Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:38:08.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Cross-Cultural Variation of the Effects of Transformational Leadership Behaviors on Followers’ Organizational Identification: The Case of Idealized Influence and Individualized Consideration in Finland and Russia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2018

Alexei Koveshnikov  and
Mats Ehrnrooth
Alexei Koveshnikov*
Affiliation:
Aalto University School of Business, Finland
Mats Ehrnrooth
Affiliation:
Hanken School of Economics, Finland
*
Corresponding author: Alexei Koveshnikov (alexei.koveshnikov@aalto.fi)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we examine the cross-cultural variation in the perceived effects of idealized influence and individualized consideration leadership behaviors – two behavioral dimensions of transformational leadership – on followers’ organizational identification in two culturally distinct countries: Russia and Finland. We also test whether the followers’ role ambiguity mediates these relationships. Using the self-concept-based theory of leadership as an explanatory framework, our analysis of white-collar employees in four Finland-based multinational corporations and their subsidiaries in Russia shows that whereas in Russia both behaviors facilitate followers’ identification, in Finland only idealized influence does. We also find differences in how role ambiguity mediates the relationship between the two behaviors and followers’ identification in the two countries. In Russia, it fully mediates the relationship between individualized consideration and followers’ identification, whereas in Finland it partially mediates the relationship between idealized influence and followers’ identification.

摘要

我们在本文中考察了理想化影响和个人化考虑两种领导行为--转型式领导的两个行为维度--在芬兰和俄罗斯这两个不同文化国家中，对于下属的组织认同影响的文化差异。我们也检验了下属的角色模糊性是否中介这些关系。采用基于自我概念的领导理论作为解释框架，我们分析了四家在芬兰的跨国公司及其在俄罗斯的分支企业中的白领员工的数据，结果发现，在俄罗斯两种行为都促进了下属的认同，而在芬兰只有理想化影响可以促进下属认同。我们还在两个国家都发现角色模糊性中介了两种行为与下属认同之间的关系。在俄罗斯，角色模糊性完全中介了个人化考虑与下属认同之间的关系，而在芬兰角色模糊性只是部分地中介了理想化影响与下属认同之间的关系。

इस शोध पत्र में हमने रुपांतरणीय नेतृत्व के दो आयामों – आदर्श प्रभाव व वैयक्तिक आदर के अनुयाइयों पर अनुभूत अंतर में पार-सांस्कृतिक वैविध्य का दो सांस्कृतिक दृष्टि से पृथक देशों: फिनलैंड और रूस, में अध्ययन किया है. हमने यह भी आकलन किया है की अनुयायी की भूमिका की अस्पष्टता का इस पर कदाचित कोई मध्यस्थ प्रभाव है. स्व-अवधारणा आधारित नेतृत्व सिद्धांत को निरूपक बनाते हुए फिनलैंड की चार कंपनियों और उनकी सहायक रुसी फर्मों के सफेदपोश कर्मचारियों का हमारा विश्लेषण यह दिखता है की यद्यपि रूस में दोनों उपरोक्त व्यवहार अनुयायियों के अभिज्ञान को सुगम करते हैं, फिनलैंड में केवल आदर्श प्रभाव ऐसा करता है. हमने भूमिका अस्पष्टता का दोनों व्यवहारों और अनुयायी अभिज्ञान के बीच मध्यस्थ के रूप में प्रभाव में अंतर पाया. रूस में इसका वैयक्तिक आदर अनुयायी अभिज्ञान पर पूर्ण मध्यस्थ प्रभाव है और फिनलैंड में आदर्श प्रभाव और अनुयायी अभिज्ञान पर आंशिक मध्यस्थ प्रभाव है.

Sumário

Neste artigo, examinamos a variação transcultural nos efeitos percebidos do comportamento de liderança baseado na influência idealizada e na consideração individualizada - duas dimensões comportamentais da liderança transformacional - na identificação organizacional de seguidores em dois países culturalmente distintos: Rússia e Finlândia. Também testamos se a ambiguidade do papel dos seguidores medeia esses relacionamentos. Usando a teoria da liderança baseada em autoconceito como modelo explicativo, nossa análise de funcionários de colarinho branco em quatro corporações multinacionais sediadas na Finlândia e suas subsidiárias na Rússia mostra que, enquanto na Rússia, ambos os comportamentos facilitam a identificação de seguidores, na Finlândia somente a influência o faz. Também encontramos diferenças em como a ambiguidade do papel medeia a relação entre os dois comportamentos e a identificação de seguidores nos dois países. Na Rússia, ela medeia completamente a relação entre a consideração individualizada e a identificação de seguidores, enquanto na Finlândia ela medeia parcialmente a relação entre a influência idealizada e a identificação de seguidores.

