Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment: A Cross-Cultural Perspective

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between transformational leader behavior and employee commitment to the organization. The respondents for this study include 474 professional employees from a large multi-national, high-tech corporation in the United States (US) (n = 332) and Israel (n = 142). Data were collected using Kouzes & Posner's (1997) Leadership Practices Inventory and Meyer & Allen's (1991) three-dimensional Organizational Commitment scale. The results provide evidence that supports the relationship between leader behavior and employees' commitment to the organization in the US and Israel, contributes to the growing body of literature on leadership practices and organizational commitment, and strengthens the existing knowledge on the effectiveness of US-based leadership practices in other countries. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Headnote

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between transformational leader behavior and employee commitment to the organization. The respondents for this study include 474 professional employees from a large multi-national, high-tech corporation in the United States (US) (n = 332) and Israel (n = 142). Data were collected using Kouzes & Posner's (1997) Leadership Practices Inventory and Meyer & Allen's (1991) three-dimensional Organizational Commitment scale. The results provide evidence that supports the relationship between leader behavior and employees' commitment to the organization in the US and Israel, contributes to the growing body of literature on leadership practices and organizational commitment, and strengthens the existing knowledge on the effectiveness of US-based leadership practices in other countries.

Keywords

transformational leadership, organizational commitment, leadership practices, effectiveness, cross-cultural, Israel, United States

Introduction

The concept of organizational commitment has received a great deal of attention in the literature in recent years. Researchers and practitioners have an ongoing interest in organizational commitment because of its relationship to important outcomes, including job performance, discretionary effort, acceptance of organizational change, organizational citizenship behavior, turnover intentions, and voluntary employee turnover (Fischer &Mansell, 2009; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Keller, 1997; Schappe, 1998; Vandenberghe &Bentein, 2009).

The Corporate Leadership Council (2009) recently reported a decrease in employee commitment in organizations around the world by as much as 10% since 2005. The decrease in employee commitment places additional stress on organizations as they wrestle with the broad implications of economic and organizational uncertainty. Given the importance of employee commitment to organizational success, researchers have sought to identify and understand the specific aspects of the work environment that influence organizational commitment.

A number of researchers have examined the relationship between leader behavior and organizational commitment; the relationship has been fairly well established. Mathieu and Zajac (1990), in their meta-analysis of the organizational commitment literature, find that leader communication, participative leadership behaviors, and leader consideration behaviors correlate positively with commitment (r = .45, r = .39, and r = .33, respectively). Research has continued over the last 20 years with a variety of populations, building the case for a significant and important relationship between leader behavior and organizational commitment.

There has been an increased focus on the positive relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment (Dale &Fox, 2008; Dvir, Kass, & Shamir, 2004; McCann, 2011). When using transformational leadership behavior, leaders articulate a shared vision, set high expectations, intellectually stimulate subordinates, recognize individual differences, and demonstrate consideration and support (Bass, 1990). Transformational leadership has been found to have significant and positive relationships with organizational commitment in the United States (US) (Bycio, Hackett, & Alien, 1995; Emery & Barker, 2007). Studies outside the US also have found transformational leadership to have a significant and positive relationship to organizational commitment with an increasing number and variety of populations, including staff nurses in Singapore (Avolio, Weichun, Koh, &Bhatia, 2004), R&D professionals in Singapore (Lee, 2005), employees in small family-owned businesses in Germany (Bernard & O'Driscoll, 2011), salespeople in Greece (Panagopoulos & Dimitriadis, 2009), and tellers and clerks in banks in Kenya (Walumbwa, Orwa, Wang, & Lawler, 2005).

The number of cross-cultural studies on the relationship between transformational leader behavior and organizational commitment is growing but still limited. Cross-cultural studies provide important insight as an ever- increasing number of corporations operate in multiple countries. The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program looked at leadership in 62 cultures and found that attributes associated with transformational leadership are endorsed universally across cultures as contributing to outstanding leadership (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, Dormían, & GLOBE Associates, 1999).

