Jurnal 1

920366
research-article2020
JABXXX10.1177/0021886320920366The Journal of Applied Behavioral SciencePeng et al.
Article
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
Transformational Leadership
1–29
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
and Employees’ Reactions sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0021886320920366
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320920366
to Organizational Change: journals.sagepub.com/home/jabs
Evidence From a Meta-

Analysis
Jian Peng1 , Mingze Li2 , Zhen Wang3,

and Yuying Lin4
Abstract
Numerous studies have empirically tested the linkage between transformational
leadership and employees’ reactions to organizational change. However, no systematic
attempt has been made to organize and summarize those findings. Based on a
sample of 30 empirical studies that included 39 independent effect sizes and 12,240
participants, this meta-analysis found that transformational leadership exhibited (a) a
positive relationship with commitment to change, openness to change, and readiness
for change; (b) a negative correlation with resistance to change and cynicism about
change; and (c) a nonsignificant correlation with support for change. Moderation
analyses showed that in cross-sectional (vs. longitudinal) designs, transformational
leadership exhibited a stronger correlation with openness to change and cynicism
about change. Using Bass and Avolio’s scale (vs. Podsakoff et al.’s), transformational
leadership exhibited a stronger correlation with resistance to change. In the Eastern
(vs. Western) cultural context, transformational leadership exhibited a stronger
correlation with commitment to change and resistance to change. In low-level (vs.
high-level) journals, transformational leadership exhibited a stronger correlation
with commitment to change, openness to change, and support for change. This
study highlights the value of incorporating transformational leadership theory into
1
School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
2
School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China
3
Business School, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China
4
School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Corresponding Author:
Mingze Li, School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China
Emails: mingze@whut.edu.cn; pengjiannut@163.com
2 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 00(0)
the literature on change reactions to obtain a better understanding of how leaders

facilitate or hinder organizational change.
Keywords
transformational leadership, reactions to organizational change, change management,
leadership
Introduction
To adapt to the increasingly changeable and competitive market environment, organi-
zations must embrace change (adjusting interior factors to adapt to the exterior envi-
ronment), which can help them regain sustainable competitiveness (Alhaddad &
Kotnour, 2015). However, succeeding in organizational change is not easy thing as
approximately 70% of organizations fail to effectively achieve such change (Beer &
Nohria, 2000). In spite of certain strategic, operational, and market forces, scholars
more frequently acknowledge that employees’ reactions to change play a key role in
determining the possibility of whether a change will succeed or fail (e.g., Bouckenooghe,
2010; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Specifically, employees’ reactions to change
determine their actions in the process of organizational change (Bouckenooghe, 2010)
such as cooperating with (vs. resisting) the implementation of organizational change;
such actions directly facilitate (or hinder) the progress of organizational change. As
such, an investigation on the predictors of reactions to change could help organizations
improve their approaches to change and thereby facilitate its implementation (Alhaddad
& Kotnour, 2015; Greenwood & Hinings, 1996).
In the organizational change literature, a direct leader’s transformational leadership
has been identified by many scholars as a crucial predictor of employees’ reactions to
change (e.g., Bommer et al., 2005; Chou, 2013). Transformational leadership refers to
a leadership style that aims at transforming employees’ self-interest into self-realiza-
tion, leading employees to show more concern for organizational success (Bass, 1985).
By fostering an inspiring vision (or goals) for employees, stimulating employees to
think in new ways, and showing consideration for employees’ individual needs, trans-
formational leadership can effectively elicit employees’ positive attitudes and reduce
their negative attitudes toward organizational change (e.g., Eisenbach et al., 1999;
Zhao et al., 2016). Despite the convincing theoretical arguments on the beneficial
effects of transformational leadership on employees’ reactions, the empirical results
are mixed, that is, they vary in the strength of their identified correlations. For instance,
some research has found a significant correlation between transformational leadership
and employees’ reactions to change (van der Voet et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2016); how-
ever, others have found no correlation (Santhidran et al., 2013; Seo et al., 2012).
To address these mixed findings, we intend to perform a more reliable and compre-
hensive evaluation of the relationship between transformational leadership and
employees’ reactions to change using a meta-analysis approach. By doing so, we
Peng et al. 3
expect this study to contribute to the literature in three main respects. First, this meta-
analytic study can reveal the value (positivity/negativity) and strength of the relation-
ship between transformational leadership and employees’ reactions to change from a
more comprehensive, balanced, and holistic perspective. Second, we aim to identify
the moderating factors in the relationship between transformational leadership and
employees’ reactions to change. Specifically, we propose that measures of transforma-
tional leadership, data attributes (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal data), cultural con-
texts (Western cultures vs. Eastern cultures), and journal level serve as moderators. By
addressing these moderators, we can provide explanations for the mixed findings from
a contingency perspective. Finally, to the best of our knowledge, this study is among
the first to comprehensively explore the linkage between transformational leadership
and employees’ reactions to change using a meta-analysis methodology. This endeavor
may, to some extent, fill the research gap because the effect of transformational leader-
ship on reactions to change lacks robust evidence from meta-analyses.
Theory and Hypothesis

Reactions to Organizational Change
If an organization wants to survive, develop, and remain dominant in the market, it
must adjust various elements according to internal and external demands; that is, it
must enact organizational change. Generally, organizational change includes changes
in a company’s management system, organizational structure, corporate culture, prod-
ucts, competition strategy, and organizational goals. Given that an organization is usu-
ally a nested structure consisting of individual and organizational levels, the research
on organizational change has been divided into two perspectives: (a) a macro perspec-
tive focusing on the macro factors and outcomes of organizational change and (b) a
micro perspective focusing on the micro-foundations of organizational change includ-
ing employees’ reactions to such change. In the past two decades, the macro perspec-
tive has dominated the organizational change literature; however, the micro perspective,
that is, the focus on employees’ reactions to organizational change, has recently
attracted increasing attention (Straatmann et al., 2016). Employees’ reactions to orga-
nizational change include employees’ overall positive or negative evaluative judg-
ments of a change initiative implemented by their organization (Lines, 2005), which
are composed of a set of subconstructs such as commitment to change, openness to
change, readiness for change, support for change, resistance to change, and cynicism
about change (Oreg et al., 2011). The former four constructs reflect employees’ posi-
tive reactions toward organizational change, while the latter two reflect negative
reactions.
Transformational Leadership and Reactions to Organizational Change

Transformational leadership, one of the most traditional leadership theories, induces
employees to value alignment with the organization and inspires employees to achieve
at a high level (Bass, 1985). Bass and Avolio (1995) identified four components of
transformational leadership: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration. Podsakoff et al. (1990) identified six
components of transformational leadership: articulating a vision, fostering the accep-
tance of group goals, setting high-performance expectations, providing an appropriate
model, intellectual stimulation, and individualized support. Through such behaviors,
transformational leaders can exert effect on employees’ attitudinal and behavioral
reactions across various contexts such as enhancing employees’ productivity, proactiv-
ity, and creativity (e.g., Eisenbeiß & Boerner, 2010; Ma & Jiang, 2018).
Due to the powerful function of transformational leadership, numerous scholars
have introduced transformational leadership theory into the organizational change lit-
erature (e.g., Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014; Conway & Monks, 2008). These studies
have examined the effects of transformational leadership on employees’ reactions to
change, which include commitment, openness, readiness, support, resistance, and cyn-
icism. However, the results presented in the prior studies are inconsistent, which sig-
nals a need to clarify the true relationship between transformational leadership and
reactions to change. The meta-analysis approach synthesizes and analyzes the results
of multiple empirical studies and thus provides an opportunity for such clarification
(Borenstein et al., 2005). Thus, we aim to use a meta-analysis approach to explore the
strength of the relationship between transformational leadership and reactions to
change. Before we present the procedure and results of the meta-analysis, we elaborate
on the theoretical link between transformational leadership and various employee
reactions to organizational change.
Transformational Leadership and Commitment to Change. Commitment to change refers

