership styles suggested by Bass (1985a) to analyze police members in two Middle Eastern countries. According to his findings, transformational leadership generated greater effectiveness in organizational outcomes than transactional leadership. Unlike Swid’s (2013) research, many studies of transformational leadership have excluded other leadership styles (Álvarez et al., 2014; Cockcroft, 2014; Masal, 2014; Shim et al., 2015). However, findings have been consistent, even when transformation leadership was applied to different countries. As an example, Shim and colleagues (2015) found that transformational leadership positively affected group and developmental cultures, using a survey collected from Korean police officers. However, Bass explained that transformational and transactional leadership were not antithetical concepts, and there were leaders who could have both leadership styles (Bass, 1985a).

Regarding organizational commitment and leadership styles, abundant reports in the industrial sector have discussed measurement issues concerning Allen and Meyer’s (1990) OCQ (Caught et al., 2000; Jaros, 2007; Meyer et al., 2002;) and Bass and Avolio’s (1992) MLQ (Muenjohn and Armstrong, 2008; Tejeda et al., 2001; Vinger and Cilliers, 2006). The first issue, as also determined in private sector research, is the structural validities and measurement qualities of the scale (see Carless, 1998; Densten and Sarros, 1997; Muenjohn and Armstrong, 2008; Tejeda et al., 2001; Vinger and Cilliers, 2006). Regarding the OCQ, there was dispute about whether measures of normative and affective commitment could be separated (Bergman, 2006; Meyer and Herscovich, 2001; Meyer et al., 2002). Because of high correlations between affective and normative commitment, the constructs of Allen and Meyer’s (1990) three-component model remained unclear (Bergman, 2006; Meyer and Herscovich, 2001). In particular, Cohen (2007) suggested a different model from Allen and Meyer (1990). Cohen (2007) demonstrated four types of commitment including timeframe, instrumental and normative commitment propensity before entering an organization, and instrumental and affective commitment after entering the organization.

The MLQ is deemed the best validated measure of leadership styles (Özaralli, 2003), but researchers have also argued about its validity (Carless, 1998; Densten and Sarros, 1997; Muenjohn and Armstrong, 2008; Tejeda et al., 2001; Vinger and Cilliers, 2006). By examining the structural validity of MLQ, Muenjohn and Armstrong (2008) suggested that researchers should include a transformational leadership scale as a single variable in their studies because its subcomponents (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation) were highly correlated with each other. These results were consistent with previous research (Carless, 1998; Kelloway et al., 2000; Tejeda et al., 2001; Yammarino and Dubinsky, 1994). For instance, Carless’s (1998) indicated that “MLQ does not measure separate transformational leader behaviours, instead, it appears to assess a single, hierarchical construct of transformational leadership” (p. 357). However, many studies have shown that the components of transformational leadership could be separated with good validity and reliability, and they increased organizational commitment (Batool, 2013; Hayati et al., 2014; Kent and Chelladurai, 2001; Khasawneh et al., 2012). In order to form definite conclusions, more empirical studies are necessary. In particular, we need further research on the relationship between officers’ organizational commitment and leadership style and each subscale, and to examine the applicability of the MLQ and OCQ to police agencies internationally.

Method

Data

The survey for this study was conducted from 13 April to 6 May 2009 and used a questionnaire that included scales of organizational commitment (OCQ; Allen and Meyer, 1990) and leadership style (MLQ form 6; Bass and Avolio, 1992). The target population was officers who worked in 292 police stations among provincial police agencies in Seoul, Incheon, and Gyeonggi-do. Although there were 773 police stations in Korea in 2009, the number decreased to 423 in 2010 due to the strategy of regional police system integration (Kang, 2010; Korean National Police Agency, 2010). There were 143 police stations in Seoul, 30 in Incheon, and 119 in Gyeonggi-do. From each province, 22, 5 and 17 police stations were selected by blocked randomization (15%). During the survey period (24 days) researchers visited the police stations, and six questionnaires per station were randomly distributed. When an administrative manager in each station had completed the questionnaires, the manager contacted the first author or returned the questionnaires by mail. However, 22 of 264 officers were unavailable for various reasons, such as family and health issues. As a result, the response rate was 96.8%. In addition, six respondents were excluded because of many non-random missing answers. Thus, the final sample size was 236.

Of the sampled police officers, 24 (10.2%) were female and 212 (89.8%) were male. Based on the 2009 Annual Police Statistic (Kang, 2010) the total number of female officers below the rank of lieutenant in the Korean National Police Agency is 6,416 (6.8%), therefore, a higher percentage of female officers worked in the sampled police stations (10.2%). Eight officers were under 25 years old (3.4%), and 23 were above 45 years old (9.7%); 205 officers (86.9%) were aged between 25 and 45 years. Regarding education, approximately half of respondents had a bachelor’s degree and 26.4% had a high-school diploma. Some 8.7% of respondents graduated from 2-year college, but only 1.7% had a master’s degree. Although 38.6% of respondents had been working for over 11 years, 20.8% of officers were new employees with less than 1 year of employment. Concerning rank, in this sample, 68 were police officers (28.8%), 67 were senior police officers (28.5%), 81 were sergeants (34.5%) and 19 were lieutenants (8.1%). Lieutenants who performed the role of team managers were excluded from this sample because their leadership was subject of current study.