Though there are arguments in the cross-cultural leadership literature for the universal effectiveness of transformational leadership (Bass, 1997; Den Hartog et al., 1999), other researchers have found the outcomes associated with specific leadership practices can be different across countries. Data collected by researchers in Belgium, Finland, and the Philippines, for example, suggest that, at least among US multinationals, commitment level differences across countries can be explained in part by differences in employee reactions to US -based management initiatives (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001). Lok and Crawford's (2004) study in Hong Kong and Australia further demonstrates that national culture can produce significant moderating effects on the relationship between leader behavior and organizational commitment. Mannheim and Halamish (2008) conducted a study of transformational leadership and its effect on group outcomes among army training units in Israel. The study raises questions regarding the universality of context in the relationship between leadership styles and group outcomes. They recommend that future studies examine which aspects of group context characteristics promote the influence of leadership style and that researchers look at different units of business and industrial organizations where task characteristics may differ.

We are unaware of any study that has examined the relationship between transformational leadership behavior and organizational commitment within multinationals in Israel. Given a rich pool of engineering talent, many large multinationals have established a presence in Israel, tapping engineers, programmers, and marketing professionals. Google, for example, has opened two Research and Development Centers (R&D) in Israel in the past four years. Cisco, IBM, and Microsoft also have R&D facilities in Israel (Shamah, 2008).

It is common practice for large, US-based multinationals to design a leadership model with defined leadership behaviors at the corporate level and cascade it globally. Leadership development programs and performance management systems then are aligned to reinforce their models. For organizations that depend on the success of their operations around the world, understanding the effectiveness of US -based leadership practices in other countries is important.

Building on previous research on transformational leadership and organizational commitment, we sought to examine the influence of transformational leader behavior on the organizational commitment of research and development employees in the US and Israel. There is practical value in connecting a specific leadership model with growing insight on how organizations can inspire organizational commitment through their dominant leadership styles. Such a model provides guidance for aspiring leaders and enables organizations to make informed decisions about the effectiveness of their espoused leadership style. This insight enables the design of leadership development strategies based on principles emphasizing the desired leader behaviors. Kouzes and Posner's Leadership Practices Model has received endorsements from studies outside the US and offers promise as a cross-cultural transformational leadership model (Abu-Tenehetal.,2009).

Leadership Practices Model

Kouzes and Posner (2007) developed their leadership model from an analysis of more than 1,000 personal-best cases. They then developed a quantitative instrument - The Leadership Practices Inventory - to measure the leadership behaviors they identified. From a research database of more than 10,000 leaders and 50,000 constituents, they distilled 5 fundamental practices of exemplary leaders: inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).

Inspiring a shared vision is the extent to which leaders create a compelling image of what the future can be like. They speak with genuine conviction about the higher meaning and purpose of the work. They appeal to others to share an exciting dream of the future, and show others how long-term interests can be realized by enlisting a common vision. Challenging the process is the extent to which leaders search for opportunities to change the status quo. These leaders challenge people to try out new and innovative ways to do their work. They look for creative ways to improve the organization, experiment, take risks, and accept inevitable disappointments as learning opportunities (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).

Enabling others to act is the extent to which leaders empower people, giving them freedom in deciding how to do their work. They support the decisions that people make on their own. When enabling others, leaders actively involve others, develop cooperative relationships, and understand that mutual respect is what sustains extraordinary efforts. Modeling the way is the extent to which leaders set a personal example of what they expect from others. When modeling the way, leaders build consensus around a common set of values for running the organization. They follow through on commitments and ask for feedback on how their actions affect other people's performance. Encouraging the heart is the extent to which leaders recognize the contributions and celebrate the accomplishments of their people. When encouraging the heart, leaders demonstrate genuine acts of caring. They provide appreciation and support for their people, and express confidence in people's abilities (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).

