Public Organiz Rev (2014) 14:397–417

DOI 10.1007/s11115-013-0225-z

Transformational Leadership, Organizational Clan

Culture, Organizational Affective Commitment, and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Case of South
Korea's Public Sector

Hougyun Kim

Published online: 19 May 2013

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract The present study examines whether transformational leadership is

associated with clan culture, affective commitment, and organizational citizenship
behavior and whether affective commitment is positively related to organizational
citizenship behavior. The study also examines whether affective commitment mediates
the effects of clan culture on organizational citizenship behavior and whether clan
culture mediates the effects of transformational leadership on affective commitment.
The results of this study indicate a positive relationship between transformational
leadership and clan culture as well as between transformational leadership and
affective commitment; no significant relationship between clan culture and
organizational citizenship behavior as well as between transformational leadership and
organizational citizenship behavior; and a significant positive relationship between
affective commitment and organizational citizenship behavior as well as between clan
culture and affective commitment . Thus, the results clearly show that affective
commitment fully mediates the relationship between clan culture and organizational
citizenship behavior and that clan culture partially mediates the relationship between
transformational leadership and affective commitment. Theoretical and practical
implications of these findings as well as interesting avenues for future research are
discussed.

Keywords Transformational leadership . Clan culture . Affective commitment .

Organizational citizenship behavior

Introduction

1
The aim of the present study is to provide a better understanding of the relationship
between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior by

H. Kim (*)
Department of Public Administration, Chonnam National University at Gwangju,
Gwangju, Republic of Korea
e-mail: khg1427@chonnam.ac.kr

exploring the potential mediating role of clan culture and affective commitment. Few
empirical studies have examined the relationships among transformational leadership,
clan culture, affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior by
considering a variable for culture presented by the competing values framework.
Previous studies have examined the relationship between transformational leadership
and organizational citizenship behavior by considering trust, job satisfaction, personal
identification, motivation, goal commitment, work engagement, efficacy, and
procedural justice (Babcock and Strickland 2010; Piccolo and Colquitt 2006).
Using the model and setting clan culture and affective commitment as mediating
variables, this study explores the relationship between transformation leadership and
organizational citizenship behavior by considering a sample of full-time employees at
a local government organization in South Korea—Gwangju Metropolitan City
government. Thus, by examining the mediating roles of clan culture and affective
commitment in the context of Korea’s public sector, this study adds the general body
of knowledge to leadership-work behavior link and provides a better understanding of
the relationships among leadership, organizational culture, work-related attitude or
behavior. The results have important practical implications for management and
personnel policies of public organizations. Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework
of the study (Kim 2012, p. 869).

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Leadership, Organizational Culture, Organizational Commitment, and Organizational

Citizenship Behavior

In the public sectors, leadership is known to play a critical role in causing changes
necessary for effective management. Leaders have the ability to transform
organizations through their vision for the future, and by clarifying their vision, they
can empower the employees to take responsibility for achieving that vision (Kim
2012). Among many types of leadership, transformational leadership has been
particularly emphasized in connection with employee performance (Avolio et al. 1999;
Bass and Avolio 1995; Kirkman et al. 2009). Burns (1978) and MacKenzie et al.
(2001) indicated that transformational leadership motivates followers beyond simple
rewards in exchange for their efforts or performance. Transformational leadership

2
focuses on the self-actualization of followers. Bass (1985a) stated that
transformational leadership emphasizes the growth and development of an
organization’s followers and its
H2a

Transformational
H1a Clan H1b Affective H2b
Leadership Culture Commitment Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior

HIc
H3
Fig. 1 Hypothesized model of the relationships among transformational leadership,
clan culture , affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior

goals. Bass (1985b) and Bass and Avolio (1994) classified the dimensions of
transformational leadership into the following four categories (Kim 2012, pp. 870–
871): The first is known both as idealized influence and as charisma. The
transformational leader becomes a role model for the followers, facilitates the
acceptance of group goals, and encourages them to upgrade their organizational goals.
Idealized influence is the extent to which leaders behave in charismatic ways, inducing
followers to identify with them. The second is intellectual stimulation. The leader’s
behavior is concerned with stimulating “problem solving and careful and creative
consideration of issues at hand” (van Knippenberg and Sitkin 2013, p. 5). Intellectual
stimulation is the extent to which leaders challenge assumptions, take risks, and solicit
followers’ ideas. The third is individualized consideration. The leader recognizes the
differing needs of followers, individualized attention, and coaching (van Knippenberg
and Sitkin 2013). Individualized consideration is the extent to which leaders attend to
followers’ needs, act as mentors, and listen to followers’ concerns. The fourth is
concerned with inspirational motivation (inspiration), involving the communication of
inspiring vision and high performance expectations. Inspirational motivation is the
extent to which leaders articulate a vision that is appealing to followers. Based on the
transformational model of Bass and Avolio (1990, 1994, 1995, 1997), the present
study adopts these four components of transformational leadership (Kim 2012)—
idealized influence (charisma), intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration,
and inspirational motivation (inspiration).
Organizational culture has long been considered as an important means for
organizations to integrate internal processes and adapt to external conditions (Tusi et
al. 2006). It is well known that organizational culture is related to important outcomes
at both the organization and individual levels. Cameron and Quinn (2010) presented
four major types of organizational culture through the competing values framework:
hierarchy culture, market market, clan culture, and adhocracy culture. Hierarchy
culture is characterized by clear lines of decision-making authority, standardized rules
and procedures, and control and accountability mechanisms. Market culture is oriented
toward the external environment and is focused on transactions with external
constituencies, including suppliers, customers, and regulators, among others.

