Public Organiz Rev (2014) 14:397417

DOI 10.1007/s11115-013-0225-z

Transformational Leadership, Organizational Clan

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

Published online: 19 May 2013

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

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

Introduction
The aim of the present study is to provide a better understanding of the relationship
between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior by
H. Kim (*)
Department of Public Administration, Chonnam National University at Gwangju, Gwangju,
Republic of Korea
e-mail: khg1427@chonnam.ac.kr

398

H. Kim

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

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Leadership, Organizational Culture, Organizational Commitment, and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
In the public sectors, leadership is known to play a critical role in causing changes
necessary for effective management. Leaders have the ability to transform organizations through their vision for the future, and by clarifying their vision, they can
empower the employees to take responsibility for achieving that vision (Kim 2012).
Among many types of leadership, transformational leadership has been particularly
emphasized in connection with employee performance (Avolio et al. 1999; Bass and
Avolio 1995; Kirkman et al. 2009). Burns (1978) and MacKenzie et al. (2001)
indicated that transformational leadership motivates followers beyond simple rewards
in exchange for their efforts or performance. Transformational leadership focuses on
the self-actualization of followers. Bass (1985a) stated that transformational leadership emphasizes the growth and development of an organizations followers and its
H2a

Transformational
Leadership

H1a

Clan
Culture

H1b

Affective
Commitment

H2b
Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior

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

398

H. Kim

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

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Leadership, Organizational Culture, Organizational Commitment, and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
In the public sectors, leadership is known to play a critical role in causing changes
necessary for effective management. Leaders have the ability to transform organizations through their vision for the future, and by clarifying their vision, they can
empower the employees to take responsibility for achieving that vision (Kim 2012).
Among many types of leadership, transformational leadership has been particularly
emphasized in connection with employee performance (Avolio et al. 1999; Bass and
Avolio 1995; Kirkman et al. 2009). Burns (1978) and MacKenzie et al. (2001)
indicated that transformational leadership motivates followers beyond simple rewards
in exchange for their efforts or performance. Transformational leadership focuses on
the self-actualization of followers. Bass (1985a) stated that transformational leadership emphasizes the growth and development of an organizations followers and its
H2a

Transformational
Leadership

H1a

Clan
Culture

H1b

Affective
Commitment

H2b
Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior

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

Transformational Leadership, Clan Culture, Affective Commitment

399

goals. Bass (1985b) and Bass and Avolio (1994) classified the dimensions of transformational leadership into the following four categories (Kim 2012, pp. 870871):
The first is known both as idealized influence and as charisma. The transformational
leader becomes a role model for the followers, facilitates the acceptance of group
goals, and encourages them to upgrade their organizational goals. Idealized influence
is the extent to which leaders behave in charismatic ways, inducing followers to
identify with them. The second is intellectual stimulation. The leaders behavior is
concerned with stimulating problem solving and careful and creative consideration
of issues at hand (van Knippenberg and Sitkin 2013, p. 5). Intellectual stimulation is
the extent to which leaders challenge assumptions, take risks, and solicit followers
ideas. The third is individualized consideration. The leader recognizes the differing
needs of followers, individualized attention, and coaching (van Knippenberg and
Sitkin 2013). Individualized consideration is the extent to which leaders attend to
followers needs, act as mentors, and listen to followers concerns. The fourth is
concerned with inspirational motivation (inspiration), involving the communication
of inspiring vision and high performance expectations. Inspirational motivation is the
extent to which leaders articulate a vision that is appealing to followers. Based on the
transformational model of Bass and Avolio (1990, 1994, 1995, 1997), the present
study adopts these four components of transformational leadership (Kim 2012)
idealized influence (charisma), intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration,
and inspirational motivation (inspiration).
Organizational culture has long been considered as an important means for organizations to integrate internal processes and adapt to external conditions (Tusi et al. 2006).
It is well known that organizational culture is related to important outcomes at both the
organization and individual levels. Cameron and Quinn (2010) presented four major
types of organizational culture through the competing values framework: hierarchy
culture, market market, clan culture, and adhocracy culture. Hierarchy culture is characterized by clear lines of decision-making authority, standardized rules and procedures,
and control and accountability mechanisms. Market culture is oriented toward the
external environment and is focused on transactions with external constituencies,
including suppliers, customers, and regulators, among others. Competitiveness and
productivity are achieved by placing great emphasis on external positioning and control.
Clan culture is characterized by teamwork, employee development or empowerment,
participation, commitment, and loyalty. Adhocracy culture focuses on fostering adaptability, flexibility, and creativity and is characterized by uncertainties, ambiguities,
and/or information overload.
Koreas public sector has tended to stress the importance of cohesion, teamwork, a
high level of employee morale, and human resource development as the criteria for
organizational effectiveness. In terms of long-term organizational development,
Koreas collectivistic culture values leaders who can be mentors, are committed to
employee welfare, and can take responsibility for uncertainties and complexities
(Cameron and Quinn 1998; Kim 2007). In this regard, among the four types of
organizational culture, the present study adopts clan culture as the variable for culture
for the analysis of the relationship among transformational leadership, clan culture,
affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior.
The concept of organizational commitment has been defined in many ways (Kim
2012, pp. 871872). For instance, Mowday et al. (1979) defined it as the extent to