Measures

Organizational commitment

As suggested by Allen and Meyer (1990), organizational commitment has three components: affective, continuance, and normative commitment. This study used a revised version of Allen and Meyer’s (1990) OCQ, suggested by Song (2005) to match the Korean police situation. However, we conducted an EFA because Song’s (2005) revision had some limitations. For example, respondents misunderstood the meaning of items. Nine of 17 items were appropriate for this study. Finally, this study selected three items respectively for three subscales of organizational commitment. The results of the EFA are given in Appendix 1.

The first subscale, affective commitment (AC), was composed of three items in this study: “I feel like part of family at my organization (AC1)”, “I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization (AC2)” and “I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own (AC3)”. For each of the items, the responses were coded using a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Thus, higher scores on the scales indicated that respondents were more emotionally attached to or involved in their organization.

Regarding continuance commitment (CC), there were also three items: “It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to (CC1)”, “Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now (CC2)” and “It would be too costly for me to leave my organization now (CC3)”. Like the scale of affective commitment, the respondents used the 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicated that respondents did not intend to leave their organization because of perceived costs.

The last subscale in organizational commitment, normative commitment (NC), also utilized three items, including the following questions: “Jumping from organization to organization seems unethical to me (NC1)”, “One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that I believe that loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain (NC2)” and “If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my organization (NC3)”. Higher scores using the 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) indicated that respondents felt a higher obligation to remain in their organization.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

This study used the shortened form of Northouse’s (2001) MLQ-6 S as developed by Bass and Avolio (1992). Vinger and Cilliers (2006) claimed that MLQ-6 S is considered the most frequent, well researched, and validated leadership instrument in the world. Furthermore, it is argued that this instrument can be applied to not only various organizational settings but also leaders in different cultures (Bass, 1998).

As mentioned previously, Bass’s (1985a) leadership styles combined three factors: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. In the MLQ-6 S, each factor had 12, 6, and 3 items respectively (see Table 1). Four-dimensional subscales idealized influence (II), inspirational motivation (IM), individualized consideration (IC), and intellectual stimulation (IS) represented the transformational leadership (TFL). In TFL, 12 items separately measured these four subscales. Regarding transactional leadership (TAL), six items were divided into two subscales: contingent reward (CR, three items) and management by exception (ME, three items). By contrast, laissez-faire leadership (LFL) had a relatively small number of items (three): “My team manager is content to let us continue working in the same way as always (LFL1)”, “Whatever we want to do is OK with my team manager (LFL)” and “My team manager asks no more of ours than what is absolutely essential (LFL3)”. Table 1 presents detailed information about all the items. Answers were coded from: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Higher scores indicated that the team manager’s leadership style was a key factor in perceptions of the respondents.

Table 1.