3
Competitiveness and productivity are achieved by placing great emphasis on external
positioning and control. Clan culture is characterized by teamwork, employee
development or empowerment, participation, commitment, and loyalty. Adhocracy
culture focuses on fostering adaptability, flexibility, and creativity and is characterized
by uncertainties, ambiguities, and/or information overload.
Korea’s public sector has tended to stress the importance of cohesion, teamwork, a
high level of employee morale, and human resource development as the criteria for
organizational effectiveness. In terms of long-term organizational development,
Korea’s collectivistic culture values leaders who can be mentors, are committed to
employee welfare, and can take responsibility for uncertainties and complexities
(Cameron and Quinn 1998; Kim 2007). In this regard, among the four types of
organizational culture, the present study adopts clan culture as the variable for culture
for the analysis of the relationship among transformational leadership, clan culture,
affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior.
The concept of organizational commitment has been defined in many ways (Kim
2012, pp. 871–872). For instance, Mowday et al. (1979) defined it as the extent to
which employees identify with their organization’s values or norms. Bieby (1992, p.
284) defined commitment as "an attachement that is initiated and sustained by the
extent to which an individual's identification with a role, behavior, value, or institution
is considered to be central among alternatives as a source of identity". Mowday et al.
(1982) defined it as the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and
involvement in his or her organization. Furthermore, Allen and Meyer (1990, 1996)
and Meyer and Allen (1991) divided organizational commitment into three
dimensions: affective, continuance, and normative. According to Allen and Meyer
(1990, 1996), affective commitment refers to an employee’s emotional attachment to
the organization; continuance commitment means the perceived cost related to an
employee leaving the organization or refers to anything of value the employee has
invested that would be lost at some perceived cost to the employee if he or she were to
leave the organization; and normative commitment is defined as an employee’s
perceived duty to remain in the organization.
Much research has suggested that, among these three dimensions, the affective
dimension is the one most closely associated with organizational commitment in that
organizational commitment entails the internalization of the organization’s goals,
involvement in employee roles, and loyalty to the organization (Avolio et al. 2004a).
Although the concept of organizational commitment may reflect multidimensional
constructs, previous empirical research has typically highlighted the importance of the
attitudinal or affective dimension in examining it (Avolio et al. 2004b; Gong et al.
2009; Jaussi 2007; Meyer et al. 2004; Kim 2012; Mowday et al. 1982; Price and
Muller 1981; Riketta 2008; Romzek 1989, 1990). Consistent with previous much
research, we focus on affective dimension of organizational commitment, the
employee’s emotional or psychological attachment to the organization. The reasons are
as follows: First, it seems to be the most robust predictor of behavioral criteria
(Lavelle et al. 2007). Second, it best reflects closer alignment with, or a positive
attitude toward, the effort to change. Third, it is perhaps the most widely studied form

4
of commitment and is similar to Mowday et al. (1982) groundbreaking
conceptualization of commitment (Lavelle et al. 2009). Finally, it has been
theoretically and empirically linked to transformational leadership (Herold et al. 2008;
Kim 2012).
Recent years have seen growing interest among scholars and managers in
employees’ discretionary behaviors, particularly those that can enhance workplace
effectiveness in times of dramatic change (Lavelle et al. 2009; Vigoda and
Golembiewski 2001; Walumbwa et al. 2010). The meta-analysis by Podsakoff et al.
(2009) suggested that organizational citizenship behavior is positively related to
employee performance and organizational productivity. Vigoda and Golembiewski
(2001) suggested that organizational citizenship behavior is necessary for improving
service quality and general outcomes in public organizations as well as for creating a
healthy organizational climate. Such findings suggest that employees’ discretionary
behavior in organizational settings is closely related to the organization’s effectiveness
and efficiency (MacKenzie et al. 1996).
Although it did not use terminology of organizational citizenship behavior, a
seminal paper by Katz (1964) indicated self-development and protecting the
organization as “important behaviors that go beyond formal role requirements and that
often do not occur in response to formal reward systems for differential individual
performance.” Organ (1988), Podsakoff et al. (1990), and Podsakoff et al. (2000)
divided organizational citizenship behavior into five sub-dimensions: civic virtue,
conscientiousness, altruism, courtesy, and sportsmanship. Civic virtue refers to active
involvement in addressing organizational issues and problems, such as offering
innovative ideas to enhance organizational growth and development (Babcock and
Strickland 2010). Conscientiousness refers to being in compliance with organizational
rules and instructions, such as not taking unnecessary breaks and reporting to work on
time. Altruism means helping colleagues in need. Courtesy is related to actions that
can prevent problems, such as avoiding practices that make other people’s work harder
and giving employees enough notice so that they can manage an increased workload.
Sportsmanship refers to being tolerant of the organization’s problems (Kim 2012, p.
873).
Many empirical studies have condensed organizational citizenship behavior into
two global dimensions: altruism and generalized compliance (Kim 2006, 2012; Smith
et al. 1983). Since 2000, several studies (Finkelstein 2006; Gautam et al. 2005;
Podsakoff et al. 2000) have divided the construct into two somewhat different
dimensions: individually directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCBI) and
organizationally directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCBO). OCBI is closely
related to altruism, whereas OCBO, to civic virtue and conscientiousness. Some
researchers have defined OCBO as voice, compliance, or generalized compliance
(Todd and Kent 2006). Williams and Anderson (1991) empirically demonstrated that,
based on their definition of organizational citizenship behavior, this behavior consists
of three elements: altruism, civic virtue, and conscientiousness. On the other hand,
some studies have identified three main forms of organizational citizenship behavior in
the context of the public sector in Asia (Kim 2006, 2007, 2009; Park and Kim 2008).

5
 Following previous research, the present study examines organizational
citizenship behavior based on four dimensions below: altruism, civic virtue,
conscientiousness, and sportsmanship. The present study does not consider courtesy
because of the overlap between courtesy and transformational leadership. In the study,
courtesy means the leadership quality of being attentive to employees who may be
affected by the organization’s meaningful decision-makings (Kim 2012).

