Human Systems Management 37 (2018) 319–331 319

DOI 10.3233/HSM-17129
IOS Press

Friendship, transformational leadership

and organizational climate
Nabi Allah Kohana , Ali Safarib,∗ and Hadi Teimourib
a Business Management, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
b Department of Management, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract. This article examines the effect of transformational leadership on friendship at the workplace and organizational
climate at a major military organization, in the Isfahan province of Iran. The study also examines the mediating role of
organizational climate in these relations. This is a descriptive-correlative study. Considering the number of questions in the
questionnaire, a sample of 530 individuals was selected and questionnaires were distributed among them. After collecting
the questionnaires, 502 of them were fully completed and used for data analysis. Structural equation modeling (SEM) and
the Sobel test were used to analyze the data. The results show that transformational leadership has a positively significant
effect on friendship at the workplace and organizational climate. Organizational climate has a positively significant effect on
friendship at the workplace. Moreover, organizational climate has a mediating relation between transformational leadership
and friendship at the workplace. The results also show that military commanders can promote interpersonal and organizational
relationships by changing their leadership style, and thereby create a friendly atmosphere among military personnel, leading
to increased satisfaction and motivation as well as defense commitment. Implications of these results for practitioners and
researchers are discussed.

Keywords: Transformational leadership, friendship at the workplace, organizational climate, military forces

Nabi Allah Kohan is a Ph.D. Ali Safari is an assistant professor

candidate in Business Management, in Human Resource Management and
Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior at the Uni-
Organizational Behavior, Faculty of versity of Isfahan, Iran.
Administrative Sciences and Eco-
nomics at the University of Isfahan,
Iran.

Hadi Teimouri is an assistant profes-

sor in Human Resource Management
and Organizational Behavior at the
University of Isfahan, Iran.

∗ Corresponding author: Ali Safari, Department of Manage-

ment, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. Tel.: +989133216331;

Fax: +983137935204; E-mail: a.safari@ase.ui.ac.ir.