to a psychological “force that binds an individual to a course of action deemed neces-
sary for the successful implementation of a change initiative” (Herscovitch & Meyer,
2002, p. 475). Transformational leadership can shape employees’ commitment to
change in two main ways: the social learning effect and the social exchange effect.
First, according to social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), leaders usually serve as
role models in organizational settings, and employees learn how to behave by observ-
ing and imitating leaders’ behavior. Transformational leaders emphasize the question-
ing and challenging of existing procedures (Podsakoff et al., 1990), which implies that
such leaders serve as change-oriented role models. By observing and learning change-
oriented values and behaviors from transformational leaders, employees become more
willing to accept change initiatives and establish a psychological connection with
organizational change (Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014).
Second, according to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), when an individual
receives favors from others, he or she feels obligated to return favors. Transformational
leaders care for employees’ personal needs (Bass & Avolio, 1995), which can motivate
employees to return the favor for leaders. Given that transformational leaders stress
the goals and interests of the whole organization, employees repay leaders through
their commitment to change.
Peng et al. 5
Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership is positively related to employees’

commitment to change.
Transformational Leadership and Openness to Change. According to Miller et al. (1994),

openness to change reflects an individual’s open attitude toward organizational change
and includes two components: (a) positive outlook regarding the potential conse-
quences of the change and (b) willingness to accept the change. To date, Miller et al.’s
(1994) view on openness to change (i.e., psychological state perspective) is widely
accepted and cited (e.g., Augustsson et al., 2017; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). In addition
to the above definition, McCartt and Rohrbaugh (1995) conceived openness to change
as “an underlying trait of flexibility,” representing the capacity to be cognitively and
behaviorally flexible in dealing with new situations (i.e., trait perspective). However,
when discussing the effect of transformational leadership on employees’ reactions to
organizational change, the prior studies have mainly adopted Miller et al.’s (1994)
view and conceptualized openness to change in terms of a psychological state rather
than trait (e.g., Groves, 2016).
Transformational leadership plays an important role in improving employees’
openness to change. According to social information processing theory (Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978), leadership behavior conveys various types of information that can
shape employees’ perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Transformational leaders con-
vey positive information about organizational change to employees, which enables
employees to interpret organizational change with a positive outlook. More specifi-
cally, transformational leaders are good at presenting an inspiring vision for employ-
ees (Podsakoff et al., 1990) during the process of organizational change. By interpreting
the vision described by transformational leaders, employees can develop the belief
that organizational change is beneficial for the long-term interest of the organization
and ultimately its members (i.e., employees themselves). Therefore, employees gener-
ate a positive outlook about the potential consequences of the change (Groves, 2016).
In addition, transformational leadership can address employees’ high-level needs and
enable them to connect their personal goals with organizational goals (Pawar &
Eastman, 1997). In this case, employees regard the goals of organizational change as
their own goals and are willing to sacrifice short-term personal interests. Thus, trans-
formational leadership can lead employees to be more willing to accept organizational
change.

openness to change.
Transformational Leadership and Readiness for Change. Employees’ readiness for

change has been defined in various ways. The most cited definition (e.g., Eby et al.,
2000; Jones et al., 2005; Madsen et al., 2005) is the one provided by Armenakis
et al. (1993). They took a message-based approach to define readiness for change
as an individual’s “beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which
changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those
changes” (Armenakis et al., 1993, p. 681). In addition to the prevailing definition,

some scholars have proposed alternative definitions. For example, Holt et al. (2007)
utilized an attitude-based approach to conceptualize readiness for change as “the
extent to which an individual or individuals are cognitively and emotionally
inclined to accept, embrace, and adopt a particular plan to purposefully alter the
status quo” (p. 235). Weiner et al. (2008) drew on a capacity-based approach to
define readiness for change as an individual’s “motivation and capability to imple-
ment intentional organizational change” (p. 424). Moreover, adopting a stage-based
approach, Cunningham et al. (2002) conceived readiness for change as a psycho-
logical process beginning at the precontemplative and the contemplative stages.
Recently, Stevens (2013) considered readiness for change as a process, that is, “a
continuous function of an individual’s cognitive and affective evaluations of a set
of conditions and the way in which those evaluations are then tied to change-rele-
vant responses that are positive and proactive in nature” (p. 345). Based on the
aforementioned various definitions, we conclusively argue that readiness for change
depicts the extent to which employees are psychologically and behaviorally pre-
pared to implement organizational change.
As Armenakis and Harris (2002) posited, employees’ readiness for change is deter-
mined by the effectiveness of the change message, which should address the following
questions: (a) Why change? (b) Can we change? (c) Who supports the change? (d)
What is in it for employees? By demonstrating transformational leadership behavior,
leaders can convey effective change messages to employees and subsequently pro-
mote employees’ readiness for change.
First, transformational leaders provide employees with messages about the
necessity of organizational change by clearly demonstrating the vision of the orga-
nization (Bass, 1985). As a result, employees are likely to understand why the
organization intends to enact change initiatives (i.e., to realize why change is nec-
essary). Second, transformational leaders are good at expressing confidence about
the future of the organization (Bass & Avolio, 1995), facilitating employees’ belief
that the organization has the ability to implement such change (i.e., to realize that
change is possible). Third, transformational leaders serve as charismatic role mod-
els (Podsakoff et al., 1990) who sacrifice their own well-being in service of the
collective interest. This behavior leads employees to realize that leaders act as
supporters of organizational change (i.e., to understand who supports such change).
Finally, under transformational leadership, employees receive individualized
attention and support for their personal growth (Podsakoff et al., 1990). This
aspect strengthens employees’ belief that transformational leaders will ensure ben-
efits for employees when the organizational change is implemented (i.e., the
employees understand what they can gain from the change). Transformational
leaders promote employees’ readiness for change by conveying effective change
messages, that is, messages signaling that the organization must change, that it can
change successfully, that there is support for the change and that the change is
beneficial for employees in the long term.
Peng et al. 7

readiness for change.
Transformational Leadership and Support for Change. The success of organizational

change requires not only employees’ cognitive and emotional reactions, such as com-
mitment to change, openness to change, and readiness for change but also their sup-
portive actions. Support for change refers to “the degree to which employees engage
in behaviors that demonstrate support for a change” (Seo et al., 2012). According to
social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), whether employees support of organizational
change is determined by behavioral references, especially leaders’ behavioral responses
to change.
First, transformational leaders tend to challenge existing rules, systems, and meth-
ods and encourage employees to propose new ideas (Podsakoff et al., 1990). This
means that transformational leaders usually exhibit change-related behaviors. By
observing these behaviors, employees are likely to learn the norm of supporting orga-
nizational change and to replicate the corresponding behaviors in the context of orga-
nizational change. In other words, employees support organizational change because
their transformational leaders do.
Second, most employees do not support organizational change because they are
worried that the change will threaten their interests (Oreg et al., 2011). Transformational
leaders lead by example and sacrifice their own interests for the sake of the collective
interests (Bass, 1985). By observing and learning the self-sacrificing spirit of transfor-
mational leadership, employees will also prioritize the collective interests rather than
their personal interests. That is, employees will participate in and support organiza-
tional change for the collective interests of the organization.
Hypothesis 4: Transformational leadership is positively related to employees’ sup-

port for change.
Transformational Leadership and Resistance to Organizational Change. Resistance to

change, a type of negative reaction toward organizational change, has three compo-
nents: cognitive resistance, emotional resistance, and behavioral resistance (Piderit,
2000). Cognitive resistance refers to individuals’ belief that organizational change is
unnecessary or has adverse effects, emotional resistance refers to individuals’ negative
emotional reactions to organizational change such as anger and anxiety and behavioral
resistance refers to a series of behaviors designed to hinder the process of organiza-
tional change (Piderit, 2000).
Through idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consider-
ation, and intellectual stimulation, transformational leaders make employees view
organizational change as an opportunity rather than a threat (Conger & Kanungo,
1998). Thus, we expect that transformational leaders motivate employees to process
information about organizational change in a positive way and subsequently help
employees generate positive cognitive and emotional reactions to organizational
change and reduce cognitive and emotional resistance. However, if leaders engage in
fewer transformational leadership behaviors, they will convey less idealism, inspira-
tional motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation to employ-
ees (Bass & Avolio, 1995). As a result, employees will care less about the interests of
leaders and organizations. This means that when an organization plans to enact a
change initiative, employees are likely to experience negative emotions (anxiety, fear,
and anger) regarding the change, to generate beliefs about resistance to change, and
even to exhibit resistant behavior designed to hinder the implementation of organiza-
tional change.
Hypothesis 5: Transformational leadership is negatively related to employees’