Organizational Commitment

Meyer and Alien (1991) developed a three -component model of organizational commitment that we used for this study. Their model, and the measures associated with it, have undergone extensive empirical evaluation. They define organizational commitment as a threedimensional construct characterizing an employee's relationship with an organization. The three dimensions are affective, continuance, and normative commitment.

Affective commitment refers to the employee's emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in a particular organization. Employees with a strong affective commitment continue employment with an organization because they want to do so. Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the costs associated with leaving an organization. Employees whose primary link to the organization is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do so. Normative commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment. Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel that they ought to remain with the organization.

This study seeks to extend previous research studies by exploring the relationship between employees' perception of their leaders' behavior, as defined by a well-established leadership model, and the employees' organizational commitment, as defined by a multidimensional model of commitment. We expect that employees working under leaders that exhibit transformational leadership behaviors, as measured by the Leadership Practices Model, will report higher levels of organizational commitment. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hl: There is a significant relationship between transformational leader behavior and employee affective organizational commitment.

H2: There is a significant relationship between transformational leader behavior and employee continuance organizational commitment.

H3: There is a significant relationship between transformational leader behavior and employee normative organizational commitment.

Cross Cultural Application

As the long-term success of many firms relies increasingly on their ability to operate effectively in different countries, there is also an increased need for research on employee populations outside the US. Conducting studies both inside and outside the US contributes to the growing body of research on the influence of national culture on the perception and effects of leader behavior, and strengthens existing knowledge on the effectiveness of US-based leadership practices in other countries.

Geert Hofstede's (2005) Value Survey Module, one of the most popular measures of cultural values, provides a theoretical framework to guide cross-cultural comparisons, and to help researchers and practitioners understand how people in various countries perceive and interpret their worlds. For this study, Hofstede's model provides a framework to help interpret why the influence of leader behavior on organizational commitment might vary across cultures.

The Individualism dimension of Hofstede's model describes the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. In an individualistic culture, people are expected to look out for themselves and their immediate family. This differs from collectivism, which describes cultures with strong ties between people. In collective cultures, individuals are members of close groups that offer protection to their members and demand loyalty in exchange. In collectivist cultures, harmony should be maintained and confrontations are avoided. The high individualism ranking for the United States (rank = 91) indicates a culture with a more individualistic attitude and relatively loose bonds between individuals. From an organizational perspective, there tends to be a greater focus on work goals that stress individual, rather than group achievement. This differs from the lower individualism ranking for Israel, which ranks 54 and indicates a culture in which, from a young age, people often are integrated into strong, cohesive groups that protect them in exchange for loyalty (Hofstede, 2005).

The leader behaviors associated with Enabling Others to Act in the Kouzes and Posner (2007) model are closely aligned with the cultural dimension of Individualism/Collectivism. Leaders who Enable Others to Act support the decisions people make on their own. Given the highly individualistic national culture of the US, we anticipated US employees would be more attracted than would Israeli employees to leaders who empower people to engage in independent thinking, and give them a great deal of freedom and choice in deciding how to do their work.

The Power Distance dimension refers to the distribution of power. The Israeli culture scored quite low on this dimension (only one country/region scored lower). The lower ranking for Israel (rank = 13) indicates greater equality and cooperative interaction among various organizational levels. The United States has a rank of 40. This is an indication that managers and employees may typically be considered more equal in status in Israel than in the US (Hofstede, 2005). The leader behaviors associated with Modeling the Way may be aligned with the cultural dimension of Power Distance. Leaders who Model the Way create a sense of equality by inviting their staff to provide them with feedback on how their actions affect others. They ensure everyone has a voice in decision-making and work with their teams to build consensus around a common set of values for running the organization. Given the low ranking in Power Distance for Israel, we anticipated Israeli employees would be more attracted to leaders who display these transformational leadership behaviors than would US employees.