0167-2533/18/$35.00 © 2018 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
320 N.A. Kohan et al. / Friendship, transformational leadership
1. Introduction
Having a friend seems to help soldiers to endure
in the battlefield and maintain their morale. Creat-
ing a friendship network in any military organization
can motivate the personnel to work and fight for one
another.
By ‘friendship network’ is meant the creation of
an informal structure among colleagues, which is
not based on bureaucratic and hierarchical control.
Instead, mutual commitment and social obligations
between friends motivate people to do their mutual
responsibilities.
Effectiveness in an army is dependent on the sol-
idarity among its small groups [23]. Both in armed
forces and scientific analyses it has been proven that
group cohesion among combatant soldiers is very
necessary. In the absence of a sense of union and
mutual responsibility, every soldier would try to pre-
serve his own life or even escape the war [23]. This
could in turn weaken the troops’ morale considerably
and possibly lead to their defeat.
A soldier’s concern for his survival in the battle-
field is minimized by his emotional bonds with his
fellow soldier [64]. Therefore, friendship is of spe-
cial importance among military personnel because it
creates unit cohesion and hence effectiveness in the
battlefield, group performance, job satisfaction, and
overall well-being [67].
The role of a commander in a military unit is highly
influential. This influence is mostly manifested in the
relationship between leaders and members or Leader-
Member Exchange (LMX).
Leader-Member Exchange theory focuses on inter-
actional relationships, which leaders have created and
preserve with their members [60]. Sparrow and Liden
[56] believe that interpersonal relationships between
leaders, members, and colleagues can create an inter-
connected social system, which can be exploited in
teams and organizations.
In any army, competent military leaders can play
a determining role in fostering interpersonal rela-
tionships among leaders, members, and colleagues.
These competencies lead to trust, clarify intentions,
inspire confidence, build teams, set an example, and
keep hope alive [61]. Considering their environment
complexity, military organizations should be able
to evolve over time in order to accomplish their
ultimate intention, which is to defend their coun-
try. Military leaders should constantly be aware of
organizational change and embrace it [11]. Military
leaders have realized that in total institutions, formal
authority is the main factor that motivates members
to do their tasks. However, emotional factors tend
to be the dominant motivational element in com-
bat units. Formal authority can induce obedience
while emotional influence creates willingness to do
things that are above and beyond their usual respon-
sibilities. For instance, the willingness to endanger
one’s life [39] is something that soldiers need. There-
fore, military organizations should seriously consider
changing their despotic régimes to ones, in which
emotional commitment and friendship among sol-
diers motivate them to fight for one another on the
battlefield. Popper [43] believes that using a suitable
leadership style in military units, which increases the
defense commitment of the personnel is an emotion-
rousing leadership.
Military units usually operate at remote areas under
difficult conditions where direct supervision by com-
manders is not possible. Therefore, leadership and
cohesion in military organizations have become very
important [12].
Considering the above discussion regarding leader-
ship, change in military organizations, emotion-based
motivation, and friendly bonds between soldiers,
it can be suggested that transformational leader-
ship is the suitable leadership style for military
organizations.
Transformational leadership theory is one of the
well-known theoretical frameworks on leadership.
Studies carried out in military organizations show
that transformational leadership brings about impor-
tant outcomes such as motivation, greater endeavor,
and emotional commitment in followers [20].
Considering the importance of the above-
mentioned points, in this study, it is attempted to
determine the effects of transformational leadership
on friendship at the workplace and organizational
climate in military organizations.
2. Literature review and hypotheses
development
2.1. Friendship at the workplace
Friendship is defined as a long-term relationship
based on mutual interest and support that helps peo-
ple deal with daily life struggles [18]. Friendship
at the workplace is defined as personal and infor-
mal interactions in a work setting [29]. Relationships
with colleagues at work often create affiliation bonds,
which are known as friendship [53]. The voluntary
 N.A. Kohan et al. / Friendship, transformational leadership
nature of friendship differentiates friendly relation-
ships among colleagues from their other relationships
[52]. In most organizations, the formal structure
determines the people with whom we have to cooper-
ate and relate. In other words, people are codependent
based on their duty [15]. Friends at the workplace are
referred to as ‘close’ friends and not ‘best’ friends.
These relationships can become closer based on
personality, similarity, proximity, and shared duties.
However, if there are factors outside of the work-
place that people share and have in common, these
friendships turn into very close ones or even best
friendships [37].
The good character of a commander can be a very
important factor in creating friendly relationships
with his members. However, if a commander has little
power distance with his members and socializes with
them out of work settings, then their friendly relation-
ship can become very close and they may become best
friends. Nielsen et al. [38] consider the dimensions
of friendship at the workplace to include opportunity
for friendship and prevalence of friendship.
The factors influencing friendship at the work-
place can be categorized into personal or contextual
factors. Personal factors include sex composition,
personality, and similarity. Contextual factors include
workplace and external factors. Workplace factors
include division of labor, position level in the orga-
nizational hierarchy, distance between home and
workplace, job similarity, cohesion, and organiza-
tional culture. External factors include life events,
socialization, and external leisure activities (such
as picnics and sports competitions) [32]. Contrary
to other friendships that take place between people
with similar backgrounds, friendship at the work-
place can happen between personnel with different
age, gender, position, and work levels [1]. Trust,
commitment, kindness, and the value of shared infor-
mation between the parties are necessary for creating
friendship at the workplace [19]. Friendship at the
workplace is mostly created based on team work
requirements in an organization. The greater the need
for team work, the higher the need for friendship
at the workplace [38]. Therefore, in military orga-
nizations that are based on team work, we should
expect a greater degree of friendship at the work-
place compared with other organizations. However,
Berman et al. [3] believe that a workplace culture that
emphasizes fear and personal benefit may be detri-
mental to creating friendly relationships. Even though
in such cultures friendships do occur, organizational
attempts at enhancing friendships do not exist. The
321
organizational plan of military forces, which is based
on precise respect for hierarchy may take away oppor-
tunities for friendship among the personnel.
Hierarchy is one of the obstacles to friendship at
the workplace. It is also one of the most important
aspects of bureaucracy and includes control of the
subordinates by superiors and can reduce friendship
at the workplace [32]. However, it can be claimed
that if a commander uses transformational leadership
style, he can reduce the harmful effects of hier-
archy and increase friendship among personnel by
improving the organizational climate. It has long been
assumed that military organizations should have seri-
ous bureaucratic and hierarchical structures where
formal relationships are dominant between the lead-
ers and other employees. However, due to changes
in attitudes and culture, employees now demand to
have interpersonal relationships within these orga-
nizations where friendship at the workplace has
helped to improve many of the problematic trends
that used to entangle military organizations over
the years.
According to Mises [35] the word ‘bureaucracy’
is invective and often has an opprobrious meaning.
Merton [33] points out that the horrid hybrid term
‘bureaucrat’ already has an absolutely negative mean-
ing. Reviewing the literature on bureaucracy, it can
be observed that most researchers have mentioned its
negative functions and consequences in the organiza-
tion and the society [58]. Veblen, Dewey, Warnotte,
and Merton have emphasized the fact that bureaucra-
cies are not so effective and have in fact dehumanizing
consequences for the people who work in these orga-
nizations [45]. Morgan [36] considers bureaucratic
organizations as myopic organizations trapped in the
status quo and accepting the current reality as an
inevitable reality.
There are pioneering business enterprises and soci-
etal organizations such as the AES corporation, the
ESBZ, Resources for Human Development, The
Morning Star Packing Company, Sun Hydraulics
Corporation, David Allen Company, and INET
Oxford (Institute for New Economic Thinking at
the Oxford Martin School) that reject the top-down
imposed authority and power sham, in favor of col-
legial decision making, opting instead for collegial
control and responsibility [13].
Some of the positive functions of friendship at the
workplace that can be created by leaders include:
increased employee commitment to the organization
[46], increased the work enjoyment and creativ-
ity of employees [66], boosted morale, reduced job
322 N.A. Kohan et al. / Friendship, transformational leadership
turnover and management of work-related stress [27],
increased intimacy [52], job involvement, job sat-
isfaction, and employee motivation [47], improved
communication [3], creation of an informal net-
work and improvements in team performance [26],
reduced stress [14], increased commitment and
group cooperation [21], facilitation of leader-member
exchange and positive reactions in followers [49], and
psychological safety [6].
Considering the positive consequences mentioned
regarding friendship at the workplace, it can be
argued that creating friendly relationships at work
by military leaders can alleviate the negative effects
of bureaucratic and hierarchical structures in military
organizations and create a more desirable and humane
organizational climate by reducing the power dis-
tance between leaders and followers while facilitating
the relationships between them.
2.1.1. Friendship at military organizations
The proposed notion of a flat army (a connected
and engaged organization) by Pontefract [42] and
recent changes in military forces indicate that mil-
itary organizations should put aside their harsh and
pessimistic views about the employees and create
an atmosphere based on friendship where comrades
remain in the organization for one another and fight
for one another during a war.
Comrades in armed forces have great feelings of
friendship toward one another. The affection among
soldiers enables them to withstand a formidable
enemy army. Soldiers in a war situation are willing
to accept many dangers for loyalty to their comrades
in a combat unit. Mutual affection between soldiers
and their sacrifice for one another is a necessity for
their survival. It is evident that such an approach is
beneficial not only to the soldiers but also to military
organizations. Therefore, one of the most important
and necessary bonds in the armed forces is friendship
or comradeship [62].
Friendship at the workplace may be particularly
important when people work together for long periods
of time in areas that provide little opportunities for
making friends outside the work setting (e.g. military
jobs that involve living far from home where there is
little chance to develop friendships outside the work
environment). Furthermore, in stressful jobs (such as
military jobs) having close friends can provide people
with the support and counselling they need in order
to adapt to their work [47]. Since military personnel
usually live away from their home towns, they need to
develop friendly relationships with their colleagues at
work or their neighbors at their organizational place
of residence.
According to military scholars [22, 56], friendship
creates an intense affective bond between comrades
that makes them fight for one another. Friendship
enriches and adds an ethical dimension to the rela-
tionship between fellow soldiers. History shows that
friendship bonds between homogenous groups of sol-
diers have played an important role in connecting
them in battle. Friendship is a key instrument in cre-
ating cohesion among soldiers. It can function as an
essential motivational instrument that helps in boost-
ing group cohesion [67]. The support provided by
fellow soldiers and sharing information as well as
unit cohesion on the battlefield are greatly needed in
a military force. Therefore, one of the most important
functions of friendship at the workplace in mili-
tary organizations is to increase defense commitment
among the personnel.
When colleagues turn into friends, a greater sense
of cohesion and social embeddedness is made possi-
ble. This suggests that organizations should focus on
measures that promote friendship among colleagues
who have work-related interactions [34]. Kirke [24]
has categorized various informal relationships in a
military unit that have been presented in Table 1.
Maintaining national security is one of the most
important functions that military organizations pro-
vide [10]. Therefore, it is a national security threat
to have dissatisfied and exhausted personnel with
lack of commitment. In this respect, one factor in
maintaining national security is to create a friendly
and positive relationship network in military orga-
nizations in order to enhance employee morale and
spirit.
It is important to comprehend the factors that
enable soldiers to fight to the very end. In many coun-
tries and during the world wars, various studies were
carried out suggesting that friendship, group cohe-
sion, morale, and fighting for comrades are among
the most important reasons why soldiers keep fight-
ing [55].
2.1.2. Studies on friendship at the workplace
in military forces
Kaplan and Rosenmann [22] have conducted a
research to study the affective bonds between com-
batant soldiers and three different groups of military
colleagues, best friends among civilian men, and
friends from the opposite sex. The results indicate that
affective bonds between combatant soldiers and their
military colleagues and best male civilian friends
 N.A. Kohan et al. / Friendship, transformational leadership 323

