Article

International Journal of
Police Science & Management
Transformational leadership 2018, Vol. 20(2) 155–170
ª The Author(s) 2018
and organizational commitment Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1461355718774582
in Korean police station: Test journals.sagepub.com/home/psm

of second-order MLQ-6 S and OCQ

Hyunin Baek
University of Louisville, USA

Edward H Byers
University of Louisville, USA

Gennaro F Vito
University of Louisville, USA

Abstract
In comparison with research on the private sector, organizational commitment within the police has been rarely
examined. Moreover, the leadership styles of police officials are not equal in all police studies across the world. Using
data collected in 2009 from 236 Korean police officers, the purpose of this study is twofold: (a) to determine if the scale
(multifactor leadership questionnaire, form 6-S [MLQ-6 S]) is applicable to police agencies internationally; and (b) to
examine if leadership influences organizational commitment in law enforcement agencies. Results indicate that
transformational leadership is positively linked to organizational commitment in Korean police agencies. However, the
applicability of MLQ-6 S is controversial. Future research is required to examine comprehensively whether MLQ-6 S is a
valid instrument for various types of organizations across the world.

Keywords
Organizational commitment, Korea, policing, OCQ, MLQ-6 S, team manager, transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, laissez-faire leadership

Submitted 08 Mar 2017, Revise received 04 Dec 2017, accepted 26 Feb 2018

Introduction Farr-Wharton, 2003; Mowday, 1998; Mowday et al.,

1982; Pollock et al., 2000). Mowday and colleagues
Organizational commitment is an employee’s psychologi-
(1982) found that organizational commitment received
cal attachment to the achievement of the organization’s
attention because it could predict organizational behaviors
goals (Caught et al., 2000). Research has determined
(such as turnover and absenteeism), and improve work
that it influences various employee behaviors, such as job
atmosphere and culture. In comparison with private sector
satisfaction and performance, and reduces turnover and
research, organizational commitment within the police has
tardiness (Meyer et al., 2002). There has been growing
recognition over the past two decades that human resources
are key to organizational success (Grant, 1996; Hitt et al.,
Corresponding author:
2001; Kehoe and Wright, 2010), and numerous studies Hyunin Baek, University of Louisville, 2311 S. 3rd St. Brigman Hall Room
have examined the organizational commitment of individ- 1006, Louisville, KY 40292, USA.
ual employees within the industrial sector (Brunetto and Email: h0baek01@louisville.edu
156
been studied relatively rarely and is under-examined (Baek
and Hwang, 2011; Beck and Wilson, 1997; Crow et al.,
2011; Johnson, 2012; Metcalfe and Dick, 2002; Pollock
et al., 2000).
However, several studies on policing around the world
have shown that law enforcement agencies with a higher
level of organizational commitment have lower turnover
and misconduct rates, less work stress, and improved job
performance (Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2003; Harr,
1997; Jaramillo et al., 2005; Koslowsky, 1991; Metcalfe
and Dick, 2002; Moon and Jonson, 2012; Shim et al.,
2015). In addition, studies on organizational commitment
in law enforcement agencies have demonstrated that orga-
nizational support, in particular supervisory support, is a
crucial predictor of organizational commitment (Crow
et al., 2011; Currie and Dollery, 2006; Deluga and Souza,
1991; Dick, 2011; Johnson, 2012; Metcalfe and Dick,
2002; Shim et al., 2015).
Since the introduction of Burns’ (1978) definition of
transformational leadership, many studies have examined
its influence on the emotion and behavior of subordinates
(Bass, 1985a, 1985b, 1989, 1990; Bennis and Nanus, 1985;
Cherrington, 1994; Deluga, 1988; Harter and Bass, 1988;
Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987; Podsakoff et al., 1982; Tracy and
Hinkin, 1998). Studies on transformational leadership have
been conducted among various private sectors in different
countries (Boer et al., 2016; Borman and Rowold, 2016;
Fischer, 2016; Mittal and Dhar, 2016; Mullen et al., 2017).
Several studies have examined the growing application of
transformational leadership in policing (Cockcroft, 2014;
Dean and Gottschalk, 2013; Deluga, 1988; Deluga and
Souza, 1991; Mazerolle et al., 2013; Shim et al., 2015);
however, not all of Bass’s (1985a) leadership styles
(transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and
laissez-faire leadership) have been included (Swid, 2013).
Research has confirmed the positive influence of transfor-
mational leadership in contemporary policing, in areas
such as job performance, effectiveness, and organiza-
tional commitment (Álvarez et al., 2014; Hawkins and
Dulewicz, 2009; Johnson, 2012; Masal, 2014; Sarver and
Miller, 2014; Shim et al., 2015; Swid, 2013). For instance,
Pillai and Williams (2004) found that transformational
leadership significantly increased organizational commit-
ment in officers.
Although several studies have shown benefits in law
enforcement agencies that use transformational leadership,
there is no examination of whether scales of leadership
style (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Form 6-S
[MLQ-6 S]; Bass and Avolio, 1992) are appropriate to
those agencies. Abundant studies in the industrial sector
have discussed measurement issues concerning the MLQ
(Muenjohn and Armstrong, 2008; Tejeda et al., 2001;
Vinger and Cilliers, 2006) and the Organizational
International Journal of Police Science & Management 20(2)
Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Allen
and Meyer (1990) (Caught et al., 2000; Jaros, 2007; Meyer
et al., 2002). For instance, using exploratory factor analysis
(EFA), Carless (1998) demonstrated that the MLQ has
three dimensions of transformational leadership: charis-
matic leadership, individual consideration, and intellectual
stimulation. By contrast, Densten and Sarros (1997) stated
that transformational leadership was composed of four
second-order factors (idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual
stimulation). Thus, the actual number of MLQ components
is needed to reduce this uncertainty. Using confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) as well as EFA, this study attempts
to explore this issue. In addition, there are few English
language publications about leadership styles and organi-
zational commitment that use Korean police samples
(Crow et al., 2011; Shim et al., 2015). In response to these
issues, this study examines whether leadership styles
influence organizational commitment in Korean law
enforcement agencies and whether application of the
MLQ-6 S is appropriate for those agencies.
Literature review
Since the 1950s, organizational commitment has been
defined and examined in numerous studies (Allen and
Meyer, 1990; Caught et al., 2000; Cohen, 2003). Although
organizational commitment has been used in different
research areas, most studies have used its general concep-
tion, which is a psychological attachment to an organiza-
tion (Baek and Hwang, 2011; Caught et al., 2000; Peng
et al., 2016). By contrast, disagreement about appropriate
research models remains (Bergman, 2006; Cohen, 2007;
Markovits et al., 2014; Meyer and Herscovich, 2001).
Despite these disagreements, Allen and Meyer’s (1990)
three-component model (OCQ) has been widely used in
support of the organizational commitment model (Cohen,
2007; Herrbach, 2006). Allen and Meyer (1990) tested
aspects of a three-component model examining organiza-
tional commitment using affective, continuance, and nor-
mative factors. They defined the affective component as
emotional attachment to and identification with an organi-
zation by an employee or member. The continuance com-
ponent represented the perceived costs that employees or
members associate with leaving an organization. The nor-
mative component referred to employee’s or member’s
feelings of obligation to remain with an organization. In
addition, scales examined the interactive relationships
between these three components (Allen and Meyer,
1990). The results of these studies revealed that the affec-
tive and continuance components are detectable constructs
with different correlates, whereas the affective and norma-
tive components are distinguishable but appear only mildly
Baek et al.
related (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Several studies on poli-
cing across the world have examined organizational com-
mitment in law enforcement agencies (Baek and Hwang,
2011; Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2003; Crow et al., 2011;
Currie and Dollery, 2006; Koslowsky, 1991; Shim et al.,
2015). More specifically, a few policing scholars have
examined associations between organizational commit-
ment and leadership (Crow et al., 2011; Currie and Dollery,
2006; Johnson, 2012; Shim et al., 2015).
Although there are numerous definitions and theories of
leadership, Burns (1978) demonstrated “leadership as indu-
cing followers to support goals that represent the values and
motivations (the wants and needs, the aspirations and
expectations) of both leaders and followers” (p. 19). In
support of Burns’ (1978) definition, numerous studies have
examined a leader’s influence on subordinates’ emotion
and behavior (Bass, 1985a, 1985b, 1989, 1990; Bass and
Avolio, 1992; Boer et al., 2016; Borman and Rowold,
2016; Deluga, 1988; Fischer, 2016; Harter and Bass,
1988; Mittal and Dhar, 2016; Mullen et al., 2017). In par-
ticular, Bass’s (1985b) transformational leadership is
deemed to be a theory that many leadership scholars have
acknowledged (Muenjohn and Armstrong, 2008). Bass
(1985a) examined transactional leaders and developed the
concept of transformational leadership as a method of
achieving higher levels of employee improvement and
change within an organization. By contrast transactional
leaders led employees to lesser degrees of improvement
or marginal growth that was not as substantial as transfor-
mational leaders. Bass (1985a) found that transformational
leadership had numerous shortcomings within the para-
meters of organizational leadership but contributed greatly
to the manager–employee relationship when used correctly.
Furthermore, based on Burns’ (1978) definition, Bass and
Avolio (1992) proposed three subscales of leadership styles
(transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire). Trans-
formational leadership has four components: idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consid-
eration, and intellectual stimulation. Transactional leader-
ship combined two components, contingent reward and
management by exception. Laissez-faire or non-
leadership, did not have subscales.
Studies on these leadership styles, more specifically
transformational leadership, and officers’ organizational
commitment in law enforcement agencies have increased
(Crow et al., 2011; Currie and Dollery, 2006; Deluga and
Souza, 1991; Dick, 2011; Johnson, 2012; Metcalfe and
Dick, 2002; Shim et al., 2015). Swid (2013) used all the
types of leadership styles suggested by Bass (1985a) to
analyze police members in two Middle Eastern countries.
According to his findings, transformational leadership gen-
erated greater effectiveness in organizational outcomes
than transactional leadership. Unlike Swid’s (2013)
157
research, many studies of transformational leadership have
excluded other leadership styles (Álvarez et al., 2014;
Cockcroft, 2014; Masal, 2014; Shim et al., 2015).
However, findings have been consistent, even when trans-
formation leadership was applied to different countries. As
an example, Shim and colleagues (2015) found that trans-
formational leadership positively affected group and devel-
opmental cultures, using a survey collected from Korean
police officers. However, Bass explained that transforma-
tional and transactional leadership were not antithetical
concepts, and there were leaders who could have both lead-
ership styles (Bass, 1985a).
Regarding organizational commitment and leadership
styles, abundant reports in the industrial sector have dis-
cussed measurement issues concerning Allen and Meyer’s
(1990) OCQ (Caught et al., 2000; Jaros, 2007; Meyer et al.,
2002;) and Bass and Avolio’s (1992) MLQ (Muenjohn and
Armstrong, 2008; Tejeda et al., 2001; Vinger and Cilliers,
2006). The first issue, as also determined in private sector
research, is the structural validities and measurement qua-
