Leadership,Commitment,and Culture

Abstract

The two purposes of this article were to examine the meta-analytic relationships between several well-studied forms of leadership and employee commitment and to test if some of these relationships vary due to societal culture. Transformational/charismatic leadership was shown to be positively related to affective (AC; ρ = .451, k = 116) and normative commitment (NC; ρ = .337, k = 30), while contingent reward and management-by-exception (active) were positively related to AC (ρ = .369, k = 51 and ρ = .083, k = 25, respectively). Laissez faire leadership was negatively related to AC (ρ = −.296, k = 15). In terms of culture, societal individualism-collectivism did not affect the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and AC. In contrast, the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and both NC and continuance commitment was stronger in countries that value collectivism. We also found evidence that the relationship between contingent reward and AC was stronger in societies with higher rather than lower levels of power distance/hierarchy. Implications of these findings on the study of leadership, culture, and commitment are discussed.

Keywords

transformational leadership charismatic leadership transactional leadership contingent reward affective commitment normative commitment continuance commitment culture individualism/collectivism power distance hierarchy meta-analysis

It is axiomatic that effective leaders within organizations have committed followers. It is not surprising, therefore, that theorists who advocate for a particular approach to leadership (e.g., charismatic, transformational) often include employee commitment as a potential outcome (Bass & Riggio, 2005; Conger &Kanungo, 1998; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). It is also not surprising that commitment theorists commonly identify leadership as an important contributing factor in the development of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Wayne et al., 2009). What is surprising is that there has yet to be a systematic attempt to integrate findings pertaining to the links between leadership and commitment emanating from these two literatures. Therefore, one of the key objectives of the current study is to provide meta-analytic estimates of the strength of relations between several widely studied forms of leadership and commitment.

Another interest shared by modern leadership and commitment theorists is the influence of societal culture. For example, leadership scholars have examined culture differences in leadership preferences and effectiveness (e.g., House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004), and commitment scholars have addressed the implications of culture for the nature, strength, and consequences of commitment (e.g., Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Meyer, Stanley, Jackson, et al., 2012; Wasti &Onder, 2009). It follows that culture might have an effect on the nature of the relations between leadership behaviors and commitment. Therefore, a second objective of the current study was to determine whether the relations between leadership and commitment vary as a function of cultural values and practices. Such an analysis addresses the call for more research to assess the cross-cultural generalizability of North American theories (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007).

To elaborate on these two key objectives, and to develop our study hypotheses, we begin with a brief review of leadership theory to identify those forms of leadership that are the focus of this investigation. Next, the meaning of commitment is discussed, along with the multidimensional framework that guided the literature review, and the theoretical links between leadership and commitment generally expected within North American theories are summarized. Finally, a brief discussion of national culture is provided and ways that cultures can be distinguished are identified. These distinctions were used to generate the hypotheses regarding culture as a moderator variable.

Leadership in Organizations

Leadership within organizations can take many forms. For present purposes, we focused on Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range leadership theory in an effort to capture a broad spectrum of leadership styles expected to have a bearing on employee commitment. The full-range leadership theory distinguishes among three general forms of leadership: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. Transformational leadership is typically described and operationalized in terms of five general dimensions: (a) Idealized influence (attributed) reflects followers’ perceptions of the leader’s power, confidence, and transcendent ideals; (b) Idealized influence (behaviors) includes charismatic behaviors expressing a leader’s values, beliefs, sense of mission and purpose, and ethical orientation; (c) Inspirational motivation involves encouraging followers to strive for difficult goals, while showing confidence that they can achieve those goals; (d) Intellectual stimulation involves urging followers to question customs and assumptions and to form creative solutions to problems; and (e) individualized consideration refers to treating followers in unique ways based on their individual needs and supporting those specific needs. Although there is evidence that these five dimensions are distinguishable (e.g., Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramanian, 2003; Bass & Avolio, 1993), they are often highly correlated and, therefore, combined to form a single overall measure of transformational leadership.

Before describing other styles within the full-range theory, it is important to note that transformational leadership, as described by Bass and Avolio (1997), is similar in many respects to charismatic leadership as reflected in several established theories. Indeed, House and Aditya (1997) referred to a meta-construct called “neo-charismatic” leadership, which describes a family of related theories tying together ideas of charismatic, inspirational, visionary, and transformational leadership. In addition to Bass and Avolio’s work, this family includes the 1976 theory of charismatic leadership (House, 1977), the attributional theory of charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1998), the self-concept based theory of charismatic leadership (Shamir et al., 1993), as well as the visionary theories developed by Kouzes and Posner (1987), Bennis and Nanus (1985), Sashkin (1988), and Nanus (1992).

Charismatic leadership, in particular, is closely related to transformational leadership (Antonakis & House, 2002). First, by definition, the idealized influence component of transformational leadership refers to the extent to which followers perceive the leader as charismatic (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Indeed, some researchers have used the idealized influence dimension to measure charismatic leadership (Antonakis, Fenley, & Liechti, 2011). Second, at least three of the dimensions of charismatic leadership identified in Conger and Kanungo’s (1987, 1998) attributional theory (i.e., strategic vision and articulation, sensitivity to members’ needs, sensitivity to the environment; Rowold and Heinitz, 2007) have parallels in transformational leadership. Moreover, there is empirical evidence to support the integration. Rowold and Heinitz (2007) found a correlation of .88 between measures of transformational and charismatic leadership. Therefore, due to the strong conceptual and empirical relationships between these two theories, transformational leadership and charismatic leadership were treated as a unitary construct in the present study.

The second broad category of leadership identified in the full-range theory is transactional leadership. This category is further divided to reflect three specific behavioral styles: contingent reward, management-by-exception active, and management-by-exception passive. Contingent reward involves rewarding followers for reaching agreed-upon objectives. Management-by-exception (MBE) involves engaging with followers only when they make mistakes, for the purpose of correcting their actions (e.g., corrective criticism, negative feedback). This style can take an active form where leaders regularly monitor follower behavior for mistakes or a passive form that involves taking corrective action only when mistakes are brought to a leader’s attention. A final form of transactional leadership, called laissez-faire, reflects a total disengagement from followers, with a nominal leader providing no positive/ negative reinforcement, or feedback.

Employee Commitment

Employee commitment is a multidimensional construct. It can take different forms (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1991; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986) and be directed at different targets, or foci, including organizations, work teams, projects, and goals (e.g., T. E. Becker, 1992; Reichers, 1985). For present purposes, we focus our attention on employee commitment to the organization (i.e., organizational commitment) because it has been studied most extensively, particularly within the context of leadership. With regard to dimensionality of form, we were guided by the three-component model (TCM) of commitment developed by Meyer and colleagues (Meyer & Allen, 1991, 1997; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). The TCM is the most widely investigated multidimensional model of organizational commitment, is accompanied by well-established measures (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993), and has received considerable empirical support (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).

The TCM was developed initially to address observed similarities and differences in existing unidimensional conceptualizations of commitment (e.g., H. S. Becker, 1960; Mowday, Porter, Steers, 1982; Weiner, 1982). Common to all these conceptualizations was the belief that commitment binds an individual to an organization and reduces the likelihood of turnover. The main differences were in the psychological state, or mindset, presumed to characterize the commitment. These mindsets reflect three distinguishable themes: affective attachment to the organization, obligation to remain, and perceived cost of leaving. To distinguish among these mindsets, Meyer and Allen (1991) used the labels affective commitment (AC), normative commitment (NC), and continuance commitment (CC), respectively. Employees with strong AC want to remain, those with strong NC feel that they ought to remain, and those with strong CC believe that they have to remain.

Among of the most important reasons for distinguishing among the components of commitment is that they have different implications for on-the-job behavior. Indeed, research shows that AC has the strongest positive correlation with job performance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and attendance, followed by NC. CC tends to be unrelated, or negatively related, to these behaviors (Meyer et al., 2002). Although Meyer and Allen argued that the nature of employees’ commitment and its implications can be best understood by considering the three components together, they did not elaborate on how the components might combine. Consequently, most research focused primarily on relations involving individual components, with only a few studies exploring interactions (e.g., Jaros, 1997; Randall, Fedor, & Longenecker, 1990; Somers, 1995).

More recently, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) elaborated on how the commitment mindsets might combine to influence behavior. Research conducted to test their propositions provided some interesting new insights into the way employees might experience their commitments (e.g., Gellatly, Meyer, & Luchak, 2006; Meyer, Stanley, & Parfyonova, 2012; Somers, 2009). For example, Gellatly et al. (2006) found that the relation between NC and behavior varied depending on whether it was accompanied by other forms of commitment. They argued that when accompanied by strong AC, NC is experienced as a moral imperative (i.e., the desire to do the right thing), whereas when accompanied by weak AC and strong CC it is experienced as an indebted obligation (i.e., a need to do what is expected). Because most studies to date have focused on the relations between leadership style and the individual components of commitment, our meta-analysis of these relations cannot capture the complexity of the interactions reflected in recent theory and research. Nevertheless, we acknowledge these complexities where relevant in the development of our study hypotheses and address the implications for future research in the Discussion section.

Leadership and Commitment

Transformational/charismatic leadership

Although commitment is often discussed as an outcome of effective leadership, research on the relations between transformational/charismatic leadership and the different components of commitment has generated mixed findings. In their earlier meta-analytic investigation, Meyer et al. (2002) identified only four studies that examined the relation between transformational leadership and each of AC and CC and only three studies examining the relation with NC. They found positive relations with AC and NC and a negative relation with CC. Similar findings have been reported in more recent primary studies (Heinitz & Rowold, 2007; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). For example, Heinitz and Rowold found that the average correlation across the dimensions of transformational leadership was .24 with AC and .20 with NC. Rafferty and Griffin found that several dimensions of transformational leadership correlated negatively with CC. However, correlations ranging from zero to weak positive between transformational leadership and CC have been also been reported (Felfe, Yan, & Six, 2008). As we discuss below, this variability may be due in part to complexities in the CC construct itself and/or to cross-cultural difference. First, however, we consider conceptual explanations for the more consistent positive relations involving AC and NC.

Transformational/charismatic leaders motivate employees through emotional appeal and the creation of a compelling vision. They challenge employees to transcend their personal interests and to work together in the best interests of the collective (e.g., team, organization; Bass & Avolio, 1997). At the same time, they are sensitive to and attempt to satisfy the needs of individual employees. Thus, they create conditions that should contribute to employees’ desire to remain with the organization (AC) and their sense of obligation to work toward the fulfillment of a meaningful vision (NC; moral imperative). They may also instill in employees a sense of obligation to reciprocate for the positive treatment they receive (NC; indebted obligation; Bass & Riggio, 2005). Therefore, we proposed and tested the following hypotheses:

Hypotheses 1: Transformational/charismatic leadership is positively related to AC.