Table 1
Friendship in a military unit

Row Relationship Definition

1 Close friendship Long-term relationships created by great trust and respect between the personnel making it possible to easily
talk about personal matters, which helps improve the work environment in a military unit. This type of
friendship is rare and special and is not usual for people who have rigid lives.
2 Friendship It involves a strong relationship between colleagues. In this type of friendship, people enjoy being together.
They help each other when one of them faces a problem and in case of resource shortage they are ready to
share everything. However, in terms of depth and intensity, this type of friendship is not the same as close
friendship. This type of friendship usually does not happen between people with very different ranks, yet it
can happen within a small group of personnel with similar ranks.
3 Colleagues It is a type of bond created by trust and mutual respect between the soldiers who are so different in rank that
cannot develop “friendship” yet they are in constant contact. The intensity of such a relationship is far less
than “friendship”. However, it is still an important bond. As an example, such a relationship could be seen
between a platoon sergeant and his platoon commander or between a company commander and his
company sergeant major.
4 Informal access Includes the relationships where people with different ranks can speak informally without the need to make
appointments while they do not qualify as being “colleagues”.
5 Brief acquaintance In this type of relationship, people merely know each other but not necessarily by their names. They
acknowledge each other as being part of the same formal command structure. This relationship could
remain as such or it may develop into one of the other 4 types of relationship.