resistance to change.
Transformational Leadership and Cynicism About Change. Cynicism about change refers
to “a pessimistic outlook for successful change and blame placed on ‘those responsi-
ble’ for lacking the motivation and/or the ability to effect successful change” (Wanous
et al., 2000, p. 135). Based on this definition, how employees understand the results of
organizational change and the motivation/ability of change agents is the key determi-
nant of cynicism about change. First, transformational leadership helps employees
understand that organizational change will lead to desirable outcomes by providing
employees with a desirable vision (Rubin & Dierdorff, 2009). Consequently, employ-
ees will not be pessimistic about organizational change. Furthermore, leaders usually
serve as agents of organizational change, and their motivation and ability will have a
significant impact on employees’ cynicism about change. For example, the previous
studies have found that employees are less likely to develop cynicism about change
when they receive care and support from their leaders (Cole et al., 2006; Wanous et al.,
2000). Judge and Piccolo (2004) found that transformational leadership increased sat-
isfaction with leaders and perceived leadership effectiveness. Based on these findings,
we can conclude that employees generally choose to believe in the motivation and
ability of transformational leaders. Hence, we expect employees under transforma-
tional leadership to be less pessimistic toward change.
Hypothesis 6: Transformational leadership is negatively related to employees’

cynicism about change.
Moderators of the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership

and Reactions to Organizational Change
The Moderating Role of Research Design. The research regarding the effect of trans-
formational leadership on employees’ reactions to organizational change usually
uses two types of research designs: cross-sectional or longitudinal. Most studies use
a cross-sectional designs, inviting employees to report both their perceived transfor-
mational leadership and their reactions to organizational change at the same time
(e.g., Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014; Oreg & Berson, 2011; van der Voet, 2016).
Peng et al. 9
This type of data collection raises concerns about common method variance and col-
linearity, which may cause the overestimation of the correlations between transfor-
mational leadership and reactions to organizational change (i.e., halo effect).
Excitingly, a few studies have adopted longitudinal designs, separately collecting
measures of transformational leadership and reactions to organizational change
(e.g., Hechanova & Cementina-Olpoc, 2013; Hill et al., 2012). Based on multiwave
data, such studies could reduce the common method variance and collinearity
between transformational leadership and reactions to organizational change. In other
words, while common method variance may exist in both cross-sectional and longi-
tudinal designs, it is more prevalent in the former than in the latter. Cross-sectional
designs will lead to higher correlations due to the higher common method variance.
Therefore, common variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003) in the research design can
account for the strength of the relationship between transformational leadership and
The findings based on cross-sectional designs reflect a snapshot of the effect of
transformational leadership on employees’ reactions to organizational change; how-
ever, those based on longitudinal designs reflect whether transformational leadership
can exert long-term effects on employees’ reactions to organizational change. We
expect that the long-term effect of transformational leadership is weaker than the
immediate effect because the longer the time interval between the two waves, the more
unpredictable/uncontrollable factors there will be that can interfere with (hinder) the
function of transformational leadership in shaping employees’ reactions to organiza-
tional change.
Hypothesis 7: The research design moderates the relationship between transforma-

tional leadership and employees’ reactions to organizational change (i.e., commit-
ment to change, openness to change, readiness for change, support for change,
resistance to change, and cynicism about change) such that the relationship is stron-
ger in cross-sectional designs than in longitudinal designs.
Transformational Leadership Measures. There are two dominant scales of transforma-

tional leadership that have frequently been used in the prior studies: Bass and Avolio’s
(1995) four-dimension scale and Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) six-dimension scale. Con-
sidering that the two different scales have different content and capture different
aspects of transformational leadership, we expect that the strength of the correlation
between transformational leadership and employees’ reactions to organizational
change varies according to the measures of transformational leadership.
Bass and Avolio’s (1995) scale (Multifactors Leadership Questionnaire; MLQ) is a
classic and convincing measure of transformational leadership. The scale aligns with the
definition of transformational leadership proposed by Bass (1985) and depicts four types
of leadership behaviors: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimu-
lation, and individualized consideration. Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) scale is another classic
measure that captures a broad factor structure of transformational leadership and includes
six types of leadership behaviors: articulating a vision, fostering the acceptance of group
goals, setting high performance expectations, providing and appropriate model, intel-
lectual stimulation, and individualized support. In contrast to Podsakoff et al.’s (1990)
scale, Bass and Avolio’s (1995) MLQ has been tested and revised over decades and has
become more accurately fine-tuned for measuring transformational leadership. For
example, Lowe et al. (1996) conducted a meta-analysis of studies using the MLQ scale,
and the results showed that the transformational leadership measured by the MLQ pre-
sented a relatively high internal consistency reliability in 39 statistical studies and sig-
nificantly predicted leadership effectiveness. Six years later, Dumdum et al. (2002) drew
on the relevant papers published from 1995 to 2002 to update Lowe et al.’s (1996) study
and again supported the superiority of the MLQ in retaining the predictive validity of
transformational leadership. Leithwood and Sun’s (2012) meta-analysis also provided
support for the superiority of the MLQ by showing that compared with other measures,
the MLQ yields a stronger correlation between transformational leadership and employ-
ees’ commitment to change. In conclusion, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 8: The measures used moderate the relationship between transforma-

tional leadership and employees’ reactions to organizational change (i.e., commit-
ment to change, openness to change, readiness for change, support for change,
resistance to change, and cynicism about change) such that the relationship is stron-
ger when transformational leadership is measured by the MLQ than when it is
measured by other scales.
The Moderating Role of Cultural Variables. Cultural factors are important contingencies
that can determine the strength of the effectiveness of transformational leadership.
Many studies on transformational leadership and reactions to organizational change
have been conducted in eastern countries with a collectivist culture (e.g., Asia) and in
Western countries with an individualist culture (e.g., Europe and North America).
In Eastern countries, collectivism dominates people’s value orientations (Hofstede,
1980); that is, people aim to maintain harmonious relationships, to avoid or reduce
interpersonal conflicts (Chen & Miller, 2011), and to sacrifice personal interests when
necessary. In the context of such cultures, employees are more willing to obey the
commands of transformational leadership and to accept the influence of transforma-
tional leadership to maintain interpersonal harmony and avoid relational conflict.
Thus, transformational leadership in Eastern countries is more effective in inspiring
employees to accept organizational change and to be less resistant to change. In
Western countries, individualism dominates people’s value orientations (Hofstede,
1980). This implies that employees in the Western context pay more attention to their
own needs and interests, which is contrary to the collective interest orientation advo-
cated by transformational leaders. This discrepancy may weaken the effectiveness of
transformational leadership in leading organizational change. As posited by Kim et al.
(2007), employees in eastern countries (e.g., China, Japan, and South Korea) are more
willing to display cooperative behaviors than those in western countries. Following
this logic, we expect that employees in Eastern countries are more likely to cooperate
Peng et al. 11
with transformational leadership and to express more positive reactions and fewer
negative reactions toward organizational change than those in Western countries.
Hypothesis 9: Cultural variables moderate the relationship between transformational