Descriptive and bivariate statistics.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
1. OC_AC1	–
2. OC_AC2	0.80^**	–
3. OC_AC3	0.55^**	0.62^**	–
4. OC_CC1	0.34^**	0.40^**	0.38^**	–
5. OC_CC2	0.12	0.24^**	0.20^**	0.45^**	–
6. OC_CC3	0.02	0.14^*	0.06	0.29^**	0.46^**	–
7. OC_NC1	0.33^**	0.40^**	0.30^**	0.19^**	0.23^**	0.16^*	–
8. OC_NC2	0.38^**	0.41^**	0.36^**	0.21^**	0.15^*	0.10	0.72^**	–
9. OC_NC3	0.37^**	0.34^**	0.17^**	0.19^**	0.15^*	0.12	0.44^**	0.50^**	–
10. TFL_II1	0.25^**	0.29^**	0.25^**	0.31^**	0.15^*	0.08	0.11	0.21^**	0.22^**	–
11. TFL_II2	0.23^**	0.27^**	0.24^**	0.22^**	0.07	0.09	0.13^*	0.29^**	0.23^**	0.62^**	–
12. TFL_II3	0.23^**	0.24^**	0.18^**	0.21^**	0.09	0.09	0.11	0.24^**	0.26^**	0.64^**	0.70^**	–
13. TFL_IM1	0.29^**	0.32^**	0.30^**	0.28^**	0.19^**	0.08	0.20^**	0.30^**	0.28^**	0.70^**	0.68^**	0.66^**	–
14. TFL_IM2	0.28^**	0.28^**	0.25^**	0.22^**	0.07	0.07	0.15^*	0.27^**	0.28^**	0.61^**	0.73^**	0.70^**	0.74^**	–
15. TFL_IM3	0.21^**	0.22^**	0.18^**	0.16^*	0.09	0.05	0.17^**	0.22^**	0.26^**	0.53^**	0.65^**	0.75^**	0.61^**	0.64^**	–
16. TFL_IC1	0.17^**	0.22^**	0.22^**	0.22^**	0.10	0.07	0.25^**	0.29^**	0.28^**	0.64^**	0.60^**	0.63^**	0.68^**	0.64^**	0.55^**	–
17. TFL_IC2	0.15^*	0.13	0.11	0.14^*	0.05	0.03	0.16^*	0.27^**	0.28^**	0.54^**	0.62^**	0.66^**	0.60^**	0.65^**	0.66^**	0.62^**	–
18. TFL_IC3	0.18^**	0.20^**	0.16^*	0.23^**	0.13	−0.01	0.13^*	0.22^**	0.24^**	0.54^**	0.57^**	0.67^**	0.59^**	0.61^**	0.70^**	0.59^**	0.65^**	–
19. TFL_IS1	0.20^**	0.25^**	0.23^**	0.21^**	0.14^*	0.07	0.20^**	0.24^**	0.25^**	0.60^**	0.66^**	0.65^**	0.66^**	0.71^**	0.68^**	0.70^**	0.64^**	0.66^**	–
20. TFL_IS2	0.16^*	0.15^*	0.21^**	0.16^*	0.09	0.03	0.16^*	0.23^**	0.22^**	0.51^**	0.57^**	0.61^**	0.56^**	0.63^**	0.55^**	0.57^**	0.69^**	0.59^**	0.63^**	–
21. TFL_IS3	0.18^**	0.19^**	0.22^**	0.20^**	0.11	−0.02	0.17^*	0.26^**	0.23^**	0.50^**	0.57^**	0.66^**	0.54^**	0.57^**	0.61^**	0.52^**	0.54^**	0.64^**	0.63^**	0.50^**	–
22. TAL_CR1	0.23^**	0.31^**	0.23^**	0.25^**	0.24^**	0.14^*	0.20^**	0.23^**	0.27^**	0.51^**	0.57^**	0.52^**	0.60^**	0.60^**	0.58^**	0.53^**	0.52^**	0.58^**	0.65^**	0.56^**	0.52^**	–
23. TAL_CR2	0.22^**	0.24^**	0.20^**	0.20^**	0.20^**	0.18^**	0.18^**	0.23^**	0.24^**	0.47^**	0.56^**	0.58^**	0.60^**	0.57^**	0.57^**	0.53^**	0.54^**	0.59^**	0.59^**	0.52^**	0.55^**	0.61^**	–
24. TAL_CR3	0.18^**	0.19^**	0.17^**	0.20^**	0.07	−0.02	0.09	0.17^**	0.19^**	0.48^**	0.56^**	0.65^**	0.53^**	0.54^**	0.62^**	0.48^**	0.53^**	0.63^**	0.57^**	0.50^**	0.67^**	0.60^**	0.63^**	–
25. TAL_ME1	0.12	0.13^*	0.12	0.21^**	0.16^*	0.16^*	0.10	0.15^*	0.13^*	0.28^**	0.44^**	0.31^**	0.38^**	0.38^**	0.33^**	0.33^**	0.27^**	0.25^**	0.41^**	0.33^**	0.33^**	0.50^**	0.45^**	0.38^**	–
26. TAL_ME2	0.00	0.01	0.00	−0.06	−0.04	−0.10	0.11	0.18^**	0.19^**	0.17^**	0.18^**	0.26^**	0.19^**	0.18^**	0.32^**	0.19^**	0.22^**	0.34^**	0.17^**	0.13^*	0.27^**	0.11	0.12	0.16^**	−0.12	–
27. TAL_ME3	0.28^**	0.30^**	0.30^**	0.22^**	0.16^*	0.13^*	0.17^**	0.25^**	0.23^**	0.47^**	0.57^**	0.62^**	0.57^**	0.58^**	0.64^**	0.52^**	0.54^**	0.61^**	0.57^**	0.49^**	0.59^**	0.61^**	0.59^**	0.66^**	0.36^**	0.16^*	–
28. LFL1	−0.06	−0.01	0.00	0.02	0.06	0.09	−0.01	0.05	−0.04	0.02	0.12	0.04	0.07	0.12	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.09	0.12	0.02	0.17^**	0.16^**	0.10	0.31^**	0.27^**	0.08	–
29. LFL2	0.01	0.08	0.12	0.15^*	0.02	−0.03	0.11	0.16^*	0.04	0.24^**	0.33^**	0.42^**	0.26^**	0.38^**	0.39^**	0.29^**	0.26^**	0.33^**	0.32^**	0.30^**	0.30^**	0.24^**	0.25^**	0.29^**	0.18^**	0.13	0.18^**	0.12	–
30. LFL3	0.11	0.14^*	0.21^**	0.23^**	0.08	−0.04	0.08	0.18^**	0.12	0.41^**	0.52^**	0.52^**	0.53^**	0.52^**	0.46^**	0.43^**	0.44^**	0.43^**	0.44^**	0.43^**	0.44^**	0.30^**	0.37^**	0.42^**	0.32^**	0.09	0.41^**	0.17^**	0.33^**	–
Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
Mean	3.62	3.63	3.69	3.81	3.65	3.39	2.83	2.97	3.18	3.37	3.43	3.28	3.45	3.30	3.36	3.16	3.17	3.20	3.30	3.30	3.30	3.51	3.33	3.28	3.77	3.09	3.53	2.89	2.81	3.11
SD	0.97	0.99	0.91	0.80	0.94	0.90	1.03	0.99	0.98	0.89	0.99	0.87	0.98	0.94	0.87	1.00	0.95	0.89	0.95	0.92	0.89	0.91	0.93	0.91	0.86	0.90	0.87	0.90	0.80	0.92

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, There are no problems of normality and collinearity. OC = Organizational Commitment, AC = Affective Commitment, CC = Continuance Commitment, NC = Normative Commitment, TFL = Transformational Leadership, II = Idealized Influence, IM = Inspirational Motivation, IC = Individualized Consideration, IS = Intellectual Stimulation, TAL = Transactional Leadership, CR = Contingent Reward, ME = Management by Exception, LFL = Laissez-faire Leadership, SD=standardized deviation.