were greater than their bonds with friends from the
opposite sex.
Engl [9] investigated the friendship experience by
officers and soldiers in the US Continental Army
during the years 1775–1783. The results show that
officers and soldiers experienced different types of
friendship. Officers formed friendships based on mil-
itary status, decency, and politeness while soldiers
found their friends within informal and friendly social
gatherings. This was an indication of their different
values.
Klepper et al. [25] studied friendship networks
among the Royal Naval College students in the
Netherlands. They investigated friendship forma-
tion and military discipline among the students. The
results indicated that the students tended to adjust
their military discipline with the level of disci-
pline presented by their friends. They also showed
task-based dependence and had limited freedom in
choosing their friends.
Verweij [62] studied the role of friendship and
comradeship in armed forces while investigating the
difference between comradeship, brotherhood, and
friendship in a military context. These differences
were analyzed by taking help from the Achilles and
Patroclus story, war poetry, and the book by Aristotle
on friendship. The results indicated that in military
organizations, friendship is a prerequisite to forming
comradeship bonds.
Siebold [54] offers a standard model of group
cohesion in an army, which is based on the bonds
between military personnel and friendship among
them. This model involves a primary group cohe-
sion and a secondary group cohesion. He concludes
that group cohesion in the army is the result of a
primary group cohesion (colleague and leader bond)
and a secondary group cohesion (organizational and
institutional bond). The nature of the social bonds
between colleagues is based on trust and teamwork.
2.2. Transformational leadership and friendship
at the workplace
Transformational leaders are people who utilize
their charisma and vision to bring about changes
in their followers and create personal motiva-
tion in them. Transformational leadership involves
inspirational motivation, idealized influence, indi-
vidualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation
[12]. Inspirational motivation is the ability of leaders
to clearly depict a vision in a way that is appealing
to the followers. Idealized influence consists of the
behavior presented by a leader that enables the fol-
lowers to identify themselves with it. Individualized
consideration is the amount of attention that leaders
pay to their followers’ needs and the way leaders act
as mentors or coaches who listen to their concerns
[51]. Transformational leadership is highly related
324 N.A. Kohan et al. / Friendship, transformational leadership
to issues such as cohesion, organizational effective-
ness, personnel satisfaction with supervisors, and
the perceived group performance. Transformational
leadership theory has also been investigated in the
military context [12]. Transformational leadership
is an important resource in a military context that
guarantees high levels of performance, loyalty, and
commitment [51].
Using positive principles by transformational lead-
ers in military organizations can enhance personnel
morale [51]. Leaders’ positive characteristics create
positive conditions, which influence employee well-
being and promote positive organizational behaviors
[17]. An increase in positive emotions creates a
stronger feeling of connectedness with others and
helps people feel closer to important people in their
lives. Moreover, studies indicate that being positive
expands peoples’ trust in one another and improves
social interactions [39]. Optimism and emotional
intelligence are two important traits that leaders
should create in the workplace. Optimist leaders
tend to consider positive aspects of difficult situa-
tions and their high emotional intelligence enables
them to be flexible and to adapt to stress and change
while fostering strong work relationships that pro-
mote trust and fairness [59]. Nielsen et al. [38] define
friendship prevalence based on the degree of trust
among the personnel and believe that if the per-
sonnel trust one another, friendship will spread in
the workplace. Huang [19] believes that trust and
kindness are necessary to create friendship at the
workplace. When leaders have a positive mood, their
followers will have a positive mood as well [35].
Transformational leadership focuses on employees’
personal concerns, which can strength their posi-
tive feelings and emotions [51]. Transformational
leaders create positive relationships among their fol-
lowers. Evidence shows that experiencing positive
interpersonal relationships creates certain psycholog-
ical, mental, social, and emotional advantages for
people [5]. Recently, researches conducted on hap-
piness or subjective well-being, which is its scientific
construct, indicated that people who repeatedly expe-
rience positive affect tend to be more successful in
various aspects of life such as friendship [39]. Trans-
formational leaders focus on employees’ strengths,
which creates strong interpersonal ties [51].
High-quality relationships in the Leader-Member
Exchange create friendship at the workplace through
emotional and social bonds. Through open and honest
interactions between leaders and followers, friend-
ship is strengthened among employees [60].
In military organizations, the commanders’ behav-
ior can have a profound influence on the members’
behavior. If a military commander demonstrates pos-
itive behavior, has a good character, and treats his
followers well, this type of behavior will also spread
among the colleagues. On the contrary, if a com-
mander does not behave well, it is possible that
his followers will show aggressive and negative
behaviors toward one another. In a military unit,
the commander plays an important role in creat-
ing friendly relationships among the personnel. A
military commander can promote great friendships
by creating a secure and stress-free organizational
climate. Here, great friendship means creating an
extensive network of positive behaviors and attitudes
among members, in which many people develop good
interpersonal relationships and have positive attitudes
toward one another. This could create more potential
opportunities for the development of friendly rela-
tionships. On the contrary, if a military leader spreads
insecurity and anxiety in his unit and shows destruc-
tive behaviors, a hostile atmosphere may grow, in
which the personnel blame one another for work-
related problems and difficulties. Lack of trust in such
a unit will distance people from one another and will
remarkably reduce friendship at the workplace. In
these circumstances only a few people will become
friends and their friendship should be called a ‘small
friendship’.
Based on the above discussion and considering
that transformational leadership creates positive
behaviors and attitudes in the workplace, strengthens
employees’ morale, and increases cohesion in the
work environment, the first research hypothesis is
suggested as follows:
H1. Transformational leadership in a military unit
has a positive and significant relation with friendship
at the workplace.
2.3. Transformational leadership and
organizational climate
Organizational climate is defined as a set of mea-
surable characteristics of the work environment that
is directly or indirectly perceived by the people who
work and live in it and it is assumed that these char-
acteristics influence their motivations and behaviors
[30]. Organizational climate is the result of perceptual
consensus among members about the organization
[15]. Organizational climate is used as a man-
agerial technique that helps in comprehending the
 N.A. Kohan et al. / Friendship, transformational leadership
employees’ attitudes regarding their work envi-
ronment [31]. Organizational climate consists of
feelings, perceptions, and values shared by employ-
ees in the work environment and includes trust, sense
of belonging to the organization, confidence, and loy-
alty. More than three decades of research in the field
of organizational climate shows that the employees’
perception of the organizational climate is directly
formed by leadership style and management behavior
[31]. Hamidianpour et al. [16] showed that manage-
ment behavior and leadership style are among the
most important factors influencing organizational cli-
mate. Leaders and followers can work together to
create an attractive, ethical, and positive organiza-
tional climate [28].
Leaders significantly influence organizational
climate by expressing positive emotions. Thus, trans-
formational leaders contribute to the creation of a
positive work climate.
Emotional behavior and leadership style greatly
influence the improvement of organizational climate
[30]. Increased positive emotions create a greater
sense of connectedness with others and influence our
feelings about others. Employees that experience
positive emotions at work tend to have more respect
for one another and enjoy a better organizational
climate [35]. Considering the above discussion,
the second hypothesis of the study is suggested as
follows:
H2. Transformational leadership in a military unit
has a positive and significant relation with organiza-
tional climate.
2.4. Mediating role of positive organizational
climate
Studies show that organizational climate has the
most influence on employees’ morale and their occu-
pational well-being. The effect that organizational
climate has on occupational well-being is stronger
than job-related stress factors [7]. Organizational cli-
mate is a subset of organizational culture [35]. Mao
et al. [32] believe that organizational culture is one of
the factors that influence friendship at the workplace.
Positive organizational climate is particularly
shaped by the approach adopted by the leader [60].
A leader, who uses transformational leadership
style, promotes feelings of personal capabilities,
personal discretion, and responsibility [63], all of
which are associated with better organizational
climate. Positive organizational climate is one of the
325
four strategies proposed by Cameron [5] in order
to obtain positive performance from employees.
Garcı́a-Guiu et al. [12] show that utilizing transfor-
mational leadership in a military organization can
bring about changes in the followers. Some of these
changes include boosted morale, trust, and a more
cohesive work environment. If team members have
strong perceptions about the affective climate of an
organization, positive experiences regarding the high
quality relationships in leader-member exchange will
emotionally motivate them to develop friendship at
the workplace [66]. In a positive emotional climate,
leaders pay attention to employees’ emotional needs
and encourage sharing and developing positive
emotions in them [37]. In view of the above discus-
sion and considering that a positive organizational
climate leads to positive outcomes such as boosted
morale and occupational well-being, optimism,
good feelings, trust and a more cohesive work
environment, and since transformational leaders
can facilitate these outcomes, the third and fourth
research hypotheses are suggested as follows:
H3. Positive organizational climate plays a medi-
ating role in the relation between transformational
leadership and friendship at the workplace.
H4. Positive organizational climate has a positive
and significant relation with friendship at the work-
place in a military unit.
3. Method
This is an applied study in terms of its purpose and
is descriptive and survey in nature.
3.1. Sample
The statistical population in this study consists
of a major military unit in the Isfahan province of
Iran. In studies based on structural equation mod-
eling (SEM), the sample size is usually determined
through the (5q ≤ n ≤ 15q) formula, in which
(q) is the number of questions in the question-
naire and (n) is the sample size [44]. The research
questionnaire included 53 questions. Therefore, 530
questionnaires were distributed. After collection, 502
questionnaires were correctly completed and were
used for data analysis. Stratified random sampling
was used in 3 categories of commissioned officers,
non-commissioned officers, and artisan employees.
326 N.A. Kohan et al. / Friendship, transformational leadership