lities of the scale (see Carless, 1998; Densten and Sarros,
1997; Muenjohn and Armstrong, 2008; Tejeda et al., 2001;
Vinger and Cilliers, 2006). Regarding the OCQ, there was
dispute about whether measures of normative and affective
commitment could be separated (Bergman, 2006; Meyer
and Herscovich, 2001; Meyer et al., 2002). Because of high
correlations between affective and normative commitment,
the constructs of Allen and Meyer’s (1990) three-
component model remained unclear (Bergman, 2006;
Meyer and Herscovich, 2001). In particular, Cohen
(2007) suggested a different model from Allen and Meyer
(1990). Cohen (2007) demonstrated four types of commit-
ment including timeframe, instrumental and normative
commitment propensity before entering an organization,
and instrumental and affective commitment after entering
the organization.
The MLQ is deemed the best validated measure of lead-
ership styles (Özaralli, 2003), but researchers have also
argued about its validity (Carless, 1998; Densten and
Sarros, 1997; Muenjohn and Armstrong, 2008; Tejeda
et al., 2001; Vinger and Cilliers, 2006). By examining the
structural validity of MLQ, Muenjohn and Armstrong
(2008) suggested that researchers should include a trans-
formational leadership scale as a single variable in their
studies because its subcomponents (idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and
intellectual stimulation) were highly correlated with each
other. These results were consistent with previous research
(Carless, 1998; Kelloway et al., 2000; Tejeda et al., 2001;
Yammarino and Dubinsky, 1994). For instance, Carless’s
(1998) indicated that “MLQ does not measure separate
transformational leader behaviours, instead, it appears to
assess a single, hierarchical construct of transformational
158
leadership” (p. 357). However, many studies have shown
that the components of transformational leadership could
be separated with good validity and reliability, and they
increased organizational commitment (Batool, 2013;
Hayati et al., 2014; Kent and Chelladurai, 2001; Khasaw-
neh et al., 2012). In order to form definite conclusions,
more empirical studies are necessary. In particular, we need
further research on the relationship between officers’ orga-
nizational commitment and leadership style and each sub-
scale, and to examine the applicability of the MLQ and
OCQ to police agencies internationally.
Method
Data
The survey for this study was conducted from 13 April to
6 May 2009 and used a questionnaire that included scales
of organizational commitment (OCQ; Allen and Meyer,
1990) and leadership style (MLQ form 6; Bass and Avolio,
1992). The target population was officers who worked in
292 police stations among provincial police agencies in
Seoul, Incheon, and Gyeonggi-do. Although there were
773 police stations in Korea in 2009, the number decreased
to 423 in 2010 due to the strategy of regional police system
integration (Kang, 2010; Korean National Police Agency,
2010). There were 143 police stations in Seoul, 30 in
Incheon, and 119 in Gyeonggi-do. From each province,
22, 5 and 17 police stations were selected by blocked ran-
domization (15%). During the survey period (24 days)
researchers visited the police stations, and six questionnaires
per station were randomly distributed. When an administra-
tive manager in each station had completed the question-
naires, the manager contacted the first author or returned
the questionnaires by mail. However, 22 of 264 officers were
unavailable for various reasons, such as family and health
issues. As a result, the response rate was 96.8%. In addition,
six respondents were excluded because of many non-random
missing answers. Thus, the final sample size was 236.
Of the sampled police officers, 24 (10.2%) were female
and 212 (89.8%) were male. Based on the 2009 Annual
Police Statistic (Kang, 2010) the total number of female
officers below the rank of lieutenant in the Korean National
Police Agency is 6,416 (6.8%), therefore, a higher percent-
age of female officers worked in the sampled police sta-
tions (10.2%). Eight officers were under 25 years old
(3.4%), and 23 were above 45 years old (9.7%); 205 offi-
cers (86.9%) were aged between 25 and 45 years. Regard-
ing education, approximately half of respondents had a
bachelor’s degree and 26.4% had a high-school diploma.
Some 8.7% of respondents graduated from 2-year college,
but only 1.7% had a master’s degree. Although 38.6% of
respondents had been working for over 11 years, 20.8% of
International Journal of Police Science & Management 20(2)
officers were new employees with less than 1 year
of employment. Concerning rank, in this sample, 68 were
police officers (28.8%), 67 were senior police officers
(28.5%), 81 were sergeants (34.5%) and 19 were lieute-
nants (8.1%). Lieutenants who performed the role of team
managers were excluded from this sample because their
leadership was subject of current study.
Measures
Organizational commitment
As suggested by Allen and Meyer (1990), organizational
commitment has three components: affective, continuance,
and normative commitment. This study used a revised ver-
sion of Allen and Meyer’s (1990) OCQ, suggested by Song
(2005) to match the Korean police situation. However, we
conducted an EFA because Song’s (2005) revision had
some limitations. For example, respondents misunderstood
the meaning of items. Nine of 17 items were appropriate for
this study. Finally, this study selected three items respec-
tively for three subscales of organizational commitment.
The results of the EFA are given in Appendix 1.
The first subscale, affective commitment (AC), was
composed of three items in this study: “I feel like part of
family at my organization (AC1)”, “I feel a strong sense of
belonging to my organization (AC2)” and “I really feel as if
this organization’s problems are my own (AC3)”. For each
of the items, the responses were coded using a 5-point
Likert scale that ranged from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to
5 ¼ strongly agree. Thus, higher scores on the scales indi-
cated that respondents were more emotionally attached to
or involved in their organization.
Regarding continuance commitment (CC), there were
also three items: “It would be very hard for me to leave
my organization right now, even if I wanted to (CC1)”,
“Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I
wanted to leave my organization now (CC2)” and “It would
be too costly for me to leave my organization now (CC3)”.
Like the scale of affective commitment, the respondents
used the 5-point scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to
5 ¼ strongly agree). Higher scores indicated that respon-
dents did not intend to leave their organization because of
perceived costs.
The last subscale in organizational commitment, norma-
tive commitment (NC), also utilized three items, including
the following questions: “Jumping from organization to
organization seems unethical to me (NC1)”, “One of the
major reasons I continue to work for this organization is
that I believe that loyalty is important and therefore feel a
sense of moral obligation to remain (NC2)” and “If I got
another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it
was right to leave my organization (NC3)”. Higher scores
Baek et al.
using the 5-point scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼
strongly agree) indicated that respondents felt a higher obli-
gation to remain in their organization.
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
This study used the shortened form of Northouse’s (2001)
MLQ-6 S as developed by Bass and Avolio (1992). Vinger
and Cilliers (2006) claimed that MLQ-6 S is considered
the most frequent, well researched, and validated leader-
ship instrument in the world. Furthermore, it is argued that
this instrument can be applied to not only various organi-
zational settings but also leaders in different cultures
(Bass, 1998).
As mentioned previously, Bass’s (1985a) leadership
styles combined three factors: transformational, transac-
tional, and laissez-faire leadership. In the MLQ-6 S, each
factor had 12, 6, and 3 items respectively (see Table 1).
Four-dimensional subscales idealized influence (II),
inspirational motivation (IM), individualized consideration
(IC), and intellectual stimulation (IS) represented the trans-
formational leadership (TFL). In TFL, 12 items separately
measured these four subscales. Regarding transactional
leadership (TAL), six items were divided into two
subscales: contingent reward (CR, three items) and man-
agement by exception (ME, three items). By contrast,
laissez-faire leadership (LFL) had a relatively small num-
ber of items (three): “My team manager is content to let us
continue working in the same way as always (LFL1)”,
“Whatever we want to do is OK with my team manager
(LFL)” and “My team manager asks no more of ours than
what is absolutely essential (LFL3)”. Table 1 presents
detailed information about all the items. Answers were
coded from: 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree.
Higher scores indicated that the team manager’s leadership
style was a key factor in perceptions of the respondents.
Analysis plan
Using data collected from 236 Korean police officers in
2009, this study used structural equation modelling (SEM)
to examine whether leadership increases organizational
commitment and the scale of leadership styles (MLQ; Bass
and Avolio, 1992) is appropriate to apply to Korean police.
In addition, with SPSS 24.0 and AMOS 22.0, this study
conducted: (a) descriptive statistics to provide information
about the distribution of the data; (b) correlations between
observed measures as bivariate statistics, which indicated
that the measures share suitable levels of variation; (c) CFA
to examine these measurement qualities, such as discrimi-
nate and convergent validity; and (d) SEM to examine the
hypotheses in this study. Several criteria were necessary for
these steps.
159
First, Gravetter and Wallnau’s (2014) threshold was
used to determine whether measures have normality prob-
lems (skewness > 3 and kurtosis > 7 are deemed problem).
For CFA, factor loadings should be > 0.50 to gain validity
of measures (Kline, 2016) and values of composite relia-
bility should be > 0.70 to gain credibility of measures
(Raykov, 1997). Lastly, this study used multiple
goodness-of-fit indexes: chi-square (2) statistics, com-
parative fit indexes (CFI), the root mean squared error of
approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean
of the residual (SRMR). The 2 value should not be sig-
nificant to indicate a properly fitting model because it is
sensitive to sample size (Kline, 2016). Therefore, other fit
statistics (CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR) were needed to deter-
mine whether the CFA and SEM fit the data. If CFI is
> 0.90, the goodness-of-fit is deemed good (Kline, 2016).
The goodness-of-fit is very good if the RMSEA is < 0.05,
good if it is 0.05–0.08, and not good if it is > 0.10 (Hu and
Bentler, 1999). SRMR should be 0.05, but 0.08 was an
acceptable (Hu and Bentler, 1999). In addition, this study
used an expected cross-validation index (ECVI) to examine
discrepancies between models (Browne and Cudeck, 1989;
Byrne, 2016).
Results
Descriptive and bivariate statistics
This study provides information about the normality of the
observed measures and correlations between them. Based
on the criteria mentioned above, there were no normality
problems among the observed measures in this study. In
particular, correlations between observed measures were
deemed to be not collinear. That is, relationships between
observed measures shared appropriate variance. More
detailed information is presented in Table 1.
Confirmatory factor analysis
As mentioned in the analysis plan, this study conducted
CFA. Appendix 2 provides a graphical presentation of the
measurement model with all scales of the OCQ and the
MLQ. Model 1 is a measurement model with all observed
variables in this study. While the model fit of this
measurement model was good (2 ¼ 700.75, df ¼ 390,
p < 0.01, CFI ¼ 0.922, RMSEA ¼ 0.060, and SRMR ¼
0.063; see Appendix 3), Model 1 had several problems
related to discriminate and convergent validity and compo-
site reliability. Regarding proper levels of validity, two
observed measures of TAL, especially indicators of ME,
had low factor loadings (TAL_ME1 ¼ 0.47 and TAL_ME2
¼ 0.21). Furthermore, the composite reliability of the ME
was < 0.70. In addition, the factor loadings of LFL1 and
160
Table 1. Descriptive and bivariate statistics.
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

