Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

LODJ
33,6

564

The effects of core


self-evaluations and
transformational leadership
on organizational commitment
Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo
Department of Business Administration,
Winona State University, Winona, Minnesota, USA, and

Hea Jun Yoon and Chang-Wook Jeung


Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy and Development,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the joint effects of employees core self-evaluations
and perceived transformational leadership of their supervisors on employees affective commitment to
the organization.
Design/methodology/approach Subjects were drawn from a Fortune Global 500 company in
Korea. Descriptive statistics and hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to explain the
variance in organizational commitment.
Findings Core self-evaluations and transformational leadership positively influenced employees
organizational commitment. In terms of effect size, organizational commitment was more related to
transformational leadership than core self-evaluations. As for transformational leadership, employees
exhibited the highest organizational commitment when their leaders articulated the vision, promoted
group goals, and provided intellectual stimulation.
Research limitations/implications The sample of this study is likely restricted to a certain
group with similar demographic characteristics (e.g. male junior managers with relatively high
education levels). This study, like most organizational commitment studies, relied on self-reported and
cross-sectional survey method.
Practical implications Since core self-evaluations tend to be stable over time, HR professionals
need to recruit and select those with higher core self-evaluations. HR/OD professionals can help
managers change their leadership in a transformative fashion (vision articulation, group goal
promotion, and intellectual stimulation) by providing relevant training programs and developmental
relationships such as coaching and mentoring.
Originality/value This study took an integrative approach that encompasses personal and
contextual factors in a study. It found not only a significant relationship between core self-evaluations
and organizational commitment, but also the interaction effects of core self-evaluations and one of the
dimensions of transformational leadership.
Keywords Organizational commitment, Core self-evaluations, Transformational leadership,
Job commitment, Republic of Korea
Paper type Research paper

Leadership & Organization


Development Journal
Vol. 33 No. 6, 2012
pp. 564-582
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/01437731211253028

Introduction
For an organization to have a sustained competitive advantage in the product and labor
market, highly committed employees are required. Organizational commitment refers
to an individuals feelings about an organization as a whole (Allen and Meyer, 1996).
Given that employees who are highly committed to the organization have a tendency to
remain in the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1996; Whitener and Walz, 1993) and show

positive work-related behaviors (Hausknecht et al., 2009; Meyer et al., 1989; Vandenberghe
et al., 2004), more companies become aware of the value of enhancing employees
organizational commitment and the importance of understanding its antecedents. Thus,
fostering employees organizational commitment becomes the foremost concern for
contemporary organizations to retain talented employees in a knowledge-driven economy
(Neininger et al., 2010; Reiche, 2008). However, employees commitment to the organization
is being challenged by the tendency of todays workers to be more involved to their
profession than to their organization (Burud and Tumolo, 2004).
What predicts organizational commitment has been an important research concern
in the field of human resource (HR) and organization development (OD). The
antecedents of organizational commitment are varied in their nature and origins
as noted by Steers (1977). Previous studies have found that commitment is influenced
by personal characteristics, work experiences, job characteristics, role states, group/
leader relations, and organizational characteristics (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Mathieu
and Zajac, 1990; Steers, 1977). Although the significant implications of various
personal characteristics as the antecedents of organizational commitment have been
identified, relatively little attention has been given to the dispositional source of
commitment (Erdheim et al., 2006). Moreover, most of the studies which have
investigated relationships between personal disposition and organizational
commitment have primarily employed the five-factor model (Big Five) or positive
affectivity/negative affectivity (PA/NA) trait taxonomy (Cropanzano et al., 2006;
Erdheim et al., 2006; Naquin and Holton, 2002).
Heller et al. (2002) noted that three trait taxonomies (i.e. Big Five, PA/NA, and core
self-evaluations) have been generally employed in predicting job attitudes for the last
decade. Core self-evaluations refer to a higher-order concept of an individuals selfevaluation of his or her personal characteristics (Judge et al., 2002) and capture a
fundamental aspect of the self-incorporating four core individual traits: self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability (Judge et al., 1997). By
using the recent construct of core self-evaluations, a better understanding of the
dispositional source of affective commitment can be provided.
Accumulating evidence has indicated the contributions of various situational
characteristics as key antecedents of organizational commitment (Kuvaas, 2006; Meyer
et al., 2002; Park and Rainey, 2007). Joo and Shim (2010) also asserted that future research
would benefit from a more integrative approach that includes personal and contextual
factors in a study. However, there has been less research conducted to explore the
interaction effect of dispositional traits and situational factors on organizational
commitment. Many studies provided that leadership has been considered as one of the
most important factors influencing employee attitudes and behaviors. In particular,
transformational leaders build a strategic vision, communicate that vision through
framing and use of metaphor, and create commitment toward the vision (Bass and
Avolio, 1994). Transformational leadership, thereby, can have a positive effect on
individuals attitudes and behaviors (Avolio, 1999; Howell and Hall-Merenda, 1999;
Mester et al., 2003; Podsakoff et al., 1996). In this vein, it would be meaningful to examine
employees core self-evaluations and transformational leadership as the antecedents of
employees commitment to the organization.
The primary purpose of this study is to examine the effects of employees core
self-evaluations and perceived transformational leadership of their supervisors on
organizational commitment. We also investigated the interaction effect of core
self-evaluations and perceived transformational leadership on organizational

Organizational
commitment

565

LODJ
33,6

commitment. Research question of this study is: to what extent do core self-evaluations
and transformational leadership influence organizational commitment? Findings from
this study would be expected to provide better understanding of individuals core selfconcepts and their supervisors transformational leader behaviors which help increase
employees commitment to their organizations.