Analysis plan

Using data collected from 236 Korean police officers in 2009, this study used structural equation modelling (SEM) to examine whether leadership increases organizational commitment and the scale of leadership styles (MLQ; Bass and Avolio, 1992) is appropriate to apply to Korean police. In addition, with SPSS 24.0 and AMOS 22.0, this study conducted: (a) descriptive statistics to provide information about the distribution of the data; (b) correlations between observed measures as bivariate statistics, which indicated that the measures share suitable levels of variation; (c) CFA to examine these measurement qualities, such as discriminate and convergent validity; and (d) SEM to examine the hypotheses in this study. Several criteria were necessary for these steps.

First, Gravetter and Wallnau’s (2014) threshold was used to determine whether measures have normality problems (skewness > 3 and kurtosis > 7 are deemed problem). For CFA, factor loadings should be > 0.50 to gain validity of measures (Kline, 2016) and values of composite reliability should be > 0.70 to gain credibility of measures (Raykov, 1997). Lastly, this study used multiple goodness-of-fit indexes: chi-square (χ²) statistics, comparative fit indexes (CFI), the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean of the residual (SRMR). The χ² value should not be significant to indicate a properly fitting model because it is sensitive to sample size (Kline, 2016). Therefore, other fit statistics (CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR) were needed to determine whether the CFA and SEM fit the data. If CFI is > 0.90, the goodness-of-fit is deemed good (Kline, 2016). The goodness-of-fit is very good if the RMSEA is < 0.05, good if it is 0.05–0.08, and not good if it is > 0.10 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). SRMR should be ≤0.05, but ≤0.08 was an acceptable (Hu and Bentler, 1999). In addition, this study used an expected cross-validation index (ECVI) to examine discrepancies between models (Browne and Cudeck, 1989; Byrne, 2016).

Results

Descriptive and bivariate statistics

This study provides information about the normality of the observed measures and correlations between them. Based on the criteria mentioned above, there were no normality problems among the observed measures in this study. In particular, correlations between observed measures were deemed to be not collinear. That is, relationships between observed measures shared appropriate variance. More detailed information is presented in Table 1.

Confirmatory factor analysis

As mentioned in the analysis plan, this study conducted CFA. Appendix 2 provides a graphical presentation of the measurement model with all scales of the OCQ and the MLQ. Model 1 is a measurement model with all observed variables in this study. While the model fit of this measurement model was good (χ² = 700.75, df = 390, p < 0.01, CFI = 0.922, RMSEA = 0.060, and SRMR = 0.063; see Appendix 3), Model 1 had several problems related to discriminate and convergent validity and composite reliability. Regarding proper levels of validity, two observed measures of TAL, especially indicators of ME, had low factor loadings (TAL_ME1 = 0.47 and TAL_ME2 = 0.21). Furthermore, the composite reliability of the ME was < 0.70. In addition, the factor loadings of LFL1 and LFL2 in LFL were 0.14 and 0.49, respectively; the composite reliability of LFL was 0.46. These should be excluded from this measurement model by Kline’s (2016) and Raykov’s (1997) thresholds. Model 2 (Appendix 4) is a second-order organizational commitment (OC) and TFL measurement model excluding TAL and LFL. When the model fit of Model 2 was compared with Model 1, there were significant increases in the goodness-of-fit criteria (Δχ ² = 366.91, p < 0.01, ΔCFI = 0.026)¹.

Using the remaining indicators of OC and TFL, this study conducted comparative analyses of measurement models in order to determine which models would be more appropriate. All measurement models in this stage (see Appendix 4) demonstrated excellent goodness-of-fit. Although Model 4 with first-order OC and second-order TFL had no significant changes of model fit in comparison with the model fit of Model 2, there were slightly significant changes in Model 3 with first-order OC and TFL (Δχ ² = 30.62, p < 0.01, ΔCFI = 0.006) and Model 5 with second-order OC and first-order TFL (Δχ ² = 20.57, p < 0.01, ΔCFI = 0.005). Even if applied to Meade et al.’s (2008) criteria (the model is invariant if the change in CFI is < 0.002), these differences were significant. Whereas Models 2, 3 and 5 were non-invariant, Model 2 and Model 4 were invariant. That is, research frameworks should be different between models using respective variables (i.e., transformational leadership and overall organizational commitment) and models using their subscales in the OCQ (i.e., affective, continuance, and normative commitments) and the MLQ (i.e, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation).