1. OC_AC1 –
2. OC_AC2 0.80** –
3. OC_AC3 0.55** 0.62** –
**
4. OC_CC1 0.34 0.40** 0.38** –
5. OC_CC2 0.12 0.24** 0.20** 0.45** –
6. OC_CC3 0.02 0.14* 0.06 0.29** 0.46** –
7. OC_NC1 0.33** 0.40** 0.30** 0.19** 0.23** 0.16* –
8. OC_NC2 0.38** 0.41** 0.36** 0.21** 0.15* 0.10 0.72** –
9. OC_NC3 0.37** 0.34** 0.17** 0.19** 0.15* 0.12 0.44** 0.50** –
10. TFL_II1 0.25** 0.29** 0.25** 0.31** 0.15* 0.08 0.11 0.21** 0.22** –
**
11. TFL_II2 0.23** 0.27** 0.24** 0.22** 0.07 0.09 0.13* 0.29 0.23** 0.62** –
12. TFL_II3 0.23** 0.24** 0.18** 0.21** 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.24** 0.26** 0.64** 0.70** –
13. TFL_IM1 0.29** 0.32** 0.30** 0.28** 0.19** 0.08 0.20** 0.30** 0.28** 0.70** 0.68** 0.66** –
14. TFL_IM2 0.28** 0.28** 0.25** 0.22** 0.07 0.07 0.15* 0.27** 0.28** 0.61** 0.73** 0.70** 0.74** –
15. TFL_IM3 0.21** 0.22** 0.18** 0.16* 0.09 0.05 0.17** 0.22** 0.26** 0.53** 0.65** 0.75** 0.61** 0.64** –
16. TFL_IC1 0.17** 0.22** 0.22** 0.22** 0.10 0.07 0.25** 0.29** 0.28** 0.64** 0.60** 0.63** 0.68** 0.64** 0.55** –
17. TFL_IC2 0.15* 0.13 0.11 0.14* 0.05 0.03 0.16* 0.27** 0.28** 0.54** 0.62** 0.66** 0.60** 0.65** 0.66** 0.62** –
18. TFL_IC3 0.18** 0.20** 0.16* 0.23** 0.13 0.01 0.13* 0.22** 0.24** 0.54** 0.57** 0.67** 0.59** 0.61** 0.70** 0.59** 0.65** –
** ** **
19. TFL_IS1 0.20 0.25** 0.23 0.21 0.14* 0.07 0.20** 0.24** 0.25** 0.60** 0.66** 0.65** 0.66** 0.71** 0.68** 0.70** 0.64** 0.66** –
20. TFL_IS2 0.16* 0.15* 0.21** 0.16* 0.09 0.03 0.16* 0.23** 0.22** 0.51** 0.57** 0.61** 0.56** 0.63** 0.55** 0.57** 0.69** 0.59** 0.63** –
21. TFL_IS3 0.18** 0.19** 0.22** 0.20** 0.11 0.02 0.17* 0.26** 0.23** 0.50** 0.57** 0.66** 0.54** 0.57** 0.61** 0.52** 0.54** 0.64** 0.63** 0.50** –
** **
22. TAL_CR1 0.23** 0.31** 0.23 0.25 0.24** 0.14* 0.20** 0.23** 0.27** 0.51** 0.57** 0.52** 0.60** 0.60** 0.58** 0.53** 0.52** 0.58** 0.65** 0.56** 0.52** –
23. TAL_CR2 0.22** 0.24** 0.20** 0.20** 0.20** 0.18** 0.18** 0.23** 0.24** 0.47** 0.56** 0.58** 0.60** 0.57** 0.57** 0.53** 0.54** 0.59** 0.59** 0.52** 0.55** 0.61** –
24. TAL_CR3 0.18** 0.19** 0.17** 0.20** 0.07 0.02 0.09 0.17** 0.19** 0.48** 0.56** 0.65** 0.53** 0.54** 0.62** 0.48** 0.53** 0.63** 0.57** 0.50** 0.67** 0.60** 0.63** –
25. TAL_ME1 0.12 0.13* 0.12 0.21** 0.16* 0.16* 0.10 0.15* 0.13* 0.28** 0.44** 0.31** 0.38** 0.38** 0.33** 0.33** 0.27** 0.25** 0.41** 0.33** 0.33** 0.50** 0.45** 0.38** –
26. TAL_ME2 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.11 0.18** 0.19** 0.17** 0.18** 0.26** 0.19** 0.18** 0.32** 0.19** 0.22** 0.34** 0.17** 0.13* 0.27** 0.11 0.12 0.16** 0.12 –
**
27. TAL_ME3 0.28** 0.30** 0.30** 0.22** 0.16* 0.13* 0.17** 0.25** 0.23** 0.47** 0.57** 0.62** 0.57** 0.58** 0.64** 0.52** 0.54** 0.61** 0.57** 0.49** 0.59** 0.61** 0.59** 0.66 0.36** 0.16* –
28. LFL1 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.12 0.02 0.17** 0.16** 0.10 0.31** 0.27** 0.08 –
29. LFL2 0.01 0.08 0.12 0.15* 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.16* 0.04 0.24** 0.33** 0.42** 0.26** 0.38** 0.39** 0.29** 0.26** 0.33** 0.32** 0.30** 0.30** 0.24** 0.25** 0.29** 0.18** 0.13 0.18** 0.12 –
** **
30. LFL3 0.11 0.14* 0.21 0.23 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.18** 0.12 0.41** 0.52** 0.52** 0.53** 0.52** 0.46** 0.43** 0.44** 0.43** 0.44** 0.43** 0.44** 0.30** 0.37** 0.42** 0.32** 0.09 0.41** 0.17** 0.33** –
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Mean 3.62 3.63 3.69 3.81 3.65 3.39 2.83 2.97 3.18 3.37 3.43 3.28 3.45 3.30 3.36 3.16 3.17 3.20 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.51 3.33 3.28 3.77 3.09 3.53 2.89 2.81 3.11
SD 0.97 0.99 0.91 0.80 0.94 0.90 1.03 0.99 0.98 0.89 0.99 0.87 0.98 0.94 0.87 1.00 0.95 0.89 0.95 0.92 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.91 0.86 0.90 0.87 0.90 0.80 0.92