400

H. Kim

which employees identify with their organizations values or norms. Bieby (1992,
p. 284) defined commitment as "an attachement that is initiated and sustained by the
extent to which an individual's identification with a role, behavior, value, or institution is considered to be central among alternatives as a source of identity". Mowday et
al. (1982) defined it as the relative strength of an individuals identification with and
involvement in his or her organization. Furthermore, Allen and Meyer (1990, 1996)
and Meyer and Allen (1991) divided organizational commitment into three dimensions: affective, continuance, and normative. According to Allen and Meyer (1990,
1996), affective commitment refers to an employees emotional attachment to the
organization; continuance commitment means the perceived cost related to an employee leaving the organization or refers to anything of value the employee has
invested that would be lost at some perceived cost to the employee if he or she were
to leave the organization; and normative commitment is defined as an employees
perceived duty to remain in the organization.
Much research has suggested that, among these three dimensions, the affective
dimension is the one most closely associated with organizational commitment in that
organizational commitment entails the internalization of the organizations goals,
involvement in employee roles, and loyalty to the organization (Avolio et al.
2004a). Although the concept of organizational commitment may reflect
multidimensional constructs, previous empirical research has typically highlighted
the importance of the attitudinal or affective dimension in examining it (Avolio et al.
2004b; Gong et al. 2009; Jaussi 2007; Meyer et al. 2004; Kim 2012; Mowday et al.
1982; Price and Muller 1981; Riketta 2008; Romzek 1989, 1990). Consistent with
previous much research, we focus on affective dimension of organizational commitment, the employees emotional or psychological attachment to the organization. The
reasons are as follows: First, it seems to be the most robust predictor of behavioral
criteria (Lavelle et al. 2007). Second, it best reflects closer alignment with, or a positive
attitude toward, the effort to change. Third, it is perhaps the most widely studied form of
commitment and is similar to Mowday et al. (1982) groundbreaking conceptualization
of commitment (Lavelle et al. 2009). Finally, it has been theoretically and empirically
linked to transformational leadership (Herold et al. 2008; Kim 2012).
Recent years have seen growing interest among scholars and managers in employees discretionary behaviors, particularly those that can enhance workplace
effectiveness in times of dramatic change (Lavelle et al. 2009; Vigoda and
Golembiewski 2001; Walumbwa et al. 2010). The meta-analysis by Podsakoff et al.
(2009) suggested that organizational citizenship behavior is positively related to
employee performance and organizational productivity. Vigoda and Golembiewski
(2001) suggested that organizational citizenship behavior is necessary for improving
service quality and general outcomes in public organizations as well as for creating a
healthy organizational climate. Such findings suggest that employees discretionary
behavior in organizational settings is closely related to the organizations effectiveness and efficiency (MacKenzie et al. 1996).
Although it did not use terminology of organizational citizenship behavior, a
seminal paper by Katz (1964) indicated self-development and protecting the organization as important behaviors that go beyond formal role requirements and that often
do not occur in response to formal reward systems for differential individual performance. Organ (1988), Podsakoff et al. (1990), and Podsakoff et al. (2000) divided

Transformational Leadership, Clan Culture, Affective Commitment

401

organizational citizenship behavior into five sub-dimensions: civic virtue, conscientiousness, altruism, courtesy, and sportsmanship. Civic virtue refers to active involvement in addressing organizational issues and problems, such as offering innovative
ideas to enhance organizational growth and development (Babcock and Strickland
2010). Conscientiousness refers to being in compliance with organizational rules and
instructions, such as not taking unnecessary breaks and reporting to work on time.
Altruism means helping colleagues in need. Courtesy is related to actions that can prevent
problems, such as avoiding practices that make other peoples work harder and giving
employees enough notice so that they can manage an increased workload. Sportsmanship
refers to being tolerant of the organizations problems (Kim 2012, p. 873).
Many empirical studies have condensed organizational citizenship behavior into two
global dimensions: altruism and generalized compliance (Kim 2006, 2012; Smith et al.
1983). Since 2000, several studies (Finkelstein 2006; Gautam et al. 2005; Podsakoff et
al. 2000) have divided the construct into two somewhat different dimensions: individually directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCBI) and organizationally directed
organizational citizenship behavior (OCBO). OCBI is closely related to altruism,
whereas OCBO, to civic virtue and conscientiousness. Some researchers have defined
OCBO as voice, compliance, or generalized compliance (Todd and Kent 2006).
Williams and Anderson (1991) empirically demonstrated that, based on their definition
of organizational citizenship behavior, this behavior consists of three elements: altruism,
civic virtue, and conscientiousness. On the other hand, some studies have identified
three main forms of organizational citizenship behavior in the context of the public
sector in Asia (Kim 2006, 2007, 2009; Park and Kim 2008).
Following previous research, the present study examines organizational citizenship behavior based on four dimensions below: altruism, civic virtue, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship. The present study does not consider courtesy because of the
overlap between courtesy and transformational leadership. In the study, courtesy
means the leadership quality of being attentive to employees who may be affected
by the organizations meaningful decision-makings (Kim 2012).
Leadership, Clan Culture, and Affective Commitment
Whether organizational culture can be managed is one of the most widely debated
issues in organizational theory. Some researchers treat organizational culture as
something that the management team has complete or partial control over, whereas
others claim that it cannot be managed or manipulated (Deal and Kennedy 1982;
Ogbonna and Harris 2002). Transformational leaders play a role as a giver as well as a
definer of organizational culture. Thus, they set the tone, atmosphere, and philosophy
for the organization and its subunits (Bass and Avolio 1994; Bass and Bass 2008;
Schein 1990). In particular, in terms of organizational effectiveness, transformational
leaders in Koreas public sector can create or invent their own clan culture by
emphasizing teamwork, harmony, employee development, participation, loyalty,
commitment, and morale, among others (Cameron and Quinn 1998).
According to the logic of Scheins organizational culture, organizations that stress
the values associated with both external adaptation and internal integration are likely
to achieve the best results in terms of employee attitudes (e.g., affective commitment)
(Tusi et al. 2006). Internal integration centers on establishing a common vision and