Hypothesis 2: Transformational/charismatic leadership is positively related to NC.

The conceptual links between transformational/charismatic leadership and CC are somewhat more complex. There are two reasons for this. First, research has demonstrated that CC itself might be multidimensional (McGee & Ford, 1987; Powell & Meyer, 2004). That is, the perceived cost of leaving can reflect a lack of available alternatives (CC:LoAlt) or the sacrifice associated with forfeiting investments (CC:HiSac). Although these components of CC tend to be correlated, they have been found to define separate factors in some studies (e.g., McGee & Ford, 1987; Meyer, Allen, & Gellately, 1990) and to relate differently to other variables, including AC and NC (Meyer et al., 2002). Second, as noted earlier, relations between CC and other variables have differed depending on the strength of the other two components (AC and NC). Consequently, it can be misleading to interpret correlations using an omnibus measure of CC or without taking into account the strength of the other components. Unfortunately, most of the studies we identified in our literature search reported only the zero-order correlation between leadership measures and CC. There were too few studies reporting correlations with the CC:LoAlt and CC:HiSac components to conduct separate analyses.

At a conceptual level, there might be reason to expect a positive correlation between CC and transformational/charismatic leadership. That is, the positive conditions created by such leaders would be lost if employees decided to leave the organization (see Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Connell, Ferres, & Travaglione, 2003; Felfe, 2006, for some empirical evidence). However, there might also be reasons to expect a negative correlation as observed by Rafferty and Griffin (2004). In situations where leaders are not transformational or charismatic, they may display other less desirable leadership behaviors (e.g., management-by-exception or laissez-faire). Under these conditions, employees with weak CC might seek other opportunities, leaving those with strong CC to stay and endure. Therefore, in light of the uncertainty surrounding the relation between transformational/charismatic leadership and CC, we did not formulate any specific hypotheses. Rather, we treated our analysis as exploratory.

Transactional and Laissez-faire leadership

Less attention has been paid to examining the links between commitment and the transactional and laissez-faire styles of leadership. However, there are reasons to expect relations, particularly in the case of AC. For example, in their meta-analysis, Judge and Piccolo (2004) found that contingent reward leadership had strong positive correlations with various effectiveness criteria, including job satisfaction and performance, both of which have also been linked to AC (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002). Active management-by-exception correlated positively (albeit weakly) with many of the same criterion measures, whereas laissez-faire leadership demonstrated fairly strong negative correlations.

Conceptually, contingent reward leadership is likely to be associated with perceptions of organizational support and justice. Even management-by-exception, particularly in its active form, might be perceived by employees as fair to the extent that managers address inappropriate behavior and/or ineffective performance. In contrast, laissez-faire leadership, by definition, is the absence of leadership. Laissez-faire leaders avoid taking responsibility when important issues arise and are absent when needed. Thus, laissez-faire leadership is expected to be negatively related to perceived support and fairness. Organizational justice and perceived support have been found to be among the strongest correlates of AC (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Meyer et al., 2002; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). It follows, therefore, that leadership behavior will relate to AC due, at least in part, to their implications for perceptions of support and leadership. Therefore, we tested the following hypotheses:

Hypotheses 3: Contingent reward leadership relates positively to AC.

Hypotheses 4: Active management-by-exception leadership relates positively to AC.

Hypotheses 5: Laissez-faire leadership relates negatively to AC.

Predictions concerning relations with NC and CC are more difficult because of the previously described complexities surrounding these components. Although transformational/ charismatic leadership was expected to contribute to NC through its appeal to higher-order values, it is not clear that this will be true of transactional leadership. Similarly, it is not clear that contingent reward, management-by-exception, or laissez-faire leadership will contribute to the perceived costs of leaving. One possibility noted earlier is that only employees with strong CC will feel compelled to remain under conditions where leadership is ineffective. This could contribute to a negative correlation with CC, particularly in the case of laissez-faire leadership. Nevertheless, in the absence of strong theoretical rationale we did not generate specific hypotheses for NC and CC. Rather, we conducted analyses for exploratory purposes only.

Culture as a Moderator

A second major objective of our study was to determine whether culture differences might serve to moderate the relations between leadership styles and the components of organizational commitment. Culture is a complex construct that has been defined in various ways. House and Javidan (2004, p. 15) described it as “commonly experienced language, ideological belief systems (including religion and political belief systems), ethnic heritage, and history.” Several authors have argued that cultures vary on a number of dimensions, and that it is possible to measure the position of different collectives (e.g., countries) along these dimensions (e.g., Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004). Although there are critics of this approach (e.g., Earley, 2006; Geertz, 1973), measuring culture along these dimensions for the purpose of comparison has been a common strategy in cross-cultural psychology (e.g., Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Fischer & Smith, 2003; W. A. Gentry, Weber, & Sadri, 2008; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006; Lyness & Judiesch, 2008) and is well suited to our objectives.

In their recent review of cross-cultural organizational behavior research, Gelfand et al. (2007) noted that there is evidence for both generalizability and culture-specificity in leadership and commitment research. The results from the Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness (GLOBE) project (House et al., 2004) reflected this duality as researchers found that followers, across all cultures studied, preferred charismatic/inspirational and ethical leadership behaviors. Yet some cultures also expressed unique preferences for certain styles of leadership. For example, Southern Asian cultures find face-saving leadership (i.e., being self-centered, status conscious, conflict inducing) as neutral, whereas Nordic countries view it as quite negative/ineffective. Similarly, narrative (Wasti &Onder, 2009) and meta-analytic (Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Stanley et al., 2007) reviews of commitment research have revealed that AC, NC, and CC tend to relate in the same direction with other variables across cultures but that the magnitude of the relations, particularly those involving NC, tend to vary somewhat.

For present purposes, we focused on two widely recognized dimensions of culture: individualism-collectivism and power distance/hierarchy. Individualism refers to “a loosely knit social framework in which people are supposed to take care of themselves and of their immediate families only”; collectivism reflects “a tight social framework in which people distinguish between ingroups and outgroups, they expect their ingroup to look after them, and in exchange for that they feel they owe absolute loyalty to it” (Hofstede, 1980b, p. 45). Power distance refers to “the degree to which a community accepts and endorses authority, power differences, and status privileges” (Carl, Gupta, & Javidan, 2004, p. 513). Schwartz (1994) used the term hierarchy similarly to refer to acceptance of differences in status and power across social roles and willingness to comply with the obligations and rules associated with those roles.

Many cross-cultural studies have focused on either individualism/collectivism or power distance because they have important implications for behavior at work, and in particular for leadership processes. First, individualism-collectivism has been the target of considerable theory and research in the leadership literature (e.g., Ardichvili, 2001; Euwema, Wendt, & van Emmerik, 2007; Pasa, Kabasakal, & Bodur, 2001; Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha, 2007; Yan & Hunt, 2005) and has been specifically examined with respect to the context of leadership and employee commitment (Felfe, Schmook, & Six, 2006; Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003; Walumbwa, Lawler, & Avolio, 2007; Walumbwa, Orwa, Wang, & Lawler, 2005). Second, several leadership theories incorporate the notion of power differentials between leaders and followers into their models (e.g., Fiedler, 1967; Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Wayne & Green, 1993; see Carl et al., 2004, for a review). There is also empirical evidence for the moderating effect of power distance in the leadership process (Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009; Schaubroeck et al., 2007). Thus, we examined the moderating effects of these two dimensions in the relation between transformational/charismatic leadership and commitment. In what follows, we describe how our hypotheses derive from culture theory in general, and its previous applications in leadership and commitment research.

Moderating effects of individualism/collectivism

As we noted earlier, transformational and charismatic leaders encourage followers to transcend their personal interests and to work together to achieve a compelling vision for the benefit of the collective. As a consequence, employees are more likely to identify with the collective to view the goals of the collective as synonymous with their own (Jung, Bass, & Sosik, 1995). Such a collective identity is likely to facilitate the development of strong AC (Meyer, Becker, & van Dick, 2006). Such a process should be facilitated in collectivist cultures where the priority of collective- over self-interest is a shared value (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Consequently, we expected the correlation between transformational/charismatic leadership and AC to be stronger in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures.

Although there is little supporting evidence for this proposition at the country level, some corroborating evidence exists from studies conducted at the individual level. For example, Felfe et al. (2006) found that the correlation between transformational leadership and AC was stronger among German employees with strong collectivist values than it was among employees with more individualist values. Walumbwa and Lawler (2003) obtained similar findings with data gathered from three predominantly collectivistic countries (Kenya, China, and India), as did Walumbwa et al. (2007) with samples obtained from the United States, Kenya, China, and India. Thus, while recognizing the need to be cautious in generalizing the results of individual-level findings to the societal level, we tested the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: Societal-level individualism-collectivism moderates the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and AC to the organization, such that the relation is stronger with higher levels of collectivism.

A similar moderating effect of individualism/collectivism might be expected for NC. Indeed, employees in collectivist cultures may be more naturally predisposed to experience a sense of obligation to remain and contribute to the well-being of the collective than will individuals from individualist cultures. Again, although such a moderating effect has yet to be demonstrated in cross-national comparisons, it has been observed in individual-level studies. For example, Felfe et al. (2006) found that the relation between transformational leadership and NC was greater among employees with strong as opposed to weak collectivist values. Similarly, Wasti (2003) found that satisfaction with the supervisor was positively related to NC among Turkish employees with strong collectivist values; there was no relation between satisfaction with the supervisor and NC among those with strong individualist values. Therefore, we tested the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 7: Societal-level individualism-collectivism moderates the relationship between transformational/ charismatic leadership and NC to the organization, such that the relationship is stronger with higher levels of collectivism.

There is also reason to believe that collectivism moderates the relation between positive leadership behaviors and CC. Whereas employees in North America may think about the costs of leaving their organization in terms of potential economic losses (e.g., “I stay with my organization because I cannot afford to lose health care benefits”), employees in collectivistic countries may perceive the potential costs associated with leaving their organization in relational terms. If this is the case, positive leadership that emphasizes unity and a collective sense of mission (e.g., such as transformational/charismatic leadership) should make the relational costs of leaving salient to collectivists. Supporting this, Wasti (2003) found that satisfaction with the supervisor related significantly with CC among Turkish employees with strong collectivist values. Thus, in collectivist countries positive leadership (and the relationship capital it generates) might create strong “relational barriers” to leaving the organization, which could manifest in high levels of CC. Therefore, we tested the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 8: Societal-level individualism-collectivism moderates the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and CC to the organization, such that the relationship is stronger with higher levels of collectivism.

