The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
JMD
37,9/10
666
Received 10 June 2017
Revised 6 June 2018
Accepted 11 October 2018
Journal of Management
Development
Vol. 37 No. 9/10, 2018
pp. 666-683
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0262-1711
DOI 10.1108/JMD-06-2017-0197
Transformational leadership and
four-dimensional commitment
Mediating role of job characteristics and
moderating role of participative and directive
leadership styles
Talat Islam
Institute of Business Administration, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Jawad Tariq
Department of Sociology, Forman Christian College, Lahore, Pakistan, and
Bushra Usman
School of Management, Forman Christian College, Lahore, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the mechanism between transformational leadership
(TL) and organizational commitment (OC) using job characteristics as a mediator and participative and
directive leadership (DL) as moderator.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors used a questionnaire-based survey to collect data from 563
employees working in the banking industry.
Findings – The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. The findings confirmed the mediating
role of job characteristics and moderating role of both participative and DL styles between TL and OC.
Research limitations/implications – The data for this study were collected at one point of time and it has
implications for the policymakers and bankers.
Originality/value – The study is novel as it highlights the importance of job characteristics, participative
and DL styles in understanding the relationship between TL and OC.
Keywords Normative commitment, Transformational leadership, Affective commitment,
Job characteristics, Few alternative, Perceived sacrifices
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Organizational commitment (OC) remained a well-studied topic during the past decade. The
experts of human resource development (HRD) have explained OC as a function of workplace
attitudes, behaviors and management (Ahmad et al., 2018; Islam, Ali and Ahmed, 2018; Yahaya
and Ebrahim, 2016; Elamin, 2012; Hollingworth and Valentine, 2014). A positive and significant
relationship has been identified between the type of leadership in an organization and the OC
(Gillet and Vandenberghe, 2014). This increasing emphasis on leadership perspective has
directed the professionals to suggest changes that can increase OC by altering leadership
styles (Parry and Sinha, 2005; Islam et al., 2013). Parry and Sinha (2005) found that leadership
practices focused on setting goals, distributing work, providing a system of feedback and
formal coaching can increase organizational retention, satisfaction and commitment.
Additionally, leadership practices that involve knowledge sharing, critical assessment of
organizational environment, invigorating innovation in followers and subordinates, and
increasing team creativeness can also contribute directly toward OC (Kennedy et al., 2013).
The increasing interest of professional human resource developers to raise OC, thereby
contributing to its effectiveness, has led to the development of many theories centered on
leadership styles (Mesu et al., 2015). These theories can be classified as leader centric
and follower centric. In the former category, all theories are based on the principles of
self-realization and self-projection of the leader (Gillet and Vandenberghe, 2014; Ardichvili Leadership
and Manderscheid, 2008). The latter category encompasses the leadership theories that and four-
focus on realization, growth and development of the followers. The theory of dimensional
transformational leadership (TL) is developed by encouraging the employees to work for
the shared vision of an organization. It emphasizes on the role of the leadership in commitment
generating employees’ acceptability of the goals and mission of the organization,
stimulating innovation and helping the employees look beyond their self-interests (Bass, 667
1990; Bass and Riggio, 2006). Studies have shown that by doing this, the organizational
performance, satisfaction and commitment can be increased (Yang, 2012; Mesu et al., 2015;
Islam et al., 2013). Recently, a few research scholars have attempted to delineate the
underlying process that links TL with OC by introducing mediating and moderating
variables (Yahaya and Ebrahim, 2016). In this regard, psychological empowerment, need
satisfaction (Zhu et al., 2013), role of moral reasoning, self and collective efficacy, and work
engagement (Song et al., 2012; Nielsen et al., 2009) are investigated as mediating variables.
Moreover, Avolio et al. (2004) shed light on the importance of structural distance (which has
been conceptualized as direct vs indirect reporting to the leader) as moderating variable on
this association. However, Mesu et al. (2015) established that there is still a need to explain
the underlying mechanism that associates TL with OC.
We contend that the linkage between TL and OC cannot be the same for employees
having different job characteristics. It is therefore pivotal to explain the aforementioned
relationship by considering the job characteristics of the employees. Therefore, the first
objective of this study is that job characteristics mediate the TL–OC relationship and then
investigate this phenomenon using data. This investigation is anchored in the theoretical
framework developed by Gillet and Vandenberghe (2014). The rationale for this
investigation is that in today’s dynamic work environment, organizations are focusing on
their employees’ growth and development by providing them meaningful and purposeful
work (Chalofsky and Krishna, 2009). Transformational leaders, by making meaningful work
characteristics, not only provide their followers a sense of purpose but also help them in
realizing their potential at work. According to Piccolo and Colquitt (2006), job characteristics
affect the way transformational leaders shape tasks and behaviors of their followers.
It means that managers with TL can shape work (job) characteristics, such as
decision-making autonomy, task variety and feedback for their subordinates to increase
their level of OC. This mechanism can also be explained in terms of the motivational
foundation. Better job characteristics have the motivational foundation for employees
(Dunham, 1976), which consequently helps in improving OC. Meyer et al. (2004) envisaged
OC having a motivational base. This study also connects OC with job characteristics.
Therefore, it is stated that by providing better job characteristics, the employees can be
motivated to shape their job-related outcomes (i.e. OC).
The second objective of the study is to explain the role of participative and directive
leadership (DL) styles on the relationship of TL and OC. This investigation has theoretical
underpinnings derived from Mesu et al.’s (2015) study. We promulgate the idea that
participative and DL styles moderate the relationship between TL and OC. Participative
leadership (PL) emphasizes on including the followers in the decision-making processes,
whereas DL focuses on establishing top-bottom goals and clarifying roles (Bass and Bass,
2008). In addition, Bass and Riggio (2006) presented that TL can be made effective by
combining it with either participative or/and DL style to see its effect on OC. It is quite
possible that TL may use different styles depending on the organizational context and the
issues at hand. The literature on these styles focuses on investigating their main effects and
leaves a gap of studying their interaction outcome on the link between TL and OC. This
study attempts to fill up this gap. Research indicates that participatory leadership styles, by
offering strong emotional associations and teamwork, can strengthen OC (Dietz et al., 2006).
JMD Similarly, DL styles have proved to be effective in less structured organizations by setting
37,9/10 out clear goals ( Judge et al., 2004).
It has been observed that the banking sector of Pakistan is experiencing the problem of
OC, employee turnover, low citizenship behavior and absenteeism since long (Islam and
Tariq, 2018; Islam and Ahmed, 2018). Commercial banking employees have to sit long
because of task variety and autonomy, and most of the Pakistani banks work with their
668 employees’ job rotation (which are the components of job characteristics). It is also noticed
that female employees share their jobs, for which their commitment is required (Bhatti
et al., 2012). Thus, enhancing banking employees’ commitment has become a challenge for
the HR managers (Islam et al., 2015). Literature has suggested OC as the proximal
precursor of employees’ job-related outcomes (Meyer and Allen, 1997; Meyer and Maltin,
2010). Although the TL–OC association is well documented in the literature, however,
literature is not clear about the mechanism between the same (Mesu et al., 2015; Bass and
Riggio, 2006; Gillet and Vandenberghe, 2014). This study aims at investigating job
characteristics as a mediator and participative and DL as a moderator between TL and OC
relationships in the banking sector.