566

Theoretical background and research hypotheses


In this section, we review the constructs of core self-evaluations and transformational
leadership as well as their relationships with organizational commitment. The
hypotheses were derived, based on the comprehensive literature review.
Research on organizational commitment
Organizational commitment has been viewed as a multifaceted construct (Allen and
Meyer, 1990; Meyer and Allen, 1991, 1997; OReilly and Chatman, 1986). Meyer and Allen
(1991) proposed a three-component model of organizational commitment comprising
affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Continuance commitment refers to
a strong desire to maintain membership in an organization and normative commitment
refers to the willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of an organization
(Mowday et al., 1982). Affective commitment, which is defined as an emotional
attachment to an organization (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Mowday et al., 1982), is an
important concept understanding employees loyalty and devotion to the organization
(Meyer and Allen, 1984, 1991; Rhoades et al., 2001). Employees with strong affective
attachment to the organization tend to identify with, be involved in, and enjoy
membership in, the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1990, p. 2).
Affective commitment is the most important component of organizational commitment
in predicting turnover intentions (Jaros, 1997). Recent meta-analyses further provided that
affective commitment had the strongest and most positive correlations with desirable
work outcomes such as attendance, in-role performance, and organizational citizenship
behavior among three components of organizational commitment (Meyer et al., 2002). As
employees with a strong affective commitment continue employment with the
organization and tend to make more effort for the organization, it can be said that
affective commitment represents the overall organizational commitment. In this study,
therefore, we focussed on affective commitment rather than the other two.
Core self-evaluations and organizational commitment
Judge et al. (1998) defined core self-evaluations as fundamental premises that
individuals hold about themselves and their functioning in the world (p. 168).
According to Judge et al. (1997), core self-evaluations indicate a single, higher-order
factor comprised of four well-established dispositional traits: self-esteem, generalized
self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability. Judge et al. (2003) argue that core
self-evaluations are a latent trait that is the common source of the four specific traits
and high levels of self-esteem, general self-efficacy, emotional stability, and locus of
control come from a broad, general, positive self-regard (p. 304).
Core self-evaluations are originally conceptualized as an explanatory variable of job
satisfaction (Bono and Judge, 2003; Judge et al., 1998). Thus, many studies using the
core self-evaluations scale have focussed on providing evidence of the relationship
between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction since this scale was developed in the
late 1990s (e.g. Judge and Bono, 2001). The relationship between core self-evaluations
and job performance was also well supported by previous studies (Erez and Judge,

2001; Grant and Wrzesniewski, 2010; Judge et al., 2003). Judge et al. (1998) viewed
motivation as one of the possible mechanisms by which positive self-concept influences
job performance:

Organizational
commitment

Work motivation, as a process, includes a series of assessments such as whether or not to


engage in behavior, how much effort to exert, and how to regulate behavior once a person
decides to engage in the chosen task. However, those assessments themselves may be
influenced by bottom-line evaluations about oneself such as Am I capable? or Can I
accomplish this task? Thus, core self-evaluations may be crucial to the formation of
more specific assessments that are directly related to decision regarding motivation to perform
(pp. 172-3).

567

Regarding the psychological processes underlying the relationship of core selfevaluations with job performance, some studies have suggested that cognitive
processes such as goal setting mediated the relationship between core self-evaluations
and job performance (Erez and Judge, 2001). Also, Grant and Wrzesniewski (2010)
found social and emotional process influence the link between core self-evaluations and
job performance by providing that high core self-evaluations are most likely to predict
high performance when people are also high in other-orientation.
More recently, core self-evaluations have been found to be a significant predictor
of a variety of outcomes including goal setting, goal commitment, stress and burnout,
life satisfaction, happiness, job-search persistence, work and family satisfaction,
commitment to change, creativity (Boyar and Mosley, 2007; Bono and Colbert,
2005; Erez and Judge, 2001; Herold et al., 2008; Jung, 2001; Piccolo et al., 2005;
Wanberg et al., 2005). Also, many studies further found the role of various mediators
including jobs characteristics, task complexity, and work environment in the
relationship between core self-evaluations and work outcomes (e.g. Kacmar et al.,
2009; Srivastava et al., 2010). But, researchers have not paid attention to the
relationship between core self-evaluations and organizational commitment as noted
by Kittinger et al. (2009).
In this study, our focus is a direct relationship between core self-evaluations and
organizational commitment. There are several reasons to believe that individuals who
score high on core self-evaluations will have higher organizational commitment than
those with lower core self-evaluations. First, positive self-regard influence situational
appraisals. That is, people with high core self-evaluations are highly confident in their
abilities, and thus they tend to appraise critical events as a challenge in a positive way
and focus on the positive aspects of their jobs (Locke et al., 1996). In contrast, people
with low emotional stability tend to have stress, fear, or feeling of helplessness in
dealing with those challenging events in the organizations (Costa and McCrae, 1992).
Second, individuals who perceive the job as challenging and intrinsically fulfilling
can act as an underlying motivational mechanism and might influence
employees commitment to the organization. Along similar lines, people with high core
self-evaluations tend to have positive expectations about their ability and will show
stronger job responsibilities than those who consider themselves incompetent ( Judge
et al., 1997). Thus, people with high core self-evaluations tend to be more committed to
the organization where individual ability and responsibility should be proven and
demonstrated. Third, those with higher core self-evaluations may experience healthy
relationships within the workplace than those with low core self-evaluations.
Constructive relationships may foster positive interactions and collaboration among
organizational members, which, in turn, may be linked to individuals emotional
attachment to and involvement in their organizations. Based on the review of literature

LODJ
33,6

and theoretical reasons, it is expected that core self-evaluations will be positively


related to organizational commitment:
H1. Employees core self-evaluations will be positively related to their commitment
to the organization.

