Kel 2 Sinis

Transformational Leadership, Cohesion
Perceptions, and Employee Cynicism About

Organizational Change
The Mediating Role of Justice Perceptions
Cindy Wu
Mitchell J. Neubert
Baylor University
Xiang Yi
Western Illinois University
The impact of supervisors’ transformational leadership (TFL), informational and

interpersonal justice, and group cohesion perceptions on employee cynicism about
organizational change (CAOC) was investigated in a sample of 469 employees
from a large Chinese organization undergoing major organizational change. Results
indicate that (a) TFL is negatively related to employee CAOC; (b) employee per-
ceptions of group cohesion moderate the relationship between TFL and CAOC
such that the higher the cohesion perceptions, the stronger the influence of TFL on
employee CAOC; (c) the moderating effect of cohesion perceptions on the
TFL–CAOC relationship is fully mediated by interpersonal justice; and (d) infor-
mational and interpersonal justice partially mediate the TFL–CAOC relationship.
The theoretical and practical implications of the process by which TFL impacts
CAOC are discussed.
Keywords: cynicism about organizational change; transformational leadership;

justice perceptions; cohesion perceptions; China
THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, Vol. 43 No. 3, September 2007 327-351
DOI: 10.1177/0021886307302097
© 2007 NTL Institute
327
328 THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE September 2007
M assive economic reform and the restructuring of Chinese firms have positioned
China as a significant global power in the marketplace (Z.-M. Wang, 2003). Yet,
China remains one of the least studied regions by management scholars (Tsui,
Schoonhoven, Meyer, Lau, & Milkovich, 2004). This scarcity in Chinese studies,
particularly on organizational change in a Chinese context, raises the question of
whether research findings on organizational change based on Western theories are
generalizable to China because employees in emerging markets may hold different
values from those in developed countries (Kiggundu, 1989).
The Chinese culture is described as highly collective oriented, performance oriented,
and institutional oriented (Hofstede, 1980; Javidan, Dorfman, de Luque, & House,
2006; Triandis, 1995). The ambitious project GLOBE (Javidan et al., 2006) suggests
that the Chinese culture values the cultivating and nurturing of personal relationships
because of the Confucius influence that emphasizes relationships and community. The
performance-oriented aspect of the Chinese culture also portrays an effective leader as
one who can develop an exciting vision for employees (Javidan et al., 2006). Theories
originated in Western cultures that are similar or related to this conceptualization of
effective management and leadership practices in China are transformational leadership
(TFL; Bass, 1997), employees’ subjective perceptions of cohesion in the group or work
unit (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990), and the leader-referent, social aspects of perceived orga-
nizational justice (including informational and interpersonal justice; Colquitt, 2001;
Greenberg, 1993). This study theorizes and then examines the mediating and moderat-
ing relationships among transformational leadership, informational justice, interper-
sonal justice, group cohesion perceptions, and their influences on employees’ cynical
attitude toward organizational change in a Chinese organization that is undergoing
major administrative change, including abolishment of lifetime employment, imple-
mentation of a new performance evaluation system, and introduction of continuous
improvement programs.
Cynicism is characterized as frustration, disillusionment, and negative feelings
toward and distrust of a person, ideology, social convention, or institution (Andersson
& Bateman, 1997), varying in its specificity from cynicism as a general personality
trait to cynicism about business, business leaders, occupation, organization, and orga-
nizational change (Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2004). It has particularly important
implications in organizational change because the success of organizational change
We wish to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.
An earlier version of this article was presented at the Academy of Management meetings in Honolulu, HI,
August 2005. This project was supported by the Faculty Travel Assistance Grant from Baylor University.
Cindy Wu is an assistant professor in the Department of Management at Baylor University. Her current
research focuses on leadership, organizational justice, and service management.
Mitchell J. Neubert is Chavanne Chair of Christian Ethics in Business and the H.R. Gibson Chair in
Management Development at Baylor University. His teaching and research focus is to equip principled
leaders to effectively lead individuals, teams, and organizational change.
Xiang Yi is an assistant professor in the Department of Management at Western Illinois University. Her
research interests include leadership, cross-cultural studies, creativity, and work–family issues.
Wu et al. / CYNICISM ABOUT ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 329
relies on employees’ commitment, discretionary performance, and follow-through

(Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). However, an organizational change process usu-
ally creates uncertainty and inevitably encounters setbacks or challenges before the
change effort is judged an obvious success. In emerging economies such as China,
administrative organizational change (change of organizational structure and admin-
istrative processes such as new ways to recruit and train personnel or different allo-
cations of firm resources and profits) tend to encounter even greater resistance relative
to technical change (introduction of new products, services, and production process
technology) because it produces a greater departure from existing organizational rou-
tines (Zhou, Tse, & Li, 2006). Where uncertainty abounds and difficulties arise,
employee cynicism can emerge and reduce commitment to organizational change,
which subsequently impacts individual performance (Neubert & Cady, 2001).
Although previous studies on organizational change in China have shown that
company leaders’ charisma contributes to employee job attitudes during change
(Zhou et al., 2006; Zhou, Gao, Yang, & Zhou, 2005), they did not consider the
equally important role of first-line supervisors. An exploratory study indicated that
the effectiveness of one’s supervisor is an important antecedent to employee cyni-
cism about organizational change (CAOC; Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000). Yet,
what supervisory effectiveness entails in the context of change remains unclear.
Based on theories of leadership, we test the influence of supervisors’ transforma-
tional leadership because of its collective orientation that is congruent with the
Chinese culture (Jung & Avolio, 1999). Transformational leadership is defined as a
leadership style that stimulates followers to change their beliefs, values, capabilities,
and motives to raise performance beyond self-interest for the benefit of the organi-
zation (Avolio, 1999). Although identified as a “change-oriented leadership”
(Eisenbach, Watson, & Pillai, 1999), TFL has rarely been examined in an organiza-
tional change context. Some researchers even contend that the absence of continu-
ous change may make the charisma or idealized influence components of TFL
unnecessary (Hinkin & Tracey, 1999). The first goal of this study is to address this
important issue. Specifically, we test whether TFL helps reduce employees’ cynical
attitude about organizational change in a Chinese context. In addition to this direct
effect, we also examine the process through which TFL influences employee CAOC.
Although numerous studies on TFL report positive relations to employees’ per-
formance and behavior (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004), these studies still leave many
questions unanswered (Yukl, 1998). One such question is the mechanism by which
TFL leads to enhanced employee performance and behavior (Bass, 1999; Bono &
Judge, 2003; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002). We propose that employees’
informational and interpersonal justice perceptions are mechanisms that mediate
TFL influences. Informational justice and interpersonal justice, formerly conceptu-
alized as interactional justice, are differentiated from procedural justice in that their
consequences are delivered through leaders as opposed to the organization as a
system (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). These constructs are identi-
fied as leader referenced and therefore would be closely related to leadership effec-
tiveness; yet, we are not aware of any studies examining how particular types of
leadership influence employee informational and interpersonal justice perceptions.
The second goal of this study therefore is to test whether employees’ informational
and interpersonal justice perceptions mediate the transformational leadership influ-
ence on employee cynical attitude about organizational change in a Chinese setting.
The context of this study, a Chinese company undergoing major administrative
change, plays a crucial role that raises another important research question: Does
TFL influence employee CAOC in this particular context as the theories rooted in
the Western cultures predict? Disagreement has existed among scholars of TFL on
whether the effect of TFL, a leadership theory originated in the Western culture, is
transferable cross-culturally (Bass, 1997; Pillai, Scandura, & Williams, 1999).
Following previous studies (Jung & Avolio, 1999; Spreitzer, Perttula, & Xin, 2005;
Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003), we adopt a uniform functional universality perspective
(Bass, 1997), which refers to the generalizability of a relationship between two vari-
ables cross-culturally but to varying degrees, arguing that the effect of TFL would
be more pronounced in collectivist societies such as China (Jung & Avolio, 1999;
Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003) because of its cultural emphasis on aligning individual
interests and values to those of the group or organization (Shamir, House, & Arthur,
1993). Although people from collectivist cultures tend to value the needs and wants
of the in-group more than those of individuals (Hofstede, 1980), the degree to which
they see the group as in-group is determined by their own subjective evaluation
(Triandis, 1995). Along this line, we take a step further to test whether an individ-
ual’s perception of group cohesion, perception about group closeness, similarities,
bonding, and his or her personal motivations to remain in the group (Carron &
Brawley, 2000), further enhances the influence of TFL. Our third goal therefore is to
examine whether individual employees’ group cohesion perceptions moderate and
further enhance the impact of TFL on employee CAOC.
In sum, the current study seeks to contribute to the literature by examining the influ-
ence of TFL on employees’ cynical attitude in organizational change in a Chinese con-
text. First, we test whether supervisors’ TFL helps reduce employee CAOC. Next, we
test whether employee informational and interpersonal justice perceptions mediate the
influence of TFL on employee CAOC. Third, we examine whether employees’ per-
ceptions about group cohesion moderate this relationship.
CAOC, JUSTICE PERCEPTIONS, AND