leadership and employees’ reactions to organizational change (i.e., commitment to
change, openness to change, readiness for change, support for change, resistance to
change, and cynicism about change) such that the relationship is stronger in eastern
countries with collectivist cultures than in western countries with individualist
cultures.
The Moderating Role of Journal Level. According to the impact factor rank identified
in 2019 journal citation reports (Thomson Reuters), academic journals are classified
into four levels: Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4. From Q1 to Q4, the journals’ impact factor
decreases. As the impact factor, which reflects the relative compellingness of a jour-
nal’s impact, is increasingly regarded as an important indicator of journal quality,
journals classified in Q1 and Q2 are assumed to be high-quality journals. As is well
known, high-quality journals usually set a high bar for publications such as requiring
that rigorous methodology be employed in studies submitted for publication. As
such, studies published in high-quality journals tend to have more rigorous research
design (e.g., multiwave and multisource data), which could reduce the possibility of
the results being biased (i.e., overestimated) by common method variance. Com-
pared with publications in high-quality journals, those in low-quality journals (e.g.,
Q4 and non-SSCI [Social Sciences Citation Index] journals) tend to have a less rig-
orous research design and more common method variance due to cross-sectional
data. Following this logic, we expect that the findings regarding the correlations
between transformational leadership and employees’ reactions to organizational
change published in high-quality journals are lower than those published in low-
quality journals.
Hypothesis 10: Journal level moderates the relationship between transformational

leadership and employees’ reactions to organizational change (i.e., commitment to
change, openness to change, readiness for change, support for change, resistance to
change, and cynicism about change) such that the relationship is weaker with high
quality journals than with low-quality journals.
Method
Guidelines, such as the meta-analysis reporting standards (American Psychological
Association, 2008) and reviews, such as Kepes et al. (2013), have provided detailed
recommendations on the methodological issues that should be reported to ensure that
meta-analyses are transparent and replicable. This meta-analysis has drawn on these
recommendations to guide the information and level of detail provided in the method
section.
Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria

Two of the authors identified relevant published and unpublished studies (e.g., confer-
ence papers and dissertations) through systematic searches (Rothstein, 2012) using the
databases APA PsycNET, Google Scholar, Business Source Premier, Web of Science,
and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The keywords that were used in these searches
were combinations of terms denoting targeted leadership (transformational leadership,
transformational leader, and transformational leadership behavior) and terms denoting
reactions to organizational change (commitment to change, openness to change, readi-
ness for change, support for change, resistance to change, and cynicism about change).
Furthermore, we examined the reference lists of the identified articles and prior
reviews (e.g., Bouckenooghe, 2010; Straatmann et al., 2016; Thundiyil et al., 2015) to
complement the results from the keyword-based searches. The abstracts of all articles
identified using this search strategy were examined by another two of the authors to
determine if the article might provide data based on the inclusion and exclusion crite-
ria. This process resulted in the identification of 37 articles.
Following Kurtessis et al. (2017), the studies were identified for inclusion by
examining their method, correlation table, and full text of each study. Studies were
included that (a) took an empirical approach, (b) recruited working adults as partici-
pants, (c) provided correlations between transformational leadership and employees’
reactions to change, (d) reported sufficient information to compute an effect size,
and (e) published in academic journals. Three studies’ full text were inaccessible,
and three studies were excluded because no correlation was reported, and an addi-
tional three studies (e.g., dissertations) were excluded because they were nonpeer
reviewed, which is potentially problematic. Finally, 28 papers containing 30 empiri-
cal studies that met the requirements of meta-analysis were selected, resulting in 39
independent correlations, with an overall sample of 12,240 participants (see the
appendix for information about each study).
Coding Procedures
All coders had a background in organizational psychology and were provided with train-
ing, written coding instructions, and examples of accurate coding. Each article was inde-
pendently coded by two members of the research team, and the coding was compared in
cases of disagreement. Interrater agreement was 91% across the variables, indicating
substantial agreement. Disagreements about the inclusion of a study or specific coding
were discussed until a consensus was achieved. For each study, we coded the sample
size, the correlation between transformational leadership and reactions to organizational
change, the reliability coefficient (alpha) of each measure and the specific measures used
to assess transformational leadership. In addition, the coders captured the country in
which the study was conducted. In this study, the effect size was generated based on the
units of independent samples. If the same study contained multiple independent samples,
the coding information of all independent samples was extracted. If the same data
appeared in different studies, only one group was selected for coding.
Peng et al. 13
For each article, the following information regarding the potential moderators
was coded: (a) the research design was coded as either cross-sectional or longitudi-
nal based on the research procedure description of each study (i.e., whether the data
are multiwave); (b) the measure of transformational leadership was coded as Bass
and Avolio’s (1995) MLQ, Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) scale and others based on the
measure section of each study; (c) the cultural context was coded as a Western
country (individualistic culture), an Eastern country (collectivistic culture) or other
referring to the country in which each study was conducted against Hofstede’s
(2001) cultural dimensions; (d) the journal level was coded as either SSCI journal
and Non-SSCI journal. Moreover, the variable of SSCI journal was further coded at
four levels (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4) according to the journal citation reports by
Thomson Reuters.
Analytic Approach
We used the random-effects meta-analytic procedures and formulas proposed by
Hunter and Schmidt (2004) to test our hypotheses (main effects). Following the rec-
ommendations of prior studies, at least three studies were required to be considered
sufficient to provide data for a hypothesis (Kurtessis et al., 2017). Using the zero-order
effect sizes (in the form of a correlation) and the study sample size, we computed
sample-size weighted mean correlations (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). If a study reported
effect sizes for multiple independent samples, all of the relevant correlations were
included as separate effect sizes (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).
The results regarding the relationship between transformational leadership and
reactions to organizational change were estimated using comprehensive meta-analysis
software (Borenstein et al., 2005). For each category of outcomes, we conducted a
separate analysis. First, we transformed the coded Pearson correlation coefficients into
Fisher’s Zs to compute the effect sizes and computed to 95% credibility intervals.
Then, we used random-effect models to consider between-study variation. Finally, the
results were transformed back into the correlation form for interpretation. For the
moderator analysis, Q tests of heterogeneity were also used for each category of mod-
erators. The significant heterogeneity in the effect sizes among the different categories
of a moderator provides meta-analytical evidence for the existence of a moderating
effect.
Results
Meta-Analytically Derived Correlations
The meta-analytically derived correlations (based on peer reviewed works) are pre-
sented in Table 1. Transformational leadership has a positive relationship with com-
mitment to change (ρ = .252, 95% confidence interval [CI: .186, .316]), openness to
change (ρ = .312, 95% CI [.135, .470]), readiness for change (ρ = .376, 95% CI [.307,
.441]) and a negative correlation with resistance to change (ρ = −.180, 95% CI [−.306,
Table 1. Results of the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Reactions to
Organizational Change.
Effect size and 95% CI

Reactions to
organizational change k N Effect size LL UL
Commitment to change 20 7,472 .252 .186 .316
Openness to change 4 1,257 .312 .135 .470
Readiness for change 3 636 .376 .307 .441
Support for change 3 1,148 .204 −.083 .459
Resistance to change 5 2,202 −.180 −.306 −.047
Cynicism about change 5 2,782 −.401 −.482 −.313
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.
−.047]) and cynicism about change (ρ = −.401, 95% CI [−.482, −.313]). Thus,
Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 are supported. However, transformational leadership is not
significantly related to support for change (ρ = .204, 95% CI [−.083, .459])1.
Moderator Analyses
As shown in Table 2, the correlation between transformational leadership and open-
ness to change was stronger in the longitudinal data than in the cross-sectional data,
Qb(degrees of freedom [df]) = 7.034(1), p = .008; ρ = .470 versus ρ = .257. The
correlation between transformational leadership and cynicism about change was stron-
ger in the cross-sectional data and weaker in the longitudinal data, Qb(df) = 10.436(1),
p = .001; ρ = −.427 versus ρ = −.290. Hypothesis 7 was partly supported.
Transformational leadership exhibited a stronger negative relationship with resis-
tance to change, Qb(df) = 26.545(1), p < .001, ρ = −.253 versus ρ = −.054, when the
MLQ was used than when the other scales were used. Hypothesis 8 was partly
supported.
Transformational leadership exhibited a weaker positive relationship with commit-
ment to change, Qb(df) = 20.776(1), p < .001, ρ = .207 versus ρ = .319, and a weaker
negative relationship with resistance to change, Qb(df) = 7.786(2), p = .020, ρ =
−.110 versus ρ = −.190, in the Western cultural context than in the eastern cultural
context. Hypothesis 9 was partly supported.
Finally, journal level significantly moderated the association of transformational
leadership with commitment to change, Qb(df) = 53.920(4), p < .001; openness to
change, Qb(df) = 26.976(2), p < .001; and support for change, Qb(df) = 40.928(1), p
< .001. Specifically, transformational leadership (a) exhibited a stronger correlation
with commitment to change in articles published in SSCI Q4 journals compared with
those published in Q1, Q2, and Q3 journals (ρ = .316 vs. ρ = .202, ρ = .269, ρ =
.200); (b) exhibited a stronger correlation with openness to change in articles pub-
lished in non-SSCI journals compared with those published in SSCI Q3, and Q4
Table 2. Moderators of the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Reactions to Organizational Change.