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, There are no problems of normality and collinearity. OC ¼ Organizational Commitment, AC ¼ Affective Commitment, CC ¼ Continuance Commitment, NC ¼ Normative Commitment,
TFL ¼ Transformational Leadership, II ¼ Idealized Influence, IM ¼ Inspirational Motivation, IC ¼ Individualized Consideration, IS ¼ Intellectual Stimulation, TAL ¼ Transactional Leadership, CR ¼ Contingent
Reward, ME ¼ Management by Exception, LFL ¼ Laissez-faire Leadership, SD¼standardized deviation.
Baek et al. 161

Table 2. Structural equation model (SEM) results.

Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9

Measures

Transformational leadership ! Organizational commitment 0.48**

Idealized influence ! Affective commitment 4.47
Continuance commitment 2.51
Normative commitment 0.12
Inspirational motivation ! Affective commitment 2.20
Continuance commitment 2.29
Normative commitment 0.30
Individualized consideration ! Affective commitment 4.80
Continuance commitment 0.92
Normative commitment 8.90
Intellectual stimulation ! Affective commitment 11.16
Continuance commitment 5.50
Normative commitment 9.67
Transformational leadership ! Affective commitment 0.36**
Continuance commitment 0.23**
Normative commitment 0.36**
Idealized influence ! Organizational commitment 1.54
Inspirational motivation 1.17
Individualized consideration 2.14
Intellectual stimulation 2.03
Chi-square test of model fit (2) 333.84 318.40 387.33 313.27
Confirmatory fit index (CFI) 0.948 0.950 0.930 0.953
Root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.062 0.062 0.071 0.059
Standardized root mean of the residual (SRMR) 0.061 0.058 0.091 0.061
Expected cross-validation index (ECVI) 1.954 1.975 2.186 1.907
**p < 0.01, ¼ standardized estimates.

