Leadership Style and Organisational

Commitment: A Literature Review

Bachelor Thesis Organisation & Strategy

W.G.M. Maas

© 16-05-2014

Published on www.academia.edu on 08-12-2014

Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 1

Management Summary

Research in the field of Organisational Behaviour (OB) is always looking for ways to improve
effectiveness and performance. A particularly interesting and popular concept leading to higher
levels of performance is workers’ organisational commitment (OC). Managers are eager to
stimulate OC, yet the question of how remains. This literature review investigates to what extent
applied leadership styles affect workers’ commitment. Nine possible relations between different
leadership styles and OC-dimensions are discussed based on literature findings. An analysis and
synthesis of available research reveals strong positive relations between transformational
leadership and the affective and normative aspects of commitment. Furthermore, transactional
leadership seems to positively influence all aspects of OC. Laissez-faire leadership on the other
hand is shown to weaken affective and normative commitment. Yet, all effects are dependent on
contexts. This review contributes to the literature in the field of OB by bringing together existing
knowledge on the subjects and its implications could serve as a road sign for managers looking
to improve workers’ commitment. This thesis concludes with recommendations for future
research.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 2

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 - Introduction ...............................................................................................................3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Structure .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2 - Leadership ..................................................................................................................5
Theoretical Background ............................................................................................................................ 5
Contingency Theories ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Contemporary Research ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Transactional Leadership .......................................................................................................................... 7
Transformational Leadership .................................................................................................................... 8
Laissez-faire Leadership ........................................................................................................................... 8
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Chapter 3 - Organisational Commitment (OC) ........................................................................13
Defining OC ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Affective Commitment ........................................................................................................................... 14
Continuance Commitment ...................................................................................................................... 14
Normative Commitment ......................................................................................................................... 14
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 15
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Chapter 4 - The Relationship between Leadership and Commitment ..................................16
The Effects of Transformational Leadership .......................................................................................... 17
Relation 1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 17
Relation 2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 18
Relation 3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 18
The Effects of Transactional Leadership ................................................................................................ 19
Relation 4 ............................................................................................................................................................ 19
Relation 5 ............................................................................................................................................................ 19
Relation 6 ............................................................................................................................................................ 19
The Effects of Laissez-faire Leadership ................................................................................................. 19
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 19
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 20
Chapter 5 – Conclusion, implications and future research .....................................................21
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 21
Managerial Implications ......................................................................................................................... 21
Suggestions for Future Research............................................................................................................. 22
References .........................................................................................................................................
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 3

Chapter 1 - Introduction

The field of study of organisational behaviour (OB) is primarily concerned with investigating the
impact that individuals, groups and structure have on behaviour within organisations for the
purpose of applying such knowledge towards improving an organisation’s effectiveness
(Robbins, Judge & Campbell, 2010). Both old and relatively recent work in this field has
frequently emphasised important positive effects of job-related attitudes in relation to
organisational performance (e.g. Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Riketta, 2008). One of
the most investigated types of these job-related attitudes is organisational commitment.
Attitudinal or affective organisational commitment is defined as “the relative strength of an
individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organisation” (Mowday, Steers,
& Porter, 1979, p. 226). Since organisational commitment positively affects job effectiveness
and performance (Riketta, 2002) it is worthwhile to take a closer look at possible predicting
variables or constructs. These could function as tools for managers.

The tool that is probably closest by for a manager is leadership. Leadership is the ability to
influence a group towards the achievement of a vision or set of goals (Robbins et al., 2010).
Although leadership is one construct there are several theoretical approaches towards leadership
identified in previous literature. The most influential distinction of leadership styles is proposed
by Burns (1978) who identifies two types of leaders: the transactional and the transformational
leader. Later this theory was further developed by Bass (1985) and a third style to incorporate in
the typology was found in laissez-faire leadership. Over the years many more theoretical
leadership styles were developed, yet these three remain the most prominent.

Evidence shows that different approaches to leadership result in different organisational

outcomes, for example in the subordinate’s job-related attitudes discussed above (Walumbwa et
al, 2008). This thesis will review literature to identify the way in which different forms of
commitment are influenced by different management styles within an organisational setting.
Although the field of research is not new, there has not been a review of this kind. For this
purpose of this review the problem statement is defined as follows:

 To what extent does the applied leadership style affect employees’ organisational
commitment?
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 4

To facilitate the aim of this literature review and to find an answer to the stated problem several
research questions are proposed. These questions will be addressed in order:

 What leadership styles relevant to this study can be identified in the literature?
 What are the different forms of commitment to be distinguished according to previous
research?
 And what is the influence of the incorporated leadership styles on subordinates’
organisational commitment according to research findings?

The research questions will gradually lead towards a conclusion that answers the problem
statement.