Conceptual framework and hypotheses

In this section, the research on the interrelation of TL, job characteristics, leadership styles
and OC is reviewed for conceptual framework and hypotheses building. Six hypotheses
were devised to test the model presented in Figure 1.
A plethora of literature showed that a strong relationship exists between TL and OC
wherein many considered TL as a strong determinant of OC (Allen et al., 2017; Patiar and
Wang, 2016; Porter, 2015). Nonetheless, Meyer and Allen (1997) argued that the direction of
this association may vary across the constructs of commitment. The literature on OC has
conceptualized it as a multidimensional construct and the three major dimensions given are
affective commitment (AC), normative commitment (NC) and continuance commitment
(Islam et al., 2016; Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001). AC deals with the emotional component
characterized by identification, involvement and most notably attachment in the
organization, whereas NC deals with loyalty arising out of obligation that employees feel
toward their organization (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001). Continuance commitment involves
the perceived need to stay with the organization and has been subdivided into two
categories that are perceived sacrifice (PS) and few alternatives (FAs) commitment, where

Job Characteristics
Organizational Commitment

Affective

Transformational Normative
Leadership
Perceived
Sacrifice

Few Alternatives

Participative Directive
Figure 1. Leadership Leadership
Conceptual model Style Style
PS refers to perceived cost that an employee might face in case of leaving the organization Leadership
and FA deals with having few employment opportunities in the market for the employee and four-
(Gillet and Vandenberghe, 2014). dimensional
Literature is well documented about the association of TL with AC and NC (Simon and
Mak, 2014; Jackson et al., 2013). Walumbwa et al. (2005) noted that industrial employees are commitment
more likely to show their emotional attachment in the presence of TL in the USA and
Nigeria. Similarly, Djibo et al. (2010) also noted helping leadership positively associated with 669
industrial employees’ emotional and NC. The rationale for this relationship is that TL is
more likely to engage followers in decision making, motivating them, driving them away
from self-interest and directing their attention toward organizational interests (Bass and
Avolio, 1997; Avolio, 1999). However, the literature on the association of TL with
continuance commitment is unclear. For example, Felfe et al. (2008) noted a positive, while
Mendelson et al. (2011) and Korek et al. (2010) noted a negative or insignificant association
between the same. The main reason behind these mixed results may be the use of the
construct as unidimensional. Taing et al. (2011) argued that continuance commitment
has “two components with the distinct theoretical foundation.” In fact, PS represents, “a
resourceful state in which individuals perceive to have benefits associated with their jobs,
either extrinsic or intrinsic,” whereas FA is the perception of threat to ones’ job
(Vandenberghe and Panaccio, 2012). Drawing from the conservation of resource theory
(Hobfoll, 1989) and above arguments, sub-dimensions of continuance commitment may
differently associate with TL. This study argues that transformational leaders can direct
their follower’s self-interest toward collective goals, which may positively enhance followers’
perception regarding resources associated with their current job, thus increasing PS
commitment. Similarly, such leaders may also reduce their follower’s perception of FA
through boosting their skills and confidence:
H1. TL is positively associated with AC, NC and PS commitment and negatively
associated with FA commitment.
The construct job characteristics is theorized as socio-contextual and motivational
characteristics (Choudhary et al., 2017). Among these, this study focuses on motivational job
characteristics as meta-analysis has confirmed its association with commitment (Humphrey
et al., 2007) and close relation with TL (Gillet and Vandenberghe, 2014). TL develops a
sense of meaningfulness and purpose, which is the main feature of intrinsic motivation.
A motivational aspect includes feedback, task variety and decision making which enriches
employees’ job (Choudhary et al., 2017). Decision making is the extent to which job provides
freedom and independence regarding organizational decisions, the individual’s extent of
task performance is feedback and the extent to which employees can perform tasks at their
workplace is referred as task variety (Schaubroeck et al., 2007; Raja and Johns, 2010).
Employees interpret and develop their perceptions by information they receive from their
environment (Islam et al., 2016, 2017) and leaders through their ideological expressions and
communication influences such interpretations (Islam, Ahmed and Ali, 2018; Smircich
and Morgan, 1982). Similarly, employees’ perception of job characteristics is affected by
transformational leaders, which, in turn, influence employees’ goal commitment and
intrinsic motivation and ultimately lead toward employees’ task performance (Piccolo
and Colquitt, 2006). Thus, transformational leaders may affect the employees’ interpretation
and perceptions of their job characteristics:
H2. TL positively associates with job characteristics.
A meta-analysis by Humphrey et al. (2007) found a positive relationship between job
characteristics and OC. More specifically, literature is clear about the relationship of
job characteristics with AC (Allen et al., 2017; Meyer et al., 2004). However, its association
JMD with NC is not extensively examined (Patiar and Wang, 2016). This study argued that
37,9/10 meaningful job characteristics (such as feedback, task variety and decision-making
autonomy) intrinsically motivate individuals; in turn, they exhibit emotional and obligatory
attachment to their organization. Social exchange theory provides a better understanding of
this relationship, which considers the provision of effective and meaningful job characteristics
as a valuable article, and the favor is returned by the employee in the form of affective and NC
670 to the organization (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Blau, 1964). However, the association
between job characteristics and subtypes of continuance commitment is not well documented
and lacks empirical investigation (Vandenberghe and Panaccio, 2012). According to Hobfoll
(2002), challenging job characteristics (i.e. feedback, task variety and decision-making
autonomy) provide employees with psychological resources (i.e. development opportunities)
which may contribute fulfilling their psychological needs; in turn, employee shows their
positive PS commitment. On the other side, positive and challenging job characteristics
positively influence employees’ employability (Gillet et al., 2014). Similarly, Tansky and Cohen
(2001) found job characteristics positively influencing AC and creating confidence in
individuals’ employability. These arguments can further be explained by conservation of
resource theory that the presence of job characteristics (i.e. feedback, task variety and
decision-making autonomy) makes employees feel psychologically resourceful which may
positively influence their perception of PSs, and negatively to FAs as it fosters positive
perception about employability (Hobfoll, 1989). Based on these arguments, and following the
arguments about less significant work on TL, OC and job characteristics, this study
hypothesized that:
H3. Employees’ perception of job characteristics is positively associated with AC, NC
and PS commitment and negatively associated with FA commitment.
H4. Employees’ perceived job characteristics mediate a positive relation between TL
and AC, NC and PS commitment and a negative relationship between TL and FA
commitment.
The interactional effect of participative and DL with TL lacks in literature, though both the
styles directly affect TL. This study argues that participative and directive styles may be
effective in the banks as the banking progress depends upon the performance of teams
(Liang et al., 2016; Gulluce et al., 2016; Dietz et al., 2006). According to Semrau et al. (2017),
committed employees are more likely to perform among team members. The meta-analysis
of Mathieu and Zajac (1990) noted that participative leaders develop the element of
emotional bonding among (i.e. organizational outcome) its subordinates. DL, on the other
side, also contributes toward organizational outcomes. As most of the directive leaders focus
on role clarity and goal setting (Chen et al., 2017; Judge et al., 2004), therefore, such leaders
may affect banking employees’ outcomes (e.g. OC) as most of them want flexible and clear
goals (Heneman et al., 2000). Leader’s clear instructions about the goals would increase
employees’ emotional attachment toward their organization (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990).
Following the above arguments, this study argues that participative and DL styles would
help in strengthening the association between TL and OC:
H5. The relationship between TL and OC is strengthened by PL style.
H6. The relationship between TL and OC is strengthened by DL style.