Uncertainty Avoidance is "defined as the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations" (Hofstede, 2005, p. 113). Lower scores are an indication of weak levels of uncertainty avoidance, and higher scores are an indication of strong levels of uncertainty avoidance. In weak uncertainty avoidance cultures, deviant and innovative ideas and behavior are tolerated. In strong uncertainty avoidance cultures, there is an "emotional need for rules" (p. 125). The lower uncertainty avoidance ranking for the US (rank = 46) is indicative of a society that has fewer rules than some others, and does not attempt to control as many outcomes and results. This differs from the higher uncertainty avoidance ranking for Israel, which ranks 81, indicating a lower level of tolerance for a variety of ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. Thus, Israel is considered a strong uncertainty avoidance culture, while the US is considered a moderate uncertainty avoidance culture (Hofstede, 2005). The leader behaviors associated with Challenging the Process are closely aligned with the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance. Leaders who challenge the process search outside the formal boundaries of the organization for innovative ways to change the status quo and improve the organization. They experiment and take risks, even when there is a chance of failure. Given Israeli national culture is quite high on uncertainty avoidance, we anticipated Israeli employees might be less attracted to leaders who introduce innovative approaches and create unstructured, novel, or unfamiliar situations.

The difference between the US (rank = 62) and Israel (rank = 47) is smallest on the Masculinity- Femininity dimension. A higher ranking indicates a more masculine culture, which values assertiveness, competition, and the acquisition of material goods over modesty and nurturing relationships. Even with the small absolute differences in scores, Israel is considered a moderately feminine culture, while the US is considered a moderately masculine culture (Hofstede, 2005). The leader behaviors associated with Encouraging the Heart are closely aligned with a feminine culture as defined by Hofstede. The differences between the US and Israel are quite small on the masculinity/femininity dimension. However, it is possible Israeli employees, who live and work in a culture classified as moderately feminine, would better appreciate leaders who exhibit behaviors that demonstrate genuine acts of caring, and who recognize the contributions and accomplishments of their people.

With the differences in the cultural dimensions between the US and Israel, particularly individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance, we anticipated findings that would reveal potentially significant differences in the impact of specific transformational leadership behaviors on organizational commitment between the two countries. Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:

H4: The relationship between transformational leader behavior and employee organizational commitment differs between US and Israeli employees.

Methodology

Subjects

The population for this study consists of research and development (R&D) employees in a high technology multinational corporation, headquartered in the United States. A total of 750 employees were surveyed in the US and 400 in Israel. Respondents were primarily engineers (79%), the remaining being primarily marketing professionals. Completed surveys were returned by 332 US employees (response rate = 44%) and 142 Israeli employees (response rate = 36%). On average, respondents reported they had been working for their current employer for approximately eight years.

Measures

Leader Behavior. Leader behavior, the specific behaviors leaders use in leading others, was measured using the Leadership Practices Inventory: Observer (LPIO), published by Kouzes and Posner in 1997. The LPIO consists of 30 descriptive statements about leader behaviors. The response format for the LPIO in our study uses a seven-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Six items measure each of the five components of leader behavior (challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart). Previous research reports internal reliabilities ranging from .81 to .91 for each of the five leader behavior measures (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).

Organizational Commitment. Organizational commitment is the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization. Current organizational commitment was measured using the three-dimensional Organizational Commitment scale published by Meyer and Alien in 1997. The Organizational Commitment scale consists of 18 items measured on a seven-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Six items measure each of the three components of organizational commitment (affective, continuance, and normative). Previous research reports an acceptable range of internal reliability coefficients for affective (alpha = .85), continuance (alpha = .79), and normative (alpha = .73) commitment (Meyer & Alien, 1997).

Procedures

An e-mail message explaining the nature and purpose of the research study, along with a link to the survey, was sent to all participants. The e-mail was signed by the directors of the business unit. It indicated the relevance of the study, provided directions for completing the survey, and assured participants of confidentiality.