Leadership, Clan Culture, and Affective Commitment

Whether organizational culture can be managed is one of the most widely debated
issues in organizational theory. Some researchers treat organizational culture as
something that the management team has complete or partial control over, whereas
others claim that it cannot be managed or manipulated (Deal and Kennedy 1982;
Ogbonna and Harris 2002). Transformational leaders play a role as a giver as well as a
definer of organizational culture. Thus, they set the tone, atmosphere, and philosophy
for the organization and its subunits (Bass and Avolio 1994; Bass and Bass 2008;
Schein 1990). In particular, in terms of organizational effectiveness, transformational
leaders in Korea’s public sector can create or invent their own clan culture by
emphasizing teamwork, harmony, employee development, participation, loyalty,
commitment, and morale, among others (Cameron and Quinn 1998).
According to the logic of Schein’s organizational culture, organizations that stress
the values associated with both external adaptation and internal integration are likely
to achieve the best results in terms of employee attitudes (e.g., affective commitment)
(Tusi et al. 2006). Internal integration centers on establishing a common vision and
shared values among employees or units and on developing a strong sense of
identification with the organization. These conditions may encourage employees to
become more committed to the employer or the organizations. For example, Cameron
and Freeman (1991) considered academic institutions and found that clan culture is the
most effective type of culture in terms of employee morale and other human resource
concerns. In this regard, the following hypothesis could be proposed:
H1a: Transformational leadership is positively related to clan culture. H1b: Clan
culture is positively related to affective commitment.
Much research has been performed on the relationship between transformational
leadership and work-related behaviors or attitudes such as job satisfaction and
affective commitment in Western countries, particularly in the United States (Avolio et
al. 2004a, b). Previous studies have proposed that the antecedents of organizational
commitment involve work experience and personal and organizational factors.
Among personal and organizational factors, leadership is regarded as a key
determinant of organizational commitment (Albrecht 2005; Avolio et al. 2004a, b;
Dick 2010; Kim 2012, p. 874). Specifically, both empirical and meta-analytic research
efforts have demonstrated that transformational leadership is positively related to
affective commitment in various organizational contexts (Bass and Riggio 2006; Koh
et al. 1995; Walumbwa and Lawer 2003).

6
 For instance, Albrecht (2005) clearly expressed that most of the previous studies
have regarded employee commitment and increased motivation as the most effective
means of achieving high organizational performance and have found transformational
leadership to be the means of developing those facets. According to Avolio et al.
(2004a, b), transformational leaders are able to influence their followers’ affective
commitment by increasing the level of the intrinsic value associated with goal
achievement; emphasizing the relationship between followers’ efforts and goal
achievement; and demonstrating a higher level of personal commitment to a shared
vision/mission and organizational goals. By exploring a group of public hospital staff
nurses in Singapore, Avolio et al. (2004a, b) empirically demonstrated that
transformational leadership is positively related to affective commitment.
Additionally, Bass and Riggio (2006) demonstrated a positive relationship between the
extent of transformational leadership and employees’ commitment to the organization.
In his comparative study, Kim (2001) showed that transformational leadership and
transactional leadership are positively related to affective commitment in public and
private organizations, respectively, in Korea. In his examination of a local government
in Korea, Kim (2007a) showed that transformational leadership is positively related to
transactional leadership and that transactional leadership is positively related to
affective commitment. Based on the above theoretical and empirical findings, the
following hypothesis could be proposed:
H1c: Transformational leadership is positively related to affective commitment.

Clan Culture, Affective Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Few studies have examined the relationship between organizational culture and
organizational citizenship behavior centering on the public sector. For instance,
O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) argued that organizational culture can provide high firm
performance by inducing employees to be more committed to the organization. Barney
(1986) argued that organizational culture can provide a competitive advantage for the
organization by generating intangible resources that are difficult for other
organizations to imitate. Kotter and Heskett (1992) showed that an adaptive culture
can help organizations increase their financial performance. Bass and Bass (2008)
stated that in an organization characterized by clan culture, employees “are expected to
do more than just what is agreed in contracts.” Based on these findings, the present
study examines the relationship between organizational culture (clan culture) and
organizational outcomes (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior) in the context of
Korea’s public sector. In this regard, the following hypothesis could be proposed:
H2a: Clan culture is positively related to organizational citizenship behavior.
Much research has investigated the relationship between affective commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior in the North American context, many suggesting
that affective commitment is positively related to job performance or organizational
citizenship behavior (Kim 2012; Lavelle et al. 2009; MacKenzie et al. 2001; Wagner
and Rush 2000). The antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior have been

7
associated with organizational fairness or justice, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, personality (e.g., extroversion sympathy, and achievement needs), and
contingent circumstances such as job characteristics, job range, and leadership
behavior (Podsakoff et al. 2000; Smith et al. 1983). For instance, Lavelle et al. (2007)
suggested that affective commitment is positively related to several outcome variables
such as organizational citizenship behavior. MacKenzie et al. (2001) empirically
demonstrated that workrelated behavior or attitudes may be antecedents of affective
commitment and that affective commitment may in turn be an antecedent of
organizational citizenship behavior. Furthermore, Riketta (2008) showed that the
commitment-performance relationship is more pronounced for extra-role performance
than for in-role performance.
On the other hand, few studies have focused on organizational citizenship behavior
in public sector in Korea. Kim (2009) reported that affective commitment is positively
related to the organizational citizenship behavior dimensions of altruism, civic virtue,
and conscientiousness. In another study, Kim (2006) found that affective commitment
is positively related to altruism but not to generalized compliance (conscientiousness).
The above discussion indicates that affective commitment may encourage
employees to engage in discretionary behaviors. Accordingly, the following
hypothesis could be proposed.
H2b: Affective commitment is positively related to organizational citizenship
behavior.

Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Very little research has sought to determine the indirect or direct relationship between
transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (Kim 2012; Wang
et al. 2005; MacKenzie et al. 2001; Organ et al. 2006; Podsakoff et al. 1996). For
instance, Podsakoff et al. (1990) employed job satisfaction as a mediating variable and
reported that transformational leadership is indirectly associated with organizational
citizenship behavior. Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) indicated that transformational
leadership is associated with two organizational citizenship behavior dimensions—
helping and compliance. Moreover Organ et al. (2006) emphasized that the leadership
style is associated with two types of organizational citizenship behavior (altruism and
conscientiousness), with job satisfaction serving as a mediating variable. They also
reported that transformational leadership indirectly associated with sportsmanship,
civic virtue, and conscientiousness through job satisfaction and trust, and that
transformational leadership is associated with altruism.
Several studies have addressed the relationship between leadership (both
transformational and transactional) and organizational citizenship behavior in the
context of public sector in Korea. Kim (2009) empirically demonstrated that leadership
is associated with three types of organizational citizenship behavior (altruism, civic
virtue, and conscientiousness). Moreover, Jung and Lee (2000) statistically explained
that transformational and transactional leadership are directly and positively related to
four types of organizational citizenship behavior (altruism, conscientiousness, civic