Table 2 Table 3
Sample distribution Validity and reliability analysis

Population Categories Sample Size (individuals) Variables Item Sources Factor Cronbach
Commissioned Officers 197 Loading Alpha
Non-commissioned Officers 253 Friendship at the FO1 Nielsen 0.73 0.80
Artisan Personnel 52 Workplace FO2 et al. (2000) 0.81 0.76
Total 502 FO3 0.69 0.78
FO4 0.73 0.74
FO5 0.87 0.74
The sampling distribution of this study is presented FO6 0.82 0.75
in Table 2. FP1 0.86 0.81
FP2 0.81 0.77
3.2. Instruments FP3 0.88 0.75
FP4 0.84 0.78
A three-part questionnaire was used in this study. FP5 0.87 0.80
Transformational leadership was measured using FP6 0.76 0.89
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) devel- Transformational TL1 Bass and 0.84 0.76
oped by Bass and Avolio [2]. The MLQ is a 29-item Leadership TL2 Avolio, 1997 0.80 0.81
instrument, which measures four individual trans- TL3 0.86 0.73
formational leadership behaviors, namely idealized TL4 0.90 0.82
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stim- TL5 0.92 0.87
ulation, and individualized consideration. Military TL6 0.83 0.86
organization climate was measured using the three TL7 0.82 0.79
constructs of unit cohesion, morale, and perceived TL8 0.90 0.81
organizational support (POS), based on the research TL9 0.84 0.87
by Wright et al. [65]. Unit cohesion was mea- TL10 0.70 0.76
sured using the three-item scale by Podsakoff and TL11 0.81 0.79
Mackenzie [41], while morale was measured based TL12 0.78 0.75
on the research by Wright et al. [65] using a sin- TL13 0.80 0.77
gle item. The respondents were asked to report their TL14 0.73 0.75
unit morale using the five-point Likert scale com- TL15 0.72 0.77
prising of five degrees from very low to very high. In TL16 0.76 0.72
research, it is more common to use multi-item mea- TL17 0.82 0.78
sures, however, it is acceptable to use a single-item TL18 0.81 0.76
measure to collect data on a specific factor [65]. Per- TL19 0.87 0.79
ceived organizational support was measured using TL20 0.85 0.80
the eight-item measure suggested by Dawley et al. TL21 0.81 0.74
[8]. Friendship at the workplace was measured using TL22 0.71 0.70
the Nielsen et al. [38] questionnaire. Questionnaires TL23 0.75 0.72
were completed using self-report method based on TL24 0.84 0.78
the five-point Likert scale. TL25 0.87 0.80
TL26 0.83 0.75
TL27 0.77 0.76
3.3. Validity and reliability of the questionnaires
TL28 0.86 0.81
TL29 0.82 0.71
The validity of the questionnaires was approved
Organizational UC1 Podsakoff and 0.73 0.77
by military and academic experts. Moreover, the con-
Climate UC2 Mackenzie (1994) 0.74 0.80
struct validity of the questionnaires was investigated
UC3 0.81 0.79
using confirmatory factor analysis by the statistical
M Wright 0.76 0.80
software AMOS 22. The results of the confirmatory
et al. (2012)
factor analysis indicate the acceptability of the ques-
tionnaires. Factor loadings are considered as validity (Continued)
 N.A. Kohan et al. / Friendship, transformational leadership 327