402

H. Kim

shared values among employees or units and on developing a strong sense of

identification with the organization. These conditions may encourage employees to
become more committed to the employer or the organizations. For example, Cameron
and Freeman (1991) considered academic institutions and found that clan culture is the
most effective type of culture in terms of employee morale and other human resource
concerns. In this regard, the following hypothesis could be proposed:
H1a: Transformational leadership is positively related to clan culture.
H1b: Clan culture is positively related to affective commitment.
Much research has been performed on the relationship between transformational
leadership and work-related behaviors or attitudes such as job satisfaction and
affective commitment in Western countries, particularly in the United States (Avolio
et al. 2004a, b). Previous studies have proposed that the antecedents of organizational
commitment involve work experience and personal and organizational factors.
Among personal and organizational factors, leadership is regarded as a key
determinant of organizational commitment (Albrecht 2005; Avolio et al. 2004a, b;
Dick 2010; Kim 2012, p. 874). Specifically, both empirical and meta-analytic research efforts have demonstrated that transformational leadership is positively related
to affective commitment in various organizational contexts (Bass and Riggio 2006;
Koh et al. 1995; Walumbwa and Lawer 2003).
For instance, Albrecht (2005) clearly expressed that most of the previous studies
have regarded employee commitment and increased motivation as the most effective
means of achieving high organizational performance and have found transformational
leadership to be the means of developing those facets. According to Avolio et al.
(2004a, b), transformational leaders are able to influence their followers affective
commitment by increasing the level of the intrinsic value associated with goal
achievement; emphasizing the relationship between followers efforts and goal
achievement; and demonstrating a higher level of personal commitment to a shared
vision/mission and organizational goals. By exploring a group of public hospital staff
nurses in Singapore, Avolio et al. (2004a, b) empirically demonstrated that transformational leadership is positively related to affective commitment. Additionally, Bass
and Riggio (2006) demonstrated a positive relationship between the extent of transformational leadership and employees commitment to the organization. In his
comparative study, Kim (2001) showed that transformational leadership and transactional leadership are positively related to affective commitment in public and private
organizations, respectively, in Korea. In his examination of a local government in
Korea, Kim (2007a) showed that transformational leadership is positively related to
transactional leadership and that transactional leadership is positively related to affective
commitment. Based on the above theoretical and empirical findings, the following
hypothesis could be proposed:
H1c: Transformational leadership is positively related to affective commitment.
Clan Culture, Affective Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Few studies have examined the relationship between organizational culture and
organizational citizenship behavior centering on the public sector. For instance,

Transformational Leadership, Clan Culture, Affective Commitment

403

OReilly and Chatman (1986) argued that organizational culture can provide high
firm performance by inducing employees to be more committed to the organization.
Barney (1986) argued that organizational culture can provide a competitive advantage
for the organization by generating intangible resources that are difficult for other
organizations to imitate. Kotter and Heskett (1992) showed that an adaptive culture
can help organizations increase their financial performance. Bass and Bass (2008)
stated that in an organization characterized by clan culture, employees are expected
to do more than just what is agreed in contracts. Based on these findings, the present
study examines the relationship between organizational culture (clan culture) and
organizational outcomes (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior) in the context of
Koreas public sector. In this regard, the following hypothesis could be proposed:
H2a: Clan culture is positively related to organizational citizenship behavior.
Much research has investigated the relationship between affective commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior in the North American context, many suggesting
that affective commitment is positively related to job performance or organizational
citizenship behavior (Kim 2012; Lavelle et al. 2009; MacKenzie et al. 2001; Wagner and
Rush 2000). The antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior have been associated with organizational fairness or justice, job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
personality (e.g., extroversion sympathy, and achievement needs), and contingent
circumstances such as job characteristics, job range, and leadership behavior (Podsakoff
et al. 2000; Smith et al. 1983). For instance, Lavelle et al. (2007) suggested that affective
commitment is positively related to several outcome variables such as organizational
citizenship behavior. MacKenzie et al. (2001) empirically demonstrated that workrelated behavior or attitudes may be antecedents of affective commitment and that
affective commitment may in turn be an antecedent of organizational citizenship
behavior. Furthermore, Riketta (2008) showed that the commitment-performance relationship is more pronounced for extra-role performance than for in-role performance.
On the other hand, few studies have focused on organizational citizenship behavior in
public sector in Korea. Kim (2009) reported that affective commitment is positively
related to the organizational citizenship behavior dimensions of altruism, civic virtue,
and conscientiousness. In another study, Kim (2006) found that affective commitment is
positively related to altruism but not to generalized compliance (conscientiousness).
The above discussion indicates that affective commitment may encourage employees to
engage in discretionary behaviors. Accordingly, the following hypothesis could be proposed.
H2b: Affective commitment is positively related to organizational citizenship
behavior.
Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Very little research has sought to determine the indirect or direct relationship between
transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (Kim 2012;
Wang et al. 2005; MacKenzie et al. 2001; Organ et al. 2006; Podsakoff et al.
1996). For instance, Podsakoff et al. (1990) employed job satisfaction as a mediating
variable and reported that transformational leadership is indirectly associated with
organizational citizenship behavior. Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) indicated that