8
virtue, and sportsmanship). Such findings indicate indirect or direct relationships
between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior
dimensions. Further, these theoretical and empirical findings should also apply to local
government organizations in Korea, such as the Gwangju Metropolitan City
government, from which the present study’s data were obtained.
Specifically, the more the transformational leader serves as an appropriate role
model (idealized influence); pays special attention to employees’ needs for
achievement and growth through coaching and mentoring (individualized
consideration); articulates a vision (inspirational motivation); and encourages
employees’ efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions,
reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways (intellectual
stimulation) (Bass and Avolio 1994), the more likely the employee is to identify with
the organization’s values, goals, and norms (i.e., affective commitment) (Dick 2010).
When employees equate their own success with that of their organization and identify
with the organization’s values, goals, and norms, they are more likely to cooperate to
make positive contributions to the organization which in turn makes employees more
likely to support their colleagues (altruism), present positive ideas for organizational
development (civic virtue), conform to the organization’s rules and procedures
(conscientiousness), avoid practices that make other employees’ work more difficult
(courtesy), and be tolerant of the organization’s problems (sportsmanship) (Lavelle et
al. 2009). In this regard, the following hypothesis could be proposed:

H3: Transformational leadership is positively related to organizational citizenship

behavior.

Data and Methods

The data were collected from full-time employees of the Gwangju Metropolitan City
government on two occasions separated by approximately 8 weeks to reduce common
method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003). We initially explained that employees’
participation in this study was strictly voluntary and that all identifying information
would be removed once the data were coded. We also explained the purpose of the
study, informed the employees that they would be receiving another survey in
approximately 8 weeks, and emphasized the importance of responding to both surveys.
Each employee was provided with an envelope and given 7 days to complete the
survey, which was distributed on site during working hours. We arranged a convenient
collection box for the employees to return the survey. The employees were asked to
rate the transformational leadership behavior of their supervisors, the perceived degree
of organizational clan culture, and their own level of affective commitment.
Of the 600 questionnaires sent for the employees to answer, 270 were returned at
Time 1. Approximately 8 weeks later, these 270 respondents were asked to complete a
survey measuring organizational citizenship behavior. On this occasion, 202 matched,
usable questionnaires were returned. We compared these usable questionnaires with 68

9
unusable questionnaires from Time 1 and found no significant differences between
these two groups of respondents in terms of their gender, age, education level, and
tenure.
Of the 202 respondents, 80 % were male; 80 %, 14 %, and 6 % had a bachelor’s
degree, a master’s degree, and a high school diploma, respectively; and 41 %, 35 %,
and 20 % were in their forties, fifties, and thirties, respectively. In terms of their
tenure, 33 % had worked between 15 and 20 years; 15 %, between 20 and 25 years; 20
%, between 25 and 30 years; 17 %, between 10 and 15 years; 10 %, at least 30 years;
and 5 %, less than 10 years.

Measures

All items were assessed on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“strongly
disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”). The Appendix shows these items.

Transformational Leadership Behavior Following previous research (Bass 1990; Bass

and Avolio 1994, 1995; Organ et al. 2006; Podsakoff et al. 1990), we examined
transformational leadership by considering a five-item, four-dimension measure. The
four dimensions of transformational leadership were measured with items from the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X-Short; Bass and Avolio 1995).
These four dimensions were idealized influence (charisma), intellectual stimulation,
individualized consideration, and inspirational motivation (inspiration). The MLQ
(Form 5X-Short) is a standard instrument for assessing these leadership scales
(Rowold and Rohmann 2009). However, because empirical studies have consistently
shown that these dimensions are highly correlated and that they reflect the higherorder
construct of transformational leadership (Kim 2012; Walumbwa et al. 2005), these
scales were combined into one transformational leadership factor consisted of five
items, including “My supervisor articulates a vision” and “My supervisor provides an
appropriate model.” The Cronbach's alpha reliability for the scale was 0.94.
Clan Culture Following the ‘Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)’
developed using the competing values framework by Cameron and Quinn (1998), we
examined clan culture by considering four items, including “The organization is like
an extended family in that it is a very personal place.” The Cronbach's alpha reliability
was 0.86.

Affective Commitment Affective commitment is identified as the extent to which an

organizational member is attached to and has a sense of unity with his or her
organization and is actively involved in solving the organization’s problems (Kim
2012). Six items from Allen and Meyer (1996) and Meyer and Allen (1991) with
respect to affective commitment were used, including “This organization has a great
deal of personal meaning for me” and “I enjoy discussing my organization with
outsiders.” The Cronbach's alpha reliability was 0.85.

10
Organizational Citizenship Behavior Organizational citizenship behavior refers to a
voluntary and discretionary behavior that cannot be formally rewarded by the
organization. We used Podsakoff et al. (1990, 2000) 16-item, 4-dimension measure of
organizational citizenship behavior, which contains five items for altruism, four for
conscientiousness, four for civic virtue, and three for sportsmanship, including “I help
others who have heavy workloads” (altruism), “I do not take extra breaks”
(conscientiousness), “I attend meetings that are not mandatory but are considered
important” (civic virtue), and “I consume a lot of time complaining about trivial
matters” (sportsmanship). The Cronbach's alpha reliability was 0.87.

Controls

The control variables included gender, age, educational level, and organizational
tenure. Previous studies have showed that these demographic variables are potential
predictors of affective commitment or organizational citizenship behavior (Avolio et
al. 2004a, b; Kirkman et al. 2009; Lepine et al. 2002). In the study, for example,
organizational tenure was positively related to organizational citizenship behavior.
Table 2 shows the coding for the categorical variables.

Level of Analysis

Transformational leadership was measured at the individual level for the following
reasons. First of all, leaders may behave differently in different situations (Avolio and
Yammarino 1990). Secondly, methodologically, averaging data may remove
significant relationships, particularly when treating individual perceptions (Piccolo and
Colquitt 2006; Walumbwa et al. 2005). Moreover, we employed clan culture, affective
commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior as individual-level variables.