Table 3 4. Findings
(Continued)
Among the respondents, 102 people (20%) have
Variables Item Sources Factor Cronbach
high school diploma, 36 people (7%) are college grad-
Loading Alpha
uates, 309 people (61%) have bachelors’ degree, 54
POS1 Dawley 0.92 0.81 people (11%) have masters’ degree and 1 person (1%)
POS2 et al. (2010) 0.89 0.83 has a Ph.D. degree. In terms of their age, most of
POS3 0.77 0.79 the respondents (71.26%) belong to the age group of
POS4 0.82 0.83 29–36.
POS5 0.79 0.76 Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to examine
POS6 0.82 0.78 normality of the data. The results in Table 4 indicate
POS7 0.74 0.75 that considering the significance level of 0.05, these
POS8 0.73 0.76 data have normal distributions.
Considering the normal distribution of the data and
indicators for the 53 questions of the questionnaires. the possibility to use parametric tests, AMOS 22 soft-
All of the factor loadings were above 0.66 indicating ware was first used to test the fitness of measurement
the proper construct validity. models. In Table 5 fitness indices for these models
Questionnaire variables, Cronbach’s alpha, and are shown. Comparing the values of indices with the
factor loadings have been presented in Table 3. All the acceptable amount, it can be concluded that these
coefficients related to Cronbach’s alpha were greater indices have suitable values.
than 0.7 indicating the reliability of the question- After testing the total fitness of measurement mod-
naires. els, fitness indices for the structural model were also
tested. Table 6 shows the indices for fitness of the
3.4. Data analysis structural model.
As is shown in Table 6, the values of fitness indices
This study examines the effect of transformational indicate the suitable fitness of the structural model.
leadership on friendship at the workplace and inves- Based on the results of structural equations model
tigates the mediating role of organizational climate. (Fig. 1), research hypotheses were tested and pre-
Therefore, after testing the validity and reliability of sented below.
the questionnaire, measurement models and research Figure 1 shows standardized estimates of structural
hypotheses are tested. Structural equation modeling coefficients for the structural model. These estimates
(SEM) is used to test research hypotheses and to were obtained by structural equation modeling.
investigate the relation between dependent and inde- Critical ratio (CR) and P values were used to
pendent variables. The Sobel test is used to investigate test the significance of the hypotheses. When criti-
the mediating role of organizational climate. cal value is greater than 1.96, it can be claimed that
Table 4
Kolmogorov–Smirnoff test results

Variables Data Number Significance Level Test Result

Friendship at the Workplace 502 0.144 Distribution is normal
Transformational Leadership 0.180
Organizational Climate 0.162

Table 5
Total fit indices of measurement models

Indices’ Name CMIN/DF GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA

Variable
Friendship at the Workplace 2.10 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.041
Transformational Leadership 2.03 0.93 0.91 0.93 0.044
Organizational Climate 2.58 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.038
Acceptable Amount 1<X<3 X > 0.90 X > 0.90 X > 0.90 X < 0.1
328 N.A. Kohan et al. / Friendship, transformational leadership

Table 6 leadership creates a positive organizational climate,

Fit indices of the structural model
Indices’ Name CMIN/DF GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA
Variable
Structural Model 1.57 0.92 0.93 0.91 0.013
Acceptable Amount 1 < X < 3 X > 0.90X > 0.90X > 0.90 X < 0.1
Fig. 1. The results of the structural model analysis.
the related hypothesis is significant at 0.05 level of
significance [50]. Table 7 shows the regression coef-
ficients (␤), critical ratio values, and P values for each
research hypothesis.
5. Discussion and conclusion
A major limitation of this research is that the study
is not recursive, thereby ignoring the causal feedback
that always plays within reality. Another limitation
is the secretive atmosphere of military organizations
that not allowed to researchers for explanation all the
observations.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
effects of transformational leadership on friendship
at the workplace considering the mediating role of
organizational climate in a major military unit, in the
Isfahan province of Iran. The results of data analysis
show that transformational leadership has a positive
and significant relation with friendship at the work-
place. The results also indicate that transformational
which facilitates friendship at the workplace.
Leaders and followers can work together to create
a very attractive, positive, and ethical organizational
climate. One way to do this is to pay attention to
positive points in one another and develop these char-
acteristics [28].
Aristotle defined friendship as having good wishes
for others and believed that doing good and pos-
itive activities for others creates friendship [57].
Therefore, it can be argued that paying attention
to and developing positive points in one another
by leaders and followers is a form of good wish
that can strengthen leader-member friendship as well
as friendship among colleagues. The first research
hypothesis confirms this argument. These results
are consistent with research findings by Boyd and
Taylor [4].
Robbins [48] believes that changes in the supe-
riors’ behavior create changes in the attitude of
organization members. Changing peoples’ attitude
toward one another can change and improve their
behavior and thereby improve work environment cli-
mate, which is confirmed by the second hypothesis
of the present study. These results are consistent with
the findings of Maamari and Majdalani [30], Ozcelik
et al. [40] and Grojean et al. [15].
Transformational leadership can create desirable
and friendly interpersonal relationships among col-
leagues and between leaders and followers by
developing a desirable and trustworthy work atmo-
sphere. A positive work environment, in which
colleagues trust one another, helps in fostering close
and friendly relationships. This is confirmed by the
third research hypothesis. These results are consistent
with the findings of Tse et al. [60].
In an organizational climate, in which employ-
ees share positive behaviors and attitudes, they will
benefit from one another. Mutual benefit contributes
to the creation of affiliation bonds and friend-
ship wherein friendly relationships develop between