Method
This section is divided into two parts. In the first part, information regarding the
participants and the procedure is discussed and in the second part measuring instruments
are discussed.
Participants and procedure Leadership
This study is conducted on the employees working in the banking sector of Pakistan. and four-
Employees are the real assets for the banking sector likewise other organizations. This dimensional
sector has become an inspiring catch-all for employees, especially after financial crises of
2007, as this sector was the only survivor in the country. This survival attracted many commitment
banks in Pakistan that increased the demand for skilled employees and created the problem
of turnover (Islam et al., 2015). According to Islam et al. (2016), one of the ways to retain 671
employees is to foster their level of commitment. Therefore, this study presented a model
that may enhance employees’ level of commitment. The “State Bank of Pakistan” governs
the Pakistani banking sector, and 34 banks are registered with it. The study selected the
banks working in the capital cities (i.e. Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar, Quetta and Gilgit) of
the provinces. A total of 1,340 questionnaires were distributed on the basis of convenience
sampling through volunteer undergraduate participants. Undergraduate students were
grouped and sent to the various capital cities of the country to collect the data.
Before collecting the data, permission was obtained from the relevant branch manager and
then questionnaires were distributed to the respondents. Respondents were assured that
their responses would only be used for the research purpose and will be kept confidential.
Of the total of 1,340, only 563 questionnaires were returned.
On the basis of demographical characteristics, 312 were male (55.4 percent), and 251 were
female (44.6 percent). Majority of the respondents were between the age of 30 and 34 years
(47.34 percent), with the 18 years of degree (52.55 percent) and had the work experience of
3–5 years (44.68 percent).

Measures
The study used adapted questionnaire and respondents were asked on a five-point Likert
scale ranging from “1 – strongly disagree to 5 – strongly agree.”
Transformational, descriptive and participative leadership. According to Bass and Riggio
(2006), TL comprised of four dimensions, i.e., individualized consideration, intellectual
stimulation, inspirational motivation and idealized influence. Though the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire of Bass and Avolio (1997) is considered as the best scale to
measure TL, however, its dimensions highly correlate with each other (Beauchamp et al.,
2010). Therefore, this study used a seven-item unidimensional questionnaire of TL,
developed by Carless et al. (2000) with the internal consistency of 0.94. Using the same scale,
this study noted 0.82 as its internal consistency. A sample item includes, “My leader
communicates a clear and positive vision of the future.” DL was measured using a five-item
scale from the study of Schriesheim and Kerr (1974) and noted its internal consistency as
0.82. Sample item includes, “my leader maintains definite standards of performance” and
“my leader schedules the work to be done.” PL was measured through another five-item
scale from the study of Ogbonna and Harris (2000) and noted its internal consistency as 0.87
(see Table I). Sample item includes, “my leader listens to subordinate’s advice on which
assignments should be made” and “my leader asks subordinates for their suggestions.”
Organizational commitment. This study measures OC using Meyer et al.’s (1993) scale.
AC was measured through a six-item scale (e.g. “feel like part of the family at my
organization”), NC was also measured through six-item scale (e.g. “It would not be morally
right for me to leave this organization now”), FA was measured using a three-item scale (e.g.
“I have no choice but to stay with this organization”) and PS was also measured using a
three-item scale (e.g. “For me personally, the costs of leaving this organization would be far
greater than the benefits”) with the internal consistency of 0.87, 0.81, 0.81 and 0.84,
respectively (see Table I). Gillet and Vandenberghe (2014) used the same scale and found it
as a four-factor model (e.g. comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ 0.96 and IFI ¼ 0.96).
 672
JMD