Moderating effects of power distance/hierarchy

The influence of contingent reward leadership on commitment is also likely to be moderated by culture. First, as mentioned other studies have found moderating effects of power distance on leadership processes (Kirkman et al., 2009; Schaubroeck et al., 2007). Second, Fischer and Smith (2003) found that in countries demonstrating unequal power within collectives, individuals tend to prefer reward allocation based on equity (i.e., “pay for performance,” which is similar to the practice of contingent reward leadership) rather than on equality (i.e., providing equal levels of reward to all people). Fischer and Smith supported this pattern using two different sets of cultural dimensions, Schwartz’s (1994) hierarchy and Hofstede’s (2001) power distance dimensions. Their results also persisted despite controlling for economic indicators.

Fischer and Smith’s (2003) results are relevant to the discussion of contingent reward leadership and employee commitment. As mentioned above, contingent reward leadership is founded on rules of equity: if the follower does X for the leader, the leader agrees to provide Y in return. Therefore, this type of leadership should be effective in stimulating commitment in societies that are high in power distance/hierarchy, since those living there prefer meritocratic pay for performance systems. Also, if people in countries high in power distance/hierarchy prefer contingent reward behaviors much more than those in countries low on this dimension, AC should be the form of commitment most sensitive to measuring this preference, since it is based in feelings of liking and “wanting” to be committed:

Hypothesis 9: Societal-level power distance/hierarchy moderates the relationship between contingent reward leadership and AC, such that the relationship is stronger with higher levels of societal power distance/hierarchy.

Method

Literature Search

Electronic searches were conducted in PsycINFO, ProQuest Psychology Journals, Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar. Keywords included transformational leadership, transactional leadership, trans*, charismatic leadership, charisma*, leadership, contingent reward, management-by-exception, laissez faire, commitment, commit*, affective, normative, continuance. In SSCI, articles were identified that cited key commitment papers, and these articles were cross-referenced with the keyword leadership. The key commitment paper citations were Meyer et al. (1993), Meyer and Allen (1991), Meyer and Allen (1997), and Allen and Meyer (1990). These searches were conducted from the earliest available date until January 2011.

To add cross-cultural depth to our sampling of studies, several Taiwanese theses and Chinese studies, written in Mandarin, were identified through Google Scholar. Fourteen theses/ dissertations were identified and screened by the third author who is fluent in English and Mandarin. Nine of these studies were relevant and thus were entered into the database.

Coding Issues

Based on the conceptual overlap between transformational and charismatic dimensions, and the empirical evidence suggesting measures of the two constructs are highly related (Conger & Kanungo, 1994; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Rowold & Heinitz, 2007), these two constructs were combined to form an omnibus transformational/charismatic variable. In other words, studies measuring both transformational and charismatic leadership were pooled when calculating the meta-analytic correlation with each commitment component. This omnibus transformational/charismatic variable was used to test the main hypotheses of this study.

Aside from coding studies using Bass and Avolio’s measure of transformational leadership, those using Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter’s (1990) transformational leadership inventory (TLI) and Posner and Kouzes’s (1994) Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) were also coded as part of the omnibus transformational/charismatic leadership variable. This judgment was based on the strong conceptual overlap of these measures with the transformational/charismatic leadership constructs.

Data Analysis

A psychometric meta-analysis (i.e., Hunter & Schmidt, 2004) was used to assess the relationships. Corrections were made for measurement error at the study level, in both the leadership and commitment variables. When the reliability for a scale was not published, we contacted the study’s author. If no response was received after several follow-up emails, the missing alpha was imputed using the N-weighted average alpha for a given construct, derived using the data in the present study. An exception to this rule applied for Posner and Kouzes’s LPI and for Meyer and Allen’s AC, NC, and CC. In these cases, missing alphas were imputed based on reliabilities derived from Posner and Kouzes (1997) and Meyer et al. (2002), respectively. This was done because these studies calculated average alphas based on much larger sample sizes than those obtained in the current study.

Meta-analytic statistics were generated using Piers Steel’s Microsoft Excel-based meta-analysis program. This program has been used in several published meta-analyses (e.g., Gelade, Dobson, & Gilbert, 2006; Steel, 2007).

Moderator Analysis

Moderator influence was assessed using weighted least squares (WLS) regression, executed with Wilson’s SPSS syntax (see Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Steel and Kammeyer-Mueller (2002) determined WLS was the most effective technique for examining meta-analytic moderators (outperforming bivariate correlation, ordinary least squares, and hierarchical subgroup approaches). To conduct the procedure, the moderator (e.g., individualism-collectivism culture scores describing a primary study’s participant sample) is entered as the X variable in the regression. The Y variable represents the corrected correlations between the leadership and commitment variables of interest. The macro regresses the corrected correlations onto the moderator variable, using a predetermined weight. Studies were weighted by sample size (i.e., N − 1; Hunter & Schmidt, 2004), and also by the degree of reliability in their X and Y variables (David Wilson, personal communication, January 28, 2009; Frederick Oswald, personal communication, July 19, 2009; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Therefore, the weights used in the WLS regression were calculated as w = (N − 1) * (rxx) * (ryy) (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). The results of the test of moderation are reported as a Q statistic (analogous to the F statistic used in regression). If this Q statistic is significant, it indicates that the regression model explains significant variability in effect sizes (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). To prevent confusion, in the Results section the Q statistic used to detect heterogeneity will be referred to as Q1, and the Q statistic used to indicate the significance of the WLS regression will be referred to as Q2.

Assignment of Culture Scores to Studies

This study drew data from several sources to classify the culture of each primary study. These sources included the GLOBE studies on leadership and culture (House et al., 2004), as well as Hofstede’s (2001) and Schwartz’s (1994) research on national cultural values. The GLOBE studies measured two of the cultural dimensions of interest for this study, individualism-collectivism and power distance.

The GLOBE study also employed two kinds of culture measures, values and practices, of which only practices were used here. The GLOBE authors stated that values are elicited in response to questions about “What should be” the case in a particular society (House et al., 2004, p. 16). By contrast, practices reflect “‘What is,’ or ‘What are,’ common behaviors, institutional practices, proscriptions and prescriptions” (House et al., 2004, p. 16). Cultural practices were used for two reasons. First, since the interest of this study was to examine the moderating effect of the current culture on the leadership-commitment relationship, cultural practices appeared more closely aligned with this objective. The second reason to choose practices over values is that GLOBE practices for the individualism-collectivism and power distance dimensions were highly correlated with Hofstede’s (2001) individualism and power distance measures (Javidan, House, Dorfman, Hanges, & Sully de Luque, 2006), respectively. These empirical relationships provide evidence of conceptual convergence.

The other measures used to classify the national culture of primary studies were Hofstede’s (2001) measures of individualism and power distance and Schwartz’s (1994) measure of hierarchy. Hofstede’s codes were included in these analyses based on their prolific use and acceptance in cross-cultural research (see Kirkman et al., 2006, for a review). Schwartz’s hierarchy dimension was chosen as an analogue to Hofstede’s and GLOBE’s power distance measures based on their conceptual similarity and based on the fact the two have exerted similar effects in previous studies (e.g., Fischer & Smith, 2003). Other factors influencing the decision to use Schwartz’s hierarchy dimension included the strong theoretical foundation used to develop the taxonomy and the excellent country coverage he achieved in gathering data for 78 countries, some of which were not among the 62 sampled by GLOBE researchers.

Finally, the Meyer and Allen three-component framework was used to classify primary studies measuring commitment. For example, based on the strong conceptual and empirical (r = .88; Meyer et al., 2002) overlap between Meyer and Allen’s AC and Mowday and colleagues’ (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), studies using the OCQ were classified as “AC.” Similar methods were also used in decision making when classifying whether primary studies measured NC or CC, and measures were screened for conceptual similarity to the Meyer and Allen measures. In several cases, questionnaire items were requested from study authors and examined to determine conceptual similarity.

Results

Relations Among Leadership and Commitment

Tables 1 to 3 present the bivariate correlations between leadership predictors and the three components of commitment, corrected for sampling error and unreliability in the predictor and criterion (ρ). These tables also include the standard deviation of the corrected correlation before removing the effects of sampling error (SD_o) and after having parceled out the effects of sampling error (SD_ρ). They contain the 95% credibility interval, which describes whether a correlation generalizes across situations or whether it is moderated by other variables. If the width of these intervals is large, moderators are said to be operating. If the interval excludes zero, this increases confidence that the meta-analytic correlation is nonzero (either in the positive or negative direction; see Cortina, 2003). Another statistic provided in Tables 1 to 3 is the 95% confidence interval, which is an estimate of the precision of the meta-analytic correlation. The confidence interval answers the question of how accurate the estimate is, given the influence of sampling error. Finally, the Q statistic for each correlation (labeled Q1) estimates the heterogeneity in the distribution of correlations. If this value is significant, it indicates the potential presence of moderator variables (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).

Table 1.

Corrected Correlations Between Leadership and Affective Commitment

	Affective Commitment
Leadership Predictor	k	N	ρ	SD_o	SD _ρ	95% CR	95% CI	Q1
Transformational/Charismatic
TFL/CH	116	39,211	.451	.12	.11	.24 to .66	.43 to .47	614.96**
TFL	102	33,246	.445	.12	.11	.23 to .66	.42 to .47	535.15**
CH (overall)	45	15,674	.426	.12	.11	.21 to .64	.39 to .46	241.78**
IIA	17	5,111	.422	.11	.09	.25 to .59	.37 to .47	53.75**
IIB	17	5,110	.421	.12	.10	.23 to .61	.37 to .48	55.28**
IM	25	6,629	.400	.11	.09	.23 to .57	.36 to .44	70.11**
IC	37	12,131	.415	.14	.13	.16 to .67	.37 to .46	215.22**
IS	36	12,636	.388	.14	.13	.14 to .64	.37 to .41	209.26**
Transactional
CR	51	19,015	.369	.15	.13	.11 to .63	.35 to .38	333.46**
MBEA	25	8,845	.083	.17	.15	−.21 to .37	.02 to .11	134.09**
MBEP	23	7,724	−.228	.21	.19	−.60 to .15	−.31 to −.15	212.82**
LF	15	6,404	−.296	.14	.13	−.55 to −.04	−.37 to −.23	91.41**

Note. TFL/CH = transformational/charismatic leadership; TFL = transformational leadership; CH (overall) = charismatic leadership measured using MLQ and non-MLQ measures; IIA = idealized influence-attributed; IIB = idealized influence-behavioral; IM = inspirational motivation; IC = individualized consideration; IS = intellectual stimulation; CR = contingent reward; MBEA = management-by-exception (active); MBEP = management-by-exception (passive); LF = laissez faire; k = number of studies in the analysis; N = total number of respondents; ρ = weighted average corrected correlation; SD_o = observed standard deviation of corrected correlations; SD_ρ = estimated true/residual standard deviation of corrected correlation; 95% CR = 95% credibility interval; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; Q1 = Q test of heterogeneity.