Table 7
Regression coefficients and results of the hypotheses test

Hypotheses Path ␤ C.R p-value Result

H1 Transformational Leadership → Friendship at the Workplace 0.71 10.48 *** Supported
H2 Transformational Leadership → Positive Organizational Climate 0.57 8.06 *** Supported
H3 Transformational Leadership → Positive Organizational climate 0.28 7.37 *** Supported
→ Friendship at the Workplace
H4 Positive Organizational Climate → Friendship at the Workplace 0.50 2.35 ** Supported
∗∗ 0.01 Significance Level, ∗∗∗ 0.001 Significance Level.
 N.A. Kohan et al. / Friendship, transformational leadership
leader-member and among colleagues. This is con-
firmed by the fourth research hypothesis.
Based on the findings of the present study, the
following recommendations are proposed:
• In order to improve organizational climate
and work environment, military organizations
should focus on training commanders with pos-
itive traits and characteristics.
• Since overcoming critical and harsh conditions,
such as war, requires a sense of belonging
and comradeship among the military personnel,
military organizations can succeed in such cir-
cumstances by appointing commanders with a
transformational leadership style.
• In military organizations, the commanders’
behaviors and attitudes greatly influence their
followers’ behavior. Therefore, commanders
can create a supportive, friendly, and warm
organizational climate using transformational
leadership style.
Given the importance of friendship at the work-
place and transformational leadership in military
organizations, it is suggested that future researchers
classify military units in terms of friendship at the
workplace and the transformational leadership and
measure the level of organizational commitment of
the staff of these organizations. As a good research, it
is recommended that researchers investigate the rela-
tion between friendship at the workplace and combat
readiness of military organizations.
The practical implication of this study is that
by changing their leadership style and creating
an intimate and friendly environment among the
employees, military organizations can increase their
defensive power and enhance their country’s security.
Researchers can also use the development of litera-
ture on transformational leadership and friendship at
the workplace for their researches.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Arash Shahin and Farhad Nekue
who have played a significant role in the development
of the work presented here.
References
[1] Bader HA, Hashim IH, Zaharim NM. Friendship at the
workplaces among Bank Employees in Eastern Libya.
Digest of Middle East Studies. 2013;22(1):94-116.
329
[2] Bass BM, Avolio BJ. Full range leadership development:
Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo
Alto: Mind Garden; 1997.
[3] Berman EM, West JP, Richter MN. Workplace relations:
Friendships patterns and consequences (according to man-
agers). Public Administrative Review. 2002;62:217-30.
[4] Boyd NG, Taylor RR. A developmental approach to the
examination of friendship in leader-follower relationships.
Leadership Quarterly. 1998;9(1):l-25.
[5] Cameron KS. Positive leadership: Strategies for extraor-
dinary performance. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler;
2008.
[6] Carmeli A, Brueller D, Dutton JE. Learning behaviours in
the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal rela-
tionships and psychological safety. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science. 2009;26(1):81-98.
[7] Cotton P, Hart PM. Occupational wellbeing and per-
formance: A review of organizational health research.
Australian Psychologist. 2003;38(2):118-27.
[8] Dawley D, Houghton JD, Bucklew NS. Perceived organiza-
tional support and turnover intention: The mediating effects
of personal sacrifice and job fit. The Journal of Social Psy-
chology. 2010;150(3):238-57.
[9] Engl RA. Forging bonds: Examining experiences of friend-
ship for officers and soldiers of the Continental Army,
1775-1783. Dissertation, Lehigh University; 2012.
[10] Farrell T, Terriff T. The sources of military change: Culture,
Politics, Technology. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers;
2002.
[11] Fry LW, Vitucci S, Cedillo M. Spiritual leadership and army
transformation: Theory, measurement, and establishing a
baseline. The Leadership Quarterly. 2005;16:835-62.
[12] C. Garcı́a-Guiu, Moya M, Molero F, Moriano JA. Trans-
formational leadership and group potency in small military
units: The mediating role of group identification and cohe-
sion. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2016.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.rpto.2016.06.002:1-8
[13] Georgantzas NC, Zarifopoulou V. Politeia in person: A civic
Eros cookbook for human beings’ economic prosperity.
Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing; 2017.
[14] Gibbons D, Oik P. Individual and structural origins of friend-
ship and social position among professionals. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;84(2):340-51.
[15] Grojean MW, Resick CJ, Dickson MW, Smith DB. Leaders,
values, and organizational climate: Examining leadership
strategies for establishing an organizational climate regard-
ing ethics. Journal of Business Ethics. 2004;55:223-41.
[16] Hamidianpour F, Esmaeilpour M, SaadatAlizadeh M, Dor-
goee A. The influence of emotional intelligence and
organizational climate on creativity and entrepreneurial of
small to medium-sized enterprises. European Online Jour-
nal of Natural and Social Sciences. 2015;4(1):20-30.
[17] Hannah S, Woolfolk R, Lord R. Leader self-structure: A
framework for positive leadership. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior. 2009;30:269-90.
[18] Hruschka DJ. Friendship: Development, ecology, and evo-
lution of relationship. California: University of California
Press; 2010.
[19] Huang S-P. A study on the effects of emotional intelli-
gence and friendship at the workplace on job satisfaction
330 N.A. Kohan et al. / Friendship, transformational leadership
and performance of employees in micro-enterprises. Journal
of Interdisciplinary Mathematics. 2016;19(3):567-83.
[20] Ivey GW, Kline TJB. Transformational and active transac-
tional leadership in the Canadian military. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal. 2010;31(3):246-62.
[21] Jehn K, Shah P. Interpersonal relationships and task per-
formance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
1997;72(4):775-90.
[22] Kaplan D, Rosenmann A. Toward an empirical model of
male homosocial relatedness: An investigation of friendship
in uniform and beyond. Psychology of Men and Masculin-
ities. 2014;15(1):22-8.
[23] King A. The Combat Soldier: Infantry Tactics and Cohe-
sion in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 2013.
[24] Kirke C. Military cohesion, culture and social psychology.