Methodology
The purpose of this thesis is to give an overview of all important research relevant to the topic by
means of a literature review, taking a systematic approach to answer the before-mentioned
research questions. As is typical to review articles this study will summarize previous research
findings to inform the reader of the state of existing research (Sekaran & Bougie, 2009).
Furthermore a review − as described by Hodgkinson and Fort (2014) − of available evidence
pertaining to the research questions facilitates a search for commonalities and general themes in
order to synthesize the literature and present a critical analysis of the investigated relationship(s).
This process will ultimately guide towards an answer to the problem statement and a general
conclusion on the subject matter. On the basis of this conclusion managerial implications and
recommendations for future research will be discussed.

Structure
After the introduction this study proceeds with chapter two, which comprises an in-depth
elaboration on the construct of leadership and will further elaborate on the different leadership
styles by reviewing the relevant literature. In chapter three the concept of organisational
commitment will be discussed and different approaches to this concept will be identified.
Chapter four will investigate the relationship between the leadership styles and the different
forms of commitment by means of an extensive literature review. Finally, this thesis formulates a
conclusion and closes with a discussion, recommendations for further research and general
implications for managers.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 5

Chapter 2 – Leadership

A leader’s goal is to influence people towards the accomplishment of goals. But what is the best
way to get people to do things? How should leaders (i.e. managers in this case) go about
influencing their employees? What kind of leadership really improves organisational
performance? In short, what practices define a great leader? These are questions that not only
managers, but also academics in the field of OB are interested in. Therefore, an extensive amount
of research has been done to investigate leadership and especially effective leadership in order to
distinguish different leadership styles and provide organisational practice with supporting theory
on how to lead an organisation (e.g. House, 1971; Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Dirks & Ferrin,
2002). For example, many researchers have tried to define universal leadership traits, behaviours
or styles that make a leader effective. This might however prove a complicated endeavour since
leaders that are perceived as excellent by some could simultaneously be perceived as inefficient
by others (Nathan, Leslie, Toshio & Daniel, 2011). Yet, literature on this topic constantly
attempts to find trait or style patterns associated with great leadership. Contemporary research
focusses primarily on the influential concepts of transformational and transactional leadership
(Bass, 1999), two leadership styles that have received much attention over the past decades.

This chapter will review literature and contribute to the purpose of this paper by recognizing
general trends in and possibly synthesizing aspects of the literature on leadership styles to come
to a typology appropriate for the goal of this thesis. Specifically, it will further examine three of
the most popular styles in literature: transactional, transformational and laissez-faire leadership.
In short, this chapter will answer the first of the research questions defined above.

Theoretical Background
Leadership theory is plagued by a lack of integration both within and across the trait and
behaviour paradigms (Derue, Nehrgang, Wellman & Humphrey, 2011). There are simply too
many leadership theories and too little integration, comparison or contrast. Over the years, some
developed taxonomies appear to have common tendencies and/or correlate strongly, yet as said
there is a lack of integration of these styles in the literature. To assess the relationship between
leadership styles and commitment according to literature, a typology of leadership is needed that
is both as comprehensive as possible and tested as to its effects on subordinates. To come to such
a typology, a summary and clarification of the research field pertaining to leadership will follow.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 6

Early theory has primarily focussed on the question of what qualities a leader ought to have
(Cowley, 1931; Lord, De Vader & Alliger, 1986). These so-called trait theories assume that
particular individual traits, skills and characteristics define a successful leader and are by some
academics still considered a fruitful basis for predicting leadership outcomes (Judge, Bono, Ilies
& Gerhardt, 2002; Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007; Ng, Ang, & Chan, 2008). Yet, over
the years there has been a lot of criticism on trait theories of leadership (Zaccaro, 2007). For
example already in the 1940’s when Stogdill (1948) argued that personality traits were
insufficient in predicting leadership effectiveness and pointed to the situational nature of
leadership. Persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other
situations. This idea gave rise to situational and contingency theories of leadership. These answer
the question of what characteristics or styles an effective leader needs with: ‘It all depends’.

Contingency Theories
Contingency theories state that an explanation of leadership effectiveness can only be given
when taking into account the context or situation. Different contexts ask for different approaches
to leadership. Most of these theories assume some sort of taxonomy or typology of leadership
style and try to recommend these styles in diverse settings. A first comprehensive contingency
model is that of Fred Fiedler (1967). It poses that effective group performance depends on the
proper match between the leader’s style and the nature of the situation (Robbins, Judge &
Campbell, 2010). Some situations give the leader more control than other situations. First the
basic style of the leader is evaluated as being either task-oriented or relationship/interpersonally-
oriented. This distinction called LPC-theory is adopted from earlier literature (Bales, 1950;
Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Likert, 1961) and Fiedler considers the outcome fixed, meaning that
one cannot choose his/her style (which is in contrast with later theories). Consequently, a
definition of the situation will determine leadership effectiveness in that particular situation
according to Fiedler.