LFL2 in LFL were 0.14 and 0.49, respectively; the compo-
site reliability of LFL was 0.46. These should be excluded
from this measurement model by Kline’s (2016) and
Raykov’s (1997) thresholds. Model 2 (Appendix 4) is a
second-order organizational commitment (OC) and TFL
measurement model excluding TAL and LFL. When the
model fit of Model 2 was compared with Model 1, there
were significant increases in the goodness-of-fit criteria
(2 ¼ 366.91, p < 0.01, CFI ¼ 0.026)1.
Using the remaining indicators of OC and TFL, this
study conducted comparative analyses of measurement
models in order to determine which models would be more
appropriate. All measurement models in this stage (see
Appendix 4) demonstrated excellent goodness-of-fit.
Although Model 4 with first-order OC and second-order
TFL had no significant changes of model fit in comparison
with the model fit of Model 2, there were slightly signifi-
cant changes in Model 3 with first-order OC and TFL
(2 ¼ 30.62, p < 0.01, CFI ¼ 0.006) and Model 5 with
second-order OC and first-order TFL (2 ¼ 20.57,
p < 0.01, CFI ¼ 0.005). Even if applied to Meade
et al.’s (2008) criteria (the model is invariant if the change
in CFI is < 0.002), these differences were significant.
Whereas Models 2, 3 and 5 were non-invariant, Model 2
and Model 4 were invariant. That is, research frameworks
should be different between models using respective vari-
ables (i.e., transformational leadership and overall organi-
zational commitment) and models using their subscales in
the OCQ (i.e., affective, continuance, and normative com-
mitments) and the MLQ (i.e, idealized influence, inspira-
tional motivation, individualized consideration, and
intellectual stimulation).
Structural equation modelling
Table 2 presentesd the results of SEMs linked to all mea-
surement models (Model 6 to Model 2, Model 7 to Model 3,
Model 8 to Model 4, and Model 9 to Model 5). That is, each
model in this table used a measurement model in CFA.
Regarding Model 6, this study analyzed the second-order
OC and TFL model. This means that this model examined a
hypothesis that the transformational leadership as a single
scale increases the organizational commitment as a single
scale. We examined the fit between the model and the data
first. Specifically, this study found the 2 was 333.84 and
the df was 181. In addition to the chi-square statistic, other
162
model fit statistics were examined: the CFI was 0.95, the
RMSEA was 0.06, and the SRMR was 0.06. Each of these
model fit statistics indicated a proper fit between the model
and the data. Because the goodness-of-fit of the research
model was verified, the hypotheses in this model were
examined next. Thus, the hypothesis in Model 6, that TFL
statistically and significantly increases OC ( ¼ 0.48,
p < 0.01), was supported.
Model 8 was a revision of Model 6 in which OC was
replaced with its subscales (AC, CC, and NC) while keep-
ing the second-order TFL. That is, this model examined the
hypothesis that transformational leadership as a single scale
increases each component of organizational commitment,
such as affective, continuance, and normative commitment.
An ECVI of Model 8 was relatively higher than that for
other models. Byrne (2016) suggested that a lower ECVI
model would be better. Furthermore, SRMR was
slightly high. However, the fit results were acceptable
(2 ¼ 387.33, p < 0.01, CFI ¼ 0.93, RMSEA ¼ 0.07, and
SRMR ¼ 0.09). Therefore, the hypotheses in this model
were proven: TFL statistically and significantly increases
each component of organizational commitment: AC
( ¼ 0.36, p < 0.01), CC ( ¼ 0.23, p < 0.01), and NC
( ¼ 0.36, p < 0.01).
However, while the model fits of Models 7 and 8 were
good (Model 7: 2 ¼ 318.40, df ¼ 171, p < 0.01, CFI ¼ 0.95,
RMSEA ¼ 0.06, and SRMR ¼ 0.06; and Model 9: 2 ¼
313.27, df ¼ 176, p < 0.01, CFI ¼ 0.95, RMSEA ¼ 0.06, and
SRMR ¼ 0.06), TFL as a four-component model had no
significant impact on the organizational commitment as a
single scale and the three components of the organizational
commitment. That is, four subcomponents, idealized influ-
ence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration,
and intellectual stimulation, did not increase organizational
commitment and its subscales.
Discussion and conclusion
Over the past two decades, human resource development
has been crucial to overcome organizational obstacles aris-
ing from a rapidly changing society. This effect has
increased positive outcomes for organizations (Grant,
1996; Hitt et al., 2001; Kehoe and Wright, 2010; Meyer
et al., 2002; Mowday et al., 1998; Pollock et al., 2000).
Private sector research has emphasized the role of super-
visors, using Bass’s (1985a) leadership styles (Borman and
Rowold, 2016; Boer et al., 2016; Deluga, 1988; Fischer,
2016; Harter and Bass, 1988; Mittal and Dhar, 2016;
Mullen et al., 2017; Tracy and Hinkin, 1998). The police
management literature has only limited studies concerning
the application of leadership to law enforcement agencies
in contemporary policing (Masal, 2014; Steinheider and
Wuestewald, 2008). Several studies have examined the
International Journal of Police Science & Management 20(2)
influence of leadership styles on police organizations
(Cockcroft, 2014; Dean and Gottschalk, 2013; Deluga,
1998; Deluga and Souza, 1991; Mazerolle et al., 2013;
Shim et al., 2015). In particular, studies have shown that
supervisory leadership in contemporary policing generated
a number of positive outcomes, including increased job
performance and organizational commitment (Álvarez
et al., 2014; Crow et al., 2011; Currie and Dollery, 2006;
Hawkins and Dulewicz, 2009; Jonhson, 2012; Masal, 2014;
Pillai and Williams, 2004; Sarver and Miller, 2014; Shim
et al., 2015; Swid, 2013). Our study determined that the
leadership style of Korean police team managers, espe-
cially transformational leadership, significantly and posi-
tively increased organizational commitment among their
subordinates (see Model 6). In addition, our results were
consistent with the findings of research among American
police officers that they embrace the principles of transfor-
mational leadership (see Vito et al., 2014).
However, this study found that the applicability of the
MLQ-6 S is somewhat controversial. The first issue, as also
determined in private sector research, is the structural
validity and measurement quality of the scale (Carless,
1998; Densten and Sarros, 1997; Muenjohn and Armstrong,
2008; Tejeda et al., 2001; Vinger and Cilliers, 2006).
According to the CFA, there are several problems related
to the discriminate, convergent validity, and composite
reliability of the MLQ-6 S. In particular, transactional and
laissez-faire leadership could not be explained by their
indicators due to low factor loadings. That is, when using
Korean data, none of Bass and Avolio’s (1992) subscales
demonstrates Korean officers’ leadership. Transforma-
tional leadership, however, was explained by its four
second-order factors (idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual
stimulation).
The second issue is the observation of unexpected rela-
tionships between the subscales of transformational lead-
ership and organizational commitment. Many studies have
claimed that the components of transformational leadership
increase organizational commitment (Batool, 2013; Hayati
et al., 2014; Kent and Chelladurai, 2001; Khasawneh et al.,
2012). However, the components of transformational lead-
ership, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, indi-
vidualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation, did
not have any statistically significant influence on organiza-
tional commitment in this study (see results of Model 9).
Moreover, these components of transformational leader-
ship were not significantly related to the subscales of orga-
nizational commitment, affective, continuance, and
normative commitment (see results of Model 7). Despite
these inconsistent findings, this study could not conclude
that idealized influence, inspirational motivation, indivi-
dualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation have
Baek et al.
no influence on affective, continuance, and normative com-
mitment. As aforementioned, to our knowledge there has
been no examination of whether leadership style scales
(MLQ-6 S; Bass and Avolio, 1992) are appropriate for appli-
cation in law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, it is
impossible to compare our results with those focusing on
industrial agencies and different countries (Batool, 2013;
Hayati et al., 2014; Kent and Chelladurai, 2001; Khasawneh
et al., 2012). To confirm our findings, more studies should
examine the applicability of MLQ-6 S in policing.
Despite supporting the hypothesis that transformational
leadership in team managers increases organizational com-
mitment among Korean police officers and demonstrating the
applicability of MLQ-6 S, this study has some issues. First, we
did not verify the MLQ-6 S and OCQ of Song’s (2005)
Korean revision, which could have problems in translation.
Thus, the Korean police officers may have misunderstood the
questions in the MLQ-6 S and OCQ. Additionally, the revised
organizational commitment questionnaire did not include all
the questions in Allen and Meyer’s (1990) scale. Moreover,
the organizational culture and structure of the Korean police
remain different from the American model (centralized ver-
sus decentralized agency), so perceptions about organiza-
tional commitment and leadership among Korean police
officers might also be different. In particular, this study did
not combine any control variables regarding organizational
climate. Thus, variables, such as organizational support, work
environment, organizational culture and structure, should be
included as control variables in future studies. Lastly, despite
emphasizing the importance of the team leaders’ leadership in
Korea, there is no research concerning such leadership. The
current Korean police structural system of police stations and
teams does not have a long history. This structure was adopted
in 2003 and is still in use. However, in the previous structural
system, Korean police precincts did not operate as a team. In
the current system, the role of team leaders in Korean police
stations has been crucial in achieving the goals of the Korean
National Police. Future studies are required to test, develop,
and refine MLQ-6 S as well as OCQ. In addition, other instru-
ments (e.g. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Form 5X)
could be given to law enforcement agencies to determine
whether transformational leadership of police supervisors
influences their subordinates’ organizational outcomes.
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) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
163
Note
1. Cheung and Rensvold (2002) proposed the < 0.01 cut-off point
for the CFI value. That is, > 0.01 change will be significant.
References
Allen NJ and Meyer JP (1990) The measurement and antecedents
of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the
organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63: 1–18.
Álvarez O, Lila M, Tomás I and Castillo I (2014) Transformational
leadership in the local police in Spain: a leader–follower dis-
tance approach. Spanish Journal of Psychology 17(e42): 1–9.
Baek H and Hwang E (2011) Factors of job satisfaction and orga-
nizational commitment among police investigators. Korean
Journal of Social Science 14: 105–132.
Bass BM (1985a) Leadership: good, better, best. Organizational
Dynamics 13, 26–40.
Bass BM (1985b) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expecta-
tions. New York: Free Press.
Bass BM (1989) The two faces of charismatic leadership. Leaders
Magazine 12, 44–45.
Bass BM (1990) Handbook of Leadership (3rd edn). New York:
Free Press.
Bass BM (1998) Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Mili-
tary, and Educational Impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1992) Developing transformational
leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial
Training 14(5): 21–27.
Batool BF (2013) An empirical study on effect of transforma-
tional leadership on organizational commitment in the banking
sector of Pakistan. IOSR Journal of Business and Management
8(2): 38–44.
Beck K and Wilson C (1997) Police officers views on cultivating
organizational commitment implications for police managers.
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management 20: 175–195.
Bennis W and Nanus B (1985) Leaders: The Strategies for Taking
Charge. New York: Harper and Row.
Bergman ME (2006) The relationship between affective and nor-
mative commitment: Review and research agenda. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 27(5): 645–663
Boer D, Deinert A, Homan AC and Voelpel SC (2016) Revisiting
the mediating role of leader–member exchange in transforma-
tional leadership: the differential impact model. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 25(6):
883–899.
Borman KC and Rowold J (2016) Transformational leadership
and followers’ objective performance over time: insights from
German basketball. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology
28(3): 367–373.
Browne MW and Cudeck R (1989) Single sample cross-validation
indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral
Research 24: 445–455.
164
Brunetto Y and Farr-Wharton R (2003) The commitment and
satisfaction of lower-ranked police officers: lessons for man-
agement. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strate-
gies & Management 26(1): 43–63.
Burns JM (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper.
Byrne BM (2016) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS:
Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (3rd edn).
New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Carless SA (1998) Assessing the discriminate validity of transfor-
mational leadership behavior as measured by the MLQ. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 71: 353–358.
Caught K, Shadur MA and Rodwell JJ (2000) The measurement
artifact in the organizational commitment questionnaire. Psy-
chological Reports 87: 777–788.
Cherrington DJ (1994) Organizational Behavior. The Manage-
ment of Individual and Organizational Performance (2nd
edn). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Cheung GW and Rensvold RB (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit
indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equa-
tion Modeling 9: 233–255.
Cockcroft T (2014) Police culture and transformational leader-
ship: Outlining the contours of a troubled relationship. Poli-
cing 8: 5–13.
Cohen A (2003) Multiple Commitments in the Workplace, an
Integrative Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.
Cohen A (2007) Commitment before and after: an evaluation and
reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Human
Resource Management Review 17(3): 336–354.
Crow MS, Lee C and Joo J (2011) Organizational justice and
organizational commitment among South Korean police offi-
cers: an investigation of job satisfaction as a mediator. Poli-
cing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management 35(2): 402–423.
Currie P and Dollery B (2006) Organizational commitment and
perceived organizational support in the NSW police. Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management
29(4): 741–756.
Dean G and Gottschalk P (2013) Police leadership roles: Empiri-
cal study of management attitudes. International Journal of
Law and Management 55(4): 304–317.
Deluga RJ (1988) Relationship of transformational and transac-
tional leadership with employee influencing strategies. Group
& Organizational Studies 13: 456–467.
Deluga RJ and Souza J (1991) The effects of transformational and
transactional leadership styles on the influencing behavior of
subordinate police officers. Journal of Occupational Psychol-
ogy 64: 49–55.
Densten I and Sarros J (1997) Re-thinking Transformational
Leadership Factors. Working Paper 59/97. Monash Univer-
sity, Victoria, Australia: Faculty of Business and Economics.
Dick GPM (2011) The influence of managerial and job variables
on organizational commitment in the police. Public Adminis-
tration 89: 557–576.
International Journal of Police Science & Management 20(2)
Fischer SA (2016) Transformational leadership in nursing: a con-
cept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 72(11):
2644–2653.
Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal 17(S2): 109–122.
Gravetter FJ and Wallnau LB (2014) Essentials of Statistics for
the Behavioral Sciences (8th edn). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Harr RN (1997) They’re making a bad name for the department:
Exploring the link between organizational commitment and
police occupational deviance in a police patrol bureau. Poli-
cing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Man-
agement 20: 786–812.
Harter JJ and Bass BM (1988) Superiors’ evaluations and subor-
dinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 695–702.
Hawkins J and Dulewicz V (2009) Relationships between leader-
ship style, the degree of change experienced, performance and
follower commitment in policing. Journal of Change Manage-
ment 9: 251–270.
Hayati D, Charkhabi M and Naami A (2014) The relationship
between transformational leadership and work engagement
in governmental hospitals nurses: a survey study. Springer-
Pluse 3(25): 1–7.
Herrbach O (2006) A matter of feeling? The affective tone of
organizational commitment and identification. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 27(5): 629–643.
Hitt MA, Biermant L, Shimizu K and Kochhar R (2001)
Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strat-
egy and performance in professional service firms: a
resource-based perspective. Academy of Management
Journal 44: 13–28.
Hu LT and Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisci-
plinary Journal 6(1): 1–55.
Jaramillo F, Nixon R and Sams D (2005) The effect of law
enforcement stress on organizational commitment. Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management
28: 321–336.
Jaros S (2007) Meyer and Allen model of organizational commit-
ment: measurement issues. Journal of Organizational Beha-
vior 6: 7–25.
Johnson RR (2012) Police organizational commitment: the influ-
ence of supervisor feedback and support. Crime & Delin-
quency 6(9): 1155–1180.
Kang H (2010) 2009 Annual Police Statistic, 53. Seoul, Korea:
Bumshin.
Kehoe RR and Wright PM (2010) The impact of high-
performance human resource practices on employees’ atti-
tudes and behaviors. Journal of Management 39(2): 366–391.
Kelloway EK, Barling J and Helleur J (2000) Enhancing trans-
formational leadership: The roles of training and feedback.
Baek et al.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal 21(3):
145–149.
Kent A and Chelladurai P (2001) Perceived transformational lead-
ership, organizational commitment, and citizenship behavior:
a case study in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Man-
agement 15: 135–159.
Khasawneh S, Omari A and Abu-Tineh AM (2012) The relation-
ship between transformational leadership and organizational
commitment: the case for vocational teachers in Jordan. Edu-
cational Management 40(4): 494–508.
Kline RB (2016) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation
Modeling (4th edn). New York: The Guilford Press.
Koslowsky M (1991) A longitudinal analysis of job satisfaction,
commitment, and intention to leave. Applied Psychology: An
International Review 40: 405–415.
Korean National Police Agency (2010) 2010 White Paper. Seoul,
Korea: Korean National Police Agency Press.
Kuhnert KW and Lewis P (1987) Transactional and transforma-
tional leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis.
Academy of Management Review 12(4): 648–657.
Markovits Y, Boer D and van Dick R (2014) Economic crisis and
the employee: the effects of economic crisis on employee job
satisfaction, commitment, and self-regulation. European Man-
agement Journal 32(3): 413–422.
Masal D (2014) Shared and transformational leadership in the
police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies
and Management 38(1): 40–55.
Mazerolle L, Darroch S and White G (2013) Leadership in
problem-oriented policing. Policing: An International
Journal of Police Strategies and Management 36(7):
543–560.
Meade AW, Jonson EC and Braddy PW (2008) Power and sensi-
tivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invar-
iance. Journal of Applied Psychology 93: 568–592.
Metcalfe B and Dick G (2002) Is the force still with her? Gender
and commitment in the police. Women in Management Review
17: 392–403.
Meyer JP and Herscovitch L (2001) Commitment in the work-
place. Toward a general model. Human Resource Manage-
ment Review 11(3): 299–326.
Meyer JP, Stanley DJ, Herscovitch L and Topolnytsky L
(2002) Affective, continuance, and normative commitment
to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, corre-
lates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior
61: 20–52.
Mittal S and Dhar RL (2016) Effect of green transformational
leadership on green creativity: a study of tourist hotels. Tour-
ism Management 57: 118–127.
Moon MM and Jonson CL (2012) The influence of occupational
strain on organizational commitment among police: a general
strain theory approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40.
249–258.
165
Mowday R (1998) Reflections on the study and relevance of
organization commitment. Human Resource Management
Journal 8: 387–401.
Mowday R, Porter L and Steers R (1982) Employee–Organization
Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and
Turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Muenjohn N and Armstrong A (2008) Evaluating the structural
validity of the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ),
capturing the leadership factors of transformational–transac-
tional leadership. Contemporary Management Research 4,
3–14.
Mullen J, Kelloway EK and Teed M (2017) Employer safety
obligations, transformational leadership and their interactive
effects on employee safety performance. Safety Science 91:
405–412.
Northouse PG (2001) Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Özaralli N (2003) Effects of transformational leadership on
empowerment and team effectiveness. Leadership & Organi-
zation Development Journal 24(6): 335–344.
Peng J, Li D, Zhang Z, Tian Y, Miao D, Xiao W and Zhang J
(2016) How can core self-evaluations influence job burnout?
The key roles of organizational commitment and job satisfac-
tion. Journal of Health Psychology 21(1): 50–59.
Pillai R and Williams EA (2004) Transformational leadership,
self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and perfor-
mance. Journal of Organizational Change Management 17:
144–159.
Podsakoff PM, Toder WD and Skov R (1982) Effects of leader
contingent and noncontingent reward and punishment beha-
viors on subordinate performance and satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal 25: 810–821.
Pollock T, Whitbred R and Contractor N (2000) Social informa-
tion processing and job characteristics: a simultaneous test of
two theories with implication for job satisfaction. Human
Communication Research 26: 292–330.
Raykov T (1997) Estimation of composite reliability for conge-
neric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement 21(2):
173–184.
Sarver MB and Miller H (2014) Police chief leadership: styles and
effectiveness. Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies & Management 37: 126–143.
Shim HS, Jo Y and Hoover LT (2015) Police transformational
leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of
organizational culture. Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies & Management 38(4): 754–774.
Song B (2005) A study on the effects of police chiefs’ leadership
on the organizational commitment. The Korean Association of
Police Science Review 10: 69–112.
Steinheider B and Wuesteward T (2008) From the bottom up:
sharing leadership in a police agency. Police Practice and
Research 9: 145–163.
166 International Journal of Police Science & Management 20(2)