Defense & Security Analysis. 2010;26(2):143-59.
[25] Klepper MD, Sleebosb E, Bunt GV, Agneessens F. Simi-
larity in friendship networks: Selection or influence? The
effect of constraining contexts and non-visible individual
attributes. Social Networks. 2010;32:82-90.
[26] Krackhardt D, Stern RN. Informal networks and orga-
nizational crises: An experimental simulation. Social
Psychology Quarterly. 1988;51:123-40.
[27] Kram KE, Isabella LA. Mentoring alternatives: The role of
peer relationships in career development. The Academy of
Management Journal. 1985;28:110-32.
[28] Lewis S. Positive Psychology at Work: How Positive
Leadership and Appreciative Inquiry Create Inspiring Orga-
nizations. Atrium: John Wile & Sons; 2011.
[29] Lin C-T. Relationship between job position, job attributes,
and friendship at the workplace: Taiwan and China. Journal
of Technology Management in China. 2010;5(1):155-68.
[30] Maamari BE, Majdalani JF. Emotional intelligence, leader-
ship style & organizational climate. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis. 2017;25(2):1-25.
[31] Maamari B, Messarra LC. An empirical study of the rela-
tionship between organizational climate and organizational
citizenship behavior. European Journal of Management.
2012;12(3):165-74.
[32] Mao H-Y, Chen C-Y, Hsieh T-H. The relationship between
bureaucracy and friendship at the workplace. Social Behav-
ior and Personality. 2009;37(2):255-66.
[33] Merton RK. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL:
The Free Press; 1957.
[34] Methot JR, Lepine JA, Podsakoff NP, Christian JS. Are
workplace friendships a mixed blessing? Exploring trade-
offs of multiplex relationships and their associations with
job performance. Personnel Psychology. 2015;00:1-45.
[35] Mises LV. Bureaucracy. Bureaucracy. Yale: Yale University
Press; 1944.
[36] Morgan G. Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications; 1997.
[37] Morrison RL, Cooper-Thomas HD. Relationships in Orga-
nizations: A Work Psychology Perspective. London:
Palgrave Macmillan; 2013.
[38] Nielsen IK, Jex SM, Adams GA. Development and
Validation of Scores on a Two-Dimensional Friendship
at the workplace Scale. Educational and Psychological
Measurement. 2000;60(4):628-43.
[39] Oades LG, Steger MF, Fave AD, Passmore J. The Wiley
Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Positivity and
Strengths-Based Approaches at Work. West Sussex: John
Wiley & Sons; 2017.
[40] Ozcelik H, Langton N, Aldrich H. Doing well and doing
good. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2008;23(2):186-
203.
[41] Podsakoff PM, Mackenzie SB. Organizational citizen-
ship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. J Mark Res.
1994;31(3):351-63.
[42] Pontefract D. Flat Army: Creating a connected and engaged
organization. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass; 2013.
[43] Popper M. Leadership in military combat units and busi-
ness organizations: A comparative psychological analysis.
Journal of Managerial Psychology. 1996;11(1):15-23.
[44] Qasemi V, Structural equation modeling in social research
with AMOS Graphic. (In Persian). Tehran: Jameeshenasan
publication; 2013.
[45] Raadschelders JCN. Bureaucracy and Its “Objectives”? A
response to alexandru Roman. Administration & Society.
2014;46(7):853-60.
[46] Rawlins WK. Friendship matters: Communication, dialects,
and the life course. New York: Aldine and Gruyter; 1992.
[47] Riordan CM, Griffeth RW. The opportunity for friendship
in the workplace: An underexplored construct. Journal of
Business and Psychology. 1995;10(2):141-54.
[48] Robbins SP. Organizational behavior: Concepts, Controver-
sies and applications. Translated into Persian by Parsayan
A. and Aarabi SM, Cultural Research Bureau, Tehran; 1998.
[49] Rousseau V, Aub e C, Chiocchio F, J-S Boundrias,
Morin EM. Social interactions at work and psychologi-
cal health: The role of leader-member exchange and work
group integration. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
2008;38:1755-77.
[50] Salehzadeh R, Asadi A, Khazaei Pool J, Ansari MR, Haroni
A. The influence of perceived organizational support on
dimensions of learning organization: An empirical study of
SMEs in Iran. The Learning Organization. 2014;21(3):206-
19.
[51] Sechudi O, Olivier B. The influence of transformational
leadership on organisational citizenship behaviour in a
South African combat military unit. Journal of Psychology
in Africa. 2016;26(4):363-7.
[52] Sias PM, Cahill DJ. From coworkers to friends:
The development of peer friendships in the work-
place. Western Journal of Communication. 1998;62(3):
273-99.
[53] Sias PM, Gallagher EB, Kopaneva I, Pedersen H. Main-
taining workplace friendships: Perceived politeness and
predictors of maintenance tactic choice. Communication
Research. 2012;39(2):239-68.
[54] Siebold GL. The essence of military group cohesion. Armed
Forces & Society. 2007;33(2):286-95.
[55] Smith P. Meaning and military power: Moving on from
Foucault. Journal of Power. 2008;1(3):275-93.
[56] Sparrowe RT, Liden RC. Two routes to influence: Inte-
grating leader–member exchange and network perspectives.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 2005;50:505-35.
[57] Stern-Gillet S, Gurtler GM. Ancient and Medieval Concepts
of Friendship. New York: Suny press; 2014.
 N.A. Kohan et al. / Friendship, transformational leadership
[58] Styhre A. The Innovative Bureaucracy, Bureaucracy in an
age of fluidity. New York: Routledge; 2007.
[59] Tombaugh J. Positive leadership yields performance and
profitability. Development and Learning in Organizations.
2005;19(3):15-7.
[60] Tse HHM, Dasborough MT, Ashkanasy NM. A multi-level
analysis of team climate and interpersonal exchange rela-
tionships at work. The Leadership Quarterly. 2008;19:195-
211.
[61] Ulmer WF Jr. Military Leadership into the 21st Century:
Another “Bridge Too Far?” Parameters 1998:135-55.
[62] Verweij D, Comrades or friends? On friendship in the armed
forces. Journal of Military Ethics. 2007;6(4):280-91.
[63] Wang P, Rode JC. Transformational leadership and fol-
lower creativity: The moderating effects of identification
with leader and organizational climate. Human Relations.
2010;63(8):1105-28.
331
[64] Wong L, Combat motivation in today’s soldiers. Armed
Forces & Society. 2006;32(4):659-63.
[65] Wright PJ, Kim PY, Wilk JE, Thomas JL. The effects
of mental health symptoms and organizational climate on
intent to leave the military among combat veterans. Military
Medicine. 2012;177(7):773-9.
[66] Yager J. Friendships: The power of friendship and how it
shapes our lives. Stamford, CT: Hannacroix Creek Books;
1997.
[67] Zimbardo PG, Ferreras AC, Brunskill SR. Social intensity
syndrome: The development and validation of the social
intensity syndrome scale. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences. 2015;73:17-23.