568

Transformational leadership and organizational commitment


Bass and Avolio (1994) defined transformational leadership as a set of behaviors
including idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration that transform followers needs and expectations to
a higher level. Transactional leadership tends to be based on an exchange process in
which the leader gives specified rewards in exchange for the followers efforts (Burns,
1978). In contrast, transformational leaders move beyond the transactions and focus
on raising the level of motivation and morality in both leader and the follower (Bass,
1985). Research on transformational leadership attempts to approach transformational
leadership as a social process by emphasizing on how leaders stimulate their followers
to transcend their own self-interests for the sake of their team and organization
(Xenikou and Simosi, 2006).
Transformational leadership is a higher-order construct incorporating several
components. Podsakoff et al. (1990, p. 112) describe that transformational leadership
is multidimensional in nature and identified six key behaviors (sub-dimensions) of
transformational leaders as follows:
(1)

identifying and articulating a vision;

(2)

providing an appropriate model;

(3)

fostering the acceptance of group goals;

(4)

high performance expectations;

(5)

providing individualized support; and

(6)

intellectual stimulation.

Research has increasingly shown that transformational leadership is positively related


to a wide variety of outcomes including performance, job satisfaction, motivation,
morality, empowerment, organizational commitment, creativity, and innovative
behavior (Barling et al., 1996; Bass, 1985; Dumdum et al., 2002; Dvir et al., 2002;
Fuller et al., 1996; Lowe et al., 1996; Pieterse et al., 2010; Wang and Rode, 2010).
In particular, transformational leadership has been considered a crucial component in
fostering organizational commitment, and accumulating empirical evidence suggests
that transformational leadership is positively associated with organizational
commitment in a variety of organizational settings (Avolio et al., 2004; Dumdum et al.,
2002; Lowe et al., 1996; Stumpp et al., 2009; Walumbwa and Lawler, 2003). Particularly,
Bycio et al. (1995) suggested that the affective component of commitment had a much
stronger relation with transformational leadership in that the inspirational facets of
transformational leadership enhance affective commitment rather than continuance or
normative commitment, which might not be based on emotional aspects of commitment.
Several theoretical speculations linking transformational leadership and
organizational commitment are as follows. As noted by Moss and Ritossa (2007),
transformation leaders can invoke and regulate emotions-rather than rely on rational
process-to motivate other individuals (p. 433). First, transformational leaders can

inspire employees by articulating a vision that elevates employees confidence and


expectations (Martin and Epitropaki, 2001). Employees who are intrinsically motivated
by this leaders articulation of appealing vision can be more involved in achieving their
long-term goals.
Second, transformational leaders can foster employees loyalty and respect through
desired behaviors. By providing an appropriate role model for followers, employees
respect, trust in, and emotionally identify with the leader and the organization (Bass,
1998; Walumbwa et al., 2004). Third, transformational leaders promote cooperation
among employees and encourage them to collaborate toward a common goal. By getting
employees to transcend their own self-interest for collective interests or a common good
of the organization (Pillai and Williams, 2004; Yukl, 1998), transformational leaders can
motivate followers become more attached to the organization.
Third, transformational leaders expect excellence and high level of performance on
the part of followers (Podsakoff et al., 1990). In contrast to transactional leaders who set
goals and clarify desired outcomes, transformational leaders broaden and raise
followers goals and motivate followers to accomplish more than what is expected of
them (Bass and Avolio, 1990). Through high performance expectations, transformational
leadership behaviors can transform their followers helping them to reach their full
potential (Dvir et al., 2002, p. 736) and become committed to generate the highest levels
of performance. In addition, the relationship between transformational leaders and their
followers is based on individualized consideration rather than on organizations formal
regulations (Bass, 1985). Through individualized support, transformational leaders
respect their followers and understand their personal feelings and needs, resulting in
more engaged and devoted followers.
Lastly, transformational leaders encourage employees to question extant beliefs,
challenge the status quo, and develop innovative approaches to deal with organizational
issues rather than passively follow (Bass, 1985; Shin and Zhou, 2003). Through
intellectual stimulation, transformational leader can further create an organizational
environment in which employees feel psychological safety in generating innovative ways
of solving problems and thus, become more committed to the organization (Avolio and
Bass, 1988). Accordingly, we hypothesized that transformational leadership behaviors
are positively related to employees commitment to the organization:
H2. Transformational leadership behaviors vision articulation, role modeling,
group goal promotion, high performance expectation, individualized support,
and intellectual stimulation will be positively related to employees
organizational commitment.
Interaction effects
As Judge (2009) pointed out that individuals core self-evaluations could be closely tied
to the environment surrounding them, transformational leadership behaviors may
facilitate the relationship between the followers positive self-concept and their work
attitudes. Likewise, leaders who fail to articulate a vision for future, provide
individualized support, or stimulate their followers to seek new ways to approach
challenges may diminish the impact of high core self-evaluations on organizational
commitment. Although a relationship between transformational leadership and
organizational commitment has been conceptually and empirically established,
there has been little empirical research examining the interaction effect of core
self-evaluations and transformational leadership as a situational factor on

Organizational
commitment

569

LODJ
33,6

570

organizational commitment. We, therefore, hypothesize that the interaction effects of