Analyses

In order to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validity of our measures at the
individual level of analysis, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by
using AMOS 19.0 and descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between
variables by using SPSS 19.0. According to Anderson and Gerbing (1988) and Fornell
and Larcker (1981), convergent validity can be established when the path loading from
an item to its latent construct is significant; the standardized factor loading is greater
than 0.7; average variance extracted (AVE) is greater than 0.5; and construct reliability
is greater than 0.7 (Kim 2012). Discriminant validity can be established by comparing
the AVE of each construct with the square of the correlation coefficient (r 2) between
the constructs. If the AVE value exceeds its r 2 with any other construct, then there is
discriminant validity.
Concerning assessing model fit, we used the chi- square measure (χ2), normed χ2
2
(χ /df ), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit

11
index (CFI), the incremental fit index (IFI), the parsimony normed fit index (PNFI),
and the parsimony comparative fit index (PCFI).

Results

Convergent and Discriminant Validity Analysis

By using the maximum likelihood method, we estimated a four-factor measurement

model including all items measuring transformational leadership, clan culture,
affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. The fit statistics were
within generally accepted ranges, indicating that our research model with OCB as a
higher-order reflective construct (χ2=586.88, df=223, p=<.001; Normed χ2=2.41;
RMSEA=0.08; CFI=0.92; IFI=0.92; PNFI=0.70; PCFI=0.74) provided a better fit to
the data than the model with organizational citizenship behavior as a first-order
construct (χ2=1010.10, df=227, p= <.001; Normed χ2=4.50; RMSEA=0.183; CFI=0.76;
IFI=0.76; PNFI=0.60; PCFI= 0.64) (Bentler 1990; Bollen 1989; Browne and Cudeck
1993). All individual path loadings from an item to its specified latent construct were
significant (p <.001); the standardized factor loading exceeded 0.7; AVE exceeded
0.5; and construct reliability exceeded 0.7 (see Table 1), providing evidence of
convergent validity. Next, we examined whether sufficient discriminant validity would
be demonstrated between the constructs transformational leadership, clan culture,
affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. Table 3 shows the
results of the discriminant validity analysis. The AVE of each construct exceeded the
square of the correlation coefficient (r 2) between the constructs. These results
demonstrate sufficient discriminant validity between transformational leadership, clan
culture, affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior (Anderson and
Gerbing 1988). As a result, the CFA results provide support for the convergent and
discriminant validity of the four constructs.
Table 2 shows descriptive statistics, scale reliability, and zero-order correlations
between the variables. In short, Table 2 shows that perceived transformational
leadership and clan culture were lower than affective commitment and organizational
citizenship behavior, implying that improving perceived transformational leadership
may lead to increased organizational effectiveness through CC. The Cronbach's alpha
reliability was 0.80 or higher, indicating acceptable internal consistency. There was a
significant positive correlation between transformational leadership and clan culture
(r=.58, p<.01); between clan culture and affective commitment (r=.30, p<.01);
between transformational leadership and affective commitment (r=.31, p<.01);
between affective commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (r=.59, p<.01);
between clan culture and organizational citizenship behavior (r=.22, p<.01); and
between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (r=.23,
p<.01). Consequently, the zero-order correlation results were all in the expected
direction, providing preliminary support for the relationships in Fig. 1 and Table 2.

12
Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis
Composite Reliability/
Factor loading
Constructs Subconstructs Items t AVE
(Standardized)

Transformational leadership t1 1.00 (.85) − .92/.80

t2 1.18*** (.95) 19.08
− t3 1.20*** (.90) 17.03
t4 1.16*** (.93) 18.26
t5 .97*** (.85) 15.39
Affective commitment − ac1 1.00 (.72) − .86/.60
ac2 .97*** (.75) 10.23
ac3 1.12*** (.80) 10.80
ac4 .93*** (.78) 10.94
ac5 .97*** (.78) 10.60
ac6 1.03*** (.81) 10.95
Organizational citizenship altruism a1 1.00 (.90) − .92/.73
behavior
a2 .99*** (.90) 19.19
a3 .96*** (.81) 15.33
a4 .96*** (.79) 14.55
a5 .99*** (.87) 17.91
a
civic virtue cv3 1.00 (.85) − .84/.79
cv4 1.13*** (.93) 11.84
conscientiousne c1 1.00 (.87) − .87/.76
ssb
c2 1.06*** (.87) 11.95
Organizational citizenship sportsmanship s1 1.00 (.77) − .80/.71
behavior
s2 1.26*** (.82) 12.10
s3 1.31*** (.92) 12.81
Clan culture − cc1 1.00 (.76) − .77/.61
cc2 .83*** (.75) 10.30
cc3 1.00*** (.85) 11.67
cc4 .90*** (.76) 11.45
Organizational citizenship behavior is a higher-order reflective construct; altruism, civic virtue,
conscientiousness, and sportsmanship are first-order reflective constructs; and standardized
factor loading values are in parentheses. a,b cv1 and cv2 for civic virtue and c3 and c4 for
conscientiousness were removed because their respective communality was less than .5
***p<.001

Tests of Hypotheses

13
Figure 2 and Table 4 show that, transformational leadership and organizational
citizenship behavior did not have a significant relationship, and clan culture and
organizational citizenship behavior did not have a significant relationship. H3 and H2a
were not supported. Transformational leadership had a significant effect on clan
culture

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between study

variables

Variables Means SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Age 42.30 7.31
2. Gender 1.21 .40 −.47**
3. Education 1.34 .65 −.17* −.06
4. Tenure 17.71 1.40 .76** −.30** .16**
5. TL 4.76 1.26 .15* −.21** −.03 .10 (.94)
6. AC 4.96 1.16 .13 .05 −.02 .26** .31** (.85)
7. OCB 5.33 .81 .19** −.04 −.01 .27** .23** .59** (.87)
8. CC 4.23 1.15 .13 −.15* −.02 .11 .58** .30** .22** (.86)
SD standard deviation; TL transformational leadership; CC clan culture; AC affective
commitment; OCB organizational citizenship behavior. Gender (male = 1, female = 2);
Education (1 = bachelor’s degree, 2 = master’s degree, 3 = high school diploma, 4 = middle
school certificate or below). Crobach's alpha reliability values are in parentheses
*p<.05; **p<.01

(estimate=.648, t=7.954, p<.001), transformational leadership had a significant

positive effect on affective commitment (estimate=.202, t=2.397, p<.05), clan culture
had a significant effect on affective commitment (estimate=.217, t=2.511, p<.05), and
affective commitment had a significant positive effect on organizational citizenship
behavior (estimate=.443, t=5.622, p<.001). Therefore, the results provide support for
H1a, H1b, H1c, and H2b. This means organizational clan culture partially mediates the
relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment and that
affective commitment fully mediates the relationship between clan culture and
organizational citizenship behavior.