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Cynicism in general has been described as a personality trait (Pope, Butcher, &
Seelen, 1993). But in the organizational setting, research has found unpleasant experi-
ence or psychological contract breach as an antecedent of cynicism (Andersson &
Bateman, 1997; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003), suggesting that it is susceptible to
contextual influences. Employee cynicism about organizational change is defined as “a
pessimistic viewpoint about change efforts being successful because those responsible
for making change are blamed for being unmotivated, incompetent, or both” (Wanous
et al., 2000, p. 133). Supervisors are likely viewed as proximal influences on their
direct reports because they are perceived as the principal agents of the organization in
communicating necessary information and providing support to employees during

organizational change (Cole, Bruch, & Vogel, 2006; Larkin & Larkin, 1996). Initial
research findings have supported this notion. Cole et al. (2006) for example found that
supervisors’ support for employees is negatively related to employee CAOC. Wanous
et al. (2000) also reported that supervisor behaviors such as keeping people informed,
providing information, caring about employees, and trying to understand each
employee’s point of view are negatively related to employee CAOC. Similar results
were also reported in longitudinal study conducted in a union setting, where after the
change of committee by reelection, union committee persons were judged as more
effective when they demonstrated these behaviors (Wanous & Reichers, 1998). Many
behaviors depicted in these studies pertain to issues of the transformational leadership
style and informational and interpersonal justice.
Transformational leaders motivate employees to transcend individual goals for the
sake of the team or organization (Bass, 1985). They achieve this by articulating a clear
vision, bonding individual and collective interests (Pawar & Eastman, 1997), and trans-
forming the needs, values, preferences, and aspirations of followers from self interests
to collective interests (Shamir et al., 1993). Transformational leadership is composed of
four dimensions: individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, idealized influ-
ence (trait and behavior), and intellectual stimulation (Bass, 1985). Individualized con-
sideration involves leaders paying attention to each follower’s needs and wants by
mentoring, supporting, encouraging, and coaching followers to use their competence.
Inspirational motivation involves leaders articulating a compelling vision to be achieved
by using affective and values-relevant arguments to generate a sense of identification
with the collectivity. Idealized influence is concerned with leaders serving as a role
model to the followers by sacrificing personal benefits for the good of the group, setting
a personal example for the followers, and holding a high moral standard in every deci-
sion. Intellectual stimulation entails leaders challenging their followers to view prob-
lems from different perspectives and encouraging them to be problem conscious. A
recent meta-analysis confirmed the validity of transformational leadership as a positive
influence on employee satisfaction with one’s supervisor, follower job satisfaction, fol-
lower motivation, and leader effectiveness (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Cross-cultural find-
ings also generally agree with these positive relationships, although the strength may
vary (Jung & Avolio, 1999; Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003). Followers under TFL tend to
rate supervisors as satisfactory and effective; therefore, these leaders are less likely to
be judged as incompetent or unmotivated, and thus, employee CAOC would be low.
Robust relationships with such individual work outcomes as organizational citi-
zenship behavior, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions,
and job performance have been established in organizational justice research
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Wesson, Porter, Conlon, & Ng, 2001;
Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). The behavior of a management representative particu-
larly is concerned with interactional justice (Bies & Moag, 1986), which is referred
to as the social side of justice and can be further decomposed into two separate
facets: informational justice and interpersonal justice (Greenberg, 1993) as shown by
recent empirical evidence (Colquitt, 2001). Informational justice is concerned with
the degree to which employees are provided with knowledge and explanations about
procedures that are implemented and the outcomes that are distributed. Interpersonal
justice characterizes the degree to which employees are treated with respect, dignity,
and sensitivity by the authority figure they interact with (Greenberg, 1993). Being
the principal agents of the organization through which information flows (Cole et al.,
2006), immediate supervisors are management representatives who impact justice
perceptions through their interpersonal behavior (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).
Therefore, immediate supervisors’ leadership style is most likely to influence
employees’ CAOC through informational and interpersonal justice perceptions.
Particularly, supervisors’ TFL style is likely to influence employee CAOC by ele-
vating informational and interpersonal justice perceptions.
The definition of TFL also suggests that informational and interpersonal justice per-
ceptions mediate the influence of TFL on CAOC. Specifically, leaders who demon-
strate individualized consideration seek to understand each follower’s concerns about
organizational change and therefore are able to address them effectively by listening
attentively, coaching, and mentoring based on individual employee’s needs, abilities,
and aspirations (Bass, 1997). As a result, followers are less likely to blame the change
agent for being unconcerned and incompetent because they are provided with relevant
information (i.e., informational justice) in a supportive manner (i.e., interpersonal jus-
tice). Similarly, leaders who use inspirational motivation are able to concurrently com-
municate information and promote individual worth. Such leaders deliver information
about organizational change through their personal enthusiasm and a clear vision. This
personal approach depicts a vivid picture of the future that is to be achieved collec-
tively and prevents followers from wavering in organizational change because it pro-
vides information as to what needs to be done and why (Bass, 1997). Therefore,
employees are more likely to feel esteemed and informed and, as a result, less likely
to be pessimistic or cynical about the organizational change.
Likewise, idealized influence and intellectual stimulation are likely to reduce
employee CAOC because of enhanced informational and interpersonal justice.
Sincere optimism exhibited by leaders’ own conduct in embodying vision-consistent
principles and values instills in followers the pride and confidence to envision them-
selves in the new vision (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). Because leaders are
the makers of the meaning in an organization (Brockner & Higgins, 2001), leaders
who demonstrate idealized influence provide information about organizational
change by effectively translating the change into approved behaviors that would lead
to positive results. This role modeling and the process of instilling pride in employ-
ees are likely to enhance informational and interpersonal justice. Similarly, leaders
who practice intellectual stimulation encourage followers to express creative ideas
by questioning old assumptions, traditions, and beliefs. The freedom to experiment
and possibly fail conveys that employees and their ideas are valued. Furthermore, it
also allows employees to remain cognitively flexible and therefore be more open to
new ideas (Deci & Ryan, 1980). Thus, employees are more likely to feel valued and
understand the rationale behind the change when faced with uncertainty and chal-
lenge caused by organizational change. Consequently, they are less likely to be pes-
simistic about the likely success of the change initiative as a result of just treatment
by their supervisors.
Based on the aforementioned discussion, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Supervisor TFL is negatively related to follower CAOC.