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

Table 2.

Corrected Correlations Between Leadership and Normative Commitment

	Normative Commitment
Leadership Predictor	k	N	ρ	SD_o	SD _ρ	95% CR	95% CI	Q1
Transformational/Charismatic
TFL/CH	30	9,944	.337	.15	.14	.07 to .61	.28 to .39	187.31**
TFL	29	9,840	.337	.15	.14	.07 to .61	.28 to .39	187.34**
CH (overall)	17	6,141	.311	.14	.12	.08 to .55	.24 to .38	90.27**
IIA	9	3,273	.280	.09	.07	.16 to .40	.23 to .34	17.66*
IIB	9	3,272	.303	.08	.05	.25 to .36	.25 to .36	10.65
IM	13	3,951	.326	.15	.13	.08 to .57	.24 to .41	59.01**
IC	16	6,039	.279	.13	.12	.05 to .51	.21 to .34	72.95**
IS	16	6,039	.281	.12	.11	.08 to .49	.22 to .34	62.58**
Transactional
CR	16	6,506	.281	.14	.12	.04 to .52	.21 to .35	81.29**
MBEA	13	4,574	.111	.17	.15	−.17 to .40	.02 to .20	66.80**
MBEP	12	3,924	−.115	.16	.15	−.39 to .16	−.21 to −.02	60.53**
LF	8	3,593	−.164	.08	.05	−.24 to −.09	−.22 to −.11	11.14

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

Table 3.

Corrected Correlations Between Leadership and Continuance Commitment

	Continuance Commitment
Leadership Predictor	k	N	ρ	SD _o	SD _ρ	95% CR	95% CI	Q1
Transformational/Charismatic
TFL/CH	28	10,774	−.015	.15	.14	−.29 to .26	−.07 to .04	177.13**
TFL	27	9,417	−.004	.16	.15	−.29 to .29	−.06 to .06	170.06**
CH (overall)	16	7,008	−.070	.11	.10	−.25 to .11	−.13 to −.01	59.36**
IIA	8	2,869	−.019	.08	.04	−.02 to −.02	−.07 to .04	4.81
IIB	8	2,868	.057	.08	.05	.06 to .06	.00 to .11	5.57
IM	12	3,547	−.035	.13	.10	−.23 to .16	−.11 to .03	32.26**
IC	15	5,653	−.068	.15	.13	−.32 to .19	−.14 to .01	73.35**
IS	16	7,010	−.035	.08	.05	−.13 to .06	−.08 to .00	26.23*
Transactional
CR	16	7,279	−.068	.15	.14	−.33 to .19	−.14 to .01	94.14**
MBEA	12	3,904	.021	.16	.14	−.25 to .29	−.06 to .12	50.83**
MBEP	10	3,161	.120	.09	.04	.12 to .12	.07 to .18	7.13
LF	7	3,189	.079	.10	.08	−.06 to .22	.01 to .15	16.55*

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

Hypotheses 1 and 2 described the expected bivariate relations between transformational/charismatic leadership and AC and NC. Hypothesis 1 predicted transformational/charismatic leadership is positively related to AC. The hypothesis is supported by the corrected correlation (ρ = .451), and the fact the credibility interval excludes zero (.24-.66). Hypothesis2 stated transformational/charismatic leadership is related to NC, and this was also supported by the corrected correlation (ρ = .337), and the exclusion of zero in the credibility interval (.07-.61).

Despite the strength of the relationship between leadership and NC, previous research indicates AC and NC are highly correlated (ρ = .67; Stanley et al., 2007). If this is the case, AC and NC might be redundant constructs. This would affect the interpretation of the results in the current study. To examine redundancy, semipartial correlations between transformational/charismatic leadership and both AC and NC were calculated. This semipartial statistic removes the correlation between these two forms of commitment when assessing the relationship of transformational/charismatic leadership to each component. If construct redundancy exists, the semipartial correlations between leadership and both AC and NC would be reduced to zero after accounting for the overlap between these two commitment components. We calculated these two semipartial correlations in the statistical software package SAS, using a matrix of meta-analytic correlations assembled from this study and from Stanley et al. (2007).¹ This matrix of correlations is presented in Table 4. After controlling for the relationship between AC and NC, the correlation between transformational/charismatic leadership and NC fell from ρ = .337 to ρ = .050. By comparison, the relationship between transformational/ charismatic leadership and AC remained strong after controlling for the overlap between AC and NC, falling only from ρ = .451 to ρ = .303. These results will be further interpreted in the Discussion.

Table 4.

Meta-Analytic Correlations Used for the Computation of Semipartial Correlations

Variable	1	2	3
1. TFL/CH	—
2. AC	.451^a	—
3. NC	.337^a	.67^b	—

Note. TFL/CH = transformational/charismatic leadership; AC = affective commitment; NC = normative commitment.

Correlations from Table 1 in this meta-analysis.

Meta-analytic correlation reported in Stanley et al. (2007), k = 158.

Hypotheses 3 to 5 dealt with the relationship of transactional components of leadership with different forms of commitment. Hypothesis3 stated that contingent reward is positively related to AC. This hypothesis was supported by the corrected correlation (ρ = .369), and by the credibility interval which did not include zero (.11-.63). Hypothesis 4 predicted management-by-exception active is positively related to AC, which it was (ρ = .083) though its credibility interval straddled zero (−.21 to .37). Finally, Hypothesis 5 predicted that laissez-faire leadership is negatively related to AC, which it is (ρ = −.296), and its credibility interval did not include zero (−.55 to −.04).

Cultural Moderators

Table 5 summarizes the cultural moderation tests for Hypotheses 6 to 9. Hypotheses 6 to 8 concerned the moderating influence of individualism/collectivism on the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and AC, NC, and CC, respectively. It was predicted that collectivism is a positive moderator of the relationship between leadership and all three commitment components. Hypothesis 6 was not supported, as neither GLOBE’s in-group collectivism (practices), Q2(1, 114) = .24, p = .63, nor Hofestede’s individualism/collectivism culture scores, Q2(1, 114) = .15, p = .70, moderated the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and AC.

Table 5.

Tests of Cultural Moderation, Using Weighted Least Squares Regression

		Q2 Statistic for Each Test of Moderation
		Individualism/Collectivism		Power Distance
Relationship Examined	df (Model, Residual)	GLOBE	Hofstede	GLOBE	Hofstede	Schwartz
TFL/CH-AC	1, 114	0.2382	0.1516	—	—	—
TFL/CH-NC	1, 28	5.5686*	2.0661	—	—	—
TFL/CH-CC	1, 26	3.9394*	5.6908*	—	—	—
Contingent reward-AC	1, 45	—	—	1.3105	2.6463	4.4036*

Note. TFL/CH = transformational/charismatic leadership; AC = affective commitment; NC = normative commitment; CC = continuance commitment; df = degrees of freedom; Q2 = Q statistic indicating the significance of the weighted least squares regression test for a moderating effect; — = indicates test of moderation not conducted.

p < .05.

Hypothesis 7 was partially supported as GLOBE’s in-group collectivism (practices) moderated the correlation between transformational/charismatic leadership and NC, Q2(1, 28) = 5.57, p = .02. This suggests studies conducted in collectivistic countries produced stronger correlations between leadership and NC. Hofstede’s individualism/ collectivism culture scores produced a similar trend (i.e., lower levels of individualism were associated with a stronger correlation), although the moderating effect was not significant, Q2(1, 28) = 2.07, p = .15.

Hypothesis 8 was fully supported as the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and CC was moderated in a positive direction by GLOBE’s in-group collectivism (practices), Q2(1, 26) = 3.94, p = .047. The same significant moderating pattern occurred when using Hofstede’s individualism/collectivism culture codes, Q2(1, 26) = 5.69, p = .02 (i.e., lower levels of individualism were associated with stronger correlations).

Hypothesis 9 proposed that higher levels of power distance augment the relationship between contingent reward leadership and AC. This hypothesis was partially supported. Higher levels of power distance, as measured by Schwartz’s hierarchy dimensions, Q2(1, 45) = 4.40, p = .04, were significant moderators of the relationship between contingent reward and AC. However, for both the GLOBE’s power distance (practices), Q2(1, 45) = 1.31, p = .2523, and Hofstede’s codes, Q2(1, 45) = 2.65, p = .10, the moderating effect was not significant. The effects of all three tests trended in the same direction, in that higher levels of power distance/ hierarchy were associated with more positive correlations between contingent reward and AC.

Discussion

The two primary purposes of this study were (a) to examine the meta-analytic relationships between transformational/charismatic/transactional leadership and the three components of commitment and (b) to explore whether dimensions of societal culture (such as individualism-collectivism and power distance/hierarchy) moderate these relationships.

Relationships Between Leadership and Commitment

An important finding of this study was a strong correlation between transformational/charismatic leadership and AC (ρ = .451, k = 116) and a moderate correlation between the same leadership variable and NC (ρ = .337, k = 30). The meta-analytic correlations of transformational/charismatic leadership with AC and NC appear to be stable estimates since they are based on more than 20 studies each. This means these relationships are each estimated with power of more than .80, even under conservative assumptions of weak true effect sizes (e.g., ρ = .20) and heterogeneous effect sizes distributions (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). It was expected based on conceptual arguments that transformational/charismatic leadership would relate in a strong and positive way with AC as it did. But, perhaps a more intriguing finding was its correlation with NC, since researchers do not study NC as much as AC in the leadership literature.

Our hypotheses concerning the relation between transformational/charismatic leadership and AC was based in part on the notion that such leaders use emotional appeals and create a compelling vision that leads employees to want to stay. The prediction regarding NC was predicated on the idea that transformational leaders encourage followers to transcend their self-interest and to focus on what is best for the collective (e.g., team, organization). Although we were unable to examine the underlying process directly in this study, our findings are consistent with this logic and suggest that further investigation of processes in future research is warranted.

It is noteworthy that the correlations involving AC and NC were both positive but that the correlation with NC was weaker. This pattern is consistent with previous research involving a wide range of other variables believed to be antecedents of commitment (see Meyer et al., 2002). This similarity in pattern combined with evidence that the two components are highly correlated (ρ = .67; Stanley et al., 2007) has lead to concerns about construct overlap (e.g., Jaros, 2009; Ko, Price, & Mueller, 1997). If that is the case, the correlations obtained in this study might reflect the operation of a common set of processes. To explore this possibility, we computed semipartial correlations to assess the independent relations with transformational/charismatic leadership. When construct overlap was controlled, the correlation between transformational/charismatic leadership and NC fell from ρ = .337 to ρ = .050. By contrast, the reduction was much smaller in the case of AC (from ρ = .451 to ρ = .303).