Table 3 Discriminant validity analysis

Constructs AVE r r2

1. TL ↔ CC TL=.800 .584 .34 AVE >

CC=.606 r2

14
2. CC ↔ AC CC=.606 .304 .09 AVE >
AC=.603 r2
3. TL ↔ AC TL=.800 .310 .09 AVE >
AC=.603 r2
4. CC ↔ OCB CC=.606 .224 .05 AVE >
OCB=.730 r2
5. AC ↔ OCB AC=.603 .588 .34 AVE >
OCB=.730 r2
6. TL ↔ OCB TL=.800 .226 .05 AVE >
OCB=.730 r2
AVE average variance expected; r correlation between constructs; AVE > r 2 demonstrates sufficient
discriminant validity between constructs. TL transformational leadership; CC clan culture; AC affective
commitment; OCB organizational citizenship behavior

Fig. 2 Structural path estimates for the hypothesized model. Path coefficients are standardized
coefficients, and t-values are in parentheses. ns not significant. TL transformational leadership;
CC clan culture; AC affective commitment; OCB organizational citizenship behavior.
***p<.001, **p<.05

Discussion and Implications

ns
H2a -.035 (-.465)

.630*** (7.954) .256** (2.511) .932*** (5.622)

TL H1a. CC H1b H2b

AC
OCB

H1c .232** (2.397)

ns
H3 -.075 (-1.049)

In this study, we examined the relationships among transformational leadership, clan

culture, affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior by considering
a variable for culture presented by the competing values framework in the context of a
local government organization in Korea. In short, first of all transformational
leadership was positively related to clan culture as well as affective commitment,
providing support for previous research (Avolio et al. 2004a, b; Bass and Avolio 1994;
Bass and Riggio 2006; Kim 2001, 2009; Koh et al. 1995; Schein 1990; Walumbwa
and Lawer 2003; Walumbwa et al. 2005); Second, clan culture was positively related
to affective commitment, and affective commitment was positively related to
organizational citizenship behavior, providing support for previous research (Kim
2009; Lavelle et al. 2007; MacKenzie et al. 2001; O’Reilly and Chatman 1986;
Podsakoff et al. 2009; Schappe 1998; Tusi et al. 2006; Wagner and Rush 2000;
Williams and Anderson 1991); and third, clan culture did not have a significant
relationship with organizational citizenship behavior; and transformational leadership

15
did not have a significant relationship with organizational citizenship behavior. As a
result, clan culture partially mediated the effects of transformational leadership on
affective commitment, and affective commitment fully mediated the effects of clan
culture on organizational

Table 4 Test results and path coefficients for hypotheses

H Path Relationship Direct Indirect Total t p

H1a TL → CC + .630 (.648) − .630 7.954 *** supported

H1b CC → AC + .256 (.217) − .256 2.511 ** supported
H1c TL → AC + .232 (.202) .161 .393 2.397 ** supported
H2a CC → OCB − −.035 (−.014) .239 .204 −.465 ns
H2b AC → OCB + .932 (.443) − .932 5.622 *** supported
H3 TL → OCB − −.075 (−.031) .344 .269 −1.049 ns
‘Direct’ refers to direct effects; ‘Indirect’ refers to indirect effects; and ‘Total’ refers to total
effects. Path coefficients are standardized coefficients. Unstandardized coefficients are in
parentheses. ns not significant. TL transformational leadership; CC clan culture; AC affective
commitment; OCB organizational citizenship behavior
***p<.001. **p<.05

16
citizenship behavior. These results, which indicate an indirect relationship between
transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, provide partial
support for the findings of previous studies (e.g., Leithwood and Jantzi 2000;
MacKenzie et al. 2001; Organ et al. 2006; Podsakoff et al. 1990).
Noteworthy is that clan culture played a very important mediating role in the
relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment. This
suggests that in Korea’s public sector, transformational leaders can invent or create
their own unique clan culture to induce employees’ psychological or emotional
attachment to the organization as well as to encourage employees’ discretionary
behaviors. In other words, transformational leaders can be givers and definers of clan
culture to foster behaviors that facilitate long-term organizational development, such
as affective commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Bass and Avolio
1994). This may be because the cultural characteristics of local governments in Korea
reflect a highly structured bureaucracy that exhibits high power distance and a
collectivistic culture (Cameron and Quinn 1998; Dorfman and House 2004; Hofstede
2001; Hofstede and Hofstede 2005; Kim 2012, p.883).
The reason why these results, which indicate an indirect relationship between
transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, provide only
partial support for the findings of previous studies may be because previous studies
focusing on Asian organizations have not considered organizational citizenship
behavior dimensions as a higher-order reflective construct (Kim 2012). Specifically,
although organizational citizenship behavior consists of multiple dimensions (e.g.,
altruism, civic virtue, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship), previous studies have
considered organizational citizenship behavior only as a first-order reflective
construct, and thus, they may have committed a methodological error by applying an
organizational citizenship behavior construct without conducting a CFA and
comparing the results for organizational citizenship behavior as a first-order construct
with those for organizational citizenship behavior as a second-order construct. In a
cultural context, the present results suggest that organizational citizenship behavior,
which consists of the multiple dimensions (altruism, civic virtue, conscientiousness,
and sportsmanship) described in the scale by Podsakoff et al. (1990), is generalizable
to the culture of public organizations in Korea (Kim 2012, p. 883) .
The present study represents one of the first attempts to examine the mediating role
of clan culture in the relationship between transformational leadership and affective
commitment and the mediating role of affective commitment in the relationship
between clan culture and organizational citizenship behavior. The results suggest that
clan culture, as new mediating variable—in addition to affective commitment (Kim
2012), trust, job satisfaction, personal identification, motivation, goal commitment,
work engagement, efficacy, and procedural justice, which have been identified as
mediating variables in previous studies (Babcock and Strickland 2010; Kim 2009;
MacKenzie et al. 2001; Organ et al. 2006; Piccolo and Colquitt 2006; Podsakoff et al.
1990)—can mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and
organizational citizenship behavior. Additionally, this study proposes a method for