Hypothesis 2: Informational justice perception mediates the relationship between supervisor TFL and
employee CAOC.
Hypothesis 3: Interpersonal justice perception mediates the relationship between supervisor TFL and
employee CAOC.
THE MODERATING ROLE OF PERCEIVED GROUP COHESION
Because leadership is embedded within the organization, contextual characteris-

tics play a significant role in the emergence and effectiveness of leadership (Osborn,
Hunt, & Jauch, 2002). Lau, Tse, and Zhou (2002) showed that at least for Chinese
companies, company group culture is positively related to the degree to which
employees are attuned to, feel positive about, and have reduced skepticism of the
results of change. In a similar vein, Lau and Ngo (2001) also indicated that Chinese
companies with a group orientation have a higher tendency to change and initiate
innovative activities. Consistent with the collectivist Chinese culture, company
group culture seems to create an environment that offers receptivity for the change-
oriented and collective-oriented transformational leadership (Pawar & Eastman,
1997). However, cultural differences in the way leadership influences are manifested
are not only across cultures but also within cultures (Pillai et al., 1999), whether it is
national culture or company culture. Social psychologists therefore have advocated
studying “subjective culture” that assesses individuals’ mental representations of the
context in which they exist as opposed to the external structures and artifacts
(Triandis, 1995). We measure this subjective evaluation of company group culture
embedded in the Chinese collectivist culture by assessing individual employees’ per-
ceptions of cohesion in their work unit.
Although group cohesion has been treated as a group-level variable (Mullen &
Copper, 1994), defined as the group members’ tendency to stay with the group or a
larger social entity (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990; Dion, 2000), researchers also recognize that
it is individuals’ unique experience that contributes to their own perception of group
cohesion (Dion, 2000; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1995). Group cohesion perceptions
particularly reflect an individual’s perceptions about group closeness, similarity, bond-
ing, and his or her personal motivations to remain in the group (Carron & Brawley,
2000). In contrast to the composite of group members’ feelings toward the group,
Bollen and Hoyle (1990) contended that measuring each member’s perception of cohe-
sion captures the role the group plays in an individual member’s life and therefore is a
better predictor of other subjective phenomena (e.g., individual attitudes) expressed by
each group member. The appropriate level of cohesion to be measured should follow
closely from one’s theoretical question (Dion, 2000). Given that our research question
was concerned about individual group members’ perceptions, we regarded cohesion as
an individual-level perception that captures each individual’s unique experience.
We propose that an individual’s perception of group cohesion may facilitate
receptivity to TFL because aspects of TFL employ references to the collective,
which highlights the salience of collective identity in employees’ self-concept