404

H. Kim

transformational leadership is associated with two organizational citizenship behavior

dimensionshelping and compliance. Moreover Organ et al. (2006) emphasized that
the leadership style is associated with two types of organizational citizenship behavior (altruism and conscientiousness), with job satisfaction serving as a mediating
variable. They also reported that transformational leadership indirectly associated
with sportsmanship, civic virtue, and conscientiousness through job satisfaction and
trust, and that transformational leadership is associated with altruism.
Several studies have addressed the relationship between leadership (both transformational and transactional) and organizational citizenship behavior in the context of
public sector in Korea. Kim (2009) empirically demonstrated that leadership is
associated with three types of organizational citizenship behavior (altruism, civic
virtue, and conscientiousness). Moreover, Jung and Lee (2000) statistically explained
that transformational and transactional leadership are directly and positively related to
four types of organizational citizenship behavior (altruism, conscientiousness, civic
virtue, and sportsmanship). Such findings indicate indirect or direct relationships
between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior dimensions. Further, these theoretical and empirical findings should also apply to local
government organizations in Korea, such as the Gwangju Metropolitan City government, from which the present studys data were obtained.
Specifically, the more the transformational leader serves as an appropriate role model
(idealized influence); pays special attention to employees needs for achievement and
growth through coaching and mentoring (individualized consideration); articulates a
vision (inspirational motivation); and encourages employees efforts to be innovative
and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old
situations in new ways (intellectual stimulation) (Bass and Avolio 1994), the more likely
the employee is to identify with the organizations values, goals, and norms (i.e., affective
commitment) (Dick 2010). When employees equate their own success with that of their
organization and identify with the organizations values, goals, and norms, they are more
likely to cooperate to make positive contributions to the organization which in turn makes
employees more likely to support their colleagues (altruism), present positive ideas for
organizational development (civic virtue), conform to the organizations rules and procedures (conscientiousness), avoid practices that make other employees work more
difficult (courtesy), and be tolerant of the organizations problems (sportsmanship)
(Lavelle et al. 2009). In this regard, the following hypothesis could be proposed:
H3: Transformational leadership is positively related to organizational citizenship
behavior.

Data and Methods

The data were collected from full-time employees of the Gwangju Metropolitan City
government on two occasions separated by approximately 8 weeks to reduce common method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003). We initially explained that employees
participation in this study was strictly voluntary and that all identifying information
would be removed once the data were coded. We also explained the purpose of the
study, informed the employees that they would be receiving another survey in

Transformational Leadership, Clan Culture, Affective Commitment

405

approximately 8 weeks, and emphasized the importance of responding to both surveys.

Each employee was provided with an envelope and given 7 days to complete the survey,
which was distributed on site during working hours. We arranged a convenient collection box for the employees to return the survey. The employees were asked to rate the
transformational leadership behavior of their supervisors, the perceived degree of
organizational clan culture, and their own level of affective commitment.
Of the 600 questionnaires sent for the employees to answer, 270 were returned at
Time 1. Approximately 8 weeks later, these 270 respondents were asked to complete a
survey measuring organizational citizenship behavior. On this occasion, 202 matched,
usable questionnaires were returned. We compared these usable questionnaires with 68
unusable questionnaires from Time 1 and found no significant differences between these
two groups of respondents in terms of their gender, age, education level, and tenure.
Of the 202 respondents, 80 % were male; 80 %, 14 %, and 6 % had a bachelors
degree, a masters degree, and a high school diploma, respectively; and 41 %, 35 %,
and 20 % were in their forties, fifties, and thirties, respectively. In terms of their
tenure, 33 % had worked between 15 and 20 years; 15 %, between 20 and 25 years;
20 %, between 25 and 30 years; 17 %, between 10 and 15 years; 10 %, at least
30 years; and 5 %, less than 10 years.
Measures
All items were assessed on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Appendix shows these items.
Transformational Leadership Behavior Following previous research (Bass 1990;
Bass and Avolio 1994, 1995; Organ et al. 2006; Podsakoff et al. 1990), we examined
transformational leadership by considering a five-item, four-dimension measure. The
four dimensions of transformational leadership were measured with items from the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X-Short; Bass and Avolio 1995).
These four dimensions were idealized influence (charisma), intellectual stimulation,
individualized consideration, and inspirational motivation (inspiration). The MLQ
(Form 5X-Short) is a standard instrument for assessing these leadership scales
(Rowold and Rohmann 2009). However, because empirical studies have consistently
shown that these dimensions are highly correlated and that they reflect the higherorder construct of transformational leadership (Kim 2012; Walumbwa et al. 2005),
these scales were combined into one transformational leadership factor consisted of
five items, including My supervisor articulates a vision and My supervisor provides an appropriate model. The Cronbach's alpha reliability for the scale was 0.94.
Clan Culture Following the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)
developed using the competing values framework by Cameron and Quinn (1998), we
examined clan culture by considering four items, including The organization is like
an extended family in that it is a very personal place. The Cronbach's alpha
reliability was 0.86.
Affective Commitment Affective commitment is identified as the extent to which an
organizational member is attached to and has a sense of unity with his or her