Another contingency theory is the situational approach by Blanchard and Hersey (1969), which
scales leadership style on two dimensions: directive and supportive leadership. Likewise Robert
House (1971; 1996) developed the path-goal theory, which focuses even more on the superior’s
behaviour and identifies four leader behaviours: directive, supportive, participative and
achievement oriented-behaviour. Blanchard and Hersey as well as House agree with Fiedler that
the situation defines what behaviour fits best and produces the best outcomes. Another
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 7

assumption made by House is in line with so-called transactional leadership models that assume
a reciprocal transactional relationship between superior and subordinate. This means, according
to the valence-expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), that subordinates rationally adjust their work
motivation and effort depending on the reward or punishment that is expected. This transactional
line of thought about leadership was picked up by later research as discussed later.

Contemporary Research
All in all, the importance of contingency factors in predicting the outcomes of leadership (such
as employee’s organisational commitment) has been recognised by scholars (e.g. Sternberg &
Vroom, 2002) and should also be considered when analysing findings later in this review.
However, first this chapter will proceed by identifying the general theoretical framework of
leadership adopted in this review.

Contemporary research focussed very much on another framework of leadership, developed by

Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) with the idea to create a typology of leadership conceptually
independent from earlier theory. It is considered the most influential typology of leadership
styles (e.g. Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1999; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt & van Engen, 2003) and
identifies two general styles of leadership: transactional and transformational.

Transactional Leadership
Firstly, Burns (1978) describes transactional leadership, a conventional type of managing by
setting objectives, using rewards and punishments and appealing to the self-interest of
subordinates. The use of this transactional form of leadership is proven to positively affect
performance measures (Judge & Piccolo, 2004) and is considered a prerequisite for effective
leadership (Bass, 1991). The leader establishes a kind of exchange relation with subordinates that
focuses on meeting objectives in an efficient manner. This assumes the employee will act
according to self-interest, which is in line with Vroom’s (1964) aforementioned expectancy
theory.

Transactional leadership is according to Bass (1985) characterised and measured by three

dimensions: (1) contingent rewards for good performance and (2) active and (3) passive
management by exception for poor performance. The contingent rewards-dimension relates to
the extent to which a leader promotes satisfactory performance using rewards. In dealing with
poor performance transactional leaders tend to display management by exception, a technique
consisting of an active and a passive dimension. The active form refers to managing by actively
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 8

monitoring performance and attending to the employee’s failures and mistakes, while passive
management by exception only intervenes when problems become severe. An exclusive focus on
passive management by exception is considered ineffective (Bass, 1991). The three behaviours
described in this paragraph define transactional leaders.

Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership takes a completely different approach. To motivate employees a
transformational leader instils intrinsic motivation by using his idealised influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration. He basically leads by
displaying charismatic behaviour and thereby stimulating the employee to follow him and the
goals he and the organisation stand for. Another stream of research has focussed on the concept
of charismatic leadership (House, 1977; Conger & Kanungo, 1987), yet over the years this style
is considered more or less intertwined with the transformational style and literature on each has
contributed to the other (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Transformational and charismatic leadership
can therefore be considered one construct for the purpose of this review.

Transformational/charismatic leadership is characterised by certain behaviours (Bass, 1985).

Firstly, leaders tend to have idealised influence. This means they hold high standards and values
and are respected and trusted role models that followers identify with. Secondly,
transformational leaders use inspirational motivation, a sort of contagious optimism and
excitement about tasks. A third behaviour of these leaders is found in intellectual stimulation,
stimulating employees to come to innovative problem solving. The last characteristic behaviour
of a transformational leader is individualised consideration, which involves the listening to and
the coaching and supporting of employees on an individual level. These four typical behaviours
make that transformational leadership positively affects employees’ job-related attitudes (Judge
& Piccolo, 2004) and is generally considered very effective.

Laissez-faire Leadership
A third leadership style in this typology has been described in the laissez-faire approach of
leadership (Bass, 1985). This form of leadership should be treated as separate from the other two
styles (Avolio, 1999). Laissez-faire leadership is basically the avoidance or absence of leadership.
This leader takes neither decisions nor responsibilities and gives no support or feedback to help
followers. This form of (non-)leadership is actually considered an interesting addition to Burns’
theoretical model.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 9

Discussion
All three styles are most often measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
(Avolio, Bass & Jung, 1999) and there is lots of research on transactional, transformational and
laissez-faire leadership. Illustrating the popularity of this typology a search of keywords in
materials published from 1990 to 2014 in the PsycINFO database prompted more studies on
transformational or charismatic leadership than on all other popular theories of leadership (e.g.
trait theory, LPC, path-goal, normative decision, substitutes for leadership) combined.