employees core self-evaluations and each transformational leadership dimension will
have a positive impact on employees commitment to the organization such that
employees with higher core self-evaluations and higher perceived transformational
leadership dimensions will have higher organizational commitment than those who
have high core self-evaluations but with lower perceived transformational leadership
dimensions or those with higher perceived transformational leadership dimensions but
lower core self-evaluations:
H3. Employees core self-evaluations and their perceived transformational
leadership behaviors of their leaders (i.e. vision articulation, role modeling,
group goal promotion, high performance expectation, individualized support,
and intellectual stimulation) will have significant interaction effects on their
commitment to the organization.
Methods
The sample and data collection procedure will be described. Then, information about
the four measures will be elaborated below. Finally, the analytical strategy will be
briefly discussed.
Data collection and sample demographics
As we wanted to include employees working in large for-profit organizations,
a Fortune Global 500 company in the high-tech industry headquartered in South Korea
was selected for the current study. Based on a convenience sampling approach, a
self-administered, web-based online survey was used to obtain individual perceptions.
E-mail notices and reminders for the survey were sent to approximately 600
employees, and 459 employees voluntarily participated in the survey. After the data
cleaning processes including missing value analysis and outlier detection, a total of 439
responses were used in the current study with the final response rate of 73 percent.
The following demographic variables were included in this study: gender, age,
hierarchical level, level of education, job type, and the length of working relationship
with the supervisor. Most respondents were male (91.3 percent) in their 30s (96.4 percent)
in manager or assistant manager positions (99.1 percent). In terms of educational level,
41.7 percent of the respondents graduated from a four-year college and 38.7 percent from
graduate school.
Classification by job type was as follows: 10.7 percent in marketing and sales, 10.3
percent in production, 8.4 percent in engineering, 39.6 percent in research and
development, 12.3 percent in information technology, 10.0 percent in a supporting
function such as finance, HR, and legal, and 8.7 percent in others. The length of
working relationship with a current supervisor was evenly distributed across the
categories: less than one year (19.4 percent), between one and two years (21.9 percent),
between two and three years (17.1 percent), between three and five years (19.4 percent),
and over five years (22.2 percent). In summary, most respondents were highly educated
male managers or assistant managers in their 30s.
Measures
Three instruments were selected which can appropriately measure the constructs
in our conceptual framework. Based on the previous research and our own analysis,
we confirmed acceptable levels of reliability and validity of three instruments.

The questionnaires used five-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly


disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Core self-evaluations. Core self-evaluations were measured with the 12-item
Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES) developed by Judge et al. (2003). Core selfevaluations encompass a composite of four core traits including self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability. Instead of
measuring the specific personality traits separately and weighting the scores, this
scale is a direct and integrative measure of an individuals core self-concept.
Judge et al. (2003) provided evidence of a unitary factor structure and psychometric
support for this scale. In this study, all items were averaged to create a single core selfevaluations score for each respondent. In Judge et al. (2003), the test-retest reliability
was 0.81 over a one-month period. In the current study, the internal consistency
reliability (Cronbachs a was 0.78. Sample items included Overall, I am satisfied with
myself, and I determine what will happen in my life.
Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership was measured by
Podsakoff et al. (1990) transformational leadership behavior inventory (TLI). Among
the six dimensions of the TLI, we excluded high performance expectation because
of its low reliability (a 0.57) in the current study. The overall reliability of
transformational leadership was 0.92 with all six dimensions and 0.94 with the five
dimensions excluding the dimension of high performance expectation.
The five dimensions of transformational leadership behaviors used in this study
were as follows: articulating a vision (five items; a 0.87; sample item: My leader has
a clear understanding of where we are going), providing an appropriate model (three
items; a 0.87; sample item: My leader provides a good model to follow), fostering
the acceptance of group goals (four items; a 0.89; sample item: My leader fosters
collaboration among work groups), individualized support (four items; a 0.80;
sample item: My leader behaves in a manner that is thoughtful of my personal
needs), and intellectual stimulation (three items; a 0.88; sample item: My leader has
stimulated me to think about old problems in new ways).
Organizational commitment. Of the three types of commitment (i.e. affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to occupation and organization) of Meyer
et al. (1993), we used affective organizational commitment that was measured with the
six-item scale. Sample items included I would be very happy to spend the rest of my
career with this organization and This organization has a great deal of personal
meaning to me. Allen and Meyer (1996) reported that the median reliability of previous
studies has been 0.85 and it was 0.83 in this study.
Data analysis
For all data analyses, SPSS 17.0 and LISREL 8.80 were used. Before analyzing the
collected data, we applied several statistical interventions to the dataset. First, the missing
values were imputed based on the conditional mean imputation approach. We replaced the
missing values with their expected values calculated by the regression equations among
variables. In addition, we detected and deleted some univariate and multivariate outliers
by computing z-score and Mahalanobis D 2. Mahalanobis D 2 measures the distance of
a case from the centroid of a distribution, given the covariance of the distribution (Hair
et al., 2010; Penny, 1996). If the probability associated with its Mahalanobis D 2 is 0.001
or less, the case was considered as an outlier and deleted from the dataset.
After the data cleaning process, we calculated descriptive statistics, correlation
coefficients, and Cronbachs a coefficients to confirm the relationships across the

Organizational
commitment

571

LODJ
33,6

572

constructs and sub-constructs among the proposed variables and the internal
consistency reliabilities of the scales (Howell, 2007; Siegel, 2003). In addition, in order to
address the potential concern of common method variance, we conducted Harmans
single factor test as described by Podsakoff et al. (2003). According to this approach,
there is a common method variance if the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) result
presents only one factor or a single factor explaining the majority of the covariances
of independent and dependent variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was also performed to assess the construct validity of the measurement
model. The factor structure was assessed by statistically testing the fit between the
proposed model and the measured data in terms of convergent and discriminant
validity (Kline, 2005; Pett et al., 2003; Yang, 2005).
Finally, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted as the main
analyses. A multiple regression analysis is appropriate when a single-metric
dependent variable is hypothesized to be related with multiple metric independent
variables (Howell, 2007; Kline, 2005; Siegel, 2003). In the current study, we tested the
main effects of core self-evaluations and five sub-dimensions of transformational
leadership on employees affective organizational commitment. All values were
centered to control potential multicollinearity of interaction terms.
Results
The results of the study were reported in three parts. First, the descriptive statistics,
correlations, and reliabilities were reported. Second, several factor analyses assessed
the potential common method variance problem as well as overall construct validity of
the measurement model. Lastly, the hierarchical multiple regression model was tested
and the results of the hypothesis testing were addressed.
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities
Table I presents the correlations among the constructs and the internal consistency
reliabilities of the scales. The overall relationships among the five sub-constructs
of transformational leadership were stronger than the relationships with core
self-evaluations and affective organizational commitment. The relationship between
role modeling and group goal promotion was the highest (r 0.77), whereas the
relationship between core self-evaluations and intellectual stimulation was the lowest
(r 0.11). All of the correlations indicated significant relationships ( po0.05) among
the constructs. All measures demonstrated adequate levels of reliability (r 0.78-0.89).