406

H. Kim

organization and is actively involved in solving the organizations problems (Kim

2012). Six items from Allen and Meyer (1996) and Meyer and Allen (1991) with
respect to affective commitment were used, including This organization has a great
deal of personal meaning for me and I enjoy discussing my organization with
outsiders. The Cronbach's alpha reliability was 0.85.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior Organizational citizenship behavior refers to a
voluntary and discretionary behavior that cannot be formally rewarded by the organization. We used Podsakoff et al. (1990, 2000) 16-item, 4-dimension measure of
organizational citizenship behavior, which contains five items for altruism, four for
conscientiousness, four for civic virtue, and three for sportsmanship, including I help
others who have heavy workloads (altruism), I do not take extra breaks
(conscientiousness), I attend meetings that are not mandatory but are considered
important (civic virtue), and I consume a lot of time complaining about trivial
matters (sportsmanship). The Cronbach's alpha reliability was 0.87.
Controls
The control variables included gender, age, educational level, and organizational
tenure. Previous studies have showed that these demographic variables are potential
predictors of affective commitment or organizational citizenship behavior (Avolio et
al. 2004a, b; Kirkman et al. 2009; Lepine et al. 2002). In the study, for example,
organizational tenure was positively related to organizational citizenship behavior.
Table 2 shows the coding for the categorical variables.
Level of Analysis
Transformational leadership was measured at the individual level for the following
reasons. First of all, leaders may behave differently in different situations (Avolio and
Yammarino 1990). Secondly, methodologically, averaging data may remove significant
relationships, particularly when treating individual perceptions (Piccolo and Colquitt
2006; Walumbwa et al. 2005). Moreover, we employed clan culture, affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior as individual-level variables.
Analyses
In order to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validity of our measures at the
individual level of analysis, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by
using AMOS 19.0 and descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between
variables by using SPSS 19.0. According to Anderson and Gerbing (1988) and
Fornell and Larcker (1981), convergent validity can be established when the
path loading from an item to its latent construct is significant; the standardized
factor loading is greater than 0.7; average variance extracted (AVE) is greater
than 0.5; and construct reliability is greater than 0.7 (Kim 2012). Discriminant
validity can be established by comparing the AVE of each construct with the
square of the correlation coefficient (r2) between the constructs. If the AVE
value exceeds its r2 with any other construct, then there is discriminant validity.

Transformational Leadership, Clan Culture, Affective Commitment

407

Concerning assessing model fit, we used the chi- square measure (2), normed 2
( /df ), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit
index (CFI), the incremental fit index (IFI), the parsimony normed fit index (PNFI),
and the parsimony comparative fit index (PCFI).
2

Results
Convergent and Discriminant Validity Analysis
By using the maximum likelihood method, we estimated a four-factor measurement model including all items measuring transformational leadership, clan culture, affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. The fit
statistics were within generally accepted ranges, indicating that our research
model with OCB as a higher-order reflective construct (2 =586.88, df=223,
p=<.001; Normed 2 =2.41; RMSEA=0.08; CFI=0.92; IFI=0.92; PNFI=0.70;
PCFI=0.74) provided a better fit to the data than the model with organizational
citizenship behavior as a first-order construct (2 =1010.10, df=227, p= <.001;
Normed 2 =4.50; RMSEA=0.183; CFI=0.76; IFI=0.76; PNFI=0.60; PCFI=
0.64) (Bentler 1990; Bollen 1989; Browne and Cudeck 1993). All individual
path loadings from an item to its specified latent construct were significant (p
<.001); the standardized factor loading exceeded 0.7; AVE exceeded 0.5; and
construct reliability exceeded 0.7 (see Table 1), providing evidence of convergent
validity. Next, we examined whether sufficient discriminant validity would be
demonstrated between the constructs transformational leadership, clan culture,
affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. Table 3 shows the
results of the discriminant validity analysis. The AVE of each construct exceeded the
square of the correlation coefficient (r2) between the constructs. These results
demonstrate sufficient discriminant validity between transformational leadership, clan
culture, affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior (Anderson and
Gerbing 1988). As a result, the CFA results provide support for the convergent and
discriminant validity of the four constructs.
Table 2 shows descriptive statistics, scale reliability, and zero-order correlations between the variables. In short, Table 2 shows that perceived transformational leadership and clan culture were lower than affective commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior, implying that improving perceived transformational leadership may lead to increased organizational effectiveness through
CC. The Cronbach's alpha reliability was 0.80 or higher, indicating acceptable
internal consistency. There was a significant positive correlation between transformational leadership and clan culture (r=.58, p<.01); between clan culture
and affective commitment (r=.30, p<.01); between transformational leadership
and affective commitment (r=.31, p<.01); between affective commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior (r=.59, p<.01); between clan culture and
organizational citizenship behavior (r=.22, p<.01); and between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (r=.23, p<.01). Consequently, the zero-order correlation results were all in the expected direction,
providing preliminary support for the relationships in Fig. 1 and Table 2.

408

H. Kim

Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis

Constructs

Subconstructs

Transformational leadership

Affective commitment

Organizational citizenship
behavior

altruism

civic virtuea
conscientiousnessb
Organizational citizenship
behavior

Clan culture

sportsmanship

Items Factor loading

(Standardized)

t1

1.00 (.85)

t2

1.18*** (.95)

19.08

t3

1.20*** (.90)

17.03

t4

1.16*** (.93)

18.26

t5

.97*** (.85)

15.39

ac1

1.00 (.72)

ac2

.97*** (.75)

10.23

ac3

1.12*** (.80)

10.80

ac4

.93*** (.78)

10.94

ac5

.97*** (.78)

10.60

ac6

1.03*** (.81)

10.95

a1

1.00 (.90)

a2

.99*** (.90)

19.19

a3

.96*** (.81)

15.33

a4

.96*** (.79)

14.55

a5

.99*** (.87)

17.91

cv3

1.00 (.85)

cv4

1.13*** (.93)

11.84

c1

1.00 (.87)

c2

1.06*** (.87)

11.95

s1

1.00 (.77)

s2

1.26*** (.82)

12.10

s3

1.31*** (.92)

12.81

cc1

1.00 (.76)

cc2

.83*** (.75)

10.30

cc3

1.00*** (.85)

11.67

cc4

.90*** (.76)

11.45

Composite Reliability/
AVE
.92/.80

.86/.60

.92/.73

.84/.79
.87/.76
.80/.71

.77/.61

Organizational citizenship behavior is a higher-order reflective construct; altruism, civic virtue, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship are first-order reflective constructs; and standardized factor loading values are
in parentheses. a,b cv1 and cv2 for civic virtue and c3 and c4 for conscientiousness were removed because
their respective communality was less than .5
***p<.001