Аннотация

В данной работе мы исследуем межкультурную вариацию в воспринимаемых эффектах идеализированного влияния и индивидуального рассмотрения в поведении руководства - двух поведенческих аспектов трансформационного лидерства - на организационную идентификацию у последователей в двух культурно различных странах: России и Финляндии. Мы также проверяем, влияет ли на эти отношения неоднозначность роли последователей. Используя теорию лидерства на основе самооценки в качестве концептуальной основы, мы анализируем поведение «белых воротничков» в четырех финских многонациональных корпорациях и их дочерних компаниях в России и показываем, что, хотя в России обе модели поведения способствуют идентификации у последователей, в Финляндии только идеализированное влияние стимулирует организационную идентификацию. Мы также находим различия в том, каким образом неоднозначность роли опосредует взаимосвязь между двумя формами поведения и идентификацией у последователей в двух странах. В России ролевая неоднозначность полностью регулирует взаимосвязь между индивидуальным рассмотрением и идентификацией у последователей, тогда как в Финляндии ролевая неоднозначность лишь частично влияет на связь между идеализированным влиянием и идентификацией последователей.

Resumen

En este artículo, examinamos la variación intercultural de los efectos percibidos de la influencia idealizada y la consideración individualizada de comportamientos de liderazgo – dos dimensiones conductuales en diferentes países: Rusia y Finlandia. También probamos si el papel de la ambigüedad de los seguidores media estas relaciones. Usando la teoría basada en el auto-concepto de liderazgo como un marco explicativo, nuestro análisis de empleados de cuello blanco en cuatro empresas multinacionales con sede en Finlandia y sus subsidiarias en Rusia muestra que mientras en Rusia ambos comportamientos facilitan la identificación de seguidores, en Finlandia solamente la influencia idealizada lo hace. También encontramos diferencias en cómo el papel de la ambigüedad media la relación entre la consideración individualizada y la identificación de seguidores en los dos países. En Rusia, esto totalmente media la relación entre la influencia idealizada y la identificación de seguidores.

Keywords

Finlandfollower-centric leadershiporganizational identificationrole ambiguityRussiatransformational leadership芬兰以下属为中心的领导组织认同角色模糊性俄罗斯转型式领导फिनलैंडअनुयायी-केंद्रित नेतृत्वसंगठनात्मक अभिज्ञानभूमिका अस्पष्टतारूसरुपांतरणीय नेतृत्वFinlândialiderança centrada no seguidoridentificação organizacionalambiguidade de papéisRússialiderança transformacionalФинляндияориентированное на последователей руководствоорганизационная идентификацияролевая неоднозначностьРоссиятрансформационное лидерствоFinlandialiderazgo centrado en seguidoresidentificación organizacionalambigüedad de rolRusialiderazgo transformacional
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 747 - 779
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Accepted by: Senior Editor Dana Minbaeva