Variables

Table I.
Means, standard
deviations, reliabilities,
and sub-scale zero-order
intercorrelations

Core self-evaluations
Vision articulation
Role modeling
Group goal promotion
Individualized support
Intellectual stimulation
Organizational commitment

M
3.43
3.27
3.28
3.36
3.10
3.26
3.31

SD

0.44 (0.78)
0.71 0.17** (0.87)
0.87 0.13** 0.72** (0.87)
0.81 0.18** 0.66** 0.77** (0.89)
0.78 0.25** 0.37** 0.54** 0.50** (0.80)
0.79 0.11*
0.68** 0.62** 0.58** 0.40** (0.88)
0.72 0.27** 0.43** 0.37** 0.42** 0.29** 0.38** (0.83)

Notes: N 439; *po0.05; **po0.01 (two-tailed tests). Reliability estimates are presented on the
diagonal

Measurement model assessment


Before conducting CFA, we checked for the possible common method variance with
Harmans single factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We could not find any dominant
factor explaining the covariance among the variables in the sample. EFA based on
maximum likelihood estimation showed eight factors with eigenvalues 41.00, and
the first factor explained 27.4 percent of the covariance of variables. Therefore, we
concluded that common method variance is not a serious threat in this study.
CFA was based on the covariance matrix and maximum likelihood estimation as
implemented in LISREL 8.80. CFA was used to estimate convergent and discriminant
validity of indicators of the three constructs. The purpose of assessing a models
overall fit is to determine the degree to which the model as a whole is consistent
with the empirical data (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000). The goodness-of-fit
indices used in this study include: w2, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), non-normed fit index
(NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI), goodness of fit index
(GFI), and adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI). As shown in Table II, the overall
measurement model indicated an acceptable fit to the data. All the standardized factor
loadings were above 0.40.

Organizational
commitment

573

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis


Table III shows the results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses of core selfevaluations, transformational leadership, and organizational commitment. Overall, the
demographic variables, core self-evaluations, and five dimensions of transformational
leadership explained 25 percent of the variance in affective organizational
commitment. In terms of the changes of R2, organizational commitment was more
influenced by the five sub-dimensions of transformational leadership (DR2 0.17) than
core self-evaluations (DR2 0.08).
In terms of the results from each step, in Step 1, F-value was not large enough to be
significant. In Step 2, core self-evaluations were found to be significant (H1, po0.001).
Regarding transformational leadership in Step 3, vision articulation (H2a, po0.01),
group goal promotion (H2c, po0.01) and intellectual stimulation (H2f, po0.05) turned
out to be significant predictors. For the interaction effects, we created five interaction
terms combining core self-evaluations and each of the five sub-dimensions of
transformational leadership except high performance expectation. While there was
little change in R2, the interaction term of core self-evaluations and individualized
support (H3e, po0.05) turned to be significant.
As for the interaction effect of core self-evaluations and the dimensions of
transformational leadership on organizational commitment (see Figure 1), employees
with higher individualized support from their supervisor perceived higher
organizational commitment. Employees with higher core self-evaluations had higher
organizational commitment, even if they perceived a low level of individualized
support from their supervisor. Thus, it can be said that when the situation is weak (not
Measurement model

Note: ***po0.001

w2

df

RMSEA

SRMR

NNFI

CFI

IFI

GFI

AGFI

318.42***

87

0.078

0.061

0.95

0.96

0.96

0.91

0.88

Table II.
Measurement model
evaluation by CFA

LODJ
33,6

574

Table III.
Hierarchical multiple
regression results
for organizational
commitment

Variables

Model 1

Step 1 (control variables)


Gender
Age
Education
Hierarchical level
Length of relationship
Step 2 (main effect 1)
Core self-evaluations (CSE)
Step 3 (main effect 2)
Transformational leadership
Vision articulation (VA)
Role modeling (RM)
Group goal promotion (GG)
Individualized support (SU)
Intellectual stimulation (ST)
Step 4 (interaction effects):
CSE  VA
CSE  RM
CSE  GG
CSE  SU
CSE  ST
F-value
Adjusted R2
DR2

0.01
0.09****
0.01
0.01
0.01

Organizational commitment
Model 2
Model 3

0.00
0.12*
0.08
0.02
0.01
0.30***

0.04
0.09*
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.21***
0.22**
0.06
0.18**
0.05
0.12*

0.80
0.00
-

7.50***
0.08
0.08

14.56***
0.25
0.17

Model 4

0.04
0.10*
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.20***
0.22**
0.07
0.18*
0.07
0.12****
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.11*
0.01
10.32***
0.25
0.00

Notes: *po0.05; **po0.01; ***po0.001; ****po0.10. All variables are centered. Interactions are the
products of centered values. All VIF values are o3.49

4
High individualized support
Low individualized support
Organizational
3
commitment

Figure 1.
Interaction effect of core
self-evaluations and
individualized support
on organizational
commitment

Low

High

Core self-evaluations

favorable), personal characteristics are more important. However, for those with low
core self-evaluations, the effect of the supervisors individualized support was greater.
Discussion and conclusion
The findings of this study are discussed in detail on the basis of the hypothesized
model compared with previous research. Then, we discuss the implications of this
study for research and practice in the field of HR and OD. The limitations of this study