Reactions to Dimension of
Moderator organizational change Qb(df) moderator k N Effect size LL UL
Research design Commitment to change .106(1) Cross-section 17 6,674 .251 .178 .321
p = .745 Longitudinal 2 798 .260 .048 .449
Openness to change 7.034(1)** Cross-section 3 1,075 .257 .040 .451
p = .008 Longitudinal 1 182 .470 .117 .718
Cynicism about change 10.436(1)** Cross-section 4 2,410 −.427 −.504 −.342
p = .001 Longitudinal 1 372 −.290 −.466 −.092
Measure of transformational Commitment to change 1.073(2) Podsakoff et al. (1990) 11 5,155 .259 .168 .346
leadership
p = .585 Bass et al. (1995) 3 626 .199 .011 .374
Others 5 1,691 .267 .124 .400
Readiness for change .939(1) Bass et al. (1995) 1 168 .430 .298 .546
p = .332 Others 2 468 .356 .274 .433
Resistance to change 26.545(1)*** Podsakoff et al. (1990) 2 633 −.056 −.198 .087
p < .001 Bass et al. (1995) 3 1,569 −.253 −.353 −.147
Cynicism about change 1.028(1) Podsakoff et al. (1990) 3 1,972 −.433 −.524 −.332
p = .311 Bass et al. (1995) 2 810 −.349 −.474 .211
Cultural context Commitment to change 20.776(1)*** Western culture 11 5,102 .207 .122 .289
p < .001 Eastern culture 8 2,370 .319 .219 .412
Support for change .272(1) Western culture 1 945 .210 −.220 .572
p = .602 Eastern culture 2 203 .190 −.151 .511
Readiness for change 1.761(1) Western culture 1 395 .340 .250 .424
p =.185 Eastern culture 2 241 .433 .324 .531
Openness to change 5.280(2) Western culture 1 723 .300 −.379 .769
p =.071 Eastern culture 2 332 .246 −.253 .642
Others 1 202 .440 −.241 .831
15
(continued)
16
Table 2. (continued)
Reactions to Dimension of
Moderator organizational change Qb(df) moderator k N Effect size LL UL
Resistance to change 7.786(2)* Western culture 2 1,153 −.110 −.350 .144
p = .020 Eastern culture 1 203 −.190 −.516 .184
Others 2 846 −.243 −.468 .011
Cynicism about change .649(1) Western culture 4 2,313 −.418 −.506 −.322
p = .420 Eastern culture 1 469 −.330 −.513 −.119
Journal level Commitment to change 53.920(4)*** SSCI Q1 6 3,363 .202 .091 .308
SSCI Q2 4 1,362 .269 .129 .398
p < .001 SSCI Q3 1 198 .200 −.092 .460
SSCI Q4 5 1,225 .316 .194 .428
Others 3 1,324 .246 .084 .395
Openness to change 26.976(2)*** SSCI Q3 1 723 .300 .232 .365
SSCI Q4 1 150 −.010 −.170 .151
p < .001 Others 2 384 .454 .371 .531
Readiness for change 1.768 (2) SSCI Q2 1 73 .440 −.118 .787
p = .413 SSCI Q4 1 168 .430 −.103 .771
Others 1 395 340 −.195 .719
Support for change 40.928(1)*** SSCI Q1 2 633 .084 −.113 .275
p < .001 SSCI Q2 1 515 .410 .166 .607
Resistance to change 4.545 (2) SSCI Q1 3 1,219 −.153 −.377 .088
p = .103 SSCI Q3 1 723 −.260 −.591 .145
Others 1 260 −.170 −.534 .247
Cynicism about change 1.028(1) SSCI Q1 3 1,972 −.433 −.524 −.332
p = .311 SSCI Q3 2 810 −.349 −.474 −.211
Note. df = degrees of freedom; SSCI = Social Sciences Citation Index; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Peng et al. 17
journals (ρ = .454 vs. ρ = .300, ρ = −.010); and (c) exhibited a stronger correlation
with support for change in articles published in SSCI Q2 journals compared with those
published in SSCI Q1 journals (ρ = .410 vs. ρ = .084). In conclusion, the correlations
between transformational leadership tend to be higher in articles published in low-
quality journals.
Discussion
Based on a meta-analysis approach, the results provided support for most of our
hypotheses, revealing the positive role of transformational leadership in organiza-
tional change. Moreover, the correlations between transformational leadership and
reactions to organizational change were moderated by methodological or contex-
tual factors.
Transformational Leadership and Reactions to Organizational Change

Our results showed that transformational leadership has a significant association with
employees’ reactions to organizational change (except for support for change) such as
by improving employees’ commitment to change, openness to change, and readiness
for change and reducing their resistance to change and cynicism about change. These
comprehensive findings correspond to the results of the prior studies in terms of the
value (positive or negative) and strength of the relationship between transformational
leadership and reactions to organizational change. In particular, our meta-analytic
findings replicated the results of Wu et al.’s (2007) and Zhao et al.’s (2016) studies.
Moreover, our results revealed that transformational leadership had the strongest cor-
relation with readiness for change (ρ = .376). It should be noted that this correla-
tional investigation may have constrained our findings on issues of causality. For
example, we cannot rule out a reverse logic behind the above finding, specifically,
employees who are ready for various changes may be more amenable to positively
understanding and rating their leaders regarding transformational leadership. To
complement this issue, we call on future researchers to explore the directionality of
the relationship between transformational leadership and reactions to organizational
change using a cross-lagged design.
However, the expected positive relationship between transformational leader-
ship and employees’ support for change was not supported, indicating that different
from positive psychological reactions (e.g., commitment to change, openness to
change, and readiness for change), employees’ behavioral support for change was
not easily shaped by transformational leadership. In view of the small number of
studies (k = 3), we believe that the relationship between transformational leader-
ship and employees’ support for change should be judged cautiously. Indeed,
Kurtessis’s et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis revealed that perceived organizational sup-
port was significantly related to behavioral outcomes that are helpful to the organi-
zation. Following this logic, transformational leaders as organizational
representatives should also significantly shape employees’ behavioral outcomes.