If AC and NC represent one construct, their semipartial correlations with transformational/charismatic leadership would both be zero. Thus, the asymmetry in the semipartial analysis demonstrates that AC and NC are not redundant. Although we can only speculate on the reason for this pattern of results, one possibility is suggested by recent research concerning profiles of commitment. Recall that Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) proposed that the individual components of commitment might be experienced differently depending on the strength of the other components within an individual’s “commitment profile.” Furthermore, they proposed that this interaction among components will have implications for how they relate to other variables. Gellatly et al. (2006) found support for this notion and the fact that NC could be experienced in two ways, or in other words have “two faces.” They proposed NC might be experienced as a moral imperative mindset when combined with high AC, or as an indebted obligation mindset when paired with high CC (cf. Meyer & Parfyonova, 2010). Thus, our findings suggest that transformational/charismatic leadership might relate positively only to that portion of the variance in NC that is shared with AC (i.e., the variance reflected in the moral imperative profile). That variance in NC that reflects indebted obligation may not be related to transformational/charismatic leadership. This interpretation is, of course, speculative and requires further investigation.

We neither predicted nor found a significant relation between transformational/charismatic leadership and CC. Thus, it does not appear that these positive forms of leadership contribute to the perceived cost of leaving. However, this finding must be interpreted with caution. As we noted earlier, CC has been shown in some studies to be multidimensional (McGee & Ford, 1987; Powell & Meyer, 2004), with one component reflecting a lack of alternatives (CC:LoAlt) and the other reflecting potential sacrifices (CC:HiSac). There were too few studies in our database to conduct separate analyses for these components. It is possible that the positive conditions created by transformational and charismatic leaders would be perceived as a potential loss by employees contemplating leaving and would correlate positively with CC:HiSac. In contrast, employees who have few options might be required to remain even when they perceive their leaders are ineffective (e.g., nontransformational and/or noncharismatic), in which case a negative correlation might be found for CC:LoAlt. This hypothesis could be easily tested in primary studies and, ultimately, in future meta-analyses.

Turning to the findings for transactional leadership, we found a strong positive relation between contingent reward leadership and AC as expected (ρ = .369, k = 51). Management-by-exception in its active form also correlated positively (ρ = .083, k = 25), but the relation was considerably weaker. Management-by-exception (passive) correlated negatively with AC (ρ = −228, k = 23). This pattern of findings is remarkably similar to that obtained by Judge and Piccolo (2004) using a variety of other indices of leadership effectiveness. Our finding of a strong negative correlation between AC and laissez-faire leadership (ρ = −.296, k = 15) is also consistent with the findings reported by Judge and Piccolo.

Justice constructs may help explain this pattern of findings. Followers might prefer contingent reward based on its principles of equity and fairness. Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006) found that the relationships between leadership reward behavior and employee attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors were more positive when rewards were administered contingently versus noncontingently. They also found that contingent reward leader behaviors were strongly related to employee perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. They suggested that perceptions of justice may be a mediator of the effect of contingent reward on employee attitudes (including organizational commitment). This seems likely since Colquitt et al. (2001) found, in their meta-analysis, that various conceptualizations of justice showed moderate to strong corrected correlations with organizational commitment. Testing a full mediation model, Walumbwa, Wu, and Orwa (2008) also found that the effect of contingent reward leadership on AC was mediated by a procedural justice climate (i.e., a group-level construct). Future work could extend these findings by examining how individual-level perceptions of justice (i.e., procedural, distributive, and interactional) act as mediators of the relationship between contingent reward and AC.

Justice principles might also explain the findings involving more passive/avoidant leadership. If corrective leadership (e.g., management-by-exception active) is deemed appropriate and fair by employees, this style might help reinforce AC. Such corrective behavior might even be perceived as supportive of the target individual or the broader team. By contrast, leaders who respond to requests or events only when prompted, or who are largely absent, are unlikely to be perceived as fair or supportive. Perceived fairness and support have been identified as among the best predictors of AC in previous meta-analyses (Colquitt et al., 2001; Meyer et al., 2002; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) and might therefore be key mediators in the relations we observed between leadership and AC in our analysis.

Future research could also investigate how culture moderates the effectiveness of corrective, passive, or avoidant forms of leadership. The GLOBE studies demonstrate that some styles of leadership that would be perceived as negative or detrimental to performance in a North American context are perceived as neutral or even as positive in other cultures (Dorfman, Hanges, Brodbeck, 2004). To illustrate, Shao and Webber (2006) found in a sample of Chinese that the transformational leadership subscales correlated with active management-by-exception with rs ranging between .20 and .36, and all were significant (p < .05). By contrast, Judge and Bono (2000) found in a sample of North American employees that correlations among the same variables ranged from −.06 to −.13. Culture could be an important variable to consider when examining how less inspirational forms of leadership influence employee commitment.

Cultural Moderation

Individualism-collectivism

No moderating effect of individualism-collectivism was found on the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and AC. Since this analysis is derived from a large pool of studies, an obvious conclusion is that the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and AC is not influenced by societal individualism-collectivism. This fits with previous research that did not show cross-cultural variation in the relationship of charisma with AC. For example, Dorfman et al. (1997) assessed the relationship of charismatic leadership with AC in five countries and found no significant differences in path coefficients. Also, Walumbwa, Orwa, et al. (2005) examined the moderating influence of country (i.e., coded as either Kenya or the United States) on the relationship between transformational leadership and AC and found no significant moderating relationship. The current finding also conforms to research showing that relationships involving AC tend to be less influenced by culture than relationships involving NC and CC (Stanley et al., 2007).

A caveat regarding the cultural moderation of the leadership–AC relationship is that the level of moderator used (societal level rather than individual level) may be important for future researchers to consider when making predictions about these phenomena. Previous studies supporting individualism-collectivism as a positive moderator of the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and AC were conducted at the individual level of analysis (Felfe et al., 2006; Wasti, 2003). In contrast, the present study used a societal-level moderator and found no moderating effect. Interestingly, a previous study that did not find support for a moderating role of individualism/ collectivism was Walumbwa, Orwa, et al. (2005), which used country as a moderator, a variable that could be considered a rough approximation of societal individualism/ collectivism. Therefore, using an individual-level moderator, greater collectivism may augment the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and AC, but a societal-level version of this moderator may yield no effect.

The present analysis did not identify any substantial moderators of the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and AC, yet substantial unexplained heterogeneity existed, indicated by a large credibility interval (.24-.65). Future research should identify important methodological and substantive moderators of this relationship. One moderator that may influence this relationship is national wealth. Economic wealth appears to be associated with lower levels of AC (Fischer & Mansell, 2009) and higher levels of individualism (Gelfand, Bhawuk, Nishii, & Bechtold, 2004; Hofstede, 1980a). It is possible that as economic opportunity increases within a society, so does individual financial opportunity and a focus on one’s personal career rather than the organization. These phenomena could inhibit leaders’ ability to rally followers to join their causes and remain members of their in-groups and organizations.

The current findings also provide evidence of stronger correlations between transformational/charismatic leadership and both NC and CC, in studies performed in more collectivistic societies. These results, however, were not supported using all types of culture codes. For NC, only GLOBE’s in-group collectivism (practices) was a significant moderator. For the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and CC, both GLOBE’s in-group collectivism (practices) and Hofstede’s individualism were significant moderators. This suggests that the correlation between leadership and CC was less negative and in some cases slightly positive in countries expressing higher levels of societal collectivism (individualistic countries displayed more negative correlations).

Why might transformational/charismatic leadership foster greater NC and CC in collectivistic cultures? In the case of NC, we understand that transformational/charismatic leaders can exhibit behaviors targeted both to the group (e.g., inspirational motivation) and the individual (e.g., individual consideration; X. Wang & Howell, 2010). Both types of behaviors could produce feelings of obligation in followers. In the case of group-focused leadership, followers might feel obliged to sacrifice for the vision that the group is subscribing to, and which the leader has articulated. In the case of individual focused leadership, followers could become involved in social exchanges (e.g., receive coaching from the leader) that make them feel obligated to fulfill their role expectations or make them feel obliged to reciprocate positive treatment from the leader.

When presented with these obligation-inducing stimuli, collectivists may develop feelings of obligation more easily in response to these leader behaviors, compared with those from other cultures. In support of this, Fischer and Mansell (2009) found that more collectivistic countries demonstrated higher mean levels of normative commitment. Also Triandis’s (1994, 1995) definition of a collectivistic society describes the use of obligations and duties as core determinants of social behavior, which could encourage the development of NC.

To explain the moderation effect involving CC, it could be that when collectivists work with a great leader, that they fear losing the social capital that comes from that relationship, were they to leave the organization. Incurring these social costs could lead to very real economic costs for collectivists. For example, the notion of an employee losing connection to a leader’s social network, or the social network associated with the work group the leader fosters, could have very real economic costs in the form of not being able to find a new job or acquire some information that could lead to economic benefit. Another possibility is that, consistent with the findings involving NC discussed above, it may be that employees in collectivist cultures perceive themselves as violating the norm of duty and obligation by leaving. This relational cost associated with violating norms surrounding duty might strengthen CC.

Power distance/hierarchy

This study found that the correlation between contingent reward leadership and AC was stronger in societies high on Schwartz’s hierarchy dimension, supporting Hypothesis 9. The moderating effect was not significant, however, when using the GLOBE’s power distance (practices) or Hofstede’s power distance dimensions in the moderation calculations, although the moderating effect trended in the predicted direction.

These results converge with previous research on rewards in high power distance societies. Fischer and Smith’s (2003) meta-analysis found that high societal power distance was associated with stronger preferences for equity-based reward allocation over equality-based rewards. C. C. Chen, Meindl, and Hunt (1997) also studied the preference of Chinese employees for differential (or performance-based) reward structures as predicted by a measure called vertical collectivism (Triandis, 1994, 1995). This construct combines principles of both in-group collectivism and power distance (Gelfand et al., 2004). Converging with the current findings, C. C. Chen et al. (1997) found that vertical collectivism was positively related to preference for differential (or performance-based) reward structures among Chinese employees.

An explanation for why contingent reward leadership may be associated with higher levels of AC in power distant countries is that people in these societies develop strong preferences for fair reward principles as a reaction to the unfair reward systems they commonly experience. For example, Fischer et al. (2007) found that people in hierarchical countries reported significantly fewer equity-based reward practices in their organizations. Interestingly, and in contrast to this, Fischer and Smith (2003) showed that people from high power distance countries also strongly prefer equity-based reward systems. This discrepancy between the reward practices people in power distance countries want versus what they experience might be explained by their motivation to reduce their experience of unfair reward practices.