Results

Descriptive statistics for the study variables are shown in Table 1. A t-test of two means was conducted to determine if there were any differences in employee perceptions of leader behavior between the two countries. No significant differences were found between US and Israeli employees' perceptions of their leaders' behaviors (see Table 2).

Hypothesis one proposed that there would be a significant relationship between transformational leader behavior and employee affective commitment. In order to test this hypothesis, we calculated the correlation between affective commitment and all five components of the Leadership Practices Inventory for a combined US and Israeli sample (n = 474). The results indicate a significant positive correlation between affective commitment and each of the five leader behavior components for the combined US and Israeli sample (see Table 3). Therefore, hypothesis one is supported.

Hypothesis two proposed that there would be a significant relationship between transformational leader behavior and employee continuance commitment. In order to test this hypothesis, we calculated the correlation between continuance commitment and all five components of the Leadership Practices Inventory for a combined US and Israeli sample (n = 474). The results indicate no relationship between continuance commitment and any of the five leader behavior components for the combined US and Israeli sample (see Table 3). Therefore, hypothesis two is not supported.

Hypothesis three proposed that there would be a significant relationship between transformational leader behavior and employee normative commitment. In order to test this hypothesis, we calculated the correlation between normative commitment and all five components of the Leadership Practices Inventory for a combined US and Israeli sample (n = 474). The results indicate a significant positive correlation between normative commitment and each of the five leader behavior components for the combined US and Israeli sample (see Table 3). Therefore, hypothesis three is supported.

Hypothesis four proposed that the relationship between transformational leader behavior and employee organizational commitment would differ between US and Israeli employees. In order to test this hypothesis, we calculated the correlation between all three measures of organizational commitment and all five components of the Leadership Practices Inventory (see Table 4) separately for the US (n = 332) and Israeli (n = 142) samples. The results indicate only one differing relationship. When testing the US sample alone, the results indicate a significant positive relationship between continuance commitment (r = .12; p < 0.05) and the leader behavior of Inspiring Shared Vision for the US sample. No other differences were found between the two samples. Therefore, hypothesis four is not supported.

Discussion

This study links an established model of transformational leadership (Kouzes & Posner's Leadership Practices Model) to an established model of organizational commitment (Meyer & Alien's 3 -Component Model). The study demonstrates that transformational leadership behavior, as defined by this model, is significantly and positively related to two of the three components of organizational commitment in both the US and Israel.

The findings of this study showed a consistently positive relationship between all five transformational leadership practices and both affective and normative commitment for all respondents, US and Israeli alike. Each of the five leadership practices, therefore, was found to be related to employees' desire to stay with the company and feelings they have an obligation to stay. Given reported decreases in employee commitment worldwide over the last several years (Corporate Leadership Council, 2009), the link between leader behavior and organizational commitment is especially promising. With the use of an established leadership model and existing support materials, the leadership behaviors under study may be taught to managerial and supervisory level employees via training and development programs. Leadership training and feedback has been shown to result in increased subordinate perceptions of leaders' transformational leadership. Results suggest that both training and feedback are effective means of changing leadership behaviors (Kelloway et al., 2000).

Tseng (2011) suggests that learning strategies and empowerment can influence employee commitment in a positive way. Likewise, managers and other supervisory personnel who are trained in the behaviors of inspiring a shared vision and encouraging the heart may very well find the employees reporting to them have increased levels of affective and normative commitment. These insights should be useful to organizations concerned with developing strategies to increase employee commitment and organizational effectiveness. While correlation does not imply causation, managerial and supervisory training programs are commonplace in large corporations; ensuring that established programs include the leader behaviors studied here is worthy of consideration.