Although Burns initially developed the first two leadership styles as extremes on the same
continuum, research confirmed that they should be seen as separate constructs (Bass, 1985;
Avolio, 1999). Moreover, effective leaders appear to display aspects of both styles. Laissez-faire
leadership on the other hand is proven to be counterproductive (Skogstad et al., 2007).
Leadership Style Dimensions Description of Characteristics
Transactional
Contingent Reward Leader promotes satisfactory
performance using rewards
Management by exception Leader actively monitors
(active) performance and attends to failures

Management by exception Leader only intervenes when problems

(passive) become severe
Transformational
Idealised Influence Leader holds high standards and is a
(charisma) respected and trusted role model that
followers identify with

Inspirational Motivation Leader displays contagious optimism

and excitement about tasks

Intellectual Stimulation Leader stimulates employees to come

to innovative problem solving

Individualised Consideration Leader listens to, coaches and supports

followers on an individual level
Laissez-faire
Non-leadership Leader takes neither decisions nor
responsibilities and gives no support or
feedback
Table 1: The transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles and their dimensions
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 10

Conclusion
The theories and typologies discussed in this chapter are all somehow tested to predict outcomes
like performance or job-related attitudes like commitment, yet the transactional-transformational
paradigm has received most attention in this respect. It is for this reason that literature starting
from this perspective will be the focus of this review. An overview of the three distinct
leadership styles and their components is once more given in Table 1 (above). The next chapter
will elaborate on the construct of organisational commitment and identify several dimensions of
this construct prominent in OB literature.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 11

Chapter 3- Organisational Commitment

Organisational practice is constantly interested in maximizing performance. Since labour-force

productivity typically constitutes an important factor in organisational performance, managers
are particularly interested in how to increase productivity. A lot of attention is thus aimed
towards job-related attitudes of workers, since these have proven to positively impact
performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Riketta, 2008; Baptiste, 2008). Moreover,
job-related attitudes like job satisfaction, organisational commitment and organisational
citizenship behaviour are popular topics among social and behavioural scientists and the
antecedents and outcomes of these constructs have been extensively investigated. One of these
constructs is organisational commitment (OC), which − independent of the measurement − has
proven to have positive effects on organisational outcomes (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al.,
2002) and should therefore be considered desirable in employees. This chapter will review
literature on OC and identify different dimensions to be taken into account when investigating
the impact of leadership.

Defining OC
As to the question of how to define and measure OC, literature is not always consistent. In the
1960’s and 1970’s various authors have tried to define OC and similar constructs (Becker, 1960;
Brown, 1969; Hall, Schneider & Nygren, 1970; Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979) and this
resulted in approaches varying considerably. However Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979)
recognised general trends in thinking about OC and developed a widely accepted definition.
They argued that OC included both an attitudinal component, i.e. a strong identification with the
organisation’s goals and values, a behavioural component, i.e. the willingness to exert more than
sufficient effort on behalf of the organisation, and a strong desire to maintain membership in the
organisation. They introduced the most popular definition of OC as being “the relative strength
of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organisation” (Mowday et
al., 1979, p. 226). Randall and Cote (1991) add that OC is a function of personal, role-related,
and structural characteristics as well as situational factors related to the job setting. Yet, as said,
independent of how one defines OC it should be considered desirable in employees, since it
reflects attitudes and behaviours that are beneficial for an organisation.

One of the most prominent theories on OC comes from Meyer and Allen (1990; 1991), who
distinguish three dimensions of organisational commitment. In short they argue that employees
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 12

show commitment to their job and organisation because (1) they want to, (2) they need to and (3)
they ought to.

Affective Commitment
The first dimension refers to the desire of an employee to belong to the organisation and his
affective attachment to the goals and values of the organisation (Allen & Meyer 1990; Meyer &
Allen 1991). This dimension is called Affective Commitment (AC) and is basically the same as
Kanter’s (1968) ‘cohesion commitment’. Of the three dimensions this one is closest to the
aforementioned definition of OC by Mowday et al. (1979). Affective commitment is found to
positively correlate with performance measures (Riketta, 2002), meaning that if employees feel
more involved with the organisation this improves its performance. Since AC − unlike the other
dimensions − really is an attitude towards the organisation, this first dimension can be seen as the
most important component of OC. As a consequence, AC is the most researched dimension of
OC, receiving more attention than the following two dimensions combined.

Continuance Commitment
The second dimension in Mayer and Allen’s (1990; 1991) framework is Continuance
Commitment (CC). A high score on this dimension indicates that an employee has high profits
associated with participating in and high costs associated with leaving the organisation (so-called
side-bets). Also the amount of alternative job opportunities plays a role, since a lack of
alternatives raises the costs of leaving and consequently continuance commitment (Rusbult &
Farrell, 1983). Earlier research identified a construct called calculated or calculative commitment
(Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972) that is largely similar to the CC dimension discussed here. According
to CC, the employee basically needs to stay with the organisation, since leaving will cost him
significantly. This could for the employee a reason to commit to the organisation and its tasks.