The economic conditions of power distance societies might contribute to the above-described psychological reaction as well. GLOBE’s research shows that power distance is negatively related to several indicators of economic wealth (Carl et al., 2004). Social mobility is also limited in these societies, while corruption is common (Carl et al., 2004). Furthermore, Fischer and Mansell (2009) noted that in more power distance cultures, rewards are often allocated based on reasons other than performance (e.g., based on seniority or family status; see also Near, 1989). This suggests that some individuals in these societies suffer a lower standard of living, less opportunity to improve that standard, and the disadvantage of battling corruption in an attempt to improve their stature in life. Therefore, contingent reward leadership may encourage employees to feel that they “want to stay” with their organization based on the opportunity to improve their social/financial status. Consistent with this, C. C. Chen (1995) outlined a model in which economic needs drive preferences for equity-based reward allocation over equal reward allocation practices. Therefore, in high power distance cultures, when contingent reward is used, employees may appreciate it more based on their experiences with difficult economic conditions combined with unfair reward practices, both of which are pervasive in those countries.

Limitations

Despite the contributions of this study, there are several limitations that should be recognized. For the moderator tests involving NC and CC, there were fewer studies available to conduct these tests compared with those available for AC. Therefore, there was likely greater power associated with the moderation tests for AC, compared with the tests for NC and CC. Interestingly, and despite this, we still detected moderating effects when examining moderation hypotheses relating to NC and CC.

Culture codes were assigned to countries using various degrees of precision, which also may have contributed to the variability in results across culture codes. For example, for some countries, GLOBE codes were available, but not Hofstede codes, and so regional Hofstede codes were used as substitutes. The reverse was also true in that for some countries, Hofstede codes were available but not GLOBE codes, and so GLOBE regional codes were assigned. Furthermore, some Hofstede codes used in this study were not sampled as part of his original study and were instead estimated based on Hofstede’s personal interpretation of the literature. For example, Hofstede did not sample Mainland China, but he estimated these scores based on several sources about Chinese culture (Hofstede, 2001). Therefore, there are various ways in which imprecision in assigning cultural codes to studies could have created discrepancies in the results.

Implications for Practice

An implication for practice emerging from this study is that encouraging transformational/charismatic leadership within organizations may be a means of building AC, no matter the cultural context. If organizations can foster AC through this mechanism, voluminous research suggests this may lead to numerous positive work behaviors including an increase in citizenship behavior and improved job performance (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2002). Also, one of the behaviors reduced by increased AC is voluntary turnover. With worker mobility increasing in recent decades (Benimadhu, 2008), leadership training may be a viable and low-cost way for organizations to build organizational commitment and retain key talent. Therefore, this study supports investing in leadership development as a possible means to boost employee commitment and enhance workforce competitiveness.

Conclusion

The purpose of this research was to describe the meta-analytic correlations between transformational/charismatic/transactional leadership and the three forms of employee commitment to the organization. A second purpose was to assess the degree to which societal culture moderates these relationships. Using meta-analytic techniques, transformational/charismatic leadership correlated substantially with one form of commitment (AC), and its influence on other forms of commitment (NC and CC) appeared susceptible to cultural moderation. One form of transactional leadership, contingent reward, also related more strongly to follower AC in more hierarchical societies. It is hoped that the current study sparks future research on the nature of the relationship between leadership and commitment and how these linkages vary across cultures.

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 disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research reported in this manuscript was supported by a research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the second author.

Notes

Bios

Timothy A. Jackson, Ph.D. is a consultant specializing in the assessment, coaching, and selection of leadership talent in organizations. He works with Jackson Leadership Systems Inc., in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

John P. Meyer, Ph.D. is professor and chair of the graduate I/O program at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario, Canada. His research interests include employee commitment, work motivation, and leadership.

Xioa-Hua (Frank) Wang, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at Vlerick Business School in Belgium. His research interests include leadership, motivation, and innovation.

References

*Al-Ammaj

F. H.

(2000). An investigation of leadership style and organizational commitment among Saudi public employees (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Mississippi State University.

*Albrecht

(2005). Leadership climate in the public sector: Feelings matter too! International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 397-416.

Allen

N. J.

Meyer

J. P.

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

Antonakis

Avolio

B. J.

Sivasubramanian

(2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.

Antonakis

Fenley

Liechti

(2011). Can charisma be taught? Tests of two interventions. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10, 374-396.

Antonakis

House

R. J.

(2002). The full range leadership theory: The way forward. In Avolio

B. J.

Yammarino

F. J.

(Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 3-33). Oxford, England: Elsevier.

Ardichvili

(2001). Leadership styles and work-related values of managers and employees of manufacturing enterprises in post-communist countries. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 363-383.

*Avolio

B. J.

Zhu

Koh

Bhatia

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

*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.

10.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In Chemers

M. M.

Ayman

(Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

11.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mindgarden.

12.

Bass

B. M.

Riggio

R. E.

(2005). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

13.

*Basu

Green

S. G.

(1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477-499.

14.

Becker

H. S.

(1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-42.

15.

Becker

T. E.

(1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232-244.

16.

Benimadhu

(2008). Human resource management: The battle for talent webcast. Webcast presented at the Conference Board of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.conferenceboard.ca/

17.

Bennis

W. G.

Nanus

(1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

18.

*Bettencourt

L. A

. (2004). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: The direct and moderating influence of goal orientation. Journal of Retailing, 80, 165-180.

19.

*Blankenship

S. L.

(2010). The consequences of transformational leadership and/or transactional leadership in relationship to job satisfaction and organizational commitment for active duty women serving in the air force medical service (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

20.

*Bobbio

Manganelli Rattazzi

A. M.

Spadaro

(2006). Organizational cynicism: Contribution to the validation of the Italian version of Breandes, Dhanvakdar & Dean’s (1999) scale. Testing Psicometria Metodologia, 13, 5-23.

21.

*Bono

J. E.

Judge

T. A.

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

22.

Borenstein

Hedges

L. V.

Higgins

J. P. T.

Rothstein

H. R.

(2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, England: Wiley.

23.

*Brown

B. B.

(2003). Employees’ organizational commitment and their perception of supervisors’ relations-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg.

24.

*Brown

D. J.

Keeping

L. M.

(2005). Elaborating the construct of transformational leadership: The role of affect. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 245-272.

25.

*Bycio

Hackett

R. D.

Allen

J. S.

(1995). Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478.

26.

Carl

Gupta

Javidan

(2004). Power distance. In House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Gupta

(Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 513-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

*Castanon

(2005). Managing traumatic change: The role of leadership as a buffer against the negative impact of job insecurity on employee outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, Alhambra, CA.

28.

*Castro

C. B.

Perinan

M. M. V.

Bueno

J. C. C.

(2008). Transformational leadership and followers’ attitudes: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 1842-1863.

29.

Chen

C. C.

(1995). New trends in rewards allocation preferences: A Sino-U.S. comparison. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 408-428.

30.

*Chen

C. C.

(2006). Study of transformational leadership, organizational justice, job insecurity, turnover tendency, organizational commitment and self-efficacy: Taking C bank as an example (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

31.

Chen

C. C.

Meindl

J. R.

Hunt

R. G.

(1997). Testing the effects of vertical and horizontal collectivism: A study of reward allocation preferences in China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 44-70.

32.

*Chen

Chen

(2010). Are educational background and gender moderator variables for leadership, satisfaction and organizational commitment? African Journal of Business Management, 4, 248-261.

33.

*Chen

L. T.

(2005). Exploring the relationship among transformational and transactional leadership behavior, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover on the IT Department of Research and Development in Shanghai, China (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

34.

*Chen

M. F.

(2007). The relationship among transformational leadership, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

35.

*Chen

M. Y.

(2005). The effect of transformational leadership on employees’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment: Mediating role of job characteristics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Central University, Jhongli, Taiwan.

36.

*Chen

X. P.

Fahr

J. L.

(2001). Transformational and transactional leader behaviors in Chinese organizations: Differential effects in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan. In Mobley

W. H.

(Ed.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 2, pp. 101-126). Bingley, England: Emerald.

37.

*Cheng

K. M.

(2003). A structural equation modeling analysis of leadership behavior, organizational commitment and job satisfaction of employees in Taiwanese health clubs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). United States Sports Academy, Daphne, AL.

38.

*Cheng

L. F.

(2005). The effect of leadership style and job satisfaction on affective commitment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Central University, Jhongli, Taiwan.

39.

*Choi

J. H.

(2006). The relationship among transformational leadership, organizational outcomes, and service quality in the five major NCAA conferences (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station.

40.

*Chou

(2001). An analysis of the determinants of turnover intention and organizational commitment in hi-tech companies in Taiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Central University, Jhongli, Taiwan.

41.

*Chou

H. P.

(2006). A research on the relationships among leadership style, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung, Taiwan.

42.

*Colbert

A. E.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Bradley

B. H.

Barrick

M. R.

(2008). CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal importance congruence in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 81-96.

43.

*Cole

M. S.

Bedeian

A. G.

(2007). Leadership consensus as a cross-level contextual moderator of the emotional exhaustion-work commitment relationship. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 447-462.

44.

*Cole

M. S.

Bernerth

J. B.

Walter

Holt

D. T.

(2010). Organizational justice and individuals’ withdrawal: Unlocking the influence of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 367-390.

45.

Colquitt

J. A.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

Porter

C. O. L. H.

K. Y.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.

46.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

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

47.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

(1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 439-452.

48.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

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

49.

*Connell

Ferres

Travaglione

(2003). Engendering trust in manager-subordinate relationships: Predictors and outcomes. Personnel Review, 32, 569-587.

50.

Cortina

J. M.

(2003). Apples and oranges (and pears, oh my!): The search for moderators in meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 415-439.

51.

*Den Hartog

D. N

. (1997). Inspirational leadership. Enschede, Netherlands: Printpartners Ipskamp.

52.

Dorfman

P. W.

Hanges

P. J.

Brodbeck

F. C.

(2004). Leadership and cultural variation: The identification of culturally endorsed leadership profiles. In House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Gupta

(Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 669-719). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

53.

*Dorfman

P. W.

Howel

J. P.

Hibino

Lee

J. K.

Tate

Bautista

(1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 233-274.

54.

*Doucet

Simard

Tremblay

(2007). Les practiques de GRH comme modérateurs dans la relation entre le leadership, l’empowerment et l’engagement des employés. Paper presented at the meeting of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

55.

*Doucet

Simard

Tremblay

(2008). L’effet médiateur du soutien et de la confiance dans la relation entre le leadership et l’engagement. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 63, 625-647.

56.

*Dvir

Kass

Shamir

(2004). The emotional bond: Vision and organizational commitment among high-tech employees. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 126-143.

57.