17
exploring organizational citizenship behavior as a higher-order reflective construct in
the context of the public sector in Korea (Kim 2012, p. 883). Thus, by examining the
mediating role of clan culture and affective commitment in the context of Korea’s
public sector, this study contributes to the transformational leadership and
organizational citizenship behavior literature and provides a better understanding and
empirical evidence of the relationships among transformational leadership, clan
culture, affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Aside from these theoretical contributions, the results have some practical
implications. First of all, in the context of the public sector in Korea to improve
organizational performance or effectiveness (Vigoda and Golembiewski 2001) through
organizational citizenship behavior, transformational leaders should invent their own
unique clan culture and strengthen their followers’ emotional bond with the
organization, for example, by articulating a clear vision, becoming a role model,
considering the followers’ personal feelings, respecting their individual emotions,
facilitating their acceptance of the organization’s goals, and approaching the problems
the employees face in new ways. Second, regarding the fact that transformational
leadership had an indirect effect on organizational citizenship behavior. Leaders
should encourage employees to actively participate in the organization’s decision-
making process; have an open, flexible mind with their employees; and continue to
consider and support employees in term of fulfilling their self-actualization needs.
(Bass and Bass 2008; Jung and Avolio 1999; Triandis 1995). Consequently,
transformational leadership programs for key managers in Korea’s public sector that
can transform their organizational culture into their own unique clan culture should be
designed more attractively, focusing on employees' development and growth in their
public organizations.

Limitations and Conclusions

This study has some limitations. This study use cross-sectional data, thus, such a
research design does not allow for an examination of long-term effects (Selig and
Preacher 2009). In this regard, longitudinal studies using both qualitative and
quantitative data should be conducted to provide a better understanding of the dynamic
relationships among transformational leadership, clan culture, affective commitment,
and organizationa citizenship behavior (Walumbwa et al. 2010).
Another limitation is concerned with the nature of the sample in public sector in
Korea. Thus, any generalization of the study findings to other groups or organizations
outside the sample profile should be made with caution. More importantly, the use of
self-reported measures raises concerns regarding the possibility that the respondents
might have provided socially desirable responses. In the present study, we attempted to
reduce or mitigate common method bias by determining transformational leadership,
clan culture, and affective commitment ratings at Time 1 and organizational
citizenship behavior (dependent variable) ratings at Time 2. In this regard, future

18
research should consider other types of organizations or use multiple sources to verify
this study’s findings.
In conclusion, the present study's results provide evidence that transformational
leadership and clan culture is indirectly associate with organizational citizenship
behavior. In the cultural context in public sector in Korea, the present study suggests
that there are the mediating effects of clan culture and affective commitment on the
relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship
behavior. Furthermore, the present study proposes a research method that can address
organizational citizenship behavior as a higher-order reflective construct in the context
of the public sector in Korea. In conclusion, considering clan culture and affective
commitment in the relationship between transformational leadership and
organizational citizenship behavior, the present study contributes to literature on
leadership and work-related behavior link, adding to the general body of knowledge in
realm of the subject

Acknowledgment This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea
Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2012S1A5A2A01018318).

Appendix Scale Items

Transformational Leadership (Bass and Avolio 1997; MacKenzie et al. 2001; Organ et
al. 2006; Podsakoff et al. 1990):
Items preceded by “My supervisor…”
1. articulates a vision (t1).
2. provides an appropriate model (t2).
3. facilitates the acceptance of group goals (t3).
4. challenges me to think about old problems in new ways (t4).
5. shows respect for my personal feelings (t5).
Clan Culture (Cameron and Quinn 1998)
1. The organization is like an extended family in that it is a very personal place
(cc1).
2. People seem to share a lot of themselves (cc2).
3. Commitment to this organization runs high (cc3).
4. The organization emphasizes human development (including employee
morale), participation, and consensus (cc4).
Affective Commitment (Allen and Meyer 1990, 1996; Meyer and Allen 1991;
Mowday et al. 1982):
1. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me (ac1).
2. I enjoy discussing my organization with outsiders (ac2).
3. I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization (ac3).
4. Most days, I am enthusiastic about my work (ac4).
5. I am willing and ready to do anything for my organization (ac5).
6. I am greatly interested in the future of my organization (ac6).

19
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Podsakoff et al. 1990; 2000; Smith et al. 1983):
Items preceded by “I” Altruism
1. help orient new people, even though it is not required (a1).
2. help others who have heavy workloads (a2).
3. am always ready to lend a helping hand to those around me (a3).
4. help others who have been absent (a4).
5. willingly help others who have work-related problems (a5).
Civic virtue
6. make constructive suggestions that can improve the operation of the
organization (cv1).
7. keep abreast of changes in the organization (cv2).
8. attend functions that are not required but help the company image (cv3).
9. attend meetings that are not mandatory but are considered important (cv4).
Conscientiousness
10. do not take extra breaks (c1).
11. obey company rules and regulations, even when no one is watching (c2).
12. believe in giving an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay (c3).
13. have a work attendance record that is above the norm (c4).
Sportsmanship (reverse-scored)
14. consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters (s1).
15. always focus on what is wrong, rather than the positive side (s2).
16. always find faults with what the organization is doing (s3).

References

Albrecht, S. (2005). Leadership climate in the public sector: feelings matter too. International
Journal of Public Administration, 28, 397–416.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: an examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252–
276.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Operationalizing charismatic leadership using a
levels-of-analysis framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 193–208.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. J. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., Walumbwa, F. O., & Zhu, W. (2004a). MLQ Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire: Technical report, leader form, rate form, and scoring key for MLQ form 5x-
Short (3rd ed.). Redwood City: Mind Garden.