However, due to the limited number of studies available for the analyses, we failed
to find support for such prediction. Specifically, in three of the studies included in
this meta-analysis, the correlations between transformational leadership and
employees’ support for change showed a high level of deviation (range from −.01
to .41). This indicates a need for a more nuanced approach in future research to
better understand the conditions under which transformational leaders promote
employees’ support for change.
Overall, by providing a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships
between transformational leadership and reactions to change using meta-analysis,
this study represents an important step toward the nature of the above relationship
than the correlations found in a single sample and accordingly addresses the incon-
sistent conclusions in the literature. Since the 95% CIs of effect sizes exclude zero
(k ≥ 3, Kurtessis et al., 2017), we can be, to some extent, confident in drawing
conclusions about the expected positive association of transformational leadership
with commitment to change, openness to change, and readiness for change and the
negative association of transformational leadership with cynicism about change and
resistance to change. Moreover, this study helps alleviate the previous inconsisten-
cies in the literature by embracing a contingency perspective. Specifically, we found
that the association of transformational leadership with reactions to change depended
on research designs (cross-sectional design vs. longitudinal design), measures (MLQ
vs. other scales), cultural context (Eastern vs. Western), and journal level.
The Moderating Role of Research Design

The results showed that transformational leadership exhibited significantly differ-
ent correlations with employees’ openness to change and cynicism about change in
different research designs, providing support for the moderating role of research
design. Transformational leadership had a stronger correlation with cynicism about
change in cross-sectional research designs than in longitudinal research designs.
We provide two potential reasons to explain these findings. On the one hand, trans-
formational leadership could impede the spread of negative information about
organizational change in time and thus reduce the generation of employees’ cyni-
cism about change. On the other hand, a cross-sectional research creates common
method variance and collinearity, which might overestimate the results of a correla-
tion analysis on the linkage between transformational leadership and cynicism
about change. However, the positive relationship between transformational leader-
ship and openness to change was weaker in the cross-sectional research designs and
stronger in the longitudinal research designs. Such finding indicates that it may
take time for transformational leadership to cause employees to become open
toward organizational change rather than producing immediate outcomes. Given
the complexity of the relationship between transformational leadership and reac-
tions to organizational change, we believe it is a good idea for future research to use
Peng et al. 19
an integrative approach (i.e., cross-lagged panel design) or laboratory and scenario

experiments to systematically address these relationships.
The Moderating Role of the Measures Used

Transformational leadership exhibited a stronger negative relationship with resis-
tance to change when Bass and Avolio’s (1995) scale was used than when Podsakoff
et al.’s (1990) scale was used. Given that the structure and items of transformational
leadership differ between Bass and Avolio’s (1995) scale and Podsakoff et al.’s (1990)
scale, we expect that studies using these two scales will identify different correla-
tions. More specifically, Bass and Avolio’s (1995) scale includes idealized influence
and inspirational motivation, which elicits employees’ need for self-actualization and
causes them to focus on the collective good rather than self-interest (Bass, 1985) and
thus reduces resistance to change. Another explanation for these findings (suggested
by one reviewer) is that the items of the MLQ (e.g., gives reasons to be optimistic
about the future) are more confounded with employees’ attitude toward organiza-
tional change, thereby increasing covariance. However, Podsakoff et al.’s (1990)
scale includes a dimension of high-performance expectations, which may evoke per-
formance pressure and thus have a detrimental effect on employees’ well-being
(Jensen et al., 2013) or even evoke unethical behaviors (Welsh & Ordóñez, 2014).
This potential dark side of the performance expectation dimension of transforma-
tional leadership may weaken the functions of transformational leadership in organi-
zational change. As our sample for moderation analysis is small, we acknowledge
that our findings could not provide sufficient support for the superiority of the MLQ.
We hope that future research could empirically compare the nomological (criterion)
validity of Bass and Avolio’s (1995) scale with that of Podsakoff et al.’s (1990).
The Moderating Role of Cultural Context

This study obtained an interesting result regarding the moderating role of cultural
context: the relationship between transformational leadership and commitment to
change and resistance to change is stronger in Eastern culture. Eastern countries
emphasize the cultural values of collectivism, interpersonal harmony and high power
distance (Hofstede, 1980); thus, they are conducive to organizational context in which
transformational leaders can influence their employees to accept and internalize orga-
nizational goals. Following this logic, employees in Eastern countries may react to
organizational change in a more cooperative way and thus be more committed to
change and less resistant to change.
The Moderating Role of Journal Level

We investigated whether the correlations between transformational leadership and
reactions to organizational change vary across different journals. Based on the jour-
nal citation reports produced by Thomson Reuters, we analyzed the how the journal
rank (ranging from SSCI Q1 to SSCI Q4 and non-SSCI) shape the strength of the
above relationship. Consistent with our expectation, the correlations between trans-
formational leadership and commitment to change, openness to change, and support
for change tend to become stronger (vs. weaker) with the decrease (vs. increase) of
journal level/quality. We believe such findings could be understood from the per-
spective of common method variance such that the results in studies published in
low-quality journals may be overestimated due to high levels of common method
variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In contrast, high-quality journals usually set high-
level requirements for research methods when selecting studies for publication,
which suggests that the results in most of the studies published in high-quality jour-
nals are less biased by common method variance.
Implications
This meta-analysis advances the transformational leadership and organizational
change literature in two ways. First, our results revealed that, in general, transfor-
mational leadership fosters employees’ positive attitudes toward organizational
change (e.g., commitment, openness, and readiness) and reduces their negative
reactions (e.g., cynicism and resistance). Such findings serve as a reminder of the
central role played by transformational leaders in successful organizational
change, thereby contributing to our knowledge about the leadership determinants
of successful organizational change. Second, the methodological and contextual
moderators identified in this meta-analysis answer recent calls to develop an
understanding of situations where the relationships between leadership and reac-
tions to change may vary (e.g., Herold et al., 2008; Hill et al., 2012). In doing so,
we provide a means of reconciling the prior mixed findings. In summary, our find-
ings inform future research examining the role of transformational leadership in
facilitating organizational change and provide practical guidance regarding con-
texts that moderate the effects of transformational leadership.
This study provides implications for management practice. To facilitate employ-
ees’ positive reactions toward organizational change and to inhibit negative reac-
tions, leaders should generally exhibit transformational leadership behaviors. For
example, leaders should articulate a promising vision, serve as charismatic role
models, encourage challenging behaviors, and show personal consideration for
employees in the process of organizational change. Moreover, organizations could
devote effort to developing transformational leaders by adding transformational
leadership development practices to organizational training programs. However,
organizations and leaders must be aware that transformational leadership does not
always shape employees’ reactions toward organizational change. Indeed, it
depends on contextual factors such as cultural values. Our results indicated that the
correlations between transformational leadership and reactions to organizational
change vary according to the cultural context. This finding provides insight for
organizational change management in multinational companies. For employees
with collectivism culture value rather than with individualism culture value,
Peng et al. 21
transformational leaders could more effectively increase commitment to change

and reduce resistance to change. As a result, transformational leaders must spend
more time and energy addressing individualism-oriented employees’ commitment
to change and resistance to change.
Limitations and Future Directions