Early

P. C.

(2006). Leading cultural research in the future: A matter of paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 922-931.

58.

*Ekeland

T. P.

(2005). The relationship among affective organizational commitment, transformational leadership style, and unit organizational effectiveness within the corps of cadets at Texas A&M University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station.

59.

*Emery

C. R.

Barker

K. J.

(2007). The effect of transactional and transformational leadership styles on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of customer contact personnel. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 11, 77-90.

60.

Euwema

M. C.

Wendt

van Emmerik

(2007). Leadership styles and group organizational citizenship behavior across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 1035-1057.

61.

*Felfe

(2006). Validation of a German version of the “Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire” (MLQ Form 5x Short) by Bass and Avolio (1995). Zeitschrift für Arbeits und Organisationspsychologie, 50, 61-78.

62.

*Felfe

Heinitz

(2010). The impact of consensus and agreement of leadership perceptions on commitment, organizational citizenship behaviour, and customer satisfaction. European Journal of work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 272-303.

63.

Felfe

Schmook

Six

(2006). The relevance of cultural value orientations to organizational, supervisor, team and career commitment. Zeitschrift fur Personalpsychologie, 5, 94-107.

64.

*Felfe

Schyns

(2010). Followers’ personality and the perception of transformational leadership: Further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British Journal of Management, 21, 393-410.

65.

*Felfe

Yan

Six

(2008). The impact of individual collectivism on commitment and its influence on organizational citizenship behaviour and turnover in three countries. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 8, 211-237.

66.

Fiedler

F. E.

(1967). A contingency theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

67.

Fischer

Mansell

(2009). Commitment across cultures: A meta-analytical approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1339-1358.

68.

Fischer

Smith

P. B.

(2003). Reward allocation and culture: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 251-268.

69.

Fischer

Smith

P. B.

Richey

Ferreira

M. C.

Assmar

E. M. L.

Maes

Stumpf

(2007). How do organizations allocate rewards? The predictive validity of national values, economic and organizational factors across six nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 3-18.

70.

Geertz

(1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.

71.

Gelade

G. A.

Dobson

Gilbert

(2006). National differences in organizational commitment: Effect of economy, product of personality, or consequence of culture? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 542-556.

72.

Gelfand

M. J.

Bhawuk

D. P. S.

Nishii

L. H.

Bechtold

D. J.

(2004). Individualism and collectivism. In House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Gupta

(Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 437-512). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

73.

Gelfand

M. J.

Erez

Aycan

(2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. In Posner

M. I.

Rothbart

M. K.

(Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 58, pp. 479-514). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

74.

Gellatly

I. R.

Meyer

J. P.

Luchak

A. A.

(2006). Combined effects of the three commitment components on focal and discretionary behaviors: A test of Meyer and Herscovitch’s propositions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 331-345.

75.

*Gentry

D. A.

(2005). Transformational leadership and its impact on employee commitment in a downsizing government agency (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

76.

Gentry

W. A.

Weber

T. J.

Sadri

(2008). Examining career-related mentoring and managerial performance across cultures: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 241-253.

77.

*Gumusluoglu

Karakitapoglu-Aygun

(2009). Knowledge workers’ commitment: The effects of perceived justice and empowerment on knowledge workers’ organizational, supervisory and occupational commitment (Unpublished manuscript). Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey.

78.

*Heinitz

Rowold

(2007). Psychometric properties of a German adaptation of the Transformational Leadership Inventory (TLI) by Podsakoff. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 51, 1-15.

79.

*Herold

D. M.

Fedor

D. B.

Caldwell

Liu

(2008). The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: A multi-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 346-357.

80.

Hofstede

(1980a). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

81.

Hofstede

(1980b). Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9, 42-63.

82.

Hofstede

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

83.

House

R. J.

(1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In Hunt

J. G.

Larson

L. L.

(Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

84.

House

R. J.

Aditya

R. N.

(1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409-473.

85.

House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Gupta

(Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

86.

House

R. J.

Javidan

(2004). Overview of GLOBE. In House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Gupta

(Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

87.

*Huang

M. H.

(2008). The impact of transformational leadership and employees’ intrinsic motivation on organizational commitment and citizenship behavior (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Central University, Jhongli, Taiwan.

88.

*Huang

M. P.

Cheng

B. S.

Chou

L. F.

(2005). Fitting in organizational values: The mediating role of person-organization fit between CEO charismatic leadership and employee outcomes. International Journal of Manpower, 26, 35-49.

89.

*Humphreys

J. H.

Weyant

L. E.

Sprague

R. D.

(2003). Organizational commitment: The roles of emotional and practical intellect within the leader/follower dyad. Journal of Business and Management, 9, 189-209.

90.

Hunter

J. E.

Schmidt

F. L.

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

91.

*Innes

P. B.

(2004). The influence of leadership on perceptions of organizational politics, job involvement, and organizational commitment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Regent University, Virginia Beach.

92.

*Jackson

T. A.

(2006). A pathway for transformational leadership’s effects (Unpublished master’s thesis). The University of Western Ontario, London.

93.

Jaros

S. J.

(1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) Three-Component Model of organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 319-337.

94.

Jaros

S. J.

(2009). Measurement of commitment. In Klein

H. J.

Becker

T. E.

Meyer

J. P.

(Eds.), Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions (pp. 347-520). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

95.

Javidan

House

R. J.

Dorfman

P. W.

Hanges

P. J.

Sully de Luque

(2006). Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 897-914.

96.

*Jia

Song

Cui

Chen

(2007). Leadership and job-related attitudes of employees: An empirical study of managers under Chinese context on the mediating effects of reciprocity and trust. China Management Studies, 1, 13-45.

97.

*Joshi

Lazarova

M. B.

Liao

(2009). Getting everyone on board: The role of inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 20, 240-252.

98.

*Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

(2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765.

99.

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.

100.

Jung

Bass

B. M.

Sosik

J. J.

(1995). Bridging leadership and culture: A theoretical consideration of transformational leadership and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, 3-18.

101.

*Kane

T. D.

Tremble

T. R.

(2000). Transformational leadership effects at different levels of the army. Military Psychology, 12, 137-160.

102.

*Kent

Chelladurai

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

103.

*Khatri

H. A.

Lee

T. H.

(2001). The distinction between charisma and vision: An empirical study. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 18, 373-393.

104.

*Kim

(2009). Transformational and transactional leadership of athletic directors and their impact on organizational outcomes perceived by head coaches at NCAA Division II intercollegiate institutions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus.

105.

Kirkman

B. L.

Chen

Farh

J. L.

Chen

Z. X.

Lowe

K. B.

(2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744-764.

106.

Kirkman

B. L.

Lowe

K. B.

Gibson

C. B.

(2006). A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural value framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 285-320.

107.

*Klinsontorn

(2005). The influence of leadership styles on organizational commitment and employee performances (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

108.

J. W.

Price

J. L.

Mueller

C. W.

(1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allen’s three component model of organization commitment in South Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 961-973.

109.

*Koh

W. L.

Steers

R. M.

Terbourg

J. R.

(1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 319-333.

110.

*Koreck

Felfe

Zaepernick-Rothe

(2009). Transformational leadership and commitment: A multilevel analysis of group-level influences and mediating processes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 364-387.

111.

Kouzes

J. M.

Posner

B. Z.

(1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

112.

*Krishnan

V. R.

(2005). Transformational leadership and outcomes: Role of relationship duration. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 442-457.

113.

*Kudisch

J. D.

Poteet

M. L.

Dobbins

G. H.

Rush

M. C.

Russell

J. E. A.

(1995). Expert power, referent power, and charisma: Toward the resolution of a theoretical debate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 177-195.

114.

*Lagan

(2007). Examining authentic leadership: Development of a four-dimensional scale and identification of a nomological network (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New York.

115.

*Lee

(2005). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 655-672.

116.

Lee

Carswell

J. J.

Allen

N. J.

(2000). A meta-analytic review of occupational commitment: Relations with person- and work-related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 799-811.

117.

*Lee

Y. Y.

(2005). Teachers’ perceptions of principals’ transformational leadership and teachers’ job satisfaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fordham University, New York.

118.

*Li

Tian

Shi

(2006). Transformational leadership and employee work attitudes: The mediating effects of multidimensional psychological empowerment. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38, 297-307.

119.

*Liao

Chuang

(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.

120.

*Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Zhao

Henderson

(2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-177.

121.

*Limsila

Ogunlana

S. O.

(2008). Performance and leadership outcome correlates of leadership styles and subordinate commitment. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 15, 164-184.

122.

*Lin

J. R.

(2007). A study of the relationships among transformational leadership, organizational commitment and leadership effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Shih Hsin University, Taipei, Taiwan.

123.

Lipsey

M. W.

Wilson

D. B.

(2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

124.

*Loke

C. F.

(2001). Leadership behaviours: Effects on job satisfaction, productivity and organizational commitment. Journal of Nursing Management, 9, 191-204.

125.

*Lowe

W. A.

(2000). An examination of the relationship between leadership practices and organizational commitment in the fire service (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

126.

*Luksic

C. Z.

(2005). Transformational leadership and commitment: A study in Bolivia (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Free University, Berlin, Germany.

127.

Lyness

K. S.

Judiesch

M. K.

(2008). Can a manager have a life and a career? International and multisource perspectives on work-life balance and career advancement potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 789-805.

128.

*MacDonald

(2008). Employee well-being: A longitudinal study of organizational engagement and organizational strain in the workforce (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of South Australia, Adelaide.

129.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

130.

*Martin

A. J.

Jones

S. J.

Callan

(2005). The role of psychological climate in facilitating employee adjustment during organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 263-289.

131.

*McCann

J. A.

Langford

P. H.

Rawlings

R. M.

(2006). Testing Behling and McFillen’s syncretical model of charismatic transformational leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 237-263.

132.

*McCrosky

S. D.

(2007). The relationship between leadership practices and the three-component model of organizational commitment: An empirical analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.

133.

McGee

G. W.

Ford

R. C.

(1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment: Re-examination of the affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 638-642.

134.

*McGuire

(2003). Transformational and transactional leadership characteristics of nurse managers in relationship to the organizational commitment of registered nurse followers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

135.

*McNeese-Smith

D. A.

(1999). The relationship between managerial motivation, leadership, nurse outcomes and patient satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 243-259.

136.

*Metscher

D. S.

(2005). An examination of the perceived leadership practices and organizational commitment of active duty air force personnel and government civil service employees (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

137.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

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

138.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

139.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

Gellately

I. R.

(1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 710-720.

140.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

Smith

C. A.

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

141.

Meyer

J. P.

Becker

T. E.

van Dick

(2006). Social identities and commitments at work: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 665-683.

142.

Meyer

J. P.

Herscovitch

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

143.