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

Transformational Leadership, Clan Culture, Affective Commitment

409

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between study variables

Variables

Means

SD

1. Age

42.30

7.31

2. Gender

1.21

.40

.47**

3. Education

1.34

.65

.17*

.06

4. Tenure

17.71

1.40

.76**

.30**

5. TL

4.76

1.26

.15*

.21**

.03

.10

(.94)

6. AC

4.96

1.16

.13

.05

.02

.26**

.31**

(.85)

7. OCB

5.33

.81

.19**

.04

.01

.27**

.23**

.59**

(.87)

8. CC

4.23

1.15

.13

.15*

.02

.11

.58**

.30**

.22**

.16**

(.86)

SD standard deviation; TL transformational leadership; CC clan culture; AC affective commitment;

OCB organizational citizenship behavior. Gender (male = 1, female = 2); Education (1 = bachelors
degree, 2 = masters degree, 3 = high school diploma, 4 = middle school certificate or below).
Crobach's alpha reliability values are in parentheses
*p<.05; **p<.01

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

positive effect on affective commitment (estimate=.202, t=2.397, p<.05), clan
culture had a significant effect on affective commitment (estimate=.217, t=2.511,
p<.05), and affective commitment had a significant positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior (estimate=.443, t=5.622, p<.001). Therefore, the results
provide support for H1a, H1b, H1c, and H2b. This means organizational clan
culture partially mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and
affective commitment and that affective commitment fully mediates the relationship
between clan culture and organizational citizenship behavior.
Table 3 Discriminant validity analysis
Constructs
1. TL CC

AVE
TL=.800

r2

.584

.34

AVE > r2

.304

.09

AVE > r2

.310

.09

AVE > r2

.224

.05

AVE > r2

.588

.34

AVE > r2

.226

.05

AVE > r2

CC=.606
2. CC AC

CC=.606

3. TL AC

TL=.800

4. CC OCB

CC=.606

5. AC OCB

AC=.603

6. TL OCB

TL=.800

AC=.603
AC=.603
OCB=.730
OCB=.730
OCB=.730
AVE average variance expected; r correlation between constructs; AVE > r2 demonstrates sufficient
discriminant validity between constructs. TL transformational leadership; CC clan culture; AC affective
commitment; OCB organizational citizenship behavior

410

H. Kim
-.035ns (-.465)

H2a
.630*** (7.954)

TL

H1a.

.256** (2.511)

CC

.932*** (5.622)

H1b

H2b

AC

OCB
H1c

.232** (2.397)
H3

-.075ns (-1.049)

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

Discussion and Implications

In this study, we examined the relationships among transformational leadership, clan
culture, affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior by considering a variable for culture presented by the competing values framework in the context
of a local government organization in Korea. In short, first of all transformational
leadership was positively related to clan culture as well as affective commitment,
providing support for previous research (Avolio et al. 2004a, b; Bass and Avolio
1994; Bass and Riggio 2006; Kim 2001, 2009; Koh et al. 1995; Schein 1990;
Walumbwa and Lawer 2003; Walumbwa et al. 2005); Second, clan culture was
positively related to affective commitment, and affective commitment was positively
related to organizational citizenship behavior, providing support for previous research
(Kim 2009; Lavelle et al. 2007; MacKenzie et al. 2001; OReilly and Chatman 1986;
Podsakoff et al. 2009; Schappe 1998; Tusi et al. 2006; Wagner and Rush 2000; Williams
and Anderson 1991); and third, clan culture did not have a significant relationship with
organizational citizenship behavior; and transformational leadership did not have a
significant relationship with organizational citizenship behavior. As a result, clan culture
partially mediated the effects of transformational leadership on affective commitment,
and affective commitment fully mediated the effects of clan culture on organizational
Table 4 Test results and path coefficients for hypotheses
H

Path

Relationship

Direct

Indirect

Total

H1a

TL CC

.630 (.648)

.630

7.954

***

supported

H1b

CC AC

.256 (.217)

.256

2.511

**

supported

H1c

TL AC

.232 (.202)

.161

.393

2.397

**

H2a

CC OCB

.035 (.014)

.239

.204

.465

H2b

AC OCB

.932 (.443)

.932

5.622

H3

TL OCB

.075 (.031)

.344

.269

1.049

supported
ns

***

supported
ns

Direct refers to direct effects; Indirect refers to indirect effects; and Total refers to total effects. Path
coefficients are standardized coefficients. Unstandardized coefficients are in parentheses. ns not significant.
TL transformational leadership; CC clan culture; AC affective commitment; OCB organizational citizenship
behavior
***p<.001. **p<.05

Transformational Leadership, Clan Culture, Affective Commitment

411

citizenship behavior. These results, which indicate an indirect relationship between