Table I.

variables
37,9/10

Mean, standard
deviation, α and
correlation among
Variables Mean SD ∞ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. TL 3.91 0.62 0.82 1

2. JC 3.64 0.53 0.83 0.57** 1
3. AC 3.73 0.76 0.87 0.54** 0.49** 1
4. NC 3.75 0.63 0.81 0.44** 0.41** 0.58** 1
5. FA 2.66 1.01 0.81 −0.23** −0.21** −0.17* −0.05 1
6. PS 3.96 0.73 0.84 0.52** 0.34** 0.41** 0.47** 0.24** 1
7. DL 3.64 0.71 0.82 0.49** 0.55** 0.27** 0.22** −0.23** 0.25** 1
8. PL 3.72 0.79 0.87 0.66** 0.54** 0.34** 0.36** −0.19** 0.22** 0.71** 1
9. TV 3.71 0.63 0.75 0.36** 0.68** 0.19** 0.29** −0.12* 0.21** 0.34** 0.29** 1
10. DM 3.64 0.58 0.79 0.48** 0.72** 0.26** 0.22** −0.15* 0.28** 0.23** 0.37** 0.40** 1
11. FB 3.52 0.72 0.66 0.49** 0.66** 0.35** 0.28** −0.13* 0.24** 0.31** 0.32** 0.27** 0.32**
Notes: TL, transformational leadership; JC, job characteristics; AC, affective commitment; NC, normative commitment; FA, few alternatives; PS, perceived sacrifice; DL,
directive leadership; PL, participative leadership; TV, task variety; DM, decision-making autonomy; FB, feedback from job; ∞, reliability. *po 0.05; **p o0.01
Job characteristics. Past studies have identified feedback, task variety and decision-making Leadership
autonomy as three dimensions of job characteristics (e.g. Chen and Kao, 2011; Johnson et al., and four-
2011). According to Morgeson and Humphrey (2006), all of the dimensions of job
characteristics are important. Task variety was measured using a four-item scale (e.g. “The
dimensional
job involves doing a number of different things”), decision-making autonomy was measured commitment
using a three-item scale (e.g. “The job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own”) and
feedback was also measured using a three-item scale (e.g. “The job itself provides me with 673
information about my performance”). The values of internal consistency of these dimensions
were noted as 0.75, 0.79 and 0.66, respectively (see Table I).

Results
The study begins with the preliminary analysis, i.e., preparation of data regarding missing
values, normality and reliability. The results are generated using confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA), structural equation modeling and hierarchal regression.

Preliminary analysis
First, the study examined CFA using the maximum likelihood method. The study examined
model fitness using χ2/df, CFI, normed fit index (NFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted
goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Hu
and Bentler, 1998). Moreover, job characteristics was examined as the second-order CFA,
whereas other variables were used as latent variables. First, the values of the model fitness
were poor, i.e. χ2/df ¼ 6.15, NFI ¼ 0.87, AGFI ¼ 0.79, GFI ¼ 0.88, CFI ¼ 0.89, RMSEA ¼ 1.08.
Therefore, some modifications were made in the model regarding error terms and the values
of the model fitness were found to be good, i.e. χ2/df ¼ 2.77, NFI ¼ 0.98, AGFI ¼ 0.99,
GFI ¼ 0.97, CFI ¼ 0.99, RMSEA ¼ 0.056.
The study then conducted descriptive analysis. The mean values of all the variables
(i.e. TL (3.91), PS (3.96), PL (3.72) and AC (3.73)) were found to be near to agree except FA
commitment (2.66). In addition, the values of Cronbach’s α regarding all the variables were
found to be well above the standard value of 0.70 (see Table I). Regarding correlation, TL
was found to have a positive and significant association with AC ( γ ¼ 0.54, p o0.01), NC
( γ ¼ 0.44, po 0.01), PS (γ ¼ 0.52, p o0.01), DL ( γ ¼ 0.49, po 0.01), PL ( γ ¼ 0.66, p o0.01),
task variety ( γ ¼ 0.36, p o0.01), decision making ( γ ¼ 0.48, po 0.01) and feedback ( γ ¼ 0.49,
p o0.01), while FA commitment was found to have a negative association with TL
( γ ¼ −0.23, po 0.01), task variety ( γ ¼ −0.12, p o0.05), feedback ( γ ¼ −0.13, p o0.05),
decision making ( γ ¼ −0.15, p o0.05), DL ( γ ¼ −0.23, p o0.01) and PL ( γ ¼ −0.19, p o0.01).
As the study is based on the data collected from the same source at one point of time, the
issue of common method variance (CMV ) may be present. In order to cope with the problem
of CMV the study randomizes the question order, avoid “complex syntax” and
“double-barreled” questions to ensure simplicity at the time of data collection (Podsakoff
et al., 2003; Craighead et al., 2011). In addition, the data were examined through Harman’s
single-factor method where the new latent variable (without rotation) was found to
contribute less than 40 percent of the variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003), which confirms that
the problem of CMV was not present.