Normative Commitment
The third dimension, Normative Commitment (NC) reflects the perceived obligation to stay. In
this it resembles the notion of lifetime commitment, referred to when an employee considers it
morally right to stay in the company (Marsh & Mannari, 1977). The employee feels that he/she is
obliged to stay with the organisation due to internalised norms and therefore exhibits
commitment behaviour (staying). Mayer and Allen based this dimension on Wiener’s (1982)
normative view of organisational commitment.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 13

Discussion
The framework is not without any criticism. Notice that AC reflects an attitude to the
organisation, while both CC and NC reflect attitudes towards specific behaviour (leaving). Some
argue this measurement is focussed too little on the attitudinal aspect of OC and too much on the
cognitive and behavioural aspects (Solinger, van Olffen, & Roe 2008). Also it is not fully
consistent with empirical findings.

There have been other frameworks of organisational commitment. Morrow (1993) proposed a
model of five universal forms of work commitment; however it shows a poor fit with empirical
data (Cohen, 1999). Cohen recommends in this respect the work of Randall and Cote (1991).
Nevertheless, the three-dimensional model discussed is the dominant model in organisational
commitment research (Bentein Vandenberg, Vandenberghe & Stinglhamber, 2005) and an
analysis of literature should prove most fruitful when using his framework.

Conclusion
The dimensions most relevant to the investigation at hand appear to be those of Meyer and Allen.
Despite limitations of this theory it is the single most investigated theory and provides a
framework that considers the most important aspects of OC: the affective, continuance and
normative component. Chapter 4 will proceed with the investigation of the relationship central to
this article by categorising and synthesising research findings, so as to answer the last research
question and work towards solving the problem statement.

OC Dimension Reflects a Description

Affective Commitment
(AC)
Desire Employee wants to belong to the
organisation and identifies with its
goals and values
Continuance Commitment
(CC)
Need Employee perceives high costs of
leaving and benefits of staying
Normative Commitment
(NC)
Obligation Employee considers it a moral
obligation to stay
Table 2: The three dimensions of organisational commitment
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 14

Chapter 4 –The Relationship between Leadership and Commitment

Until now this paper has examined literature on both leadership and organisational commitment.
Chapter 2 has identified the three most prominent leadership styles in the research field, namely:
transactional, transformational and laissez-faire leadership. In chapter 3 the scientific work on
organisational commitment was summarised and three dominant dimensions of OC were found
in affective commitment (AC), continuance commitment (CC) and normative commitment (NC).
This chapter will continue the literature review at hand and systematically investigate the
relationship between these two concepts in organisational settings.

Many studies have focussed on the effect of leadership styles on OC as defined by Mowday et al.
(1979), using the Organisational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). Although this paper will
mention the found effects of each style, its primary goal is to go deeper into the OC construct
and review literature about the effects on OC’s separate dimensions.

As each form of leadership can influence each dimension of commitment differently, nine
possible relationships can be identified in the proposed model. The approach taken in this
chapter attempts to systematically evaluate and combine literature on each of the nine relations
considered in this review (see Table 3). Yet, not all relations are addressed to the same extent
since some might be non-existent (Bycio, Hackett & Allen, 1995) or have been less subjected to
scientific scrutiny than others.

AC CC NC
Transformational 1 2 3
Transactional 4 5 6
Laissez faire 7 8 9
Table 3: The nine suggested relations between leadership styles and OC-dimensions

Each leadership style and its effects on the OC-dimensions will be discussed in order. Finally, by
providing an answer to the last research question about the influence of the incorporated
leadership styles on subordinate’s OC, this chapter will lead to more insight into the problem
stated in chapter 1. Ultimately, the research findings exposed in this last step will aim to provide
the basis for a general conclusion and answer to the problem statement in chapter 5.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 15

The Effects of Transformational Leadership (relations 1, 2, and 3)

The first leadership style, transformational leadership, refers to the charismatic leader that instils
inspirational motivation, stimulates workers intellectually and is individually considerate (refer
back to Table 1). By implementing these leadership behaviours a transformational leader gains
trust and respect and creates a positive atmosphere in which the worker’s goals and values get
aligned with those of the organisation. An abundant amount of studies using the OCQ
measurement of OC, which considers both attitudinal (AC) and behavioural (CC and CC)
components, has shown strong positive effects of transformational leadership (e.g. Avolio, Zhu,
Koh & Bhatia, 2004; Barling, Weber & Kelloway, 1996; Koh, Steers & Terborg, 1995;
Walumba, Wang, Lawler & Shi, 2004). Hence, when looking at the impact of transformational
leadership on the dimensions of OC, positive correlations can already be expected. Especially
with affective commitment (AC) since it reflects an attitude towards the leader and (his)
organisation.

Relation 1
Since transformational leadership and AC are the most researched dimensions the first relation (1)
is already the most popular and most important one in organisational literature. AC is
particularly important since meta-analytical studies confirm that it has the strongest positive
impact on measures of organisational performance (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Riketta, 2002) and a
negative impact on for example absenteeism and turnover intention (Allen & Meyer, 1996). High
levels of AC should thus be considered desirable in any organisational context.