and recommendations for future research are also discussed. Finally, some concluding
thoughts are followed.
Key findings
To summarize the major findings of this study, core self-evaluations and
transformational leadership contributed to organizational commitment. More
specifically, employees exhibited higher organizational commitment when they
demonstrated higher core self-evaluations (i.e. self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy,
locus of control, and emotional stability). Employees also showed higher organizational
commitment when employees perceived their supervisors leadership in a transformative
fashion (i.e. vision articulation, group goal promotion, and intellectual stimulation).
About 25 percent of the variance in organizational commitment was explained by the
above-mentioned factors. In terms of effect size, the five dimensions of transformational
leadership (DR2 0.17) were stronger than core self-evaluations (DR2 0.08). As
mentioned earlier, little research has focussed on the relationship between core
self-evaluations and organizational commitment, whereas this study replicated the
previous studies that demonstrated the positive relationship between transformative
leadership and organizational commitment (Avolio et al., 2004; Bycio et al., 1995;
Dumdum et al., 2002; Lowe et al., 1996; Stumpp et al., 2009; Walumbwa and Lawler, 2003).
Thus, the theoretical contribution lies in that this study took an integrative approach
encompassing personal and contextual factors in a study. It found a significant
relationship between core self-evaluations and organizational commitment and the
interaction effects of core self-evaluations and transformational leadership.
In this study, we examined the relationship between core self-evaluations and
organizational commitment. As mentioned before, previous studies found that core
self-evaluations is a significant predictor of a variety of outcomes including goal
setting, goal commitment, stress and burnout, life satisfaction, happiness, job-search
persistence, work and family satisfaction, commitment to change, creativity, and job
performance (Boyar and Mosley, 2007; Bono and Colbert, 2005; Erez and Judge, 2001;
Herold et al., 2008; Jung, 2001; Piccolo et al., 2005; Wanberg et al., 2005). However,
researchers have not paid attention to the relationship between core self-evaluations
and organizational commitment (Kittinger et al., 2009). One of the contribution of this
study is that it found a direct relationship between the two.
As mentioned earlier, affective commitment has a much stronger relation with
transformational leadership than continuance or normative commitment has (Bycio
et al., 1995). Most transformational leadership studies have failed to examine the impacts
of the sub-constructs of transformational leadership. In this study, we found that while
vision articulation, group goal promotion, and intellectual stimulation were the
significant predictors for organizational commitment, role modeling and individualized
support were weak in terms of correlations and non-significant in regression analysis.
More specifically, transformational leaders can inspire employees by articulating
a vision that enhances employees confidence and expectations (Martin and Epitropaki,
2001). Thus, employees who are intrinsically motivated by this leaders articulation of
appealing vision can make them more committed to their organization. In addition,
transformational leaders promote cooperation among employees and encourage them
to collaborate toward a common goal. By getting employees to transcend their own
self-interest for collective interests or a common good of the organization (Pillai and
Williams, 2004; Yukl, 1998), transformational leaders can motivate followers become
more attached to the organization. Transformational leaders also encourage employees

Organizational
commitment

575

LODJ
33,6

576

to question extant beliefs, challenge the status quo, and develop innovative approaches
to deal with organizational issues rather than passively follow (Bass, 1985; Shin and
Zhou, 2003). Through intellectual stimulation, transformational leader can further
create an organizational environment in which employees feel psychological safety in
generating innovative ways of solving problems and thus, become more committed to
the organization (Avolio and Bass, 1988).
However, this study found that by providing an appropriate role model for
followers, employees respect, trust in, and emotionally identify with the leader and
the unit (Bass, 1998; Walumbwa et al., 2004), but role modeling turned out to be a nonsignificant predictor for organizational commitment. Through individualized support,
transformational leaders respect their followers and understand their personal
feelings and needs, resulting in more engaged and devoted followers. As a result of
regression analysis, however, individualized support was a non-significant predictor
for organizational commitment. It can predict job satisfaction or group commitment
but not organizational commitment.
Implications
Theoretical implication of this study lies in that it examined the direct relationship
between core self-evaluations and organizational commitment and the interaction
effect of core self-evaluations and transformational leadership as a situational factor on
organizational commitment. Practical implications are suggested for managers who
deal with people management issues on a daily basis and for HR/OD professionals
who develop relevant practices for the purpose of enhancing organizational commitment.
HR/OD professionals can support employees organizational commitment at the
group and individual levels by developing, improving, and delivering relevant
practices. With regard to personal characteristics, core self-evaluations provide a
composite of four core traits (self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and
emotional stability). Employees with higher self-esteem, self-efficacy, emotional
stability, and internal locus of control tend to be more committed to their organization.
Since personality tends to be stable over time, it can be used in recruiting and selecting
the right person in the right position at the right time.
HR/OD practitioners can also support managers by providing relevant HR practices
and services including training programs. For instance, leadership development
training that focusses on vision articulation, group goal promotion, and intellectual
stimulation would lead to the higher level of organizational commitment. One of the
key findings of this study is that individualized support by the leader can enhance
organizational commitment even for those with low core self-evaluations. That is, HR/
OD professionals can help managers change their leadership in a transformative
fashion (vision articulation, group goal promotion, and intellectual stimulation) by
providing relevant training programs and developmental relationships such as
coaching and mentoring. Managers need to play a role as a coach by providing
constructive feedback designed to bring the most out of people by showing that
they are respected and valued (Goodstone and Diamante, 1998; Hargrove, 1995;
Hudson, 1999).
Limitations and recommendations for future research
In terms of methodology, this study has several potential limitations. First, the sample
of this study, consisting mostly of highly educated male managers, is likely restricted
to a certain group with similar demographic characteristics (e.g. male junior managers