Structural equation modelling

Table 2 presentesd the results of SEMs linked to all measurement models (Model 6 to Model 2, Model 7 to Model 3, Model 8 to Model 4, and Model 9 to Model 5). That is, each model in this table used a measurement model in CFA. Regarding Model 6, this study analyzed the second-order OC and TFL model. This means that this model examined a hypothesis that the transformational leadership as a single scale increases the organizational commitment as a single scale. We examined the fit between the model and the data first. Specifically, this study found the χ² was 333.84 and the df was 181. In addition to the chi-square statistic, other model fit statistics were examined: the CFI was 0.95, the RMSEA was 0.06, and the SRMR was 0.06. Each of these model fit statistics indicated a proper fit between the model and the data. Because the goodness-of-fit of the research model was verified, the hypotheses in this model were examined next. Thus, the hypothesis in Model 6, that TFL statistically and significantly increases OC (β = 0.48, p < 0.01), was supported.

Table 2.

Structural equation model (SEM) results.

Measures			Model 6	Model 7	Model 8	Model 9
Measures			β	β	β	β
Transformational leadership	→	Organizational commitment	0.48^**
Idealized influence	→	Affective commitment		4.47
		Continuance commitment		2.51
		Normative commitment		−0.12
Inspirational motivation	→	Affective commitment		2.20
		Continuance commitment		2.29
		Normative commitment		−0.30
Individualized consideration	→	Affective commitment		4.80
		Continuance commitment		0.92
		Normative commitment		−8.90
Intellectual stimulation	→	Affective commitment		−11.16
		Continuance commitment		−5.50
		Normative commitment		9.67
Transformational leadership	→	Affective commitment			0.36^**
		Continuance commitment			0.23^**
		Normative commitment			0.36^**
Idealized influence	→	Organizational commitment				1.54
Inspirational motivation						−1.17
Individualized consideration						2.14
Intellectual stimulation						−2.03
Chi-square test of model fit (χ²)			333.84	318.40	387.33	313.27
Confirmatory fit index (CFI)			0.948	0.950	0.930	0.953
Root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA)			0.062	0.062	0.071	0.059
Standardized root mean of the residual (SRMR)			0.061	0.058	0.091	0.061
Expected cross-validation index (ECVI)			1.954	1.975	2.186	1.907

**p < 0.01, β = standardized estimates.

Model 8 was a revision of Model 6 in which OC was replaced with its subscales (AC, CC, and NC) while keeping the second-order TFL. That is, this model examined the hypothesis that transformational leadership as a single scale increases each component of organizational commitment, such as affective, continuance, and normative commitment. An ECVI of Model 8 was relatively higher than that for other models. Byrne (2016) suggested that a lower ECVI model would be better. Furthermore, SRMR was slightly high. However, the fit results were acceptable (χ² = 387.33, p < 0.01, CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.07, and SRMR = 0.09). Therefore, the hypotheses in this model were proven: TFL statistically and significantly increases each component of organizational commitment: AC (β = 0.36, p < 0.01), CC (β = 0.23, p < 0.01), and NC (β = 0.36, p < 0.01).

However, while the model fits of Models 7 and 8 were good (Model 7: χ² = 318.40, df = 171, p < 0.01, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.06, and SRMR = 0.06; and Model 9: χ² = 313.27, df = 176, p < 0.01, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.06, and SRMR = 0.06), TFL as a four-component model had no significant impact on the organizational commitment as a single scale and the three components of the organizational commitment. That is, four subcomponents, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation, did not increase organizational commitment and its subscales.

Discussion and conclusion

Over the past two decades, human resource development has been crucial to overcome organizational obstacles arising from a rapidly changing society. This effect has increased positive outcomes for organizations (Grant, 1996; Hitt et al., 2001; Kehoe and Wright, 2010; Meyer et al., 2002; Mowday et al., 1998; Pollock et al., 2000). Private sector research has emphasized the role of supervisors, using Bass’s (1985a) leadership styles (Borman and Rowold, 2016; Boer et al., 2016; Deluga, 1988; Fischer, 2016; Harter and Bass, 1988; Mittal and Dhar, 2016; Mullen et al., 2017; Tracy and Hinkin, 1998). The police management literature has only limited studies concerning the application of leadership to law enforcement agencies in contemporary policing (Masal, 2014; Steinheider and Wuestewald, 2008). Several studies have examined the influence of leadership styles on police organizations (Cockcroft, 2014; Dean and Gottschalk, 2013; Deluga, 1998; Deluga and Souza, 1991; Mazerolle et al., 2013; Shim et al., 2015). In particular, studies have shown that supervisory leadership in contemporary policing generated a number of positive outcomes, including increased job performance and organizational commitment (Álvarez et al., 2014; Crow et al., 2011; Currie and Dollery, 2006; Hawkins and Dulewicz, 2009; Jonhson, 2012; Masal, 2014; Pillai and Williams, 2004; Sarver and Miller, 2014; Shim et al., 2015; Swid, 2013). Our study determined that the leadership style of Korean police team managers, especially transformational leadership, significantly and positively increased organizational commitment among their subordinates (see Model 6). In addition, our results were consistent with the findings of research among American police officers that they embrace the principles of transformational leadership (see Vito et al., 2014).