Bycio, Hackett and Allen (1995) were among the first to investigate to a full extent the
relationships of transformational and transactional leadership to a series of outcomes including
Meyer and Allen’s (1990; 1991) three-component model of OC. As expected they found a
significant positive correlation between all aspects of transformational leadership and AC (r =
0.45). Moreover, they identified a somewhat weaker (r = 0.18) but significant positive relation
with NC (relation 3). After their pioneering work on this subject it took a while for more
evidence on the nine relations to materialize in academic literature. Only when the leadership
and OC frameworks became dominant paradigms more studies were dedicated to the relations
discussed here.

A firm stream of these more contemporary studies confirms the positive effects of
transformational and charismatic leadership on AC both in field studies (Bučiūnienė & Škudienė,
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 16

2008; Bono & Judge, 2003; Conger, Kanungo & Menon, 2000; Felfe & Schyns, 2010; Meyer,
Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytsky, 2002; Pierro, Raven, Amato & Bélanger, 2013; Top,
Tarcan, Tekingündüz & Hikmet, 2013) and in experimental settings (Bono & Judge, 2003).
Some of these studies explain part of the positive variation by adducing indirect effects via for
example self-concordance (Bono & Judge, 2003) or different power bases (Pierro et al., 2013).
An additional remark is that more indirect effects could be at play via for example job
satisfaction and other work-related attitudes (Lok & Crawford, 1999; Allen & Meyer, 1996).

Generally the conclusion can be made that the first relation (1) is definitely proven to be a
positive one. No literature can be found presenting any contradicting results and all reviewed
literature finds significant positive correlations, meaning that transformational leadership does −
as expected − enhance affective feelings of commitment.

Relation 2
About the second relation (2), namely the effect of transformational leadership on continuance
commitment (CC), literature is not as unambiguous. Several studies found positive effects on CC
(Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008; Felfe & Schyns, 2010; Top et al., 2013), yet the coefficients are
not as strong as those related to AC. One meta-analytical study however actually found a
negative correlation between transformational leadership and CC based on 4 studies (Meyer et al.,
2002). Analytic reasoning can lead both ways. On the one hand transformational leaders could
achieve that workers invest more in their jobs and in interpersonal relations on the job, resulting
in higher costs (side-bets) of leaving an organisation. On the other hand transformational leaders
could make workers depend less on the continuance dimension of commitment (and more on AC
and NC). More research is obviously needed to better understand the second relation.

Relation 3
On the effect of transformational leadership on the normative component of commitment
(relation 3) reviewed literature shows only positive correlations (Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008;
Bycio et al., 1995; Lagomarsino & Cardona, 2003; Meyer et al., 2002; Top et al., 2013).
Apparently, when a leader is considered more transformational, workers feel a stronger moral
obligation to stay with the organisation. Loyalty to the leader could in this sense be an important
factor explaining higher levels of NC.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 17

The Effects of Transactional Leadership (relations 4, 5, and 6)

Transactional leadership, characterised by the use of contingent rewards and management by
exception, can also be expected to enhance various forms of commitment. Since transactional
leadership is considered a prerequisite for effective leadership (Bass, 1991) it can be argued to
positively enhance certain dimensions of commitment. More specifically, the use of contingent
rewards for example might give employees more reasons (gains) to stay with the organisation
through higher levels of CC (see relation 5 further on).

Relation 4
A relationship (4) between transactional leadership on AC is not found in many studies. Only
one small case study reported such an effect (Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008). Bycio et al. (1995)
did however find a positive impact of the use of contingent rewards on AC. This might indicate
that feelings of attachment and loyalty do in fact increase when leaders maintain transactional
relationships with employees.

Relation 5
As mentioned above, a positive relation might also be possible between transactional leadership
and the CC dimension (relation 5). Although this relation did not materialize in the study of
Bycio et al. (1995), it did in several other field studies (Lagomarsino & Cardona, 2003;
Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008). Bycio et al. (1995) contribute the lack of findings to the fact that
that CC comprises not only the potential losses and rewards associated with leaving, but also the
amount of employment alternatives available. The latter of which cannot be influenced by any
form of leadership.

Relation 6
The same studies do confirm the sixth relation (6) to be positive (Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008;
Bycio et al., 1995).This means that transactional leadership, and especially the contingent reward
component, correlates positively with NC, the perceived moral obligation to stay, implying that
when a leader uses rewards and punishments more actively employees feel more obliged to
commit to the organisation.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 18

The Effects of Laissez-faire Leadership (relations 7, 8, and 9)

Although previous literature suggests a negative relationship between the laissez-faire leadership
style and organisational commitment as a whole (Erkutlu, 2008), not much research has been
done on the effects of laissez-faire leadership on the different dimensions of OC. Yet, due to the
destructive nature of laissez-faire leadership (Skogstad et al., 2007) and its proven negative
effects on subordinates’ job satisfaction and satisfaction with the leader (Judge & Piccolo, 2004)
no positive effects on the attitudinal component (AC) of commitment can be imagined.