References

REFERENCES

Agarwal, S., DeCarlo, T. E., & Vyas, S. B. 1999. Leadership behavior and organizational commitment: A comparative study of American and Indian salespersons. Journal of International Business Studies, 30: 727–743.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 20–39.Google Scholar
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Puja, B. 2004. Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 951–968.Google Scholar
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. 2009. Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 421–449.Google Scholar
Aycan, Z., Schyns, B., Sun, J. M., Felfe, J., & Saher, N. 2013. Convergence and divergence of paternalistic leadership: A cross-cultural investigation of prototypes. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9): 962–969.Google Scholar
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173–1182.Google Scholar
Bass, B. M. 1997. Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52: 130–139.Google Scholar
Bass, B. M. 1999. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1): 9–32.Google Scholar
Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. 1994. Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 25(2): 233–257.Google Scholar
Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. 2007. Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5): 1357–1367.Google Scholar
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. 2003. Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5): 554–571.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W. 1980. Cross-cultural research methods. In Attman, I., Rapoport, A., & Wohlwill, J. F. (Eds.), Environment and Culture: 47–82. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Akerblom, S., Audia, G., Bakacsi, G., Bendova, H., … & Castel, P. 2000. Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
Chang, S. J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. 2010. From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 178–184.Google Scholar
Cho, J., & Dansereau, F. 2010. Are transformational leaders fair? A multi-level study of transformational leadership, justice perceptions, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 21(3): 409–421.Google Scholar
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W. 1999. Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10(2): 219–256.Google Scholar
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. 2010. Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4): 627–647.Google Scholar
Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., & Mitchelson, J. K. 2003. Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6): 729–768.Google Scholar
Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. 1997. Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8(3): 233–274.Google Scholar
Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. 2003. Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. Leadership Quarterly, 14(3): 327–344.Google Scholar
Elenkov, D. S. 1997. Differences and similarities in managerial values between US and Russian managers. International Studies of Management and Organization, 28: 85–106.Google Scholar
Elenkov, D. S. 1998. Can American management concepts work in Russia? A cross-cultural comparative study. California Management Review, 40: 133–156.Google Scholar
Ensari, N., & Murphy, S. E. 2003. Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and attribution of charisma to the leader. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92(1): 52–66.Google Scholar
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. 2005. The moderating role of individual differences in the relation between transformational/transactional leadership and organizational identification. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 569–589.Google Scholar
Epitropaki, O. 2013. A multi-level investigation of psychological contract breach and organizational identification through the lens of perceived organizational membership: Testing a moderated-mediated model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1): 65–86.Google Scholar
Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. 2012. Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining leadership as a relational process. Leadership Quarterly, 23(6): 1043–1062.Google Scholar
Fey, C. F. 2005. Opening the black box of motivation: A cross-cultural comparison of Sweden and Russia. International Business Review, 14(3): 345–367.Google Scholar
Fey, C. F., Adaeva, M., & Vitkovskaia, A. 2001. Developing a model of leadership styles: What works best in Russia? International Business Review, 10(6): 615–643.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Nishi, L. H., & Bechtold, D. 2004. Individualism and collectivism: Multilevel perspectives and implications for leadership. In House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 cultures: 437–512. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Piccolo, R. F. 2015. When leaders fail to ‘walk the talk’: Supervisor undermining and perceptions of leader hypocrisy. Journal of Management, 41(3): 929–956.Google Scholar
Greene, C. N. 1978. Identification modes of professionals: Relationship with formalization, role strain, and alienation. Academy of Management Journal, 21(3): 486–492.Google Scholar
Griffin, R. W., Bateman, T. S., Wayne, S. J., & Head, T. C. 1987. Objective and social factors as determinants of task perceptions and responses: An integrated perspective and empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 30: 501–523.Google Scholar
Griffin, R. W. 1981. Supervisory behaviour as a source of perceived task scope. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 54: 175–182.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 121–140.Google Scholar
Hollander, E. P. 1992. Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(1): 43–54.Google Scholar
House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. 1972. Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7(3): 467–505.Google Scholar
House, R. J., Hanges, P. M., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. 1991. The structure of work: Job design and roles. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2: 165–207.Google Scholar
Jackson, T. A., Meyer, J. P., & Wang, X. H. F. 2013. Leadership, commitment, and culture: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1): 84–106.Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 755–768.Google Scholar
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. 1999. Effects of leadership style and followers' cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2): 208–218.Google Scholar
Jung, D. I., Bass, B. M., & Sosik, J. J. 1995. Bridging leadership and culture: A theoretical consideration of transformational leadership and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 2(4): 3–18.Google Scholar
Jung, D., Yammarino, F. J., & Lee, J. K. 2009. Moderating role of subordinates' attitudes on transformational leadership and effectiveness: A multi-cultural and multi-level perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 20(4): 586–603.Google Scholar
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. 1964. Organizational Stress. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. 2002. The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead, 2: 67–91.Google Scholar
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. 2003. The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 246–255.Google Scholar
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kets de Vries, M. F. K. 2001. The anarchist within: Clinical reflections on Russian character and leadership style. Human Relations, 54(5): 585–627.Google Scholar
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. 2009. Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 744–764.Google Scholar
Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. 2004. Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1): 1–27.Google Scholar
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. 2008. Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4): 815–852.Google Scholar
Liao, Y., Sun, J-M., & Thomas, D. C. 2014. Cross-cultural research. In Sanders, K., Cogin, J. A., & Bainbridge, H. T. L. (Eds.), Research methods for human resource management: 115–135. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. 2010. I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21(1): 189–202.Google Scholar
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. 1999. Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/ follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 78: 167–203.Google Scholar
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytical review of the literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7: 385–425.Google Scholar
Luthans, F., Peterson, S. J., & Ibrayeva, E. 1998. The potential for the ‘dark side’ of leadership in post-communist countries. Journal of World Business, 33(2): 185–201.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. 2009. The effects of leadership style on stress outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5): 737–748.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. 2001. Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2): 115–134.Google Scholar