Transformational leadership behavior was not found to be related to continuance commitment. While a correlation was found between inspiring a shared vision and continuance commitment in the US, it was a low order correlation, indicating a weak relationship between the two variables for this one group. It may be that corporations who hire or train leaders to inspire a shared vision also provide leading edge benefits packages. While an interesting notion, this is outside the scope of our current research. The possible reasoning behind this one relationship may warrant additional study. We have concluded, however, that the leadership practices measured here were not significantly tied to employees' sense of needing to stay with the organization for either sample. This makes sense because the need to remain with a particular organization is tied to individual employee circumstances, like financial obligations or limited opportunities for alternate employment. This need is unlikely to be swayed by either effective or ineffective leadership practices.

The results also indicate that the relationship between leader behavior and employee commitment did not differ based on the nation of employment. This finding was a surprise. We proposed that the leader behaviors associated with encouraging the heart are matched closely with a feminine culture as defined by Hofstede. As such, we expected that Israeli employees, who live and work in a culture that is classified as moderately feminine, would better appreciate leaders who exhibit behaviors that demonstrate genuine acts of caring and who recognize the contributions and celebrate the accomplishments of their people. However, this was not the case. Perhaps the differences between the two cultures are not sufficient on the masculinity/femininity dimension to test this. Future research may wish to test two extreme cultures on this dimension to determine if the leader practices of encouraging the heart can be better linked to national culture.

Given the contrasts between the national cultures of Israel and the US, one might have expected to find that individuals living in these cultures would react differently to the same leader behaviors. We proposed that the leader behaviors associated with Enabling Others to Act in the Kouzes and Posner model would be closely aligned with the cultural dimension of Individualism/Collectivism. Given the highly individualistic national culture for the US, we anticipated that US employees would be more attracted than Israeli employees to leaders who display these transformational leadership behaviors. Similarly, we proposed that the leader behaviors associated with Modeling the Way would be aligned with the cultural dimension of Power Distance. Given the low ranking on Power Distance for Israel, we anticipated that Israeli employees would be more attracted than US employees to leaders who display these transformational leadership behaviors. We also proposed that the leader behaviors associated with Challenging the Process would be tied to the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance. Given the Israeli national culture is quite high on uncertainty avoidance, we expected that employees in this culture would be less attracted to leaders who displayed behaviors tied to challenging the process. Our findings did not support any of these proposals. It could be that challenging the process is not an uncommon trait in Israel. Israelis are taught to challenge everything, be curious, and ask questions (Señor & Singer, 2009, as cited in Gringarten, 2010). This certainly suggests a national culture that is rather low on uncertainty avoidance and implies a notion of challenging the process being inherent in Israelis.

Another possible explanation for these findings of no differences between the samples is that all individuals in this study were employed by a single US-based firm and performing similar tasks. The organizational culture of the firm may be such that employees, no matter their national culture, are socialized to accept and appreciate leaders who inspire a shared vision, encourage the heart, challenge the process, model the way, and enable others to act. As such, this is a potential limitation. A second limitation may be that the responses of the Israeli participants were influenced by the fact that they work for a US -based corporation and may not be representative of Israeli employees working for non-US based corporations.

These limitations notwithstanding, the results explored here make a positive contribution to the cross-cultural leadership literature. We are aware of no other study that has examined the effect of these transformational leadership behaviors on employee commitment among Israeli employees in a US-based multinational. Nor are we aware of any other study that has examined the effect of these transformational leadership behaviors on employee commitment among US and Israeli R&D professionals. The findings contribute to the literature by providing preliminary evidence that use of these transformational leadership practices can be equally effective, in terms of their link to organizational commitment, in both the US and Israel. The study also contributes to the growing body of literature on leadership practices and organizational commitment, and adds to the cross-cultural research stream related to doing business around the world. Other researchers are encouraged to extend this work to include countries whose cultures differ more markedly from that in the US.

Sidebar

Discussion Questions

1. Based on the findings of this study, what recommendations would you have for a United States-based leader being sent to Israel for a two-year expatriate assignment?

2. What recommendations would you have for corporate executives who are responsible for leadership development in their organizations?