However, this study found that the applicability of the MLQ-6 S is somewhat controversial. The first issue, as also determined in private sector research, is the structural validity and measurement quality of the scale (Carless, 1998; Densten and Sarros, 1997; Muenjohn and Armstrong, 2008; Tejeda et al., 2001; Vinger and Cilliers, 2006). According to the CFA, there are several problems related to the discriminate, convergent validity, and composite reliability of the MLQ-6 S. In particular, transactional and laissez-faire leadership could not be explained by their indicators due to low factor loadings. That is, when using Korean data, none of Bass and Avolio’s (1992) subscales demonstrates Korean officers’ leadership. Transformational leadership, however, was explained by its four second-order factors (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation).

The second issue is the observation of unexpected relationships between the subscales of transformational leadership and organizational commitment. Many studies have claimed that the components of transformational leadership increase organizational commitment (Batool, 2013; Hayati et al., 2014; Kent and Chelladurai, 2001; Khasawneh et al., 2012). However, the components of transformational leadership, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation, did not have any statistically significant influence on organizational commitment in this study (see results of Model 9). Moreover, these components of transformational leadership were not significantly related to the subscales of organizational commitment, affective, continuance, and normative commitment (see results of Model 7). Despite these inconsistent findings, this study could not conclude that idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation have no influence on affective, continuance, and normative commitment. As aforementioned, to our knowledge there has been no examination of whether leadership style scales (MLQ-6 S; Bass and Avolio, 1992) are appropriate for application in law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, it is impossible to compare our results with those focusing on industrial agencies and different countries (Batool, 2013; Hayati et al., 2014; Kent and Chelladurai, 2001; Khasawneh et al., 2012). To confirm our findings, more studies should examine the applicability of MLQ-6 S in policing.

Despite supporting the hypothesis that transformational leadership in team managers increases organizational commitment among Korean police officers and demonstrating the applicability of MLQ-6 S, this study has some issues. First, we did not verify the MLQ-6 S and OCQ of Song’s (2005) Korean revision, which could have problems in translation. Thus, the Korean police officers may have misunderstood the questions in the MLQ-6 S and OCQ. Additionally, the revised organizational commitment questionnaire did not include all the questions in Allen and Meyer’s (1990) scale. Moreover, the organizational culture and structure of the Korean police remain different from the American model (centralized versus decentralized agency), so perceptions about organizational commitment and leadership among Korean police officers might also be different. In particular, this study did not combine any control variables regarding organizational climate. Thus, variables, such as organizational support, work environment, organizational culture and structure, should be included as control variables in future studies. Lastly, despite emphasizing the importance of the team leaders’ leadership in Korea, there is no research concerning such leadership. The current Korean police structural system of police stations and teams does not have a long history. This structure was adopted in 2003 and is still in use. However, in the previous structural system, Korean police precincts did not operate as a team. In the current system, the role of team leaders in Korean police stations has been crucial in achieving the goals of the Korean National Police. Future studies are required to test, develop, and refine MLQ-6 S as well as OCQ. In addition, other instruments (e.g. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Form 5X) could be given to law enforcement agencies to determine whether transformational leadership of police supervisors influences their subordinates’ organizational outcomes.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

Appendix 1

Organizational commitment (OC)		Factor loading			Cronbach’s α
Organizational commitment (OC)		1	2	3	Cronbach’s α
Affective commitment (AC)	I feel like part of family at my organization.	0.846			0.853
	I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.	0.855
	I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.	0.802
Continuance commitment (CC)	It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to.			.608	0.665
	Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now.			.837
	It would be too costly for me to leave my organization now.			.811
Normative commitment (NC)	Jumping from organization to organization seems unethical to me.		0.842		0.788
	One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that I believe that loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain.		0.855
	If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my organization.		0.733

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in five iterations.

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

Latent variables		Second-order factor loading	Observed variables	First-order factor loading	Composite reliability
Organizational commitment (OC)	Affective commitment (AC)	0.76	1. OC_AC1	0.84	0.86
			2. OC_AC2	0.94
			3. OC_AC3	0.67
	Continuance commitment (CC)	0.50	4. OC_CC1	0.64	0.69
			5. OC_CC2	0.74
			6. OC_CC3	0.58
	Normative commitment (NC)	0.69	7. OC_NC1	0.80
			8. OC_NC2	0.88	0.80
			9. OC_NC3	0.58
Transformational leadership (TFL)	Idealized influence (II)	0.99	10. TFL_II1	0.76	0.86
			11. TFL_II2	0.83
			12. TFL_II3	0.86
	Inspirational motivation (IM)	1.02	13. TFL_IM1	0.81	0.86
			14. TFL_IM2	0.84
			15. TFL_IM3	0.81
	Individualized consideration (IC)	0.98	16. TFL_IC1	0.77	0.83
			17. TFL_IC2	0.80
			18. TFL_IC3	0.80
	Intellectual stimulation (IS)	.99	19. TFL_IS1	0.85	0.82
			20. TFL_IS2	0.73
			21. TFL_IS3	0.74
Transactional leadership (TAL)	Contingent reward (CR)	1.02	22. TAL_CR1	0.78	0.83
			23. TAL_CR2	0.78
			24. TAL_CR3	0.79
	Management by exception (ME)	1.13	25. TAL_ME1	0.47	0.46
			26. TAL_ME2	0.21
			27. TAL_ME3	0.70
Laissez-faire leadership (LFL)		–	28. LFL1	0.14	0.46
		–	29. LFL2	0.49
		–	30. LFL3	0.74
Chi-square test of model fit (χ²) df = 390				700.75^**
Confirmatory fit index (CFI)				0.922
Root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA)				0.060
Standardized root mean of the residual (SRMR)				0.063

**p < 0.01, OC = Organizational Commitment, AC = Affective Commitment, CC = Continuance Commitment, NC = Normative Commitment, TFL = Transformational Leadership, II = Idealized Influence, IM = Inspirational Motivation, IC = Individualized Consideration, IS = Intellectual Stimulation, TAL = Transactional Leadership, CR = Contingent Reward, ME = Management by Exception, LFL = Laissez-faire Leadership.