There are some shortcomings in this study that must be addressed. First, in the studies
included in this meta-analysis, scholars mainly focused on employees’ perceptions of
a direct leader’s (rather than a leadership team’s) transformational leadership. This is
because the direct leader usually serves as a significant person who conveys organiza-
tional goals and assigns specific tasks to employees. Based on such frequent interac-
tion, employees could form perceptions of the direct leader’s leadership style and react
to it accordingly (Hill et al., 2012). It should be noted that in addition to the direct
leader’s influence, a leadership team could also exert effect on employees’ job-related
attitude and behaviors (Menges et al., 2011). When a leadership team exhibits high
levels of transformational leadership, change-related goals and visions can be clearly
and consistently conveyed to employees and thus guide them to embrace organiza-
tional change. However, the prior studies have overlooked this issue. We call on fur-
ther studies to explore how a leadership team’s leadership style affects employees’
Second, when analyzing the correlation between transformational leadership and
reactions to organizational change, this study did not control for other types of leader-
ship style or individual differences that can account for results (e.g., charismatic lead-
ership and self-monitoring). For example, the prior studies showed that charismatic
leadership is beneficial for promoting employees’ commitment to change by causing
employees to shift focus from self-interest to collective interest (Nohe et al., 2013).
Moreover, self-monitoring, that is, the ability to understand which behaviors are
appropriate across situations (Day et al., 2002), is also likely to guide employees to
express appropriate reactions during organizational change. To build strong and robust
evidence for the relationship between transformational leadership and reactions to
organizational change, further research should control for the effects of variables such
as charismatic leadership and self-monitoring.
Third, in all of the prior studies, both transformational leadership and reactions to orga-
nizational change were rated by employees. Such rating creates collinearity but it is never-
theless a reasonable approach because employees are (a) the targets of transformational
leadership behaviors (Bass, 1985) and (b) aware of their own attitudes and behaviors
toward organizational change and therefore better suited than others to accurately report
and rate them. However, we still know little about whether transformational leadership
relates to employees’ reactions to organizational change when using multisource data. To
address this issue, we call on further research to explore the relationship between transfor-
mational leadership and reactions to organizational change using multisource data, which
helps us understand such relationship in a comprehensive way.
Fourth, although we found support for the role of cultural context in shaping the
relationship between transformational leadership and reactions to organizational
change, we cannot absolutely draw such a conclusion. This is because the data are
not based on proper sampling across countries and cultures. To fill such a gap, we
encourage future research to adopt a cross-culture comparison approach (i.e., using
samples across cultures) to empirically examine the extent to which cultural con-
text shapes the association of transformational leadership with reactions to organi-
zational change.
Fifth, this study identified only four moderators to account for the relationship
between transformational leadership and reactions to organizational change while
neglecting other contextual and individual factors. In terms of contextual factors, we
believe that public organizations (vs. private corporations) provide a more ideal con-
text for transformational leaders to promote employees’ positive reactions and
decrease their negative reactions during organizational change. Public organizations
signal information regarding social goals and collective interests (Hull & Lio, 2006),
making employees more likely to support a movement (e.g., organizational change)
enacted by transformational leaders. Indeed, we tried to analyze the moderating
effect of organization type. However, in our results, the k value of organization type
was very small, rendering very limited power for this moderation effect. We encour-
age future studies to explore this issue with sufficient samples. In terms of individual
factors, we expect that change-related personality traits such as a proactive personal-
ity could strengthen the positive effects of transformational leadership. Proactive
employees have a tendency to take actions to effect change and improve their cur-
rent environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993), making them receptive to organiza-
tional change. As such, transformational leaders in conjunction with proactive
employees are more likely to facilitate a collective embrace and implementation of
organizational change.
Finally, future research should examine some intervening mechanisms underly-
ing the relationship between transformational leadership and reactions to organi-
zational change such as perceived planning actions and social support. Specifically,
transformational leaders are good at informing the employees about future changes
and preparing them to act according to proposed goals. Based on such planned
change, employees will understand in advance the reasons for such change and
anticipate the benefits during the process, which will evoke positive attitudes
toward organizational change and supportive behaviors (Nery et al., 2019). In
addition, as organizational change can be stressful in terms of processes and out-
comes, it is a context where support from others becomes particularly meaningful
(Smollan & Morrison, 2019). Transformational leaders provide social support for
employees. Such support may reduce the burden of difficult tasks and signals to
the receivers that they not alone, which in turn has the potential to reduce employ-
ees’ stressful feelings and to increase their positive attitudes toward organizational
change (Smollan & Morrison, 2019). We call on future research to empirically
examine the above issues.
Peng et al. 23
Table 3. Summary of Results.

Moderators
Dependent Main Research Culture Journal

variables effect design Measure context level Key points
Commitment √ × × √ √ Transformational leadership is positively

to change related to employees’ commitment to
change, and such relationship is stronger
in studies conducted in Eastern (vs.
Western) countries or published in SSCI
Q4 (vs. Q1,Q2,Q3) journals.
Openness to √ √ × × √ Transformational leadership is positively
change related to employees’ openness to
in studies using cross-sectional (vs.
longitudinal) design or published in Non-
SSCI (vs. SSCI) journals.
Readiness for √ × × × × Transformational leadership is positively
change related to employees’ readiness for
change without identified methodological
and contextual moderators.
Support for × × × × √ Transformational leadership is not
change significantly related to employees’
support for change in general context
but is significantly related to employees’
support for change in studies published in
SSCI Q2 (vs. Q1) journals.
Resistance to √ × √ √ × Transformational leadership is negatively
change related to employees’ resistance to
in studies using MLQ or conducted in
Eastern (vs. Western) countries
Cynicism √ √ × × × Transformational leadership is negatively
about related to employees’ cynicism about
change change, and such relationship is stronger
in studies using cross-sectional (vs.
longitudinal) design.
Note. MLQ = Multifactors Leadership Questionnaire; SSCI = Social Sciences Citation Index. “√” indicates the
hypothesis is supported, while “×” indicates the opposite.
Conclusions
Based on a meta-analytic methodology, this study revealed that transformational lead-
ership exhibited a positive relationship with commitment to change, openness to
change, and readiness for change and a negative correlation with resistance to change
and cynicism about change. Detailed information is presented in Table 3. Overall, our
findings support the function of transformational leadership in organizational change
and highlight the value of incorporating transformational leadership theory into the
literature on change reactions to better understand how leaders facilitate or hinder
organizational change.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: We acknowledge the financial support from National Natural
Science Foundation of China: No.71902048, No. 71802154; and social science fund of ministry
of education: No. 18YJC630073.
ORCID iDs
Jian Peng https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1410-5041
Mingze Li https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8769-4970
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Note
1. We reanalyzed the correlations using the samples including peer-reviewed works, confer-
ence papers, and dissertations. The results still held such that transformational leadership
exhibited a positive relationship with commitment to change (ρ = .262, 95% CI [.197,
.326]), openness to change (ρ = .276, 95% CI [.140, .402]), and readiness for change (ρ =
.425, 95% CI [.333, .509]) and a negative correlation with resistance to change (ρ = −.190,
95% CI [−.301, −.074]) and cynicism about change (ρ = −.259, 95% CI [−.473, −.015]).
The relationship between transformational leadership and support for change was also not
supported (ρ = .204, 95% CI [−.083, .459]).
References
Abrell-Vogel, C., & Rowold, J. (2014). Leaders’ commitment to change and their effectiveness
in change: A multilevel investigation. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
27(6), 900-921. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2012-0111
Alhaddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: A model
for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215
American Psychological Association. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology:
Why do we need them? What might they be? American Psychologist, 63(9), 839-851.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational
readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169-183. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09534810210423080
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational
change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600601
Augustsson, H., Richter, A., Hasson, H., & Schwarz, U. T. (2017). The need for dual openness
to change: A longitudinal study evaluating the impact of employees’ openness to organiza-
Peng et al. 25
tional change content and process on intervention outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 53(3), 349-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317691930
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(85)90028-2
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire:
Rater form 5X Short. Mind Garden. https://doi.org/10.1037/t03624-000
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A
measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.4030140202
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change. Harvard Business School Press.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change:
Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 733-753. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.342
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis
version 2. Biostat.
Bouckenooghe, D. (2010). Positioning change recipients’ attitudes toward change in the organi-
zational change literature. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(4), 500-531. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0021886310367944
Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (2011). The relational perspective as a business mindset: Managerial
implications for East and West. Academy of Management Executive, 25(3), 6-18. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amp.25.3.zol6
Chou, P. (2013). The effect of transformational leadership on follower’s affective commitment
to change. World Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 38-52.
Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Emotion as mediators of the relations between
perceived supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 463-484. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.381
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Sage.
Conway, E., & Monks, K. (2008). HR practices and commitment to change: An employee-level
analysis. Human Resource Management Journal, 18(1), 72-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1748-8583.2007.00059.x
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B.,
Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal
study of workplace, psychological and behavioral correlates. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317902321119637
Day, D. V., Schleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002). Self-monitoring per-
sonality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 390-401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.390
Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and
transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and exten-
sion. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leader-
ship: The road ahead (pp. 35-66). Elsevier Science.
Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of organi-
zational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’ reactions to the imple-
mentation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53(3), 419-442. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0018726700533006
Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., & Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 80-89.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819910263631
Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2010). Transformational leadership and R&D innovation:
Taking a curvilinear approach. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 364-372.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00563.x
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change:
Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review,
21(4), 1022-1054. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9704071862
Groves, K. S. (2016). Testing a moderated mediation model of transformational leadership,
values, and organization change. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(1),
35-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051816662614
Hechanova, R. M., & Cementina-Olpoc, R. (2013). Transformational leadership, change
management, and commitment to change: A comparison of academic and business orga-
nizations. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(1), 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40299-012-0019-z
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.346
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of
a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.474
Hill, N. S., Seo, M. G., Kang, J. H., & Taylor, M. S. (2012). Building employee commitment
to change across organizational levels: The influence of hierarchical distance and direct
managers’ transformational leadership. Organization Science, 23(3), 758-777. https://doi.
org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0662
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 10(4), 15-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for organizational
change the systematic development of a scale. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
43(2), 232-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306295295
Hull, C., & Lio, B. (2006). Innovation in non-profit and for-profit organizations: Visionary, stra-
tegic, and financial considerations. Journal of Change Management, 6(1), 53-65. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14697010500523418
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings (2nd ed.). Sage.
Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C., & Messersmith, J. G. (2013). High-performance work systems and
job control: Consequences for anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions. Journal of
Management, 39(6), 1699-1724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311419663
Jones, R. A., Jimmieson, N. L., & Griffiths, A. (2005). The impact of organizational culture
and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: The mediating role of readi-
ness for change. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 361-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-6486.2005.00500.x
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Peng et al. 27
Kepes, S., McDaniel, M. A., Brannick, M. T., & Banks, G. C. (2013). Meta-analytic reviews
in the organizational sciences: Two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS (the Meta-
analytic Reporting Standards). Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(2), 123-143. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9300-2
Kim, T. Y., Wang, C., Kondo, M., & Kim, T. H. (2007). Conflict management styles: The
differences among the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 18(1), 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060710759309
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017).
Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support the-
ory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854-1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554
Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership:
A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly,
48(3), 387-423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11436268
Lines, R. (2005). The structure and function of attitudes toward change. Human Resource
Development, 4(1), 8-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484304273818
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of trans-
formational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.
Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2
Ma, X., & Jiang, W. (2018). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and
employee creativity in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(3),
302-324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318764346
Madsen, S. R., Miller, D., & John, C. R. (2005). Readiness for organizational change: Does
organizational commitment and social relationships in the workplace make a differ-
ence? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 213-234. https://doi.org/10.1002/
hrdq.1134
McCartt, A. T., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1995). Managerial openness to change and the introduction
of GDSS: Explaining initial success and failure in decision conferencing. Organization
Science, 6(5), 569-584. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.5.569
Menges, J. I., Walter, F., Vogel, B., & Bruch, H. (2011). Transformational leadership climate:
Performance linkages, mechanisms, and boundary conditions at the organizational level.
Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 893-909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.010
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a
planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(1), 59-80.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889409365387
Nery, V. F., Franco, K. S., & Neiva, E. R. (2019). Attributes of the organizational change
and its influence on attitudes toward organizational change and well-being at work: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 55(4), 477-496. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0021886319848125
Nohe, C., Michaelis, B., Menges, J. I., Zhang, Z., & Sonntag, K. (2013). Charisma and orga-
nizational change: A multilevel study of perceived charisma, commitment to change,
and team performance. Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 378-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2013.02.001
Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). Leadership and employers’ reactions to change: The role of lead-
ers’ personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology, 64(3),
627-659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01221.x
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational
change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
47(4), 461-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550
Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on
transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management Review,
22(1), 80-109. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9707180260
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional
view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4),
783-794. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707722
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 rem-
edies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879
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 orga-
nizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. https://doi.
org/10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7
Rothstein, H. R. (2012). Accessing relevant literature. In H. M. Cooper (Ed.), APA handbook of
research methods in psychology: Vol. 1. Foundations, planning, measures, and psychomet-
rics (pp.133-144). American Psychological Association.
Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2009). Do leaders reap what they sow? Leader and employee
outcomes of leader organizational cynicism about change. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5),
680-688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.002
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job atti-
tudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2392563
Santhidran, S., Chandran, V. G. R., & Borromeo, J. (2013). Enabling organizational change:
Leadership, commitment to change and the mediating role of change readiness. Journal of
Business Economics & Management, 14(2), 348-363. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2
011.642083
Seo, M. G., Taylor, M. S., Hill, N. S., Zhang, X., Tesluk, P. E., & Lorinkova, N. M. (2012).
The role of affect and leadership during organizational change. Personnel Psychology, 65,
121-165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01240.x
Smollan, R. K., & Morrison, R. L. (2019). Supporting others through stressful organiza-
tional change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 55(3), 327-351. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0021886319832518
Stevens, G. W. (2013). Toward a process-based approach of conceptualizing change
readiness. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(3), 333-360. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0021886313475479
Straatmann, T., Kohnke, O., Hattrup, K., & Mueller, K. (2016). Assessing employees’ reac-
tions to organizational change: An integrative framework of change-specific and psy-
chological factors. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(3), 265-295. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0021886316655871
Thundiyil, T., Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I., Banks, G. C., & Peng, A. C. (2015). Cynical about
change? A preliminary meta-analysis and future research agenda. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 51(4), 429-450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886315603122
van der Voet, J. (2016). Change leadership and public sector organizational change: Examining
the interactions of transformational leadership style and red tape. American Review of
Public Administration, 46(6), 660-682. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015574769
van der Voet, J., Kuipers, B. S., & Groeneveld, S. (2016). Implementing change in public orga-
nizations: The relationship between leadership and affective commitment to change in a
Peng et al. 29
public sector context. Public Management Review, 18(6), 842-865. https://doi.org/10.1080