3. What further studies would be valuable to build on this research?

To Cite this Article

Dunn, M. W., Dastoor, B., & Sims, R. L. (2012, Spring). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: A cross-cultural perspective, journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 4(1), 45-59.

References

References

Abu-Tineh, A., Khasawneh, S., & Al-Omari, A. (2008). Kouzes and Posner' s transformational leadership model in practice: The case of Jordanian schools. Leadership & Organization Development ]oumal, 28(9), 648-660.

Avolio, B., Weichun, Z, Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance, journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 95 1-968.

Bass, B. M. (1990, Winter). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 19-31.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139.

Bernhard, F., & Driscoll, M. P. (201 1). Psychological ownership in small family-owned businesses: Leadership style and nonfamily- employees' work attitudes and behaviors. Group and Organization Management, 36(3), 345-384

Bycio, P., Hackett, R., & Alien, J. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership, journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468478.

Corporate Leadership Council. (2009). Improving employee performance in the economic downturn, CLC1AVO9P7, Washington, DC: The Corporate Executive Board.

Dale, K., &Fox, M. (2008). Leadership style and organizational commitment: Mediating effect of role stress, journal of Managerial Issues, 20(1), 109-130.

Den Hartog, D., House, R., Hanges, P., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S., Dorfman, P., & GLOBE Associates. (1999). Culture specific and cross -culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219-256.

Dvir, T., Kass, N., & Shamir, B. (2004). The emotional bond: Vision and organizational commitment among high-tech employees, journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 126-143.

Emery, C. R., & Barker, K. J. (2007). The effect of transactional and transformational leadership styles on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of customer contact personnel, journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 1 1 (1), 77-90.

Fischer, R., &Mansell, A. (2009). Commitment across cultures: A me ta- analytical approach, journal of International Business Studies, 40(8), 1339-1358.

Gringarten, H. (2010, Fall). [Review of the book Start-up nation: The story of Israel's economic miracle], journal ofMultidisciplinary Research, 2(2), 103-105.

Herscovitch, L, & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three -component model, journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487.

Hofstede, G., (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Keller, R. T. (1997). Job involvement and organizational commitment as longitudinal predictors of job performance: A study of scientists and engineers, journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 539-545.

Kelloway, K., Barling, J., & Helleur, J. (2000). Enhancing transformational leadership: The role of training and feedback. Leadership & Organization Development journal, 21 (3), 145-149.

Kirkman, B., & Shapiro, D. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management journal, 44(3), 557-569.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1997). Leadership practices inventory: Participant's workbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lee, J. (2005). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment. Leadership & Organization Development journal, 26(7/8), 655-672.

Lok, P., & Crawfor, J. (2004). The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A eros s -national comparison, journal of Management Development, 23(3/4), 321-338.

Mannheim, B., & Halamish, H. (2008). Transformational leadership as related to team outcomes and contextual moderation. Leadership & Organisation Development journal, 29(7), 617630.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

McCann, J. T. (2011, Spring). Product or customer centered organizations and leadership styles. Journal ofMultidisciplinary Research, 3(1), 65-80.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three -component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1 , 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., & Alien, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Panagopoulos, N., &Dimitriadis, S. (2009). Transformational leadership as a mediator of the relationship between behavior-based control and salespeople's key outcomes: An initial investigation. European journal of Marketing, 43(7/8), 1008-1031.

Schappe, S.P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. The journal of Psychology, 132, 277290.

Shamah, D. (2008). Multinationals discover Israel's wealth of hi- tech talent. The Jerusalem Post, 11, 18.

Tseng, C. (2011, Spring). The influence of strategic learning practices on employee commitment. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(1), 5-23.

Vandenberghe, C., &Bentein, K. (2009). A closer look at the relationship between affective commitment to supervisors and organizations and turnover. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(2), 331-348.

Walumbwa, F., Orwa, B., Wang, P., & Lawler, J. (2005). Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly, J 6(2), 235-256.