20
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004b). Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role
of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951–968.
Babcock, M., & Strickland, O. (2010). The relationship between charismatic leadership, work
engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Psychology, 144, 313–326.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 11, 656–665.
Bass, B. M. (1985a). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1985b). The multifactor leadership questionnaire: Form 5. Binghamton: State
University of New York.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19–31.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational
leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. Research in Organizational
Change and Development, 4, 231–272.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). The multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City:
Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the
multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. B. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
238–246. Bielby, D. D. (1992). Commitment to work and family. Annual Review of Sociology,
18, 281–301
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models.
Sociological Methods and Research, 17, 303–316.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen
& J. S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cameron, K. S., & Freeman, S. J. (1991). Cultural congruence, strength, and type: relationships
to effectiveness. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 81–105.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1998). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture:
Based on the competing values framework. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E. (2010). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based
on the competing values framework. Jossey-Bass.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate
life. Reading: Addison-Wensley.
Dick, G.P.M. (2010). “The influence of managerial and job variables on organizational
commitment in the police,” Public Administration (Early View), 1−20.
Dorfman, P. W., & House, R. J. (2004). Cultural influences on organizational leadership:
Literlature review, theoretical rationale, and GLOBE project goals. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges,

21
M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The
GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 51–73). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Finkelstein, M. A. (2006). Dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior:
motives, motive fulfillment, and role identity. Social Behavior & Personality, 34, 603–616.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluation structural equation models with unobservable
variable and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Gautam, T., Dick, R. V., Wagner, U., Upadhyay, N., & Davis, A. (2005). Organizational
citizenship behavior and organizational commitment in Nepal. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 8, 305–314.
Gong, Y., Law, K. S., Chang, S., & Xin, K. R. (2009). Human resources management and firm
performance: the differential role of managerial affective and continuance commitment. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 263–275.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and
change leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: a multilevel study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(2), 346–357.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Jaussi, K. S. (2007). Attitudinal commitment: a three-dimensional construct. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 51–61.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation
on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42,
208–219.
Jung, Y. K., & Lee, K. M. (2000). An empirical study on the relationships between leadership
behavior, organizational justice, and organizational citizenship behavior. Korean Public
Administration Review, 34(4), 323–341.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131–
146.
Kim, H. J. (2001). The effects of transformational/transactional leadership on the organizational
commitment: a comparison of public and private sector employees. Korean Public
Administration Review, 35(2), 197–216.
Kim, S. (2006). Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea.
International Journal of Manpower, 27(8), 722–740.
Kim, H. (2007). A study on the causal relationship among organizational justice, organizational
trust, and organizational citizenship behavior. Korean Public Administration Review, 41(2), 69–
94.
Kim, H. (2009). A study on the relationship between leadership and organizational effectiveness.
Journal of Social Science, 35(3), 69–103.
Kim, H. (2012). Transformational leadership and organisational citizenship behavior in the
public sector in South Korea: the mediating role of affective commitment. Local Government
Studies, 38(6), 867–892.
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power
distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: a cross-level, cross-
cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 744–764.

22
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,
319–333.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free
Press.
Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of
justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: the target similarity model. Journal of
Management, 33, 841–866. Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley,
A. B., Taneja, A., & Vinekar, V. (2009). Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational
citizenship behavior: a multifoci analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 337–357.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational
conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38,
112–129.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature of dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
52–65.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1996). Effects of OCB on sales team
effectiveness. Bloomington: Unpublished Data Analysis, Indiana University School of Business.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional
leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 115–
134.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation:
a conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991–1007.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. M., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organizational linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic.
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on pro-social behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. G. (2002). Organizational culture: a ten year, two-phase study of
change in the UK food retailing sector. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 673–706.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Toronto:
Lexington.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Park, T., & Kim, M. (2008). The effects of personnel administrative fairness on organizational
citizenship behavior under the new liberalistic reform of personnel administration in Seoul
metropolitan government. Korean Public Administration Review, 42(3), 261–291.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: the
mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327–340.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.

23
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leadership
behavior and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment,
trust and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259–298.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational
citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions
for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and
organizationallevel consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141.
Price, J., & Muller, C. (1981). Professionalturnover: Thecaseofnurses. New York: Medical and
Scientific Books.
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.
Romzek, B. S. (1989). Personal consequences of employee commitment. Academy of
Management Journal, 32, 649–661.
Romzek, B. S. (1990). Employee investment and commitment: the ties that bind. Public
Administration Review, 50, 374–382.
Rowold, J., & Rohmann, A. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership styles,
followers’ positive and negative emotions, and performance in german nonprofit orchestras.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20, 41–59.
Schappe, S. P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
fairness perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Psychology, 132, 227–
290.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 48, 109–119.
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Mediation models for longitudinal data in developmental
research. Research in Human Development, 6(2–3), 144–164.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663.
Todd, S. Y., & Kent, A. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of task characteristics on
organizational citizenship behavior. North American Journal of Psychology, 8, 253–268.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.
Tusi, A. S., Wang, H., & Xin, K. R. (2006). Organizational culture in China: an analysis of
culture dimensions and culture types. Management and Organization Review, 2, 345–376.
van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-
transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? Academy of Management
Annals, 7, 1–60.
Vigoda, E., & Golembiewski, R. T. (2001). Citizenship behavior and the spirit of new
Managerialism: a theoretical framework and challenge for governance. American Review of
Public Administration, 31, 273–295.
Wagner, S. L., & Rush, M. C. (2000). Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior: context,
disposition, and age. Journal of Social Psychology, 140(3), 379–391.

24
Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawer, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations: transformational
leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes, and withdrawal behaviors in three
emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 266–285.
Walumbwa, F. O., Orwa, B., Wang, P., & Lawer, J. J. (2005). Transformational leadership,
organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: a comparative study of Kenyan and U.S.
financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 235–256.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice
climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: a cross-
level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517–529.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member
exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’
performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48,
420–432.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17, 601–617.

Hougyun Kim Hougyun kim is an associate professor at Chonnam National University of

Kwangju Metropolitan City in South Korea. His research interests include organizational
behavior, human resource development, and cultural competence. He is an Ad-hoc reviewer for
Leadership Quarterly (SSCI).

25