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

412

H. Kim

organizational citizenship behavior literature and provides a better understanding and

empirical evidence of the relationships among transformational leadership, clan
culture, affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Aside from these theoretical contributions, the results have some practical implications. First of all, in the context of the public sector in Korea to improve organizational
performance or effectiveness (Vigoda and Golembiewski 2001) through organizational
citizenship behavior, transformational leaders should invent their own unique clan
culture and strengthen their followers emotional bond with the organization, for
example, by articulating a clear vision, becoming a role model, considering the followers personal feelings, respecting their individual emotions, facilitating their acceptance of the organizations goals, and approaching the problems the employees face in
new ways. Second, regarding the fact that transformational leadership had an indirect
effect on organizational citizenship behavior. Leaders should encourage employees to
actively participate in the organizations decision-making process; have an open, flexible mind with their employees; and continue to consider and support employees in term
of fulfilling their self-actualization needs. (Bass and Bass 2008; Jung and Avolio 1999;
Triandis 1995). Consequently, transformational leadership programs for key managers
in Koreas public sector that can transform their organizational culture into their own
unique clan culture should be designed more attractively, focusing on employees'
development and growth in their public organizations.
Limitations and Conclusions
This study has some limitations. This study use cross-sectional data, thus, such a
research design does not allow for an examination of long-term effects (Selig and
Preacher 2009). In this regard, longitudinal studies using both qualitative and quantitative data should be conducted to provide a better understanding of the dynamic relationships among transformational leadership, clan culture, affective commitment, and
organizationa citizenship behavior (Walumbwa et al. 2010).
Another limitation is concerned with the nature of the sample in public sector in Korea.
Thus, any generalization of the study findings to other groups or organizations outside the
sample profile should be made with caution. More importantly, the use of self-reported
measures raises concerns regarding the possibility that the respondents might have
provided socially desirable responses. In the present study, we attempted to reduce or
mitigate common method bias by determining transformational leadership, clan culture,
and affective commitment ratings at Time 1 and organizational citizenship behavior
(dependent variable) ratings at Time 2. In this regard, future research should consider
other types of organizations or use multiple sources to verify this studys findings.
In conclusion, the present study's results provide evidence that transformational
leadership and clan culture is indirectly associate with organizational citizenship
behavior. In the cultural context in public sector in Korea, the present study suggests
that there are the mediating effects of clan culture and affective commitment on the
relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Furthermore, the present study proposes a research method that can address
organizational citizenship behavior as a higher-order reflective construct in the
context of the public sector in Korea. In conclusion, considering clan culture and
affective commitment in the relationship between transformational leadership and

Transformational Leadership, Clan Culture, Affective Commitment

413

organizational citizenship behavior, the present study contributes to literature on

leadership and work-related behavior link, adding to the general body of knowledge
in realm of the subject
Acknowledgment This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded
by the Korean Government (NRF-2012S1A5A2A01018318).

Appendix Scale Items

Transformational Leadership (Bass and Avolio 1997; MacKenzie et al. 2001; Organ
et al. 2006; Podsakoff et al. 1990):
Items preceded by My supervisor
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

articulates a vision (t1).

provides an appropriate model (t2).
facilitates the acceptance of group goals (t3).
challenges me to think about old problems in new ways (t4).
shows respect for my personal feelings (t5).
Clan Culture (Cameron and Quinn 1998)

1.
2.
3.
4.

The organization is like an extended family in that it is a very personal place (cc1).
People seem to share a lot of themselves (cc2).
Commitment to this organization runs high (cc3).
The organization emphasizes human development (including employee morale),
participation, and consensus (cc4).

Affective Commitment (Allen and Meyer 1990, 1996; Meyer and Allen 1991;
Mowday et al. 1982):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me (ac1).

I enjoy discussing my organization with outsiders (ac2).
I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization (ac3).
Most days, I am enthusiastic about my work (ac4).
I am willing and ready to do anything for my organization (ac5).
I am greatly interested in the future of my organization (ac6).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Podsakoff et al. 1990; 2000; Smith et al. 1983):
Items preceded by I
Altruism

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

help orient new people, even though it is not required (a1).

help others who have heavy workloads (a2).
am always ready to lend a helping hand to those around me (a3).
help others who have been absent (a4).
willingly help others who have work-related problems (a5).
Civic virtue

6. make constructive suggestions that can improve the operation of the organization (cv1).
7. keep abreast of changes in the organization (cv2).

414

H. Kim

8. attend functions that are not required but help the company image (cv3).
9. attend meetings that are not mandatory but are considered important (cv4).
Conscientiousness
10.
11.
12.
13.

do not take extra breaks (c1).

obey company rules and regulations, even when no one is watching (c2).
believe in giving an honest days work for an honest days pay (c3).
have a work attendance record that is above the norm (c4).

Sportsmanship (reverse-scored)
14. consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters (s1).
15. always focus on what is wrong, rather than the positive side (s2).
16. always find faults with what the organization is doing (s3).

References
Albrecht, S. (2005). Leadership climate in the public sector: feelings matter too. International Journal of
Public Administration, 28, 397416.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 118.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization:
an examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252276.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411423.
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Operationalizing charismatic leadership using a levels-of-analysis
framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 193208.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. J. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72, 441462.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., Walumbwa, F. O., & Zhu, W. (2004a). MLQ Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire: Technical report, leader form, rate form, and scoring key for MLQ form 5x-Short
(3rd ed.). Redwood City: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004b). Transformational leadership and organizational
commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951968.
Babcock, M., & Strickland, O. (2010). The relationship between charismatic leadership, work engagement,
and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Psychology, 144, 313326.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage.
Academy of Management Review, 11, 656665.
Bass, B. M. (1985a). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1985b). The multifactor leadership questionnaire: Form 5. Binghamton: State University of
New York.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision.
Organizational Dynamics, 18, 1931.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for
individual, team, and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and
Development, 4, 231272.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational
leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). The multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor
leadership questionnaire. Redwood City: Mind Garden.