Meyer

J. P.

Parfyonova

N. M.

(2010). Normative commitment in the workplace: A theoretical analysis and re-conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 283-294.

144.

Meyer

J. P.

Stanley

L. J.

Parfyonova

N. M.

(2012). Employee commitment in context: The nature and implications of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 1-16.

145.

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.

146.

Meyer

J. P.

Stanley

D. J.

Jackson

T. A.

McInnis

K. J.

Maltin

E. R.

Sheppard

(2012). Affective, normative and continuance commitment levels across cultures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 225-245.

147.

*Moss

S. A.

McFarland

Ngu

Kijowska

(2007). Maintaining an open mind to closed individuals: The effect of resource availability and leadership style on the association between openness to experience and organizational commitment. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 259-275.

148.

*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.

149.

*Moss

S. A.

Ritossa

Ngu

(2006). The effect of follower regulatory focus and extraversion on leadership behavior: The role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 93-107.

150.

Mowday

R. T.

Porter

L. W.

Steers

R. M.

(1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.

151.

Mowday

R. T.

Steers

R. M.

Porter

L. W.

(1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

152.

Nanus

(1992). Visionary leadership: Creating a compelling sense of direction for your organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

153.

Near

J. P.

(1989). Organizational commitment among Japanese and U.S. workers. Organization Studies, 10, 281-300.

154.

*Nguni

Sleegers

Denessen

(2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 145-177.

155.

*Ogunfowora

(2009). The consequences of ethical leadership: Comparisons with transformational leadership and abusive supervision (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary, Canada.

156.

O’Reilly

C. A.

Chatman

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

157.

Pasa

S. F.

Kabasakal

Bodur

(2001). Society, organisations, and leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 559-589.

158.

Pillai

Meindl

J. R.

(1998). Context and charisma: A “meso” level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24, 643-671.

159.

*Pillai

Schriesheim

C. A.

Williams

E. S.

(1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25, 897-933.

160.

*Pillai

Williams

E. A.

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

161.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Bommer

W. H.

Podsakoff

N. P.

MacKenzie

S. B.

(2006). Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 113-142.

162.

*Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Bommer

W. H.

(1996). Meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 380-399.

163.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Moorman

R. H.

Fetter

(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

164.

Posner

B. Z.

Kouzes

J. M.

(1994). An extension of the leadership practices inventory to individual contributors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 959-966.

165.

Posner

B. Z.

Kouzes

J. M.

(1997). Ten lessons for leaders and leadership developers. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 3, 3-10.

166.

Powell

D. M.

Meyer

J. P.

(2004). Side-bet theory and the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 157-177.

167.

*Pundt

(2009). Transformational leadership and affective commitment (Unpublished raw data).

168.

*Pundt

Bohme

Schyns

(2006). Moderating variables for the relationship between commitment and transformational leadership: Leader distance, and the quality of communication between leader and follower. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 5, 108-120.

169.

*Rafferty

A. E.

Griffin

M. A.

(2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329-354.

170.

Randall

D. M.

Fedor

D. B.

Longenecker

C. O.

(1990). The behavioral expression of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 210-224.

171.

*Rank

Carsten

J. M.

Unger

J. M.

Spector

P. E.

(2007). Proactive customer service performance: Relationships with individual, task, and leadership variables. Human Performance, 20, 363-390.

172.

Reichers

A. E.

(1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465-476.

173.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

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

174.

Riketta

(2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 257-266.

175.

*Riley

D. N.

(2006). The effects of sales management leadership styles on salesperson organizational commitment and salesperson turnover intentions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

176.

Rowold

Heinitz

(2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and CKS. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 121-133.

177.

*Rubin

R. S.

Dierdorff

E. C.

Bommer

W. H.

Baldwin

T. T.

(2009). Do leaders reap what they sow? Leader and employee outcomes of leader organizational cynicism about change. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 680-688.

178.

*Rupert

Jehn

K. A.

van Engen

M. L.

de Reuver

R. S. M.

(2010). Commitment of cultural minorities in organizations: Effects of leadership and pressure to conform. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 25-37.

179.

*Saboe

(2010). Prioritizing those who follow: Servant leadership, needs satisfaction, and positive employee outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida, Tampa.

180.

*Saboe

Way

Taing

Johnson

R. E.

(2010, April). Transformational leader? Look for committed employees. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.

181.

Sashkin

(1988). The visionary leader. In Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

R. N.

(Eds.), Charismatic leadership (pp. 122-160). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

182.

*Scandura

T. A.

Williams

E. A.

(2004). Mentoring and transformational leadership: The role of supervisory career mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 448-468.

183.

Schaubroeck

Lam

S. S. K.

Cha

S. E.

(2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of transformational leadership on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020-1030.

184.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1994). Beyond individualism and collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In Kim

Triandis

H. C.

Kagitcibasi

Choi

S.-C.

Yoon

(Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 85-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

185.

Shamir

House

R. J.

Arthur

M. B.

(1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.

186.

Shao

Webber

(2006). A cross-cultural test of the “Five-Factor Model of Personality and Transformational Leadership.” Journal of Business Research, 59, 936-944.

187.

*Shore

T. H.

Bommer

W. H.

Shore

L. M.

(2008). An integrative model of managerial perceptions of employee commitment: Antecedents and influences on employee treatment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 635-655.

188.

*Sigler

T. H.

(1997). The empowerment experience: A study of front line employees (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

189.

*Simon

L. S.

(1994). Trust in leadership: Its dimensions and mediating role (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kansas State University, Manhattan.

190.

*Soh

(2000). Organizational socialization of newcomers: A longitudinal study of organizational enculturation processes and outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus.

191.

Somers

M. J.

(1995). A test of the relationship between affective and continuance commitment using non-recursive models. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 185-192.

192.

Somers

M. J.

(2009). The combined influence of affective, continuance and normative commitment on employee withdrawal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 75-81.

193.

*Song

L. J.

Tsui

Law

K. S.

(2009). Unpacking employee responses to organizational exchange mechanisms: The role of social and economic exchange perceptions. Journal of Management, 35, 56-93.

194.

*Sosik

(2001). Self-other agreement on charismatic leadership. Group and Organization Management, 26, 484-511.

195.

*Stafford

J. L.

(1991). A path analysis of transformational leadership, communication of supervisors, and organizational commitment in three organizations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence.

196.

Stanley

D. J.

Meyer

J. P.

Jackson

T. A.

Maltin

E. R.

McInnis

Kumsar

Sheppard

(2007, April). Cross-cultural generalizability of the three-component model of commitment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York.

197.

Steel

P. D.

(2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65-94.

198.

Steel

P. D.

Kammeyer-Mueller

J. D.

(2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 96-111.

199.

*Strauss

Griffin

M. A.

Rafferty

A. E.

(2009). Proactivity directed toward the team and organization: The role of leadership, commitment and role-breadth self-efficacy. British Journal of Management, 20, 279–291.

200.

*Sutherland

M. A.

(2010). An examination of ethical leadership and organizational commitment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

201.

Triandis

H. C.

(1994). Culture and social behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

202.

Triandis

H. C.

(1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

203.

*Vandenberghe

Stordeur

D’hoore

(2002). Transactional and transformational leadership in nursing: Structural validity and substantive relationships. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 16-29.

204.

*Viator

R. E.

(2001). The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. Journal of Information Systems, 15, 99-125.

205.

Vroom

V. H.

Yetton

P. W.

(1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

206.

*Walumbwa

F. O.

(2002). The relationships between leadership styles, cultural orientation, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and perceptions of organizational withdrawal behaviors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

207.

*Walumbwa

F. O.

Avolio

B. J.

Gardner

W. L.

Wernsing

T. S.

Peterson

S. J.

(2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89-126.

208.

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.

209.

*Walumbwa

F. O.

Lawler

J. J.

Avolio

B. J.

(2007). Leadership, individual differences, and work-related attitudes: A cross-culture investigation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56, 212-230.

210.

*Walumbwa

F. O.

Lawler

J. J.

Avolio

B. J.

Wang

Shi

(2005). Transformational leadership and work-related attitudes: The moderating effects of collective and self-efficacy across cultures. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 3-16.

211.

*Walumbwa

F. O.

Orwa

Wang

Lawler

J. J.

(2005). Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 235-256.

212.

*Walumbwa

F. O.

Orwa

(2008). Contingent reward transactional leadership, work attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of procedural justice climate perceptions and strength. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 251-265.

213.

*Wang

Walumbwa

F. O.

(2007). Family-friendly programs, organizational commitment, and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Personnel Psychology, 60, 397-427.

214.

Wang

Howell

J. M.

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

215.

*Washington

R. R.

(2007). Empirical relationships among servant, transformational, and transactional leadership: Similarities, differences, and correlations with job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

216.

Wasti

S. A.

(2003). The influence of cultural values on the antecedents of organizational commitment: An individual-level analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 533-554.

217.

Wasti

S. A.

Onder

(2009). Commitment across cultures: progress, pitfalls, and propositions. In Klein

H. J.

Becker

T. E.

Meyer

J. P.

(Eds.). Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions (pp. 309-343). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

218.

Wayne

S. J.

Coyle-Shapiro

Eisenberger

Liden

R. C.

Rousseau

D. M.

Shore

L. M.

(2009). Social influences. In Klein

H. J.

Becker

T. E.

Meyer

J. P.

(Eds.), Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions (pp. 253-284). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

219.

Wayne

S. J.

Green

S. A.

(1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management. Human Relations, 46, 1431-1441.

220.

*Wayne

S. J.

Shore

L. M.

Bommer

W. H.

Tetrick

L. E.

(2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 590-598.

221.

*Wefald

A. J.

(2008). An examination of job engagement, transformational leadership, and related psychological constructs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kansas State University, Manhattan.

222.

Weiner

(1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418-428.

223.

*Whittington

J. L.

Goodwin

V. L.

Murray

(2004). Transformational leadership, goal difficulty, and job design: Independent and interactive effects on employee outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 593-606.

224.

*Williams

M. L.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Huber

(1992). Effects of group-level and individual-level variation in leader behaviours on subordinate attitudes and performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 115-129.

225.

*Wu

Liu

Song

L. J.

Liu

(2006). Effects of organizational leadership on employee commitment: The moderating role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 7, 283-306.

226.

Yan

Hunt

J. G.

(2005). A cross cultural perspective on perceived leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 5, 49-66.

227.

*Zheng

M. C.

(2007). The relationships among study of principals’ transformational leadership behaviour, teachers’ organizational commitment and job involvement in elementary schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

228.

*Zhou

K. Z.

Gao

G. Y.

Yang

Zhou

(2005). Developing strategic orientation in China: Antecedents and consequences of market and innovation orientations. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1049-1058.