Appendix 4

References

Allen

Meyer

(1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63: 1–18.

Álvarez

Lila

Tomás

Castillo

(2014) Transformational leadership in the local police in Spain: a leader–follower distance approach. Spanish Journal of Psychology 17(e42): 1–9.

Baek

Hwang

(2011) Factors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment among police investigators. Korean Journal of Social Science 14: 105–132.

Bass

(1985a) Leadership: good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics 13, 26–40.

Bass

(1985b) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass

(1989) The two faces of charismatic leadership. Leaders Magazine 12, 44–45.

Bass

(1990) Handbook of Leadership (3rd edn). New York: Free Press.

Bass

(1998) Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bass

Avolio

(1992) Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training 14(5): 21–27.

10.

Batool

(2013) An empirical study on effect of transformational leadership on organizational commitment in the banking sector of Pakistan. IOSR Journal of Business and Management 8(2): 38–44.

11.

Beck

Wilson

(1997) Police officers views on cultivating organizational commitment implications for police managers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 20: 175–195.

12.

Bennis

Nanus

(1985) Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harper and Row.

13.

Bergman

(2006) The relationship between affective and normative commitment: Review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27(5): 645–663

14.

Boer

Deinert

Homan

Voelpel

(2016) Revisiting the mediating role of leader–member exchange in transformational leadership: the differential impact model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 25(6): 883–899.

15.

Borman

Rowold

(2016) Transformational leadership and followers’ objective performance over time: insights from German basketball. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 28(3): 367–373.

16.

Browne

Cudeck

(1989) Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research 24: 445–455.

17.

Brunetto

Farr-Wharton

(2003) The commitment and satisfaction of lower-ranked police officers: lessons for management. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 26(1): 43–63.

18.

Burns

(1978) Leadership. New York: Harper.

19.

Byrne

(2016) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (3rd edn). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

20.

Carless

(1998) Assessing the discriminate validity of transformational leadership behavior as measured by the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 71: 353–358.

21.

Caught

Shadur

Rodwell

(2000) The measurement artifact in the organizational commitment questionnaire. Psychological Reports 87: 777–788.

22.

Cherrington

(1994) Organizational Behavior. The Management of Individual and Organizational Performance (2nd edn). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

23.

Cheung

Rensvold

(2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 9: 233–255.

24.

Cockcroft

(2014) Police culture and transformational leadership: Outlining the contours of a troubled relationship. Policing 8: 5–13.

25.

Cohen

(2003) Multiple Commitments in the Workplace, an Integrative Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.

26.

Cohen

(2007) Commitment before and after: an evaluation and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review 17(3): 336–354.

27.

Crow

Lee

Joo

(2011) Organizational justice and organizational commitment among South Korean police officers: an investigation of job satisfaction as a mediator. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 35(2): 402–423.

28.

Currie

Dollery

(2006) Organizational commitment and perceived organizational support in the NSW police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 29(4): 741–756.

29.

Dean

Gottschalk

(2013) Police leadership roles: Empirical study of management attitudes. International Journal of Law and Management 55(4): 304–317.

30.

Deluga

(1988) Relationship of transformational and transactional leadership with employee influencing strategies. Group & Organizational Studies 13: 456–467.

31.

Deluga

Souza

(1991) The effects of transformational and transactional leadership styles on the influencing behavior of subordinate police officers. Journal of Occupational Psychology 64: 49–55.

32.

Densten

Sarros

(1997) Re-thinking Transformational Leadership Factors. Working Paper 59/97 . Monash University, Victoria, Australia: Faculty of Business and Economics.

33.

Dick

GPM

(2011) The influence of managerial and job variables on organizational commitment in the police. Public Administration 89: 557–576.

34.

Fischer

(2016) Transformational leadership in nursing: a concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 72(11): 2644–2653.

35.

Grant

(1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17(S2): 109–122.

36.

Gravetter

Wallnau

(2014) Essentials of Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (8th edn). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

37.

Harr

(1997) They’re making a bad name for the department: Exploring the link between organizational commitment and police occupational deviance in a police patrol bureau. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 20: 786–812.

38.

Harter

Bass

(1988) Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 695–702.

39.

Hawkins

Dulewicz

(2009) Relationships between leadership style, the degree of change experienced, performance and follower commitment in policing. Journal of Change Management 9: 251–270.

40.

Hayati

Charkhabi

Naami

(2014) The relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement in governmental hospitals nurses: a survey study. SpringerPluse 3(25): 1–7.

41.

Herrbach

(2006) A matter of feeling? The affective tone of organizational commitment and identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27(5): 629–643.