Transformational Leadership, Clan Culture, Affective Commitment

415

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. B. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial
applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238246.
Bielby, D. D. (1992). Commitment to work and family. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 281301
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological
Methods and Research, 17, 303316.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cameron, K. S., & Freeman, S. J. (1991). Cultural congruence, strength, and type: relationships to
effectiveness. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 81105.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1998). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the
competing values framework. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E. (2010). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the
competing values framework. Jossey-Bass.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading:
Addison-Wensley.
Dick, G.P.M. (2010). The influence of managerial and job variables on organizational commitment in the
police, Public Administration (Early View), 120.
Dorfman, P. W., & House, R. J. (2004). Cultural influences on organizational leadership: Literlature review,
theoretical rationale, and GLOBE project goals. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W.
Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies
(pp. 5173). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Finkelstein, M. A. (2006). Dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior: motives, motive
fulfillment, and role identity. Social Behavior & Personality, 34, 603616.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluation structural equation models with unobservable variable and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3950.
Gautam, T., Dick, R. V., Wagner, U., Upadhyay, N., & Davis, A. (2005). Organizational citizenship
behavior and organizational commitment in Nepal. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 305314.
Gong, Y., Law, K. S., Chang, S., & Xin, K. R. (2009). Human resources management and firm performance: the differential role of managerial affective and continuance commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(1), 263275.
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), 346357.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations
across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Jaussi, K. S. (2007). Attitudinal commitment: a three-dimensional construct. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 80, 5161.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers cultural orientation on
performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 208219.
Jung, Y. K., & Lee, K. M. (2000). An empirical study on the relationships between leadership behavior,
organizational justice, and organizational citizenship behavior. Korean Public Administration Review,
34(4), 323341.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131146.
Kim, H. J. (2001). The effects of transformational/transactional leadership on the organizational commitment: a comparison of public and private sector employees. Korean Public Administration Review,
35(2), 197216.
Kim, S. (2006). Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea. International
Journal of Manpower, 27(8), 722740.
Kim, H. (2007). A study on the causal relationship among organizational justice, organizational trust, and
organizational citizenship behavior. Korean Public Administration Review, 41(2), 6994.
Kim, H. (2009). A study on the relationship between leadership and organizational effectiveness. Journal of
Social Science, 35(3), 69103.
Kim, H. (2012). Transformational leadership and organisational citizenship behavior in the public sector in
South Korea: the mediating role of affective commitment. Local Government Studies, 38(6), 867892.

416

H. Kim

Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance
orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: a cross-level, cross-cultural examination.
Academy of Management Journal, 53, 744764.
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher
attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 319333.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press.
Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social
exchange, and citizenship behavior: the target similarity model. Journal of Management, 33, 841866.
Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley, A. B., Taneja, A., & Vinekar, V. (2009).
Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: a multifoci analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 337357.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions
and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 112129.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature of dimensionality of organizational citizenship
behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 5265.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1996). Effects of OCB on sales team effectiveness.
Bloomington: Unpublished Data Analysis, Indiana University School of Business.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership
and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 115134.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three component conceptualization of organizational commitment.
Human Resource Management Review, 1, 6189.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: a
conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 9911007.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224247.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. M., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organizational linkages: The psychology
of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic.
OReilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects
of compliance, identification, and internalization on pro-social behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 492499.
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. G. (2002). Organizational culture: a ten year, two-phase study of change in the
UK food retailing sector. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 673706.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Toronto:
Lexington.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Park, T., & Kim, M. (2008). The effects of personnel administrative fairness on organizational citizenship
behavior under the new liberalistic reform of personnel administration in Seoul metropolitan government. Korean Public Administration Review, 42(3), 261291.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: the mediating role
of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327340.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107142.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leadership behavior and
substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259298.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513563.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 879903.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizationallevel consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 122141.
Price, J., & Muller, C. (1981). Professional turnover: The case of nurses. New York: Medical and Scientific Books.
Riketta, M. (2008). The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: a meta-analysis of panel
studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 472481.

Transformational Leadership, Clan Culture, Affective Commitment

417

Romzek, B. S. (1989). Personal consequences of employee commitment. Academy of Management

Journal, 32, 649661.
Romzek, B. S. (1990). Employee investment and commitment: the ties that bind. Public Administration
Review, 50, 374382.
Rowold, J., & Rohmann, A. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership styles, followers
positive and negative emotions, and performance in german nonprofit orchestras. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 20, 4159.
Schappe, S. P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Psychology, 132, 227290.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 48, 109119.
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Mediation models for longitudinal data in developmental research.
Research in Human Development, 6(23), 144164.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653663.
Todd, S. Y., & Kent, A. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of task characteristics on organizational
citizenship behavior. North American Journal of Psychology, 8, 253268.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.
Tusi, A. S., Wang, H., & Xin, K. R. (2006). Organizational culture in China: an analysis of culture
dimensions and culture types. Management and Organization Review, 2, 345376.
van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational
leadership research: Back to the drawing board? Academy of Management Annals, 7, 160.
Vigoda, E., & Golembiewski, R. T. (2001). Citizenship behavior and the spirit of new Managerialism: a theoretical
framework and challenge for governance. American Review of Public Administration, 31, 273295.
Wagner, S. L., & Rush, M. C. (2000). Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior: context, disposition,
and age. Journal of Social Psychology, 140(3), 379391.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawer, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations: transformational leadership,
collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes, and withdrawal behaviors in three emerging economies.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 266285.
Walumbwa, F. O., Orwa, B., Wang, P., & Lawer, J. J. (2005). Transformational leadership, organizational
commitment, and job satisfaction: a comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 235256.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service
climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: a cross-level investigation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517529.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a
mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers performance and
organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420432.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of
organizational citizenship behaviors and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601617.
Hougyun Kim Hougyun kim is an associate professor at Chonnam National University of Kwangju
Metropolitan City in South Korea. His research interests include organizational behavior, human resource
development, and cultural competence. He is an Ad-hoc reviewer for Leadership Quarterly (SSCI).