with relatively high education levels). Second, this study, like most organizational
commitment studies, relied on self-reported and reflective recollection of the indicators
of the constructs by employees. Thus, the results of the study might be influenced by
the employees reports concerning their perceptions of their leaders behaviors and
their personality measures. Last but not least, this empirical study confines itself to a
cross-sectional survey method, which leaves room for speculation with regard to
causality among the variables. To solve these limitations methodologically, future
research needs to be based on objective indicators and multiple sources. In addition, to
increase the generalizability of the present study, more studies in various industries
representing diverse demographic groups are needed.
Conclusion
Today, many firms are attempting to become an employer of choice, which refers to an
organization that outperforms their competition in attracting, developing, and retaining
people with required talent for their businesses (Joo and McLean, 2006). While HR
practices are important for enhancing their employment brand as an employer of choice,
employees personalities, and the role of leadership are critical for committed employees.
Thus, organizational commitment cannot be overemphasized in todays business arena.
The current investigation puts forward the important task of examining how core
self-evaluations and transformational leadership affect organizational commitment. This
study provides significant value for managers by suggesting that they should primarily
facilitate their leadership behaviors to help improve employees commitment to their
organizations. HR/OD professionals can help their employees win the race of maintaining
a competitive advantage. Finally, we hope that this study will provide insights into
future research. More research on the dynamics of leadership behaviors, individual
personalities, contextual factors, and organizational outcomes is needed in the future.
References
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization, Journal of Occupational Psychology,
Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1996), Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: an examination of construct validity, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 49
No. 3, pp. 252-76.
Avolio, B.A. and Bass, B.M. (1988), Transformational leadership, charisma and beyond, in
Hunt, J.G., Balaga, B.R., Bachler, H.P. and Schriesheim, C. (Eds), Emerging Leadership
Vista, Pergamon Press, Emsford, NY, pp. 29-50.
Avolio, B.J. (1999), Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in Organizations, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and
moderating role of structural distance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25
No. 8, pp. 951-68.
Barling, J., Weber, T. and Kelloway, E.K. (1996), Effects of transformational leadership training
on attitudinal and financial outcomes: a field experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 827-32.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact,
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Organizational
commitment

577

LODJ
33,6

578

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), The implication of transactional and transformational
leadership for individual, team, and organizational development, in Woodmna, R.W.
and Pasmore, W.A. (Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 4,
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 231-72.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through
Transformational Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bono, J.E. and Colbert, A.E. (2005), Understanding responses to multi-source feedback: the role
of core self-evaluations, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 171-203.
Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2003), Core self-evaluations: a review of the trait and its role in job
satisfaction and job performance, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 17 No. S1, pp. 5-18.
Boyar, S.L. and Mosley, D.C. Jr (2007), The relationship between core self-evaluations and work
and family satisfaction: the mediating role of work-family conflict and facilitation, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 265-81.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Burud, S. and Tumolo, M. (2004), Leveraging the New Human Capital: Adaptive Strategies,
Results Achieved, and Stories of Transformation, Davies-Black Publishing, Mountain
View, CA.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. and Allen, J.S. (1995), Future assessment of Basss (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 468-78.
Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory, Psychological Assessment Resource, Odessa, FL.
Cropanzano, R., James, K. and Konovsky, M.A. (2006), Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of
work attitudes and job performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 6,
pp. 595-606.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2000), Introducing LISREL, Sage, London.
Dumdum, U.R., Lowe, K.B. and Avolio, B.J. (2002), A meta-analysis of transformational and
transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: an update and
extension, in Avolio, B.J. and Yammarino, F.J. (Eds), Transformational and Charismatic
Leadership: The Road Ahead, Vol. 2, Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 36-66.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002), Impact of transformational leadership on
follower development and performance: a field experiment, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 735-44.
Erdheim, J., Wang, M. and Zickar, M.J. (2006), Linking the Big Five personality constructs
to organizational commitment, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 41 No. 5,
pp. 959-70.
Erez, A. and Judge, T.A. (2001), Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation,
and performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 1270-9.
Fuller, J.B., Peterson, C.E., Hester, K. and Stringer, D.Y. (1996), A quantitative review of research
on charismatic leadership, Psychological Reports, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 271-87.
Goodstone, M.S. and Diamante, T. (1998), Organizational use of therapeutic change:
strengthening multi-score feedback systems through interdisciplinary coaching,
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 152-63.
Grant, A.M. and Wrzesniewski, A. (2010), I wont let you downyor will I? Core self-evaluations,
other-orientation, anticipated guilt and gratitude, and job performance, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 108-21.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hargrove, R. (1995), Masterful Coaching, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA.


Hausknecht, J.P., Rodda, J. and Howard, M.J. (2009), Targeted employee retention: performancebased and job-related differences in reported reasons for staying, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 269-88.
Heller, D., Judge, T.A. and Watson, D. (2002), The confounding role of personality and trait
affectivity in the relationship between job and life satisfaction, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 815-35.
Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. and Liu, Y. (2008), The effects of transformational and
change leadership on employees commitment to a change: a multilevel study, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 346-57.
Howell, D.C. (2007), Statistical Methods for Psychology, 6th ed., Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Howell, J.M. and Hall-Merenda, K.E. (1999), The ties that bind: the impact of leader-member
exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting
follower performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 680-94.
Hudson, F.M. (1999), The Handbook of Coaching: A Comprehensive Resource Guide for Managers,
Consultants, and Human Resource Professionals, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Jaros, S.J. (1997), An assessment of Meyer and Allens (1991) there-component model of
organizational commitment and turnover intention, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 319-37.
Joo, B.-K. and McLean, G.N. (2006), Best employer studies: a conceptual model from a literature
review and a case study, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 228-57.
Joo, B.-K. and Shim, J.-H. (2010), Psychological empowerment and organizational commitment:
the moderating effect of organizational learning culture, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 425-41.
Judge, T.A. (2009), Core self-evaluations and work success, Current Direction in Psychological
Science, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 58-62.
Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2001), Relationship of core self-evaluations traits-self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability-with job satisfaction and
job performance: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 80-92.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A. and Bono, J.E. (1998), The power of being positive: the relationship between
positive self-concept and job performance, Human Performance, Vol. 11 Nos 2-3,
pp. 167-87.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A. and Bono, J.E. (2002), Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of
control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct?, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 693-710.
Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A. and Durham, C.C. (1997), The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: a
core evaluations approach, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B. (Eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 151-88.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E. and Thoresen, T.J. (2003), The core self-evaluations scale:
development of a measure, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 303-31.
Jung, D.I. (2001), Transformational and transactional leadership and their effect on creativity in
groups, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 185-95.
Kacmar, K.M., Collins, B.J., Harris, K.J. and Judge, T.A. (2009), Core self-evaluations and job
performance: the role of the perceived work environment, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 94 No. 6, pp. 1572-80.
Kittinger, J.D., Walker, A.G., Cope, J.G. and Wuensch, K.L. (2009), The relationship between core
self-evaluations and affective commitment, Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 68-92.