Hypotheses testing
A structural model was examined to test the hypotheses of the study and the values of the
model fit were found to be good after some modifications, i.e. χ2/df ¼ 2.97, NFI ¼ 0.93,
AGFI ¼ 0.94, GFI ¼ 0.95, CFI ¼ 0.9, RMSEA ¼ 0.048. The values of the standardized
estimates in Table II identify that TL was positively associated with AC ( γ ¼ 0.37, p o0.01),
NC (1γ ¼ 0.43, p o0.01) and PS ( γ ¼ 0.52, p o0.01) dimensions of commitment, while
JMD Parameters Std. estimates R2 t Result
37,9/10
TL → JC 0.45 0.32 16.55 Supported
TL → AC 0.37 0.29 15.47 Supported
TL → NC 0.43 0.18 11.47 Supported
TL → FA −0.29 0.15 9.43 Supported
TL → PS 0.52 0.27 14.48 Supported
674 JC → AC 0.34 0.26 10.35 Supported
JC → NC 0.42 0.28 9.87 Supported
JC → FA −0.30 0.17 7.44 Supported
Table II. JC → PS 0.38 0.24 10.48 Supported
Structure Notes: TL, transformational leadership; JC, job characteristics; AC, affective commitment; NC, normative
path estimates commitment; FA, few alternatives; PS, perceived sacrifice

negatively associated with FA commitment ( γ ¼ −0.29, p o0.01). TL was also positively

associated with the construct job characteristics (γ ¼ 0.45, p o0.01). In addition, the
construct job characteristics was found to have a positive association with NC ( γ ¼ 0.4,
p o0.01), PS ( γ ¼ 0.38, p o0.01) and AC ( γ ¼ 0.34, p o0.01), and a negative association with
FA commitment ( γ ¼ −0.30, p o0.01). These results support first, second and third
suggested hypothesis of the study.
Regarding the mediating effect of job characteristics construct between TL and
four-dimensional commitment, the study conducted hierarchical regression analysis. First,
the models were examined for the three basic conditions of mediation, i.e. “(a) – a significant
association between independent and dependent variable, (b) – a significant association
between independent and mediating variable and, (c) – a significant association between
mediating and dependent variable” (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Then, a three-step hierarchical
regression was examined, where in the first step, demographical variables were regressed
with the dependent variable and considered as control variables. In the second step, the
independent variable was regressed with the dependent variable, and in the
third step, the mediating variable was regressed with the dependent variable. The values
of Table III identify that job characteristics partially perform the mediating role between TL
and AC (with the variance of 17 percent), PS (with the variance of 14 percent), NC (with the
variance of 17 percent) and FA commitment (with the variance of 15 percent). These results
support the fourth hypothesis of the study.
Finally, to test the moderation, the study used hierarchical regression. In the first step,
demographical variables were used as the control variable (i.e. age, gender, qualification and
work experience); in the second step, independent and moderating variables (i.e.
transformational, directive and PL) were added; and in the final step an interactional term
between independent and moderating variable (i.e. transformational × directive and
transformational × participative) was regressed (see Table IV ). The values of Table IV identify
that both directive and PL strengthen the positive association between TL and OC with the
variance of 18 and 20 percent, respectively. These results support suggested H5 and H6.

Discussion
The study tested a model using job characteristics (i.e. autonomy, task variety and
feedback) as a mediating variable and leadership styles (i.e. participatory and directive) as a
moderating variable for the relationship of TL to OC. Many studies in HRD have found OC
to be important due to its relation with consequent effects such as citizenship behavior,
performance, efficiency and withdrawal (Ghosh et al., 2012). The present study sustains
previous research conducted in this domain and contributes to understanding the system
through which TL can affect OC. Consistent with the previous studies, this study found that
 Affective commitment Normative commitment Perceived sacrifice commitment Few alternative commitment
Variables M1 ( β) M2 ( β) M3 ( β) M1 ( β) M2 ( β) M3 ( β) M1 ( β) M2 ( β) M3 ( β) M1 ( β) M2 ( β) M3 ( β)

Control variable
Gender 0.034 0.024 −0.008 0.106** 0.099** 0.073* 0.003 −0.001 −0.028 0.026 0.031 0.028
Age −0.027 −0.05 −0.001 −0.035 −0.051 −0.012 −0.05 −0.07 −0.038 −0.003 −0.003 −0.001
Qualification 0.101* 0.048 0.031 0.069 0.068 −0.047 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.095* 0.085* 0.092*
Experience 0.005 0.012 0.006 −0.098 0.034 −0.003 0.09 0.07 0.009 0.160** 0.141* 0.015*
R2 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.09
Independent variable
Transformational leadership 0.54** 0.31** 0.44** 0.16** 0.39** 0.36** −0.21** −0.18**
R2 0.31 0.22 0.28 0.24
ΔR2 0.29 0.19 0.27 0.15
Mediating variable
Job characteristics 0.62** 0.38** 0.45** −0.34**
R2 0.48 0.39 0.42 0.39
ΔR2 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.15
Notes: *p o0.05; **po 0.01
Leadership

commitment
dimensional

675
and four-

Results of the
mediation
Table III.
JMD Organizational commitment Organizational commitment
37,9/10 Variable β SE t β SE t

Step 1: control variables

Age 0.14* 0.062 1.99 0.14* 0.062 1.99
Gender 0.09 0.101 0.58 0.09 0.101 0.58
Experience 0.06 0.073 0.48 0.06 0.073 0.48
676 Qualification 0.11* 0.053 2.05 0.11* 0.053 2.05
R2 0.04 0.04
Step 2: independent and moderating variables
Transformational leadership 0.14** 0.064 4.97 0.16** 0.084 4.97
Directive leadership 0.19** 0.035 6.87 – – –
Participative leadership – – – 0.22** 0.043 11.14
R2 0.25 0.29
ΔR 2
0.21 0.25
Step 3: interactional term
Transformational × directive 0.23** 0.051 7.57 – – –
Table IV. Transformational × participative – – – 0.37** 0.046 10.41
Hierarchical R2 0.43 0.49
regression results ΔR2 0.18 0.20
for moderation Notes: Organizational commitment is the dependent variable. *p o0.05; **po 0.01