Indeed at least two studies found negative effects on AC (Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008; Bycio
et al., 1995) regarding this relation (7). The affective commitment of employees is definitely not
enhanced by a passive leadership style. On the other hand, employees that do stay under the
direction of a passive leader must have higher levels of CC, NC or other reasons that prevents
them from leaving. On the eighth relation (8) however, no evidence can be found in the literature.
On the ninth relation (9), which is about the effect of laissez faire leadership on NC, Bycio et al.
(1995) and Bučiūnienė and Škudienė (2008) did find a small negative effect (r = -0.07 and r =
-0.162 respectively). To come to more concrete conclusions about the impact of an absent
leadership style on the OC-dimensions more research is needed investigating relations 7, 8 and 9.

Discussion
Although the review conducted in this chapter reveals certain relationships, these should be
approached with caution. For example, as discussed in chapter 2, different contingencies and
contexts ask for different leadership approaches. This means that the impact of leader behaviour
cannot be predicted without considering situational factors. Some authors argue for instance that
in times of crisis charismatic leadership is more effective (Madsen & Snow, 1983; Trice & Beyer,
1991) while another study notes that in sales settings transactional leadership might be preferable
(Dubinsky, Yammarino, Jolson & Spangler, 1995). Another contingent aspect that moderates the
effect of leadership on commitment is structural distance between leader and follower (Avolio et
al., 2004). Hence, to get a clearer picture of the relations in order to use them as guidance for
practice, literature should evaluate to a greater extent possible moderating effects.

Another fact worthy of mentioning is that a combination of the first two leadership styles can
have add-on effects on OC and its dimensions (Bycio et al., 1995; Koh et al., 1995). This
corresponds with the view discussed earlier that the best leaders practice (parts of) both
leadership styles.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 19

Conclusion
To conclude this forth chapter, a summary of the nine relations and their directions identified in
literature is depicted in Table 4. The most convincing findings are the positive relationships
between transformational leadership and AC and NC. Transformational leadership’s effect on
CC is not as clear. Transactional leadership is proven to positively influence all three dimensions
of commitment and laissez-faire leadership negatively affects AC and NC according to literature.

AC CC NC
Transformational ++ -+ ++
Transactional + + +
Laissez faire - ? -
Table 4: Summary of the relations and their directions according to literature

This chapter answered the last research question and its findings will provide the footing for a
general conclusion, managerial implications and suggestions for future research in chapter 5.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 20

Chapter 5 – Conclusion, implications and future research

This last chapter will contain a general conclusion of the results and discuss three managerial
implications that follow from this study’s findings. Finally, it provides suggested directions for
future research.

Conclusion
This literature review concludes by attempting to provide an answer to the following problem
statement: “To what extent does the applied leadership style affect employees’ organisational
commitment?” In formulating an answer to this question the first thing that should be questioned
is whether leadership even affects OC at all. Solely by looking at definitions of leadership per se,
which state that leadership is a process of influencing group and individual attitudes and
behaviours, the assumption could be made that it does. Indeed, the findings of this review
confirm this belief.

In fact, Chapter 4 has shown the findings on the nine relations central to this study. This
literature review revealed the expected positive effects of transformational leadership on OC.
Transactional leadership also seems to improve parts of OC and a combination of the two is
preferred according to reviewed literature. Laissez-faire leadership showed negative effects on
OC and should therefore be avoided in most cases. The organisational setting and circumstances
determine partly what leadership style is most effective (Sternberg & Vroom, 2002). Starting
from these results, three managerial implications can be deducted.

Managerial Implications
Since managers are concerned with improving performance and effectiveness in their
organisation this review article provides relevant directions and considerations for managers.
Firstly, managers should keep in mind that their style of leading will probably affect the amount
of commitment their employees show towards their job and organisation. It seems that the
transformational leadership style has the strongest positive effects OC and luckily for managers
the needed leading behaviours and skills can be improved by training (Barling et al., 1996).
Secondly, this paper suggests a general avoidance of the laissez-faire leadership style. This
passive form of leading has detrimental effects on OC and other organisational outcomes. The
third implication of this research relevant for managers is the fact that the effectiveness of any
leadership style is partly dependant on the situation and organisational context. While the effects
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 21

of a certain style might be desirable or destructive in one situation, it could be less so in another
situation.

Suggestions for Future Research

The research fields on leadership and on OC are strikingly similar in the sense that both suffer
from a lack of integration between different frameworks developed. In leadership theory more
comparison and synthesis is needed both within and across the trait and behaviour paradigms
(Derue et al., 2011), as well as between various style-paradigms. In OC theory, Meyer & Allen’s
(1991) three-component conceptualisation lacks integration with earlier theory and definitions
like those of Mowday et al. (1979). More research is needed here.