/14719037.2015.1045020
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in
a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.132
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change:
Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group & Organization Management: An
International Journal, 25(2), 132-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601100252003
Weiner, B. J., Amick, H., & Lee, S.-Y. D. (2008). Conceptualization and measurement of
organizational readiness for change: A review of the literature in health services research
and other fields. Medical Care Research and Review, 65(4), 379-436. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077558708317802
Welsh, D. T., & Ordóñez, L. D. (2014). The dark side of consecutive high performance goals:
Linking goal setting, depletion, and unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.07.006
Wu, C., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2007). Transformational leadership, cohesion percep-
tions, and employee cynicism about organizational change: The mediating role of jus-
tice perceptions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(3), 327-351. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0021886307302097
Zhao, H. H., Seibert, S. E., Taylor, M. S., Lee, C., & Lam, W. (2016). Not even the past: The
joint influence of former leader and new leader during leader succession in the midst of
organizational change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1730-1738. https://doi.
org/10.1037/apl0000149

Jurnal 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

920366

Evidence From a Meta-

Jian Peng1 , Mingze Li2 , Zhen Wang3,

the literature on change reactions to obtain a better understanding of how leaders

Theory and Hypothesis

Transformational Leadership and Reactions to Organizational Change

Transformational Leadership and Commitment to Change. Commitment to change refers

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership is positively related to employees’

Transformational Leadership and Openness to Change. According to Miller et al. (1994),

Hypothesis 2: Transformational leadership is positively related to employees’

Transformational Leadership and Readiness for Change. Employees’ readiness for

changes” (Armenakis et al., 1993, p. 681). In addition to the prevailing definition,

Hypothesis 3: Transformational leadership is positively related to employees’

Transformational Leadership and Support for Change. The success of organizational

Hypothesis 4: Transformational leadership is positively related to employees’ sup-

Transformational Leadership and Resistance to Organizational Change. Resistance to

Hypothesis 5: Transformational leadership is negatively related to employees’

Hypothesis 6: Transformational leadership is negatively related to employees’

Moderators of the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership

Hypothesis 7: The research design moderates the relationship between transforma-

Transformational Leadership Measures. There are two dominant scales of transforma-

Hypothesis 8: The measures used moderate the relationship between transforma-

Hypothesis 9: Cultural variables moderate the relationship between transformational

Hypothesis 10: Journal level moderates the relationship between transformational

Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria

Effect size and 95% CI

Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

Effect size and 95% CI

Transformational Leadership and Reactions to Organizational Change

representatives should also significantly shape employees’ behavioral outcomes.

The Moderating Role of Research Design

an integrative approach (i.e., cross-lagged panel design) or laboratory and scenario

The Moderating Role of the Measures Used

The Moderating Role of Cultural Context

The Moderating Role of Journal Level

transformational leaders could more effectively increase commitment to change

Limitations and Future Directions

Table 3. Summary of Results.

Dependent Main Research Culture Journal

Commitment √ × × √ √ Transformational leadership is positively

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

public sector context. Public Management Review, 18(6), 842-865. https://doi.org/10.1080

You might also like