Swid A (2013) Police members’ perception of their leaders’ lead-
ership style and its implications. Policing: An International
Journal of Police Strategies & Management 37(3): 579–595.
Tejeda MJ, Scandura TA and Pillai R (2001) The MLQ revisited:
psychometric properties and recommendations. The Leader-
ship Quarterly 12: 31–52.
Tracy JB and Hinkin TR (1998) Transformational leadership or
effective managerial practices? Group and Organization Man-
agement 23(3): 220–236.
Vinger G and Cilliers F (2006) Effective transformational leader-
ship behaviors for managing change. SA Journal of Human
Resource Management 4(2): 1–9.
Vito GF, Higgins GE and Denney AS (2014) Transactional and
transformational leadership: an examination of the leadership
challenge model. Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies & Management 37(4): 809–822.
Yammarino FJ and Dubinsky AJ (1994) Transformational
leadership theory: using levels of analysis to determine
boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology 47(4):
787–811.
Author biographies
Hyunin Baek is a doctoral student and graduate assistant in the
Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Louisville.
His research interests include internet deviance, juvenile and adult
deviance, police officer’s organizational commitment and com-
petency, confidence in the police, fear of crime, bullying victimi-
zation and perpetration, and testing criminological theories.
Edward H. Byers is a doctoral student and graduate assistant in
the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Louisville.
His research interests include policing, the use of force, terrorism,
and natural resource crime. He is a retired United States federal
agent.
Gennaro F. Vito is a Professor in the Department of Criminal
Justice and the Department Chair at the University of Louisville.
He also serves as a faculty member in the Administrative Officer’s
Course at the Southern Police Institute where he offers a course on
police leadership. He holds a PhD in public administration from
The Ohio State University. Active in professional organizations, he
is a past president, fellow, and recipient of the Bruce Smith Award
(2012) of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.