Organizational
commitment

579

LODJ
33,6

580

Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., Guilford
Press, New York, NY.
Kuvaas, B. (2006), Work performance, affective commitment, and work motivation: the roles
of pay administration and pay level, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 365-85.
Locke, E.A., McClear, K. and Knight, D. (1996), Self-esteem and work, International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-32.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 385-425.
Martin, R. and Epitropaki, O. (2001), Role of organizational identification, on Implicit Leadership
Theories (ILTs), transformational leadership and work attitudes, Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 247-62.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates
and consequences of organizational commitment, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2,
pp. 171-94.
Mester, C., Visser, D. and Roodt, G. (2003), Leadership style and its relation to employee attitudes
and behaviour, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 72-82.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984), Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment:
some methodological considerations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3,
pp. 372-8.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and
Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993), Commitment to organizations and occupations:
extension and test of a three-component conceptualization, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 538-51.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates,
and consequences, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 20-52.
Meyer, J.P., Paunonen, S.V., Gellatly, I.R., Goffin, R.D. and Jackson, D.N. (1989), Organizational
commitment and job performance: its the nature of the commitment that counts, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 152-6.
Moss, S.A. and Ritossa, D. (2007), The impact of goal orientation on the association between
leadership style and follower performance, creativity and work attitudes, Leadership,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 433-56.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1982), Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of
Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Naquin, S.S. and Holton, E.F. III (2002), The effects of personality, affectivity, and work
commitment on motivation to improve work through learning, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 357-76.
Neininger, A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Kauffeld, S. and Henschel, A. (2010), Effects of team
and organizational commitment a longitudinal study, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 567-79.
OReilly, C.A. III and Chatman, J. (1986), Organizational commitment and psychological
attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial
behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 492-9.

Park, S.M. and Rainey, H.G. (2007), Antecedents, mediators, and consequences of affective,
normative, and continuance commitment: empirical tests of commitment effects in
federal agencies, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 197-226.
Penny, K.I. (1996), Appropriate critical values when testing for a single multivariate outlier by
using the Mahalanobis distance, Applied Statistics, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 73-81.
Pett, M.A., Lackey, N.R. and Sullivan, J.J. (2003), Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of
Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Piccolo, R.F., Judge, T.A., Takahashi, K., Watanabe, N. and Locke, E.A. (2005), Core
self-evaluations in Japan: relative effects on job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and
happiness, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 965-84.
Pieterse, N.A., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M. and Stam, D. (2010), Transformational and
transactional leadership and innovative behavior: the moderating role of empowerment,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 609-23.
Pillai, R. and Williams, E.A. (2004), Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group
cohesiveness, commitment, and performance, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 144-59.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W. (1996), Transformational leader behaviors
and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment,
trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 259-98.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-42.
Reiche, B.S. (2008), The configuration of employee retention practices in multinational
corporations foreign subsidiaries, International Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 676-87.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), Affective commitment to the organization: the
contribution of perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86
No. 5, pp. 825-36.
Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2003), Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:
evidence from Korea, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 703-14.
Siegel, A.F. (2003), Practical Business Statistics, 5th ed., McGraw Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.
Srivastava, A., Locke, E.A., Judege, T.A. and Adams, J.W. (2010), Core self-evaluations as causes
of satisfaction: the mediating role of seeking task complexity, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 255-65.
Steers, R.M. (1977), Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 46-56.
Stumpp, T., Hulsheger, U.R., Muck, P.M. and Maier, G.W. (2009), Expanding the link between
core self-evaluations and affective job attitudes, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 148-66.
Walumbwa, F.O. and Lawler, 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,
Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 1083-101.

Organizational
commitment

581

LODJ
33,6

582

Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, P., Lawler, J.J. and Shi, K. (2004), The role of collective efficacy in
the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 515-30.
Wanberg, C.R., Glomb, T.M., Song, Z. and Sorenson, S. (2005), Job-search persistence during
unemployment: a 10-wave longitudinal study, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3,
pp. 411-30.
Wang, P. and Rode, J.C. (2010), Transformational leadership and follower creativity: the
moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational climate, Human
Relations, Vol. 63 No. 8, pp. 1105-28.
Whitener, E.M. and Walz, P.M. (1993), Exchange theory determinants of affective and
continuance commitment and turnover, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 265-81.
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K. and Stinglhamber, F. (2004), Affective commitment to the
organization, supervisor, and work group: antecedents and outcomes, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 47-71.
Xenikou, A. and Simosi, M. (2006), Organizational culture and transformational leadership as
predictors of business unit performance, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 566-79.
Yang, B. (2005), Factor analysis methods, in Swanson, R.A. and Holton, E.F. III (Eds), Research
in Organizations: Foundations and Methods of Inquiry, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 181-99.
Yukl, G. (1998), Leadership in Organizations, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Further reading
Joo, B.-K. (2010), Organizational commitment for knowledge workers: the roles of organizational
learning culture, leader-member exchange quality, and turnover intention, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Joo, B.-K. and Park, S.Y. (2010), Career satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover
intention: the effects of goal orientation, organizational learning culture and developmental
feedback, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 482-500.
Northouse, P.G. (2004), Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
About the authors
Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo is an Assistant Professor of Human Resources Management in the College
of Business at Winona State University, Minnesota. Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: bjoo@winona.edu
Hea Jun Yoon is a PhD candidate in Human Resource Development in the Department of
Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development at the University of Minnesota.
Chang-Wook Jeung is a PhD candidate in Human Resource Development in the Department
of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development at the University of Minnesota.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com


Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Вам также может понравиться