TL positively associates with AC, NC and PS commitment and negatively with FA

commitment (Song et al., 2012). The positive association between TL and AC can be
explained by considering the fundamental nature of TL. Transformational leaders are more
likely to remain connected with the followers, thus providing inspiration and giving a sense
of purpose in the workplace (Trehan, 2007; Avolio, 1999). Such leadership is more likely to
use emotional appeals to facilitate involvement and lining up employee identity with the
values of the organization ( Jackson et al., 2013). Likewise, TL is more likely to encourage the
followers to look beyond their self-interests and contribute to the welfare of the organization,
thus making NC possible (Fairlie, 2011).
Transformational leaders by emphasizing collectivity, respect, loyalty in addition to
understanding the needs of the employees create a conducive environment that helps in
aligning the employee identity with the goals of the organization making cognitive and NC
possible. Additionally, social exchange perspective can explain this relationship as such
leadership by offering value and respect remains successful in inculcating a sense of
obligation toward the organization. Similarly, TL by focusing on providing employees with
meaningful jobs and fringe benefits helps employees to realize their complete potential
resulting in PS commitment (Vandenberghe and Panaccio, 2012). Such valuable benefits are
precious to the employees. Hence, they realize that leaving organization would result in
losing these benefits. The negative association between TL and FA commitment can be
explained by the findings of Tansky and Cohen (2001) who argued that transformational
leaders by providing confidence to employees’ regarding their employability can lessen their
perception of unavailability of employment (Hobfoll, 2002).
Another significant finding of the study is that a strong association exists between TL and
job characteristics. One of the probable reasons for this relationship is the intrinsic
motivational factors of job characteristics such as having a meaningful and purposeful job,
which is mostly provided by transformational leaders by providing a conducive environment
(Chalofsky and Krishna, 2009; Trehan, 2007). Providing employees with these motivational
factors helps them in realizing their value (Fairlie, 2011). TL creates a strong link between job
and organizational goals making the former more competitive, appealing, desirable and
challenging which is achieved through communicating the importance of organizational goals, Leadership
justifying ideology and using oral persuasion (Meyer and Maltin, 2010). Consistent with the and four-
previous literature, another important finding of the study is the relationship between job dimensional
characteristics and OC. Job characteristics such as meaningful work, task variety and
empowerment is strongly associated with AC and NC (Fairlie, 2011). Motivational job commitment
characteristics are considered as valuable rewards by the employees which are returned by
displaying OC. Further, the conducive environment and fringe benefits offered by the 677
organization are considered a valuable investment on employees, thus creating a sense of
gratitude resulting in NC (Meyer et al., 2004). Furthermore, it was found that employees’
perception of job characteristics mediated the relationship between TL and four dimensions of
OC. Transformational leaders by offering a competitive environment, informational cues,
intrinsic motivational factors like purposeful and meaningful tasks, task relatedness,
autonomy and rewards can foster OC (Wang and Gagné, 2013) (Figures 2 and 3).
One of the major findings of the study is that both leadership styles (participatory and
directive) significantly moderate the relationship of TL and OC. Bass and Riggio (2006)
suggested that TL can be effectively combined with either leadership style. For example,

5
Low Directive Leadership
4.5 High Directive Leadership
Organizational Commitment

3.5

2.5

1.5
Figure 2.
1 Moderating effect of
Low Transformational High Transformational directive leadership
Leadership Leadership

5
Low Participative Leadership
4.5
High Participative Leadership
Organizational Commitment

3.5

2.5

1.5 Figure 3.
Moderating effect
1 of participative
Low Transformational High Transformational leadership
Leadership Leadership
JMD a manager can fulfill organizational goals by either involving colleagues in decision making
37,9/10 or by shaping their opinion regarding already made decisions. However, it is pertinent to
mention that both styles of leadership might not be successful in every organization as
Mesu et al. (2015) found that PL style was more effective in the service industry, whereas it
was least effective in the manufacturing industry. Another study by Rad and
Yarmohammadian (2006) found that participative management was ineffective in
678 hospitals as the majority of them had bureaucratic culture.

Practical implications
The present study is perhaps the first of its kind to examine the mechanism between TL and
OC. The study has practical implications for the practitioners of HR development. The study
noted that the presence of TL style among supervisors positively contributes toward
employee decision making, feedback and task variety, and because of this employees presume
their development and growth. This process ultimately develops emotional bonding (i.e.
affective, PS and NC) and reduces commitment by default or FAs between the organization
and employees. In simple words, such leaders transform employee relations with their jobs
through self-development resulting in OC and willingness to stay with the organization for
good reasons. “Good reasons” include a sense of indebtedness, goals identification and
advantages one wants to keep, and discouraged perceptions about the absence of employment
opportunities. Simply, such leaders positively contribute to enhancing normative, affective
and PS commitment and negatively contribute to FA commitment.
It is, therefore, suggested to the HR developers to foster TL as such leaders develop
motivational job characteristics. Similarly, Piccolo and Colquitt (2006) also highlighted the
importance of motivational job characteristics and suggested that the use of symbols in
communication and change of language may contribute to developing employees’
perceptions about job characteristics. According to Brown and May (2012), transformational
actions can be taught at managerial level. Therefore, HR developers should train
transformational managers to contribute toward normative, affective and PS commitment.
Thus, use of transformational actions in day-to-day interactions can foster employees’
perceptions about their job characteristics and can develop emotional bonding. The study
also suggests HR developers and managers that if they want to foster employees’
commitment to their organizations they should intensify TL along with directive and
participative style. However, a manager who sets goals collectively rather individually may
be more effective in building employees emotional attachment in service organizations.
Despite practical implications, the study has limitations. First, the study was conducted
in Pakistan and results may be influenced by the Asian culture which is different from
western culture. Second, the data for this study were collected at a single point in time.
Therefore, longitudinal study is suggested to replicate for better understanding about
leadership styles influence on employees’ attitudes. Finally, this study used TL as a
predictor of motivational job characteristics and commitment. Future researchers should
use other leadership styles (i.e. transactional and laissez-faire) along with social and
contextual job characteristics.