Appendix 1

Factor loading
Cronbach’s
Organizational commitment (OC) 1 2 3 a

Affective commitment (AC) I feel like part of family at my organization. 0.846 0.853
I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. 0.855
I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own. 0.802
Continuance commitment (CC) It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, .608 0.665
even if I wanted to.
Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to .837
leave my organization now.
It would be too costly for me to leave my organization now. .811
Normative commitment (NC) Jumping from organization to organization seems unethical to me. 0.842 0.788
One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization 0.855
is that I believe that loyalty is important and therefore feel a
sense of moral obligation to remain.
If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it 0.733
was right to leave my organization.

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in five iterations.
Baek et al. 167

Appendix 2

Model 1. Second-order OC and all MLQ 6 S (original measurement model).

Appendix 3

Second-order Observed First-order Composite

Latent variables factor loading variables factor loading reliability

Organizational commitment (OC) Affective commitment (AC) 0.76 1. OC_AC1 0.84 0.86
2. OC_AC2 0.94
3. OC_AC3 0.67
Continuance commitment (CC) 0.50 4. OC_CC1 0.64 0.69
5. OC_CC2 0.74
6. OC_CC3 0.58
Normative commitment (NC) 0.69 7. OC_NC1 0.80
8. OC_NC2 0.88 0.80
9. OC_NC3 0.58
(continued)
168 International Journal of Police Science & Management 20(2)

Appendix 3 (continued)

Second-order Observed First-order Composite

Latent variables factor loading variables factor loading reliability

Transformational leadership (TFL) Idealized influence (II) 0.99 10. TFL_II1 0.76 0.86
11. TFL_II2 0.83
12. TFL_II3 0.86
Inspirational motivation (IM) 1.02 13. TFL_IM1 0.81 0.86
14. TFL_IM2 0.84
15. TFL_IM3 0.81
Individualized consideration (IC) 0.98 16. TFL_IC1 0.77 0.83
17. TFL_IC2 0.80
18. TFL_IC3 0.80
Intellectual stimulation (IS) .99 19. TFL_IS1 0.85 0.82
20. TFL_IS2 0.73
21. TFL_IS3 0.74
Transactional leadership (TAL) Contingent reward (CR) 1.02 22. TAL_CR1 0.78 0.83
23. TAL_CR2 0.78
24. TAL_CR3 0.79
Management by exception (ME) 1.13 25. TAL_ME1 0.47 0.46
26. TAL_ME2 0.21
27. TAL_ME3 0.70
Laissez-faire leadership (LFL) – 28. LFL1 0.14 0.46
– 29. LFL2 0.49
– 30. LFL3 0.74
Chi-square test of model fit (2) df ¼ 390 700.75**
Confirmatory fit index (CFI) 0.922
Root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.060
Standardized root mean of the residual (SRMR) 0.063

**p < 0.01, OC ¼ Organizational Commitment, AC ¼ Affective Commitment, CC ¼ Continuance Commitment, NC ¼ Normative Commitment, TFL ¼
Transformational Leadership, II ¼ Idealized Influence, IM ¼ Inspirational Motivation, IC ¼ Individualized Consideration, IS ¼ Intellectual Stimulation, TAL ¼
Transactional Leadership, CR ¼ Contingent Reward, ME ¼ Management by Exception, LFL ¼ Laissez-faire Leadership.
Baek et al. 169

Appendix 4

Model 2. Second-order OC and TFL (excluding TAL and LFL)

Model 3. First-order OC and TFL

170 International Journal of Police Science & Management 20(2)

Model 4. First-order OC and Second-order TFL

Model 5. Second-order OC and First-order TFL