42.

Hitt

Biermant

Shimizu

Kochhar

(2001) Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: a resource-based perspective. Academy of Management Journal 44: 13–28.

43.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 1–55.

44.

Jaramillo

Nixon

Sams

(2005) The effect of law enforcement stress on organizational commitment. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 28: 321–336.

45.

Jaros

(2007) Meyer and Allen model of organizational commitment: measurement issues. Journal of Organizational Behavior 6: 7–25.

46.

Johnson

(2012) Police organizational commitment: the influence of supervisor feedback and support. Crime & Delinquency 6(9): 1155–1180.

47.

Kang

(2010) 2009 Annual Police Statistic, 53. Seoul, Korea: Bumshin.

48.

Kehoe

Wright

(2010) The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management 39(2): 366–391.

49.

Kelloway

Barling

Helleur

(2000) Enhancing transformational leadership: The roles of training and feedback. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 21(3): 145–149.

50.

Kent

Chelladurai

(2001) Perceived transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and citizenship behavior: a case study in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management 15: 135–159.

51.

Khasawneh

Omari

Abu-Tineh

(2012) The relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment: the case for vocational teachers in Jordan. Educational Management 40(4): 494–508.

52.

Kline

(2016) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4th edn). New York: The Guilford Press.

53.

Koslowsky

(1991) A longitudinal analysis of job satisfaction, commitment, and intention to leave. Applied Psychology: An International Review 40: 405–415.

54.

Korean National Police Agency (2010) 2010 White Paper. Seoul, Korea: Korean National Police Agency Press.

55.

Kuhnert

Lewis

(1987) Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review 12(4): 648–657.

56.

Markovits

Boer

van Dick

(2014) Economic crisis and the employee: the effects of economic crisis on employee job satisfaction, commitment, and self-regulation. European Management Journal 32(3): 413–422.

57.

Masal

(2014) Shared and transformational leadership in the police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 38(1): 40–55.

58.

Mazerolle

Darroch

White

(2013) Leadership in problem-oriented policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 36(7): 543–560.

59.

Meade

Jonson

Braddy

(2008) Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology 93: 568–592.

60.

Metcalfe

Dick

(2002) Is the force still with her? Gender and commitment in the police. Women in Management Review 17: 392–403.

61.

Meyer

Herscovitch

(2001) Commitment in the workplace. Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review 11(3): 299–326.

62.

Meyer

Stanley

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.

63.

Mittal

Dhar

(2016) Effect of green transformational leadership on green creativity: a study of tourist hotels. Tourism Management 57: 118–127.

64.

Moon

Jonson

(2012) The influence of occupational strain on organizational commitment among police: a general strain theory approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40. 249–258.

65.

Mowday

(1998) Reflections on the study and relevance of organization commitment. Human Resource Management Journal 8: 387–401.

66.

Mowday

Porter

Steers

(1982) Employee–Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover. New York: Academic Press.

67.

Muenjohn

Armstrong

(2008) Evaluating the structural validity of the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of transformational–transactional leadership. Contemporary Management Research 4, 3–14.

68.

Mullen

Kelloway

Teed

(2017) Employer safety obligations, transformational leadership and their interactive effects on employee safety performance. Safety Science 91: 405–412.

69.

Northouse

(2001) Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

70.

Özaralli

(2003) Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24(6): 335–344.

71.

Peng

Zhang

Tian

Miao

Xiao

Zhang

(2016) How can core self-evaluations influence job burnout? The key roles of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Health Psychology 21(1): 50–59.

72.

Pillai

Williams

(2004) Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management 17: 144–159.

73.

Podsakoff

Toder

Skov

(1982) Effects of leader contingent and noncontingent reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal 25: 810–821.

74.

Pollock

Whitbred

Contractor

(2000) Social information processing and job characteristics: a simultaneous test of two theories with implication for job satisfaction. Human Communication Research 26: 292–330.

75.

Raykov

(1997) Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement 21(2): 173–184.

76.

Sarver

Miller

(2014) Police chief leadership: styles and effectiveness. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 37: 126–143.

77.

Shim

Hoover

(2015) Police transformational leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of organizational culture. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 38(4): 754–774.

78.

Song

(2005) A study on the effects of police chiefs’ leadership on the organizational commitment. The Korean Association of Police Science Review 10: 69–112.

79.

Steinheider

Wuesteward

(2008) From the bottom up: sharing leadership in a police agency. Police Practice and Research 9: 145–163.

80.

Swid

(2013) Police members’ perception of their leaders’ leadership style and its implications. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 37(3): 579–595.

81.

Tejeda

Scandura

Pillai

(2001) The MLQ revisited: psychometric properties and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly 12: 31–52.

82.

Tracy

Hinkin

(1998) Transformational leadership or effective managerial practices? Group and Organization Management 23(3): 220–236.

83.

Vinger

Cilliers

(2006) Effective transformational leadership behaviors for managing change. SA Journal of Human Resource Management 4(2): 1–9.

84.

Vito

Higgins

Denney

(2014) Transactional and transformational leadership: an examination of the leadership challenge model. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 37(4): 809–822.

85.

Yammarino

Dubinsky

(1994) Transformational leadership theory: using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology 47(4): 787–811.