References
Ahmad, R., Islam, T. and Saleem, S. (2018), “How commitment and satisfaction explain leave intention
in police force?”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management (in press),
available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-12-2017-0154
Allen, G.W., Attoh, P.A. and Gong, T. (2017), “Transformational leadership and affective organizational
commitment: mediating roles of perceived social responsibility and organizational
identification”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 585-600.
Ardichvili, A. and Manderscheid, S.V. (2008), “Emerging practices in leadership development: Leadership
an introduction”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 619-631. and four-
Avolio, B.J. (1999), Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in Organization, Sage, dimensional
Thousand Oaks, CA.
commitment
Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), “Transformational leadership and organizational
commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural
distance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 951-968. 679
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bass, B.M. (1990), “From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 19-31.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997), Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Redwood City, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Bass, R. (2008), The Bass Handbook of Leadership Theory, Research and Managerial
Applications, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ.
Beauchamp, M.R., Barling, J., Li, Z., Morton, K.L., Keith, S.E. and Zumbo, B.D. (2010), “Development and
psychometric properties of the Transformational Teaching Questionnaire”, Journal of Health
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 1123-1134.
Bhatti, N., Syed, A.A.S.G. and Shaikh, F.M. (2012), “Job satisfaction and motivation in banking industry
in Pakistan”, Journal of Asian Business Strategy, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 54-62.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Brown, W. and May, D. (2012), “Organizational change and development: the efficacy of
transformational leadership training”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 31 No. 6,
pp. 520-536.
Carless, S.A., Wearing, A.J. and Mann, L. (2000), “A short measure of transformational leadership”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 389-405.
Chalofsky, N. and Krishna, V. (2009), “Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement: the intersection
of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 189-203.
Chen, C.-H.V. and Kao, R.-H. (2011), “A multilevel study on the relationships between work
characteristics, self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and organizational citizenship behavior: the case
of Taiwanese police duty-executing organizations”, Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and
Applied, Vol. 145 No. 4, pp. 361-390.
Chen, Q., Eriksson, T. and Giustiniano, L. (2017), “Leading well pays off: mediating effects and
multi-group analysis of strategic performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 55 No. 2,
pp. 400-412.
Choudhary, N., Naqshbandi, M.M., Philip, P.J. and Kumar, R. (2017), “Employee job performance: the
interplay of leaders’ emotion management ability and employee perception of job
characteristics”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 1087-1098.
Craighead, W.E., Sheets, E.S, Craighead, L.W. and Madsen, J.W. (2011), “Recurrence of MDD:
a prospective study of personality pathology and cognitive distortions”, Personality Disorders:
Theory, Research, and Treatment, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 83-97.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Dietz, G., Van Der Wiele, T., Van Iwaarden, J. and Brosseau, J. (2006), “HRM inside UK e-commerce
firms innovations in the ‘new’ economy and continuities with the ‘old’ ”, International Small
Business Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 443-470.
JMD Djibo, I.J.A., Desiderio, K.P. and Price, N.M. (2010), “Examining the role of perceived leader behavior on
37,9/10 temporary employees’ organizational commitment and citizenship behavior”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 321-342.
Dunham, R.B. (1976), “The measurement and dimensionality of job characteristics”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 404-409.
Elamin, A.M. (2012), “Perceived organizational justice and work-related attitudes: a study of Saudi
employees”, World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development,
680 Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Fairlie, P. (2011), “Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee outcomes:
implications for human resource development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 508-525.
Felfe, J., Yan, W. and Six, B. (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, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 211-237.
Ghosh, R., Reio, T.G. Jr and Haynes, R.K. (2012), “Mentoring and organizational citizenship behavior:
estimating the mediating effects of organization-based self-esteem and affective commitment”,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 41-63.
Gillet, N. and Vandenberghe, C. (2014), “Transformational leadership and organizational commitment:
the mediating role of job characteristics”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 321-347.
Gulluce, A.Ç., Kaygin, E., Bakadur Kafadar, S. and Atay, M. (2016), “The relationship between
transformational leadership and organizational commitment: a study on the bank employees”,
Journal of Service Science and Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 263-275.
Heneman, R.L., Tansky, J.W. and Camp, S.M. (2000), “Human resource management practices in small
and medium-sized enterprises: unanswered questions and future research perspectives”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 11-26.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2002), “Social and psychological resources and adaptation”, Review of General Psychology,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 307-324.
Hollingworth, D. and Valentine, S. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility, continuous process
improvement orientation, organizational commitment and turnover intentions”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 629-651.
Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 424-453.
Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “Integrating motivational, social, and
contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work
design literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1332-1356.
Islam, T. and Ahmed, I. (2018), “Mechanism between perceived organizational support and transfer of
training: explanatory role of self-efficacy and job satisfaction”, Management Research Review,
Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 296-313.
Islam, T. and Tariq, J. (2018), “Learning organizational environment and extra-role behaviors: the
mediating role of employee engagement”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 258-270.
Islam, T., Ahmed, I. and Ahmad, U.N.U. (2015), “The influence of organizational learning culture and
perceived organizational support on employees’ affective commitment and turnover intention”,
Nankai Business Review International, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 417-431.
Islam, T., Ahmed, I. and Ali, G. (2018), “Effects of ethical leadership on bullying and voice behavior
among nurses: mediating role of organizational identification, poor working condition and
workload”, Leadership in Health Services (in press), available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/
LHS-02-2017-0006
Islam, T., Ali, G. and Ahmed, I. (2018), “Protecting healthcare through organizational support to reduce Leadership
turnover intention”, International Journal of Human Rights in Health Care, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 4-12, and four-
available at: doi.org/10.1108/IJHRH-03-2017-0012.
dimensional
Islam, T., Khan, M.M. and Bukhari, F.H. (2016), “The role of organizational learning culture and
psychological empowerment in reducing turnover intention and enhancing citizenship commitment
behavior”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 23 Nos 2/3, pp. 156-169.
Islam, T., Rehman, S.U. and Ahmed, I. (2013), “Investigating the mediating role of organizational 681
politics between leadership style and followers’ behavioral outcomes”, Business Strategy Series,
Vol. 14 Nos 2/3, pp. 80-96.
Islam, T., Khan, M.M., Khawaja, F.N. and Ahmad, Z. (2017), “Nurses reciprocation of perceived
organizational support: moderating role of psychological contract breach”, International Journal
of Human Rights in Health Care, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 123-131.
Jackson, T.A., Meyer, J.P. and Wang, X.-H. (2013), “Leadership, commitment, and culture:
a meta-analysis”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 84-106.
Johnson, R.E., Rosen, C.C. and Chang, C.-H. (2011), “To aggregate or not to aggregate: steps for
developing and validating higher-order multidimensional constructs”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 241-248.
Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F. and Ilies, R. (2004), “The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration
and initiating structure in leadership research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 1,
pp. 36-51.
Kennedy, F., Carroll, B. and Francoeur, J. (2013), “Mindset not skill set: evaluating in new paradigms of
leadership development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 10-26.
Korek, S., Felfe, J. and Zaepernick-Rothe, U. (2010), “Transformational leadership and commitment:
a multilevel analysis of group-level influences and mediating processes”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 364-387.
Liang, P.J., Rajan, M. and Ray, K. (2016), “Performance monitoring by managerial teams”, Journal of
Centrum Cathedra, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 92-119.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 171-194.
Mendelson, M.B., Turner, N. and Barling, J. (2011), “Perceptions of the presence and effectiveness of
high involvement work systems and their relationship to employee attitudes: a test of competing
models”, Personnel Review, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 45-69.
Mesu, J., Sanders, K. and van Riemsdijk, M. (2015), “Transformational leadership and organisational
commitment in manufacturing and service small to medium-sized enterprises: The moderating
effects of directive and participative leadership”, Personnel Review, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 970-990.
Meyer, J. and Herscovitch, L. (2001), “Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 299-326.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Meyer, J.P. and Maltin, E.R. (2010), “Employee commitment and well-being: a critical review, theoretical
framework and research agenda”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 323-337.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993), “Commitment to organizations and occupations:
extension and test of a three-component conceptualization”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
78 No. 4, pp. 538-551.
Meyer, J.P., Becker, T.E. and Vandenberghe, C. (2004), “Employee commitment and motivation:
a conceptual analysis and integrative model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6,
pp. 991-1007.
Morgeson, F.P. and Humphrey, S.E. (2006), “The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and
validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 6, pp. 1321-1339.
JMD Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R. and Munir, F. (2009), “The mediating effects of team and self-efficacy
37,9/10 on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and psychological
well-being in healthcare professionals: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey”, International
Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 1236-1244.
Ogbonna, E. and Harris, L.C. (2000), “Leadership style, organizational culture and performance:
empirical evidence from UK companies”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 766-788.
682 Parry, K.W. and Sinha, P.N. (2005), “Researching the trainability of transformational organizational
leadership”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 165-183.
Patiar, A. and Wang, Y. (2016), “The effects of transformational leadership and organizational
commitment on hotel departmental performance”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 586-608.
Piccolo, R.F. and Colquitt, J.A. (2006), “Transformational leadership and job behaviors: the mediating
role of core job characteristics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 327-340.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Porter, J.A. (2015), “The relationship between transformational leadership and organizational
commitment in nonprofit long term care organizations: the direct care worker perspective”,
Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 68-85.
Rad, M.M.A. and Yarmohammadian, M.H. (2006), “A study of relationship between managers’
leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 11-28.
Raja, U. and Johns, G. (2010), “The joint effects of personality and job scope on in-role performance,
citizenship behaviors, and creativity”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 7, pp. 981-1005.
Schaubroeck, J., Walumbwa, F.O., Ganster, D.C. and Kepes, S. (2007), “Destructive leader traits and the
neutralizing influence of an ‘enriched’ job”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 236-251.
Schriesheim, C.A. and Kerr, S. (1974), “Psychometric properties of the Ohio State leadership scales”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 81 No. 11, pp. 756-765.
Semrau, T., Steigenberger, N. and Wilhelm, H. (2017), “Team political skill and team performance”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 239-253.
Simon, C.H. and Mak, C.W.M. (2014), “Transformational leadership, pride in being a follower of the
leader and organizational commitment”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 674-690.
Smircich, L. and Morgan, G. (1982), “Leadership: the management of meaning”, Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 257-273.
Song, J.H., Kolb, J.A., Lee, U.H. and Kim, H.K. (2012), “Role of transformational leadership in effective
organizational knowledge creation practices: mediating effects of employees’ work
engagement”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 65-101.
Taing, M.U., Granger, B.P., Groff, K.W., Jackson, E.M. and Johnson, R.E. (2011), “The multidimensional
nature of continuance commitment: commitment owing to economic exchanges versus lack of
employment alternatives”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 269-284.
Tansky, J.W. and Cohen, D.J. (2001), “The relationship between organizational support, employee
development, and organizational commitment: an empirical study”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 285-300.
Trehan, K. (2007), “Psychodynamic and critical perspectives on leadership development”, Advances in
Developing Human Resources, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 72-82.
Vandenberghe, C. and Panaccio, A. (2012), “Perceived sacrifice and few alternatives commitments: the
motivational underpinnings of continuance commitment’s subdimensions”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 59-72.
Walumbwa, F.O., Orwa, B., Wang, P. and Lawler, J.J. (2005), “Transformational leadership, Leadership
organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: a comparative study of Kenyan and US and four-
financial firms”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 235-256.
Wang, Z. and Gagné, M. (2013), “A Chinese–Canadian cross-cultural investigation of transformational
dimensional
leadership, autonomous motivation, and collectivistic value”, Journal of Leadership & commitment
Organizational Studies, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 134-142.
Yahaya, R. and Ebrahim, F. (2016), “Leadership styles and organizational commitment: literature
review”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 190-216.
683
Yang, M.-L. (2012), “Transformational leadership and Taiwanese public relations practitioners’ job
satisfaction and organizational commitment”, Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 31-46.
Zhu, W., Newman, A., Miao, Q. and Hooke, A. (2013), “Revisiting the mediating role of trust in
transformational leadership effects: do different types of trust make a difference?”, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 94-105.

Further reading
Afolabi, O.A., Adesina, A. and Aigbedion, C. (2009), “Influence of team leadership and team
commitment on teamwork and conscientiousness”, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 211-216.

Corresponding author
Talat Islam can be contacted at: talatislam@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com