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2): 103–123.Google Scholar
May, R. C., Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. 2005. Transferring management knowledge to Russia: A culturally based approach. Academy of Management Executive, 19(2): 24–35.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., May, R. C., Ledgerwood, D. E., & Stewart, W. H. Jr. 2008. Overcoming resistance to change in Russian organizations: The legacy of transactional leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(3): 221–235.Google Scholar
Meade, A. W., & Bauer, D. J. 2007. Power and precision in confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4): 611–635.Google Scholar
Michailova, S. 2000. Contrasts in culture: Russian and Western perspectives on organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4): 99–112.Google Scholar
Michailova, S. 2002. When common sense becomes uncommon: Participation and empowerment in Russian companies with Western participation. Journal of World Business, 37(3): 180–187.Google Scholar
Michailova, S., & Liuhto, K. 2001. Organization and management research in transition economies: Towards improved research methodologies. Journal of East-West Business, 6(3): 7–46.Google Scholar
O'Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. 1994. Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncertainty as predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(2): 141–155.Google Scholar
Paris, L. D., Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Hanges, P. J. 2009. Preferred leadership prototypes of male and female leaders in 27 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(8): 1396–1405.Google Scholar
Paul, J., Costley, D. L., Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Trafimow, D. 2001. The effects of charismatic leadership on followers’ self-concept accessibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(9): 1821–1844.Google Scholar
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. 2006. Leader–member exchange (LMX), paternalism, and delegation in the Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(2): 264–279.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., … & Viedge, C. 1995. Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 429–452.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Bond, M. H., & Misumi, J. 1990. Personal reliance on alternative event management processes in four countries. Group and Organization Studies, 15: 75–91.Google Scholar
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. 2006. Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2): 327–340.Google Scholar
Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. 1998. Context and charisma: A ‘meso’ level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24(5): 643–671.Google Scholar
Pillai, R., Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. 1999. Leadership and organizational justice: Similarities and differences across cultures. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(4): 763–779.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2): 107–142.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. 1996. Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2): 259–298.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903.Google Scholar
Pratt, M. G. 1998. To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. In Whetten, D. A. & Godfrey, P. C. (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversation: 171–207. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
Puffer, S. M. 1994. Understanding the bear: A portrait of Russian business leaders. Academy of Management Executive, 8(1): 41–54.Google Scholar
Randolph, W. A., & Sashkin, M. 2002. Can organizational empowerment work in multinational settings? Academy of Management Executive, 16(1): 102–115.Google Scholar
Reade, C. 2001. Dual identification in multinational corporations: Local managers and their psychological attachment to the subsidiary versus the global organization. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(3): 405–424.Google Scholar
Riordan, C. M., Griffith, R. W., & Weatherly, E. W. 2003. Age and work-related outcomes: The moderating effects of status characteristics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(1): 37–57.Google Scholar
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 150–163.Google Scholar
Shamir, B. 1995. Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 6(1): 19–47.Google Scholar
Shamir, B. 2007. From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers' roles in the leadership process. In Shamir, B., Pillai, R., Bligh, M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl: ix–xxxix. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Shamir, B. 2012. Leadership research or post-leadership research: Advancing leadership theory versus throwing out the baby with the bath water. In Uhl-Bien, M. & Ospina, S. (Eds.), Advancing relational leadership research: A dialogue among perspectives: 477–500. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4: 577–594.Google Scholar
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. 1998. Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4): 387–409.Google Scholar
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. 2000. Leadership and social identification in military units: Direct and indirect relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(3): 612–640.Google Scholar
Shook, C. L., Ketchen, D. J., Hult, G. T. M., & Kacmar, K. M. 2004. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 25(4): 397–404.Google Scholar
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2008. How relational and organizational identification converge: Processes and conditions. Organization Science, 19(6): 807–823.Google Scholar
Smale, A., Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., John, S., Mäkelä, K., & Sumelius, J. 2015. Dual values-based organizational identification in MNC subsidiaries: A multilevel study. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(7): 761–783.Google Scholar
Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In Leinhart, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology: 290–312. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. 2000. Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress: A conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(4): 365–390.Google Scholar
Spreitzer, G. M., Perttula, K. H., & Xin, K. 2005. Traditionality matters: An examination of the effectiveness of transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(3): 205–227.Google Scholar
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. 2010. Examining the impact of Culture's consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede's cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3): 405–439.Google Scholar
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., & de Chermont, K. 2003. The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129: 914–945.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. 2007. Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33(3): 426–478.Google Scholar
Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. 2000. Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of Management, 26(1): 155–169.Google Scholar
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. 2014. Followership theory: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 25(1): 83–104.Google Scholar
van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. 2013. A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? Academy of Management Annals, 7(1): 1–60.Google Scholar
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. 2008. How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance. Personnel Psychology, 61: 793–825.Google Scholar
Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. 2007. Leadership, individual differences, and work-related attitudes: A cross-culture investigation. Applied Psychology, 56(2): 212–230.Google Scholar
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. 2004. The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 77: 515–530.Google Scholar
Wang, X. H. F., & Howell, J. M. 2010. Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6): 1134–1144.Google Scholar
Wan-Huggins, V. N., Riordan, C. M., & Griffeth, R. W. 1998. The development and longitudinal test of a model of organizational identification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(8): 724–749.Google Scholar
Wendt, H., Euwema, M. C., & Van Emmerik, I. J. 2009. Leadership and team cohesiveness across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 20(3): 358–370.Google Scholar
Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. 2009. Structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1): 543–604.Google Scholar
Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. 2010. Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1): 90–106.Google Scholar
Yukl, G. 1998. Leadership in organizations (4th edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar