Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Original Research

Frontiers in Organizational Psychology ·

Volume 4 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/forgp.2026.1776476

Psychological value climates as mediators in the relation between follower-perceived transformational leadership and organizational identification

  • Athena Xenikou1*corresponding author
  • Alexandra Hantzi2
  • Sofia Koroni2
  1. 1Department of Psychology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
  2. 2Department of Psychology, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Athens, Greece
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

This study examines the multidimensional nature of transformational leadership (TFL) and how different components of TFL, namely, charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, are related to organizational identification. Specifically, we investigate whether the relation between the components of TFL and organizational identification is mediated by distinct psychological climates. Participants were 353 employees nested in 30 management units of a large public organization operating in the security industry. They filled in questionnaire measures of TFL dimensions, psychological value climates, and identification with the employing organization. The Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling (MSEM) results indicated that (a) charisma was positively related to goal, support, and innovation psychological climates, (b) individualized consideration was positively related to goal and support psychological climates, and (c) intellectual stimulation was positively associated with innovation psychological climate. Moreover, the findings showed that a) the positive relation of charisma to organizational identification was partially mediated by support psychological climate, and (b) the positive relation between individualized consideration and organizational identification was fully mediated by support psychological climate. The findings demonstrate different routes via which leadership behaviors facilitate the bonding of individual employees with their work organization. Charismatic leadership behaviors such as dealing effectively with difficult situations, role modeling appropriate behaviors, and going beyond self-interest, on the one hand, and individualized consideration toward followers on the other, relate to organizational identification via enhanced perceptions of supportive climate. This study contributes knowledge about the multidimensional nature of TFL and the different socio-psychological mechanisms through which TFL components relate to organizational identification. The findings show the different routes via which leadership behaviors facilitate the bonding of individual employees with their work organization.

Keywords

Transformational leadership (TFL) exerts idealized influence and motivates followers in different ways, such as communicating values and goals, handling difficult situations effectively, going beyond self-interest, and articulating a compelling vision for the future, and is thought by followers to be value-driven (Avolio et al., 1999; Hannah et al., 2016; Hoffman et al., 2011; Jensen, 2018; Jensen et al., 2018). Even though Bass's original conceptualization of TFL did not involve moral values and ethical issues, he eventually placed “ethical” values at the core of veritable TFL (Antonakis, 2018). Bass and Avolio (1993) elaborated on value priorities in organizational contexts and described TFL as setting high standards for goal achievement, performance, and ethical conduct. Moreover, Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) posit that authentic transformational leaders go beyond their self-interests, inspire followers to strive for common goals, provide support, and show confidence in followers' ability to succeed.

In work settings employees tend to internalize the organization at varying degrees by subjectively viewing its attributes as self-defining (Ashforth, 2016). As a self-construction, organizational identification is the extent to which group membership is incorporated in the self-concept, such that members define themselves in terms of their organization (Johnson et al., 2012). It is arguably each individual member's subjective perception of their work environment that has the strongest impact on organizational identification compared to commonly shared perceptions employees hold of their organization's attributes. Therefore, we examine members' organizational identification by focusing on individual perceptions of organizational values rather than organizational values conceptualized and measured at the group level of analysis.

To this end, the concept of psychological value climate was employed that is defined as a psychologically meaningful description of the work environment (Han et al., 2021; Jones and James, 1979; Karanika-Murray et al., 2017; Sajadi and Vandenberghe, 2025; Spurk et al., 2021; Van Vianen et al., 2011) and is conceptualized as an attribute of the individual member rather than a property of the organization. The concept of psychological climate differs from the similar constructs of organizational climate and culture as these latter concepts are defined as shared perceptions, beliefs, values, and practices that members hold about their organizations, whereas psychological climate refers to individual members' perceptions of organizational attributes. The main purpose of our study was to examine the role of psychological value climates as explanatory mechanisms in the relation between follower-perceived TFL dimensions and organizational identification. Although there is clear empirical support for the positive effect of TFL on work outcomes, such as job satisfaction and performance (Wang et al., 2011), little is known about how different TFL components can foster work outcomes, and in particular employees' organizational identification. A central proposition put forward by transformational leadership theory that serves as an explanatory mechanism of TFL's positive impact on work outcomes, is that leaders exert influence on members by promoting group goals and values (Lord et al., 1999; Shamir et al., 1993). Therefore, we investigated the role of psychological value climates as explanatory mechanisms in the relation between different dimensions of TFL and members' identification with their organization.

This research extends knowledge about the multidimensional nature of TFL and the role of perceived organizational values as explanatory mechanisms in the relation between TFL behaviors and employees' identification with the organization. Moreover, it contributes insights on whether there are distinct mediators, specifically, psychological value climates, of the link between TFL dimensions and organizational identification. In the following sections, we first discuss the different components of TFL, namely, charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, and previous research on their relationship with perceived organizational values. Next, we address the mediating role of psychological value climates in the link between TFL dimensions and organizational identification.

Theoretical framework and research hypotheses

The relation of TFL components to psychological climates

Transformational leadership theory put forward by Bass and his colleagues (Avolio et al., 1999; Bass, 1999; Bass and Riggio, 2006; Bass et al., 2003; Howell and Avolio, 1993; Zhu et al., 2012) proposed that transformational leaders typically engage in behaviors that reflect charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Avolio et al., 1999). Charisma refers to (a) the idealized influence transformational leaders exert in the sense that their subordinates perceive them as value-driven, and (b) the ability to inspire subordinates by articulating an attractive vision for the future. Intellectual stimulation involves challenging assumptions and encouraging subordinates to think about problems, or to do things, in novel and useful ways. Finally, transformational leaders provide individualized consideration to group members by caring for their needs, goals, and personal growth.

The findings of meta-analytic studies have systematically demonstrated the criterion-related validity of TFL to predict employees' positive work attitudes, organizational identification, and task and contextual performance (Banks et al., 2017; Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996; Wang et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the construct of TFL has received a thorough conceptual and methodological critique (Barnes et al., 2016; Van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013). In their review article Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) criticized charismatic-transformational leadership research on two grounds: not clearly defining the construct and confounding TFL with its effects. Moreover, they have suggested that the examination of the multidimensional nature of the construct, as well as the mediating mechanisms through which TFL components relate to work outcomes, can contribute to more conceptual and empirical clarity.

To this end, we investigated the role of psychological value climates as distinct explanatory mechanisms in the link between each separate TFL component and organizational identification. Past research showed that transformational leaders create a group identity among group members by raising awareness about group membership and increasing members' identification with the organization (Dvir et al., 2002; Epitropaki et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2012). A main assumption of transformational and charismatic leadership theory is that the communication of organizational values by leaders plays a pivotal role in the influence that leaders exert on group members (Brown and Trevino, 2006; Lord et al., 1999; Shamir et al., 1993). Hoffman et al. (2011) demonstrated that person-organization value congruence, which reflects employees' perceptions of the similarity between their personal values and those espoused by their organization, was a mediator in the link between TFL and work group effectiveness. In this study we examined the mediating role of perceived goal, support and innovation value climates because several theoretical models and ample empirical findings have identified goal, support, and innovation to be core organizational values across different industries and cultural contexts (Hartnell et al., 2019; Cameron and Quinn, 2011; Marinova et al., 2019; Xenikou and Furnham, 2013). Goal values promote achievement, performance indicators, accountability, monitoring, and contingent reward. Moreover, support values involve cooperation, teamwork, mutual trust, participation in decision making, employees' self-actualization and development. Finally, innovation values concern openness to change, adaptation to external environment, flexibility, creativity, and experimentation.

Charisma comprises idealized influence and inspirational motivation, and involves leadership behaviors that reflect exceptional qualities such as acting as a role model, handling difficult situations effectively, setting high performance expectations, emphasizing group goals, going beyond self-interest, promoting change/development, and speaking of values and ethical standards (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Conger and Kanungo, 1994; Effelsberg et al., 2014; House, 1977; Lord et al., 1999; Zhu and Akhtar, 2014). Indeed, influencing group members to commit to difficult goals and achieve performance beyond expectations is thought to be an essential element of charismatic and transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Shamir et al., 1993). Charisma elevates followers' motives by acting as a role model and articulating clear visions that embody core values, including those concerning high performance and change. The influence tactics employed by charismatic leaders to motivate followers involve vividly communicating group goals and attractive visions as well as enacting face-to-face dialogue to increase attraction to the organization's mission (Jensen et al., 2018). These leaders derive influence from the implicit perception that they represent the values and norms of their group (Brown and Trevino, 2006; Meleady and Crisp, 2017), while aligning followers' goals, needs and values with those of the organization. Indeed, (Givens, 2011) found that value congruence mediated the relation between idealized influence and affective organizational commitment. Similarly, Jensen (2018) in a field experiment showed that transformational leaders led employees, who scored high on meaning of work, to perceive organizational values as congruent to their own values. Finally, Hoffman et al. (2011) found that TFL was positively associated with person-organization value fit and work group effectiveness, whereas Hannah et al. (2016) demonstrated that followers' internalization of organizational values and increased performance were outcomes of charismatic/transformational leadership behaviors.

As such, charisma is likely to be perceived by followers as being closely aligned with promoting goal, innovation, and support values since charisma's idealized influence is the value-driven factor of TFL and was empirically shown to be positively related to value congruence between individual employees and leaders/organizations (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Conger and Kanungo, 1994; Givens, 2011; Lord et al., 1999; Shamir et al., 1993). Therefore, charisma was expected to be positively associated with followers' goal, support, and innovation psychological value climates. The following hypotheses were formulated, which involve conceptualizing and measuring constructs at the individual-level of analysis:

  • Hypothesis 1a. Charisma is positively related to goal psychological climate.
  • Hypothesis 1b. Charisma is positively related to support psychological climate.
  • Hypothesis 1c. Charisma is positively related to innovation psychological climate.

In addition, transformational leaders promote values of openness to change and increase their followers' willingness to support organizational changes and put extra effort toward workgroup goals (Groves, 2020). TFL's component labeled “intellectual stimulation” nurtures the intellect and encourages the expression of different perspectives that generate higher levels of creativity and innovation in organizations (Gong et al., 2009; Henker et al., 2015; Kark et al., 2018; Shin and Zhou, 2007). Intellectual stimulation is thought to reflect on whether a leader's vision is open to dynamic change or a closed program to be followed by subordinates (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999).

Theoretical accounts and previous research have demonstrated that TFL is positively related to work environments that foster innovation values and a learning orientation, that is, a climate supportive of innovation (Jung et al., 2003; Hartnell et al., 2019; Sarros et al., 2008; Xenikou, 2017). Through intellectual stimulation the leader enhances cognitive flexibility in followers' thinking and provides necessary cognitive inputs to group members to generate new ideas as well as implement them. Transformational leaders exert influence on their followers by aligning their values with those espoused by the larger organization and cultivate innovation, adaptability, and change among group members (Avolio et al., 1999; Hannah et al., 2016; Jaiswal and Dhav, 2015). Based on the above rational, we hypothesized the following (at the individual-level-of analysis):

  • Hypothesis 2. Intellectual stimulation is positively related to innovation psychological climate.

The TFL dimension of individualized consideration concerns the leader-follower relationship, and involves actively caring for followers' needs, goals, and aspirations. In prior research TFL was positively related to followers' organizational commitment (Avolio et al., 2004; Sahan and Terzioglou, 2022; Simosi and Xenikou, 2010; Tsapnidou et al., 2025; Xenikou, 2017), thereby meeting followers' needs for relatedness and belonging in organizational settings. Specifically, leaders scoring high on individualized consideration are thought to cultivate high quality leader-member relationships (LMX) and foster affective organizational commitment/identification among their followers (Epitropaki and Martin, 2016; Liu et al., 2013). The effects of LMX on work outcomes are based on the norm of reciprocity and social exchange which posit that individuals, when treated well, feel an obligation to return this high-quality exchange by showing positive work attitudes (Kim et al., 2020) and organizational identification (Blader and Tyler, 2009; Gibney et al., 2010).

It is also important to note that individualized consideration refers to the increased support, encouragement and help leaders provide to their followers toward goal accomplishment and personal development (Wang et al., 2011; Wang and Howell, 2012; Zhu et al., 2012). Indeed, Joo (2010) found that high quality LMX was positively associated with employees' perception of their work environment as characterized by support for goal attainment, helping behavior, participation, learning, and trust. Therefore, the following hypotheses were formulated (at the individual level of analysis):

  • Hypothesis 3a. Individualized consideration is positively related to support psychological climate.
  • Hypothesis 3b. Individualized consideration is positively related to goal psychological climate.

The mediating role of psychological value climates in the relation between TFL components and organizational identification

Transformational leaders are particularly effective at creating a group identity among organizational members (Lord and Brown, 2004; Lord et al., 1999). There is ample empirical research demonstrating that transformational leaders increase members' identification with the group by making their social identity salient (Dvir et al., 2002; Epitropaki et al., 2017; Hoffman et al., 2011; Huang, 2013; Kark et al., 2003; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2012).

Because of the central role that values play in the influence that transformational leaders exert on their followers, the issue of value congruence between an individual's values and those revealed in their organization has been investigated. Hannah et al. (2016) explored the impact of TFL on US Army infantry personnel's value internalization of core organizational values such as loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, and integrity. They found evidence that TFL positively influences value internalization and value internalization, in turn, mediated the relationship between TFL and followers' performance. Similarly, Hoffman et al. (2011) found evidence that person-organization value fit served as a mediator in the relation between TFL and work group effectiveness. To further explore the mediating role of employees perceived organizational values in the link between TFL and focal work outcomes we examine the role of goal, support, and innovation psychological climates. By focusing on universal and core dimensions of climate that describe organizations across different industries and national cultures (Cameron and Quinn, 2011; Hartnell et al., 2011, 2019; Marinova et al., 2019; Xenikou and Furnham, 2013) this research can produce more generalizable findings about the explanatory role of psychological value climates in the link between TLF components and organizational identification.

In the research literature that examines leadership as an antecedent of organizational values and behavioral norms, there are findings showing that organizational values and norms serve as mediators in the relation between leadership styles and organizational outcomes (Chong et al., 2018; Lok et al., 2005; Elenkov and Manev, 2005; Pangarso et al., 2022; Sarros et al., 2008; Simosi and Xenikou, 2010; Xenikou, 2017). Specifically, Sarros et al. (2008) found that the TFL components of charisma (i.e., high-performance expectations and vision articulation) and provision of individual support were related to performance-oriented (goal) values, while Saboe et al. (2015) showed that the TFL component labeled “emphasizing group goals” was related to OCB and lower turnover intentions via its effect on organizational commitment.

As past research found positive correlations between goal, support, and innovation values, and, more importantly, that all three organizational climates equally contribute to organizational effectiveness (Hartnell et al., 2016, 2019; McKinnon et al., 2003; Miron et al., 2004) we expected all three psychological climates to be related with organizational identification. For instance, Glisson and James (2002) showed that managers in teams with more constructive norms cultivating achievement, affiliation, self-actualization, and innovation reported higher levels of organizational commitment compared to their peers in teams with less constructive norms. Similarly, Simosi and Xenikou (2010) reported group norms of achievement, affiliation, and self-actualization to mediate the relation between TFL and organizational commitment in a sample of employees working in the financial sector.

In organizational contexts where goal values are promoted, employees are motivated to work hard to attain rewards and recognition based on effort expenditure and performance (Hartnell et al., 2011, 2016). Followers of transformational leaders are expected to perform beyond expectations and are proactively helped to attain goals of high standards (Antonakis et al., 2003; Dvir et al., 2002). Charisma and individualized consideration are the TFL components that primarily cultivate organizational values of goal setting and achievement, productivity, feedback, and contingent reward (Sarros et al., 2008), which, in turn, are related to the experience of positive emotional states at work, such as organizational identification and commitment (Glisson and James, 2002; Marinova et al., 2019; Simosi and Xenikou, 2010; Xenikou, 2017). Additionally, charisma and individualized consideration involve leadership behaviors supportive of followers' efforts toward goal accomplishment, that is, the accessibility to task and socio-emotional resources (Bass and Avolio, 1993; Bass et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2012).

Finally, as TFL focuses on change and transformations it also predicts organizational values with an emphasis on adaptability, innovation, and change (Block, 2003; Hartnell et al., 2019; Jung et al., 2003; Sarros et al., 2002). Regarding the self-engaging processes that TFL activates in organizational contexts, Xenikou (2017) showed that the link between TFL and organizational identification was mediated by perceived innovation values. More specifically, the TFL components that focus on change and relate to innovation, adaptability and creativity are intellectual stimulation and charisma (Garcia-Morales et al., 2012; Henker et al., 2015; Kark et al., 2018; Mumford et al., 2014; Vessey et al., 2014). Both intellectual stimulation and charisma reflect the extent to which a leader's vision for the future is open to change or a closed programme to which followers are expected to comply (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999).

On these grounds the following hypotheses were formulated at the individual-level of analysis (see Figure 1):

Theoretical model of the link between follower-perceived TFL components and organizational identification as mediated by psychological value climates.
Figure 1. Theoretical model of the link between follower-perceived TFL components and organizational identification as mediated by psychological value climates.
  • Hypothesis 4a. Charisma has a positive relationship with organizational identification mediated by goal psychological climate.
  • Hypothesis 4b. Charisma has a positive relationship with organizational identification mediated by support psychological climate.
  • Hypothesis 4c. Charisma has a positive relationship with organizational identification mediated by innovation psychological climate.
  • Hypothesis 5. Intellectual stimulation has a positive relationship with organizational identification mediated by innovation psychological climates.
  • Hypothesis 6a. Individualized consideration has a positive relationship with organizational identification mediated by support psychological climate.
  • Hypothesis 6b. Individualized consideration has a positive relationship with organizational identification mediated by goal psychological climate.

Method

Sample and procedure

Three hundred and fifty-three full-time employees from 30 different units of a large public organization in Greece took part in the study. Most of participants were male (89.6%). As regards their age, 39.2% were between 20 and 39, 48.8% were between 40 and 49, and 10.1 were over 49. Regarding their education, 42.9% had an undergraduate degree or higher. Additionally, 51.5% did not hold a management position and 48.5% were middle or upper-level managers. Finally, 16% had an organizational tenure up to 10 years, 30.2% had a tenure between 10 and 15 years, and 51.5% had a tenure higher than 15 years. Participants were reached at work by one of the researchers and were informed of the study's general purpose, namely, the examination of aspects of their work life. They were invited to fill in a battery of questionnaire measures, which took approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Participants were ensured of the anonymity of their responses and were explicitly informed of their right to withdraw their participation at any stage. Questionnaires were distributed by the researcher to participants, and the filled questionnaires were collected by the researcher on site. Only a small percentage of employees who were invited to participate refused to do so (approximately 2%).

Measures

Psychological climate

The FOCUS Questionnaire (Van Muijen et al., 1999; part II) was employed to measure organizational values. Specifically, the second part of the questionnaire was used to assess perceived organizational values. The instruction given to participants reads as follows: “Please indicate the degree to which each of the following short statements describes your organization. Your opinion should reflect what you believe to be true about the organization”. FOCUS depicts organizational climate on the grounds of the competing values theory and was developed in several different languages by an international group of researchers. For the purposes of this study three subscales of the questionnaire were used, namely, goal, support and innovation. The goal subscale involves goal setting, achievement, performance indicators, and contingent reward (7 items; sample items: “clear objectives” and “task-oriented”). The support subscale measures the extent to which organizations focus on their members' cooperation, participation, trust, and individual development (9 items). Sample items are: “mutual support in solving work problems” and “mutual support for non-work problems.” Finally, the innovation subscale includes flexibility, experimentation, as well as an external focus (8 items; sample items: “risk taking” and “openness to criticism”). All items were measured on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 6 = to a very great extent). The MCFA results showed a good fit to the data as indicted by the goodness-of-fit indices: χ(206)2 = 631.75, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.08. Moreover, the inspection of the factor loadings showed that all items loaded on their corresponding factor. The Cronbach's alphas in this study were 0.83 for goal, 0.88 for support, and 0.79 for innovation.

Transformational leadership

To measure perceptions of transformational leadership the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, Form 5X; Avolio et al., 1999) was employed. Participants were requested to describe their immediate supervisor on 20 items using a 5-point Likert scale (5 = frequently, if not always; 1 = not at all). According to Avolio et al. (1999), transformational leadership consists of three subscales, i.e., charisma/inspirational (12 items; sample items: “emphasizes the collective mission” and “models ethical standards”), intellectual stimulation (4 items; sample item: “suggests new ways”), and individualized consideration (4 items; sample item: “individualizes attention”). The MCFA results had a good fit to the data as shown by the goodness-of-fit indices: χ2(167) = 467.09, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.07 and all items loaded on their corresponding factor. The Cronbach's alphas in this study were 0.92 for charisma, 0.88 for intellectual stimulation, and 0.85 for individualized consideration.

Organizational identification

Organizational identification was assessed using six items measured on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = to a very great extent) developed by Ellemers et al. (1999). The questionnaire has a cognitive and an affective component. The cognitive component of the scale refers to a person's awareness of a particular social categorization and sample items are: “I identify with other members of the organization” and “I am like other members of the organization.” The emotional component refers to a person's affective commitment to the group and sample items are: “I dislike being a member of the organization” (reversed) and “I would rather belong to another organization” (reversed). The Cronbach's alpha in this study for organizational identification was 0.85.

Results

The collected data had a nested structure as participants were grouped within organizational units. Therefore, even though all study variables were conceptualized at the individual level of analysis, Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling (MSEM) analyses were conducted with Mplus Version 8.10 (Muthen & Muthen, Los Angeles, CA, USA) to account for the issue of the dependency of observations. Furthermore, the predictor variables were centered on the whole sample (i.e., grand-mean centering) to control for both within-group and between-group variances of the dependent variable when examining individual-level relations. Finally, to test for the significance of the hypothesized mediating effects the approach suggested by Shrout and Bolger (2002) was implemented that specifies the following four conditions to be met: (1) the predictor variable is significantly related with the mediator variable, (2) when both the predictor and the mediator are entered simultaneously into the regression equation, the mediator is significantly related with the outcome, (3) the product of the indirect paths (namely, from the predictor to the mediator and from the mediator to the outcome) is significant, and (4) the predictor is significantly unrelated with the outcome variable in the presence of the mediator (this last condition is necessary only for full rather than partial mediation). When presenting the multilevel analysis results the unstandardized fixed-effects estimates (γ) are reported. The Monte Carlo confidence interval (CI) method was used to test for the significance of the hypothesized mediating effects addressing power problems of indirect effects' non-normal sampling distributions (Preacher et al., 2010). The CIs that do not include zero are the empirical basis for rejecting the null hypothesis and showing the existence of a significant indirect effect.

Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) and assessment of common method variance

As a first step to address the issue of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003) a Harman Single Factor test was carried out. According to this technique, if substantial amount of common method variance is present, a single factor accounts for most of the covariance among variables and shows a better fit to the data than the hypothesized 7-factor model. The Harman Single Factor test was carried out by comparing the goodness-of-fit of the 7-factor model (charisma, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, goal values, support values, innovation values, and identification) with the fit of the one-factor model using ML estimation. The MCFA results showed that the 7-factor model [χ(275)2 = 617.03, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.06] fit the data well, whereas the one-factor model yielded a bad fit to the data [χ(296)2 = 2083.46, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.70, TLI = 0.68, RMSEA = 0.13, SRMR = 0.11].

The hypothesized 7-factor model was found to have a good fit to the data providing evidence that the study variables represented separate constructs. To further examine the issue of common method variance the distinctiveness of the constructs was tested by comparing the 7-factor model to several nested models that were more parsimonious. The 7-factor model was compared to a 5-factor model combining the three components of TFL, i.e., charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Multilevel CFA results showed that although the 5-factor model fitted the data adequately [χ(303)2 = 634.55, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.06], the 7-factor fitted the data significantly better [Δχ(7)2 = 110.59, p < 0.001]. Additionally, the 7-factor model was compared to a 5-factor model combining the three organizational value dimensions, namely, goal values, support values, and innovation values. The MCFA results showed that although the 5-factor model fitted the data well [χ(303)2 = 595.38, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.06], the 7-factor fitted the data significantly better [Δχ(7)2 = 71.42, p < 0.001].

Hypothesis testing

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, normality values, internal reliabilities, and zero-order correlations among the study variables at the individual level of analysis. However, the statistical significance of the indices and the magnitude of the correlations among the variables should be examined with caution because the dependency of the observations in the collected data is not accounted for. Normality of the data distributions was assessed by using skewness and kurtosis values. As shown in Table 1, skewness values ranged from −0.70 to 0.02, which are well below the absolute cutoff value of 3.0 suggested by (Kline, 2011). Similarly, kurtosis values ranged from −0.48 to 0.70 well below the absolute cutoff value 8.0 for assessing substantial departures from normality (Kline, 2011). These values indicate that the study variables did not exhibit substantial departures from univariate normality. Regarding the internal reliability of the scales, Cronbach's alpha coefficients met the commonly accepted criterion of 0.70 set by Nunnally (1978).

Table 1. Individual-level Means, Standard Deviations, normality values, Cronbach's alphas, and correlations among variables.

VariablesMSDSkewnessKurtosis (2)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)
Charisma (1)3.660.72−0.440.14(0.92)
Intellectual stimulation (2)3.110.860.02−0.140.75***(0.88)
Individualized consideration (3)3.400.95−0.39−0.480.75***0.73***(0.85)
Goal Psy-C (4)4.330.83−0.56−0.050.48***0.43***0.44***(0.83)
Support Psy-C (5)4.240.93−0.700.700.47***0.42***0.44***0.82***(0.88)
Innovation Psy-C (6)3.880.83−0.08−0.260.42***0.44***0.37***0.82***0.73***(0.79)
Organizational Identification (7)4.881.15−0.630.250.35***0.24***0.28***0.38***0.45***0.32***(0.85)

N = 353, ***p < 0.001.

Psy-C, Psychological climate. Cronbach's alphas are on the diagonal, in parentheses.

To test for the research hypotheses MSEM with ML estimation was used as implemented in Mplus 8.10. We first run a null model to assess the between-units variance in organizational identification. According to Hox (2010), in organizational settings, ICC1 coefficients up to 0.05 indicate low between-group variability, ICC1 coefficients up to 0.10 indicate medium between-group variability, and ICC1 coefficients up to 0.15 indicate high between-group variability. The results showed that 3% of variance in organizational identification resided between organizational units (ICC1 = 0.03), which indicates a rather low variability between-units in organizational identification. Moreover, the ICC1 coefficients for all study variables fall below 0.05 point indicating low between-unit variability except for support psychological climate that has a ICC1 at 0.06. Nevertheless, the MSEM analytic technique was employed because of the dependency of the observations in our dataset.

Following Shrout and Bolger (2002) approach to test for the significance of the mediating effects through the fulfillment of the four conditions specified above, we run 5 Models presented in Table 2. We also controlled for demographics that have been shown to relate to organizational identification, namely, age, gender, and organizational tenure in all the conducted analyses. Hypothesis 1a, hypothesis1b and hypothesis 1c predicted that charisma would be positively associated with goal, support and innovation psychological climate, respectively, while hypothesis 2 predicted that intellectual stimulation would be positively associated with innovation psychological climate. Additionally, hypothesis 3a and hypothesis 3b stated that individual consideration would be positively related to goal and support psychological climate, respectively. In the following multilevel analysis results the unstandardized fixed-effects estimates (γ) are presented. First, as can be seen from Table 2 (Models: 1, 2 & 3), charisma was positively correlated with goal (γ = 0.48, p < 0.001), support (γ = 0.49, p < 0.001), and innovation (γ = 0.30, p < 0.01) psychological climates, supporting hypothesis 1a, hypothesis 1b, and hypothesis 1c, respectively. Second, as shown in Table 2 (Model 3), intellectual stimulation was positively correlated with innovation psychological climate (γ = 0.19, p < 0.05), offering support to hypothesis 2. Additionally, the results showed that individualized consideration was positively correlated with goal (γ = 0.14, p < 0.05) and support (γ = 0.19, p < 0.05) psychological climates (Table 2, Models 1 & 2) supporting hypothesis 3a and hypothesis 3b, respectively (see Figure 2).

Table 2. Results of MSEM analysis.

VariablesGoal Psy-CSupport Psy-CInnovation Psy-COIOI
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5
EstimateSEEstimateSEEstimateSEEstimateSEEstimateSE
Control variables
Age0.110.080.080.080.100.080.060.11−0.010.10
Gender0.240.140.170.160.040.15−0.220.23−0.37*0.20
Tenure−0.040.05−0.030.050.030.05−0.040.07−0.020.07
Predictors
Charisma0.48***0.090.49***0.100.30**0.100.64***0.140.27*0.13
Intellectual stimulation0.030.070.010.080.19*0.08−0.090.11−0.090.10
Individualized consideration0.14*0.070.19*0.080.080.080.110.11−0.010.10
Goal Psy-C––––––––0.190.12
Support Psy-C––––––––0.56***0.10
Innovation Psy-C––––––––−0.050.10

N = 353. Unstandardized coefficients are presented.

Psy-C, Psychological climate; OI, Organizational Identification.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

MSEM results examining the relationship between follower-perceived TFL components, psychological value climates, and organizational identification. <sup>*</sup>*p* < 0.05, <sup>**</sup>*p* < 0.01, <sup>***</sup>*p* < 0.001.
Figure 2. MSEM results examining the relationship between follower-perceived TFL components, psychological value climates, and organizational identification. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Next, we examined whether the indirect effects of charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration on organizational identification through goal, support, and innovation psychological climates were statistically significant (hypothesis 4a−6b). As already reported above, the predictors (charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) were positively correlated with the hypothesized mediators (goal, support, and innovation psychological climates) meeting the first condition specified by the Shrout and Bolger (2002) approach. Moreover, when both predictor variables and mediators were entered in the analysis, only support psychological climate was correlated with organizational identification (Table 2, Model 5) meeting the second condition for support psychological climate. To examine the third condition, we tested the significance of the product of the indirect paths (namely, from the predictor to the mediator and from the mediator to the outcome) implementing the Monte Carlo confidence interval (CI) method based on 20,000 replications (Preacher and Selig, 2012; Preacher et al., 2010).

The results showed that support psychological climate served as a mediator in the link between charisma and organizational identification, γ = 0.27, CI 95% [0.14, 0.43] supporting hypothesis 4b, while the link between charisma and organizational identification was not mediated by goal γ = 0.10 ns, CI 95% [−0.20, 0.23] and innovation γ = −0.03 ns, CI 95% [−0.11, 0.03] psychological climates, rejecting hypothesis 4a and hypothesis 4c, respectively. Moreover, the MSEM results indicated that innovation psychological climate did not serve as a mediator between intellectual stimulation and organizational identification γ = −0.02 ns, CI 95% [−0.07, 0.02], rejecting hypothesis 5. Additionally, the mediating effect of support psychological climate in the link between individualized consideration and organizational identification was statistically significant, γ = 0.11, CI 95% [0.02, 0.21] offering support to hypothesis 6a, whereas goal psychological climate did not mediate the link between individualized consideration and organizational identification, γ = 0.03 ns, CI 95% [−0.01, 0.09], rejecting hypothesis 6b.

Finally, testing for the fourth condition specified by the Shrout and Bolger (2002) approach regarding full or partial mediation, the results showed that for the mediating effect of support psychological climate in the link between charisma and organizational identification when both predictor and mediator were entered in the equations charisma and support psychological climate were both positively related to organizational identification (Table 2, Model 5), indicating partial mediation. On the contrary, regarding the mediating effect of support psychological climate in the link between individualized consideration and organizational identification when both predictor and mediator were entered in the analysis only support psychological climate was positively correlated with organizational identification, indicating full mediation.

Discussion

To address calls for the investigation of the nature of TFL (Siangchokyoo et al., 2020; Van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013) this study set out to examine the differential mediating effects of support, goal, and innovation psychological climates in the relationship between follower-perceived TFL components and organizational identification. In this study, we focus on psychological value climates because values play a prominent role in theories of transformational and charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985; Lord et al., 1999; Shamir et al., 1993). Previous research linking TFL to organizational outcomes examined unidimensional or overall TFL as opposed to its components. This approach obscures the specific leader behaviors that are responsible for the effects, and whether they operate via the same or different mediation channels (Van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013). The findings of this study showed that TFL components, namely charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, were differently associated with support, goal, and innovation psychological climates in accordance with TFL theory. Specifically, charisma was positively associated with support, goal, and innovation psychological climates, intellectual stimulation was positively associated with innovation psychological climate, and individualized consideration was positively related to support and goal psychological climates. Moreover, the analyses indicated that support psychological climate mediated the effect of follower-perceived charisma and individualized consideration on organizational identification, whereas all other mediation hypotheses linking TFL components to organizational identification were rejected.

Charisma as a component of TFL was found to be positively associated with all three psychological value climates. This finding is in accordance with theoretical accounts and research findings that have systematically demonstrated charisma to be value-driven and to cultivate high standards for performance, support for competence, openness to change, and adaptability (Bass et al., 2003; Brown and Trevino, 2006; Wang and Howell, 2012; Xenikou, 2014). Furthermore, intellectual stimulation was related to innovation psychological climate clearly showing the link between leadership behaviors that promote thinking in different ways and followers' subjective perception of their work environment as innovative and proactive. Indeed, previous studies have demonstrated the close link between creativity, intellectual stimulation, innovative behaviors, climate for innovation, and TFL qualities (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Jung et al., 2003; Kark et al., 2018; Lin, 2023; Sarros et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2013; Xenikou, 2017). Finally, the TFL component of individualized consideration was associated with support and goal psychological climates, reflecting on the importance of the dyadic leader-follower relationship to build cooperation, participation, personal development and goal achievement in how individual employees understand their work environment (Saboe et al., 2015; Wang and Howell, 2012).

To investigate at a higher level of external validity the TFL theory's assumption that leaders exert their influence through a process of perceived values, we examined the explanatory role of support, goal, and innovation values that were found by past research to robustly describe organizations across different sectors and cultural contexts (Cameron and Quinn, 2011). This study analyzed the pivotal role of specific TFL behaviors in forming psychological value climates and found that support psychological climate was an explanatory mechanism in the link between TFL behaviors and organizational identification. That is, employees who perceive their supervisors as practicing charismatic leadership behaviors, such as handling difficult situations effectively, modeling ethical standards, going beyond self-interest, emphasizing the collective, and articulating an attractive vision reported higher support psychological climate, which, in turn, increased members' identification with the organization. Additionally, when immediate supervisors were rated high on providing individualized consideration, such as attending to followers' individual needs and focusing on their strengths, subordinates reported higher levels of support psychological climate, which, in turn, increased organizational identification.

A possible explanation for the important role that support value climate plays in how charisma relates to organizational identification can be derived from propositions of the social identity approach in organizations (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Greco et al., 2022; Hogg and Terry, 2001; Johnson et al., 2012; Weisman et al., 2022). The social identity approach posits that leaders have an impact on their followers by making their social identity salient on the grounds of followers' two fundamental motives, namely, uncertainty reduction and self-enhancement. Organizational members' need for uncertainty reduction and self-enhancement may be fulfilled by charismatic leadership behaviors that communicate values of cooperation, participation, and self-actualization and instill trust and confidence in the group to work together for common goals and the collective mission.

At this point, the issue of the dark side of TFL that primarily concerns the charismatic dimension of the TFL construct becomes relevant. It has been argued that followers of charismatic leaders are encouraged to go beyond their self-interests for serving the organization and may become emotionally engaged in the pursuit of goals contrary to their best interests (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Brown and Trevino, 2006; Tourish, 2013). The findings of our study show that the charismatic component of TFL, as measured by the MLQ, promotes a support psychological climate of mutual trust, collaboration and positive interpersonal relations among organizational members, which, in turn, increases their identification with the organization. These findings, therefore, are an indication that the dimension of charisma, as measured by the MLQ, at least to some extent reflects the moral maturity and ethical core of TFL to show selfless pro-organizational behavior and serve group goals and objectives.

The mediation analyses also revealed that individualized consideration, as a TFL component, was related to organization identification via support psychological climate. Individualized consideration aims to enhance followers' skills and abilities and reflects on the dyadic relationship between leader and follower (Saboe et al., 2015; Wang and Howell, 2012). Leader behaviors characteristic of individualized consideration involves paying attention to followers' needs and aspirations, while focusing on their strengths. Leader-member relationships are often conceptualized from a social exchange perspective (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995) that entails the exchange of social and economic resources such as material resources, information, services, and affiliation. Employees who perceive the relationship with their supervisor to be of high-quality, tend to define themselves in terms of the organization (Lee et al., 2015; Loi et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2019). Our findings, therefore, indicate that interpersonal relations at work and mutual exchange of resources can enhance identification with the group via viewing the work environment as supportive, cooperative, and self-actualizing. Indeed, past research suggests that availability of resources may act as identity-relevant information leading to higher organizational identification among group members (Blader and Tyler, 2009). Finally, there is evidence that organizational identification is an outcome of perceived organizational support (POS) defined as employees' beliefs about their organization valuing their contributions and caring about their wellbeing (Edwards and Peccei, 2010; Gibney et al., 2010).

Limitations and future research

A limitation of this study was the self-report nature of the data and the issue of common method variance related to the survey design implemented. Nevertheless, it should be noted that organizational identification is a construct grounded in the subjective perceptions of group members and the extent to which each individual member defines themselves in terms of group membership. Therefore, individuals' subjective perception of their work environment is a more robust predictor of organizational identification compared to organizational attributes measured at the group level of analysis.

To deal with common method bias several MSEM analyses were conducted providing evidence that all study variables represent separate constructs. The correlational design, however, does not allow for causal inferences to be made and future research may implement experimental and longitudinal research designs to further investigate the explanatory role of support psychological climate providing evidence of causality.

A second limitation is the single source data collection, which also reflects on the robustness of the findings. In future research the collection of multiple source data may be employed by measuring organizational identification, for instance, through self-report measures as well as data provided by “significant others” assessing their co-workers' identification with the work organization. The role of “significant other” might be assigned to a close colleague, a direct supervisor, or a subordinate.

Practical implications

From a practical perspective, our findings indicate that support psychological climate is cultivated in work settings where immediate supervisors engage in charismatic leadership behaviors and provide support to group members individually, increasing, in this way, employees' sense of belonging to the work organization. This study can provide administrators and consultants advice about actionable strategies to enhance employees sense of inclusivity in organizations and to cultivate positive climates. Organizational interventions that focus on positive social relations at work, helping behavior, cooperation in dealing with work problems, and personal/professional development of individual employees are thought to be solid ground for engaging employees at work.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Charles A. Pierce, Oakland University, United States

Reviewed by: Andrea Fontes, University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE), Portugal

Erkan Doner, Adana Alparslan Turkes Science and Technology University, Türkiye

Statements

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The first author received funding for this publication from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics approval

The studies involving humans were approved by Ethics committee of the Psychology Department at the Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

AX: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AH: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. SK: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – review & editing.

References

  1. Antonakis J. (2018). “Charisma and the new leadership,” in The Nature of Leadership, 3rd Edin., eds. J. Antonakis and D. V. Day (Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage), 56 – 81. doi: doi:10.4135/9781506395029.n3
  2. Antonakis J., Avolio B. J., Sivasubramaniam N. (2003). Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Leadersh. Quart. 14, 261 – 295. doi: doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4
  3. Ashforth B. E. (2016). Exploring identity and identification in organizations: time for some course corrections. J. Leadersh. Organiz. Stud. 23, 361 – 373. doi: doi:10.1177/1548051816667897
  4. Ashforth B. E., Mael F. A. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14, 20 – 39. doi: doi:10.2307/258189
  5. Avolio B. J., Bass B. M., Jung D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. J. Occup. Organiz. Psychol. 72, 441 – 462. doi: doi:10.1348/096317999166789
  6. Avolio B. J., Zhu W., Koh W., Bhatia P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and structural distance. J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 951 – 968. doi: doi:10.1002/job.283
  7. Banks G. C., Engemann K. N., Williams L. E., Gooty J., McCauley K. D., Medaugh M. R. (2017). A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership. Leadersh. Quart. 28, 508 – 529. doi: doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.12.003
  8. Barnes C. M., Guarana C. L Nauman S., Kong D. T. (2016). Too tired to inspire or be inspired: sleep deprivation and charismatic leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 101, 1191 – 1199. doi: doi:10.1037/apl0000123
  9. Bass B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
  10. Bass B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. Eur. J. Work Organiz. Psychol. 8, 9 – 32. doi: doi:10.1080/135943299398410
  11. Bass B. M., Avolio B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administr. Quart. 17, 112 – 121.
  12. Bass B. M., Avolio B. J., Jung D. I., Berson Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 207 – 218. doi: doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207
  13. Bass B. M., Riggio R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership. Mahwen, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. doi: doi:10.4324/9781410617095
  14. Bass B. M., Steidlmeier P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadersh. Quart. 10, 181 – 217. doi: doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8
  15. Blader S. L., Tyler T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra-role behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 445 – 464. doi: doi:10.1037/a0013935
  16. Block L. (2003). The leadership-culture connection: an exploratory investigation. Leadersh. Organiz. Dev. J. 24, 318 – 334. doi: doi:10.1108/01437730310494293
  17. Brown M. E., Trevino L. K. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, value congruence, and deviance in work groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 954 – 962. doi: doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.954
  18. Cameron K. S., Quinn R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, 3rd Edn. San Franscisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  19. Chong M. P. M., Shang Y., Richards M., Zhu X. (2018). Two sides of the same coin? Leadership and organizational culture. Leadersh. Organiz. Dev. J. 39, 975 – 994. doi: doi:10.1108/LODJ-05-2017-0122
  20. Conger J. A., Kanungo R. N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. J. Organ. Behav. 15, 439 – 452. doi: doi:10.1002/job4030150508
  21. Dvir T., Eden D., Avolio B. J., Shamir B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: a field experiment. Acad. Manag. J. 45, 735 – 744. doi: doi:10.2307/3069307
  22. Edwards M. R., Peccei R. (2010). Perceived organizational support, organizational identification, and employee outcomes. J. Pers. Psychol. 9, 17 – 26. doi: doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000007
  23. Effelsberg D., Solga M., Gurt J. (2014). Getting followers to transcend their self-interest for the benefit of the company: testing a core assumption of transformational leadership theory. J. Business Psychol. 29, 131 – 143. doi: doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9305-x
  24. Eisenbeiss S. A., van Knippenberg D., Boerner S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: integrating team climate principles. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 1438 – 1446. doi: doi:10.1037/a0012716
  25. Elenkov D. S., Manev I. M. (2005). Top management leadership and influence on innovation: the role of sociocultural context. J. Manag. 31, 381 – 402. doi: doi:10.1177/0149206304272151
  26. Ellemers N., Kortekaas P., Ouwerkerk J. W. (1999). Self-categorization, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 29, 371 – 389.
  27. Epitropaki O., Kark R., Mainemelis C., Lord R. G. (2017). Leadership and followership identity processes: a multilevel review. Leadersh. Quart. 28, 104 – 129. doi: doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.003
  28. Epitropaki O., Martin R. (2016). “LMX and work attitudes: is there anything left unsaid or unexamined?,” in The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange, eds. T. N. Bauer and B. Erdogan (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 139 – 156.
  29. Garcia-Morales V. J., Jimenez-Barrionuevo M. M., Gutierrez-Gutierrez L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. J. Business Res. 65, 1040 – 1050. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.005
  30. Gibney R. A. Y., Zagenczyk T. J., Fuller J. B., Hester K. I. M., Caner T. (2010). Exploring organizational obstruction and the expanded model of organizational identification. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 41, 1083 – 1109. doi: doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00748.x
  31. Givens R. J. (2011). The role of psychological empowerment and value congruence in mediating the impact of transformational leadership on follower commitment in American churches. Int. J. Leadersh. Stud. 6, 188 – 214.
  32. Glisson C., James L. R. (2002). The cross-level effects of culture and climate in human service teams. J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 767 – 794. doi: doi:10.1002/job.162
  33. Gong Y., Huang J.-C., Farh J.-L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Acad. Manag. J. 52. 765–778. doi: doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670890
  34. Graen G. B., Uhl-Bien M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadersh. Quart. 6, 219 – 247. doi: doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
  35. Greco L. M., Porck J. P., Walter S. L., Scrimpshire A., Zabinski A. M. (2022). A meta-analytic review of identification at work: relative contribution of team, organizational, and professional identification. J. Appl. Psychol. 107, 795 – 830. doi: doi:10.1037/apl0000941
  36. Groves K. S. (2020). Testing a moderated mediation model of transformational leadership, values, and organization change. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 27, 35 – 48. doi: doi:10.1177/1548051816662614
  37. Han M. S., Masood K., Cudjoe D., Wang Y. (2021). Knowledge hiding as the dark side of competitive psychological climate. J. Organiz. Dev. 42, 195 – 207. doi: doi:10.1108/LODJ-03-2020-0090
  38. Hannah S. T., Schaubroeck J. M., Peng A. C. (2016). Transforming followers' value internalization and role self-efficacy: dual processes promoting performance and peer norm-enforcement. J. Appl. Psychol. 101, 252 – 266. doi: doi:10.1037/apl0000038
  39. Hartnell C. A., Kinicki A. J., Schurer Lambert L., Fugate M., Doyle Corner P. (2016). Do similarities or differences between CEO leadership and organizational culture have a more positive effect on firm performance? A test of competing predictions. J. Appl. Psychol. 101, 846 – 861. doi: doi:10.1037/apl0000083
  40. Hartnell C. A., Ou A. Y., Kinicki A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework's theoretical suppositions. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 677 – 694. doi: doi:10.1037/a0021987
  41. Hartnell C. A., Ou A. Y., Kinicki A. J., Choi P., Karam E. P. (2019). A meta-analytic test of organizational culture's association with elements of an organization's system and its relative predictive validity on organizational outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 104, 832 – 850. doi: doi:10.1037/apl0000380
  42. Henker N., Sonnentag S., Unger D. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: the mediating role of promotion focus and creative process engagement. J. Business Psychol. 30, 235 – 247. doi: doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9348-7
  43. Hoffman B. J., Bynum B. H., Piccolo R. F., Sutton A. W. (2011). Person-organization value congruence: how transformational leaders influence work group effectiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 54, 779 – 796. doi: doi:10.5465/amj.2011.64870139
  44. Hogg M. A., Terry D. J. (2001). “Social identity theory and organizational processes,” in Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts, eds. M. A. Hogg and D. J. Terry (Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press), 1 – 12.
  45. House R. J. (1977). “A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership,” in The Cutting Edge, eds. J. G. Hunt, and L. L. Larson (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press), 189 – 207.
  46. Howell J. M., Avolio B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 78, 891 – 902. doi: doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.891
  47. Hox J. J. (2010). Multilevel Analysis. Techniques and Applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
  48. Huang W.-J. (2013). The effects of transformational leadership on the distinct aspect development of social identity. Group Processes Intergroup Relat. 16, 87 – 104. doi: doi:10.1177/1368430212454926
  49. Jaiswal N. K., Dhav R. L. (2015). Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative self-efficacy and employee creativity: a multilevel study. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 51, 30 – 41. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.002
  50. Jensen U. T. (2018). Does perceived societal impact moderate the effect of transformational leadership on value congruence? Evidence from a field experiment. Public Administr. Rev. 78, 48 – 57. doi: doi:10.1111/puar.12852
  51. Jensen U. T., Moynihan D. P., Salomonsen H. H. (2018). Communicating the vision: how face-to-face dialogue facilitates transformational leadership. Public Administr. Rev. 78, 350 – 361. doi: doi:10.1111/puar.12922
  52. Johnson M. D., Morgeson F. P., Hekman D. R. (2012). Cognitive and affective identification: exploring the links between different forms of social identification and personality with work attitudes and behaviour. J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 1142 – 1167. doi: doi:10.1002/job.1787
  53. Jones A. P., James L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: dimensions and relationships of individual and aggregated work environment perceptions. Organiz. Behav. Hum. Perform. 23, 201 – 250. doi: doi:10.1016/0030-5073(79)90056-4
  54. Joo B. K. B. (2010). Organizational commitment for knowledge workers: the roles of perceived organizational learning culture, leader-member exchange quality, and turnover intention. Hum. Resour. Dev. Quart. 21, 69 – 85. doi: doi:10.1002/hrdq.20031
  55. Judge T. A., Piccolo R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 755 – 768. doi: doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
  56. Jung D. L., Chow C., Wu A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings. Leadersh. Quart. 14, 525 – 544. doi: doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00050-X
  57. Karanika-Murray M., Michaelides M., Wood S. J. (2017). Job demands, job control, psychological climate, and job satisfaction: a cognitive dissonance perspective. J. Organiz. Effect.: People Perform. 4, 238 – 255. doi: doi:10.1108/JOEPP-02-2017-0012
  58. Kark R., Shamir B., Chen G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment and dependency. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 246 – 255. doi: doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.246
  59. Kark R., Van Dijk D., Vashdi D. R. (2018). Motivated or demotivated to be creative: the role of self-regulatory focus in transformational and transactional leadership processes. Appl. Psychol.: Int. Rev. 67, 186 – 224. doi: doi:10.1111/apps.12122
  60. Kim J., Yammarino F. J., Dionne S. D., Eckardt R., Cheog M., Tsai C. Y.. (2020). State-of-the-science review of leader-follower dyads research. Leadersh. Quart. 31, 1 – 18. doi: doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101306
  61. Kline R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, 3rd Edn. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
  62. Lee E.-S., Park T.-Y., Koo B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 141, 1049 – 1080. doi: doi:10.1037/bul0000012
  63. Lin Q. (2023). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: the role of identification, voice and innovation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 113, 1 – 14. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103521
  64. Liu Z. Q., Cai Z. Y., Li J., Shi S. P., Fang Y. Q. (2013). Leadership style and employee turnover intentions: a social identity perspective. Carrer Dev. Int. 18, 305 – 324. doi: doi:10.1108/CDI-09-2012-0087
  65. Loi R., Chan K. W., Lam L. W. (2014). Leader-member exchange, organizational identification, and job satisfaction: a social identity perspective. J. Occup. Organiz. Psychol. 87, 42 – 61. doi: doi:10.1111/joop.12028
  66. Lok P., Westwood R., Crawford J. (2005). Perceptions of organizational subculture and their significance for organizational commitment. Appl. Psychol.: Int. Rev. 54, 490 – 514. doi: doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00222.x
  67. Lord R. G., Brown D. J. (2004). Leadership Processes and Follower Self-Identity. Mahwen, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. doi: doi:10.4324/9781410608864
  68. 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. Organiz. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 78, 167 – 203. doi: doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2832
  69. Lowe K. B., Kroeck K. G., Sivasubramaniam N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadersh. Quart. 7, 385 – 425. doi: doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2
  70. Marinova S. V., Cao X., Park H. (2019). Constructive organizational values climate and organizational citizenship behaviors: a configurational view. J. Manag. 45, 2045 – 2071. doi: doi:10.1177/0149206318755301
  71. McKinnon J., Harrison G., Chow C., Wu A. (2003). Organizational culture: association with commitment, job satisfaction, propensity to remain and information sharing in Taiwan. Int. J. Business Stud. 11, 25 – 44.
  72. Meleady R., Crisp R. J. (2017). Take it to the top: imagined interactions with leaders elevates organizational identification. Leadersh. Quart. 28, 621 – 638. doi: doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.008
  73. Miron E., Erez M., Naveh E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 175 – 199. doi: doi:10.1002/job.237
  74. Mumford M. D., Gibson G., Giorgini V., Mecca J. (2014). “Leading for creativity: people, products, and systems,” in The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations, ed. D. V. Day (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 757 – 782. doi: doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199755615.013.037
  75. Nunnally J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  76. Pangarso A., Winarno A., Aulia P., Ritonga D. A. (2022). Exploring the predictor and the consequence of digital organizational culture: a quantitative investigation using sufficient and necessary approach. Leadersh. Organiz. Dev. J. 43, 370 – 385. doi: doi:10.1108/LODJ-11-2021-0516
  77. Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J., Podsakoff N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879 – 903. doi: doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  78. Preacher K. J., Selig J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Commun. Methods Measures 6, 77 – 98. doi: doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.679848
  79. Preacher K. J., Zyphur M. J., Zhang Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychol. Methods 15, 209 – 233. doi: doi:10.1037/a0020141
  80. Saboe K. N., Taing M. U., Way J. D., Johnson R. E. (2015). Examining the unique mediators that underlie the effects of different dimensions of transformational leadership. J. Leadersh. Organiz. Stud. 22, 175 – 186. doi: doi:10.1177/1548051814561028
  81. Sahan F. U., Terzioglou F. (2022). Transformational leadership practices of nurse managers: the effects on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of staff nurses. Leadersh. Health Serv. 35, 494 – 505. doi: doi:10.1108/LHS-11-2021-0091
  82. Sajadi P., Vandenberghe C. (2025). Psychological climate for diversity, racial/ethnic workplace discrimination, and prosocial voice behavior: the moderating role of social dominance orientation. Int. J. Manpower 46, 1810 – 1830. doi: doi:10.1108/IJM-07-2024-0489
  83. Sarros J. C., Cooper B. K., Santora J. C. (2008). Building a climate for innovation through transformational leadership and organizational culture. J. Leadersh. Organiz. Stud. 15, 145 – 158. doi: doi:10.1177/1548051808324100
  84. Sarros J. C., Gray J., Desten I. L. (2002). Leadership and its impact on organizational culture. Int. J. Business Stud. 10, 1 – 26.
  85. Shamir B., House R. J., Arthur M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory. Organiz. Sci. 4, 577 – 594. doi: doi:10.1287/orsc.4.4.577
  86. Shin S. J., Zhou J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 1709 – 1721. doi: doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709
  87. Shrout P. E., Bolger N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychol. Methods 7, 422 – 445. doi: doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
  88. Siangchokyoo N., Klinger R. L., Campion E. D. (2020). Follower transformation as the linchpin of transformational leadership theory: a systematic review and future research agenda. Leadersh. Quart. 31: 101341. doi: doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101341
  89. Simosi M., Xenikou A. (2010). The role of organizational culture in the relationship between leadership and organizational commitment. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 21, 1598 – 1616. doi: doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.500485
  90. Spurk D., Hofer A., Kauffeld S. (2021). Why does competitive psychological climate foster or hamper career success? The role of challenge and hindrance pathways and leader-member-exchange. J. Vocat. Behav. 127: 103542. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103542
  91. Tourish D. (2013). The Dark Side of Transformational Leadership: A Critical Perspective. London: Routledge. doi: doi:10.4324/9780203558119
  92. Tsapnidou E., Katharakis G., Kelesi-Stavropoulou M., Rovithis M., Koukouli S., Sigala E.. (2025). Fostering organizational and professional commitment through transformational leadership in nursing: a systematic review. Hospitals 2: 10. doi: doi:10.3390/hospitals2020010
  93. Van Knippenberg D., Sitkin S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research: back to the drawing board? Acad. Manag. Ann. 7, 1 – 60. doi: doi:10.5465/19416520.2013.759433
  94. Van Muijen J. J., Koopman P., De Witte K., De Cock G, Susanj, Z. Lemoine, C. (1999). Organizational culture: the focus questionnaire. Eur. J. Work Organiz. Psychol. 8, 551 – 568. doi: doi:10.1080/135943299398168
  95. Van Vianen A. E. M., De Pater I. E., Bechtoldt M. N., Evers A. (2011). The strength and quality of climate perceptions. J. Manag. Psychol. 26, 77 – 92. doi: doi:10.1108/02683941111099637
  96. Vessey W. B., Barrett J. D., Mumford M. D., Johnson G., Litwiller B. (2014). Leadership of highly creative people in highly creative fields: a historiometric study of scientific leaders. Leadersh. Quart. 25, 672 – 691. doi: doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.03.001
  97. Walumbwa F. O., Avolio B. J., Zhu W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: the role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Pers. Psychol. 61, 793 – 825. doi: doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00131.x
  98. Wang G., Oh I. S., Courtright S. H., Colbert A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group Organiz. Manag. 36, 223 – 270. doi: doi:10.1177/1059601111401017
  99. Wang P., Rode J. C., Shi K., Luo Z., Chen W. (2013). A workgroup climate perspective on the relationship among transformational leadership, workgroup diversity, and employee creativity. Group Organiz. Manag. 38, 334 – 360. doi: doi:10.1177/1059601113488163
  100. Wang X.-H., Howell J. M. (2012). A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and follower outcomes. Leadersh. Quart. 23, 775 – 790. doi: doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.02.001
  101. Weisman H., Wu C., Yoshikawa K., Lee H. (2022). Antecedents of organizational identification: a review and agenda for future research. J. Manag. 49, 2030 – 2061. doi: doi:10.1177/01492063221140049
  102. Xenikou A. (2017). Transformational leadership, transactional contingent reward, and organizational identification: the mediating effect of perceived innovation and goal culture orientations. Front. Psychol.: Organiz. Psychol. 8: 1754. doi: doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01754
  103. Xenikou A., Furnham A. (2013). Group Dynamics and Organizational Culture: Effective Work Groups and Organizations. Hampshire: Palgrave-Macmillan. doi: doi:10.1007/978-1-137-26546-3
  104. Xenikou A. (2014). The cognitive and affective components of organizational identification: the role of perceived support values and charismatic leadership. Appl. Psychol. 63, 567 – 588. doi: doi:10.1111/apps.12001
  105. Zhao H., Liu W., Li J., Yu X. (2019). Leader-member exchange, organizational identification, and knowledge hiding: the moderation role of relative leader-member exchange. J. Organiz. Behav. 40, 834 – 848. doi: doi:10.1002/job.2359
  106. Zhu W., Sosik J. J., Riggio R. E., Yang B. (2012). Relationships between transformational and transactional leadership and followers' organizational identification: the role of psychological empowerment. J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 13, 186 – 212. doi: doi:10.21818/001c.17899
  107. Zhu Y., Akhtar S. (2014). How transformational leadership influences follower helping behaviour: the role of trust and prosocial motivation. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 373 – 392. doi: doi:10.1002/job.1884

Citation

Xenikou, A., et al. (2026). Psychological value climates as mediators in the relation between follower-perceived transformational leadership and organizational identification. Frontiers in Organizational Psychology, Volume 4. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
4 - 2026

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Xenikou, Hantzi and Koroni.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Athena Xenikou

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Original ResearchIs it ok to make mistakes at work? Perceptions of differential treatment of mistakes by men and women in the workplaceGrace Lordan, Paris WillHypothesis and TheoryWhen humans and agents form a collective: a framework for collective intelligence in persistent organizational human-AI teamsAlessandro Rovetta, Alessandro Bortolotti, Claudio Di BerardinoOriginal ResearchLeadership behavior, employee engagement, and retention: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic in the hospitality industryMatthew L. Cole, Patricia Castelli, Yong Li