In respect to relation (2), on which this review found ambiguous findings, more empirical
evidence is needed to investigate the relationship between transformational leadership and the
continuance dimension of OC. Also on the effects of laissez-faire leadership and passive
leadership on the components of OC more scrutiny is wanted. As a last point, this article argues
that, due to their likely significance, possible moderating effects on the nine relations should be
evaluated to a greater extent. For instance, structural distance (Avolio et al., 2004) and other
situational factors might have a significant moderating influence on the relationships reviewed.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 22

References

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), 1-18.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organizationa: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(3), 252-
276.

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational
commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural
distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951-968.

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

Baptiste, N. R. (2008). Tightening the link between employee wellbeing at work and performance: A new
dimension for HRM. Management Decision, 46(2), 284-309.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). The effects of transformational leadership training on
attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 827-
832.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision.
Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32.

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 32-40.

Bentein, K., Vandenberg, R., Vandenberghe, C., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). The role of change in the
relationship between commitment and turnover: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(3), 468-482.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational
effects of transformational leaders. The Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 554-571.

Brown, M. E. (1969). Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 14(3), 346-355.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 23

Bučiūnienė, I., & Škudienė, V. (2008). Impact of leadership styles on employees' organizational
commitment in lithuanian manufacturing companies. South East European Journal of Economics
and Business, 3(2), 57-66.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985) conceptualization of
transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 468-478.

Cohen, A. (1999). Relationships among five forms of commitment: An empirical assessment. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20(3), 285-308.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in
organizational settings. The Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637-647.

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. J. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747-767.

Cowley, W. H. (1931). The traits of face-to-face leaders. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
26(3), 304-313.

Derue, D. S., Nehrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioural theories of
leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology,
64(1), 7-52.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for
reasearch and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628.

Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1995). Transformational leadership:
An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,
15(2), 17-31.

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire leadership styles:A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological
Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591.

Erkutlu, H. (2008). The impact of transformational leadership on organizational and leadership

effectiveness: The Turkish case. Journal of Management Development, 27(7), 708-726.

Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2010). Followers' personality and the perception of transformational leadership:
further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 393-410.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational identification.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 176-190.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 24

Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In
R. M. Stogdill, & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behaviour: Its description and measurement (pp. 6-38).
Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Hodgekinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (2014). Narrative, meta-analytic, and systematic reviews: What are the
differences and why do they matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), 1-5.

House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3),
321-339.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: South Illinois University Press.

House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory.
Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352.

Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the development of
organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(4), 555-573.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test
of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and
quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance
relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407.

Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in

utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33(4), 499-517.

Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher
attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(4), 319-
333.

Lagomarsino, R., & Cardona, P. (2003). Relationships among leadership, organizational commitment and
OCB in Uruguayan health institutions. Unpublished.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (1999). The relationship between commitment and organizational culture,
subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and development.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(7), 365-373.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 25

Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality
traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402-410.

Madsen, D., & Snow, P. G. (1983). The dispersion of charisma. Comparative Political Studies, 16(3), 337-
362.

Marsh, J. G., & Mannari, H. (1977). Organizational commitment and turnover: A predictive study.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 57-75.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and
consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three component conceptualization of organizational commitment.
Human resource management review, 1(1), 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and
consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20-52.

Morrow, P. C. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224-247.

Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership
skill requirements across organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(2), 154-166.

Nathan, J. H., Leslie, A. D., Toshio, M., & Daniel, D. (2011). Searching for Outcomes of Leadership: A 25-
Year Review. Journal of Management (July), 1137-1177.

Ng, K. Y., Ang, S., & Chan, K. Y. (2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: a moderated mediation
model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(4), 733-743.

Pierro, A., Raven, B. H., Amato, C., & Bélanger, J. J. (2013). Bases of social power, leadership styles, and
organizational commitment. International Journal of Psychology, 48(6), 1122-1134.

Randall, D. M., & Cote, J. A. (1991). Interrelationships of work commitment constructs. Work and
occupations, 18(2), 194-211.

Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a meta-analysis.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 257-266.

Riketta, M. (2008). The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: A meta-analysis of panel
studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 472-481.
Leadership Style and Organisational Commitment: A Literature Review 26

Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., & Campbell, T. T. (2010). Organizational behaviour. Pearson Limited
Education.

Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job
satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and
investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 429-438.

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2009). Research methods for business. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of
laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 80-92.

Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of
organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70-83.

Sternberg, R. J., & Vroom, V. (2002). The person versus the situation in leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13(3), 301-323.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. The Journal
of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 25(1), 35-71.

Top, M., Tarcan, M., Tekingündüz, S., & Hikmet, N. (2013). An analysis of relationships among
transformational leadership, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational
trust in two Turkish hospitals. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management,
28(3), 217-241.

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1991). Cultural leadership in organizations. Organizational Science, 2(2),
149-169.

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(1), 89-126.

Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2004). The role of collective efficacy in the relations
between transformational leadership and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 515-530.

Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. The Academy of Management

Review, 7(3), 418-428.

Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 6-16.