(Shamir et al., 1993) and is congruent with a group environment perceived to be
highly cohesive. Specifically, when employees perceive their work unit as cohesive,
they sense that bonding and closeness of the work unit are strong, an indication of
their ties to the in-group (Nibler & Harris, 2003). Collectivists, including Chinese,
behave very differently in the presence of in-groups and out-groups. The emphasis
on collective welfare, harmony, and duties typically applies only to the in-groups and
usually does not extend to out-groups (Kim, 1994). Collectivists in their in-groups
value obedience to the in-group authority, security, and harmony (Nibler & Harris,
2003), which enable the leader to more easily exert his or her influence. It follows
that in a Chinese context, when leaders frame the organizational change as a collec-
tive vision and joint effort, individuals who treat their work unit as an in-group,
which is manifested by the perceived strong bonding and closeness in the workplace,
are more ready to identify with and be influenced by collective-oriented TFL.
Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Employees’ perceptions about group cohesion moderate TFL influences on employee
CAOC such that the higher the group cohesion perceptions, the stronger the TFL–CAOC relationship.
Moreover, the aforementioned discussion also suggests that perceptions of infor-

mational and interpersonal justice could be the mechanisms by which the overall
moderated effect of TFL on CAOC is produced. Specifically, TFL, because of its
collective focus, would yield a greater magnitude of employee attitudinal and behav-
ioral results when employees’ work unit is perceived as congruent with this collec-
tive approach of leadership. That is, transformational leaders are likely to be
perceived as providing employees with relevant information in the change process
because of their ability to articulate a clear collective vision and the rationale behind
it and because of them serving as a role model to show employees the appropriate
behavior in the midst of inevitable uncertainties in the change process. This effect of
TFL is further enhanced by a work unit that is close-knit because it provides a facil-
itating context for the collective-oriented TFL.
Furthermore, the social information processing perspective of motivation sug-
gests that individuals develop their attitudes and behaviors based on the available
social information that is salient and consistent (O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1985;
Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). One such source of social information is the immediate
social context (e.g., networks of coworkers) one is in. The context may influence
one’s interpretation of the situation by making certain aspects of the situation salient
and by exposing individuals to the expressed attitudes of others. Because group
cohesion depicts group closeness, similarity, bonding, and individuals’ desire and
motivation to maintain their membership in the group (Carron & Brawley, 2000),
individuals in cohesive groups tend to comply with the salient attitudes and expec-
tations in the social context. As such, researchers contend that group cohesion facil-
itates information consistency in the environment (O’Reilley & Caldwell, 1985). In
a similar vein, we argue that the effect of informational justice perceptions on CAOC
would be enhanced through the affirmation from unit members who share similar
and consistent opinions (i.e., high group cohesion). We propose:
Hypothesis 5: Informational justice mediates the moderated relationship between TFL, group cohe-
sion perceptions, and employee CAOC such that the higher the group cohesion perceptions, (a)
the stronger the influence of TFL on informational justice and (b) the stronger the influence of
informational justice on CAOC.
Likewise, we also expect that interpersonal justice mediates the moderating effect
of cohesion perceptions. Specifically, transformational leaders, because of their per-
sonal and individualized coaching style of leadership, tend to be perceived as treat-
ing employees with respect and dignity, thereby elevating interpersonal justice
perceptions. Meanwhile, because of the collective vision depicted by transforma-
tional leaders, a context perceived as being cohesive provides congruency with the
collective-oriented TFL and therefore would magnify the TFL influence on inter-
personal justice. In addition, the heightened interpersonal justice perceptions,
through the affirmation of members in a close-knit unit, would further increase in its
magnitude of influence on employee CAOC based on the social information pro-
cessing perspective. Therefore, we propose:
Hypothesis 6: Interpersonal justice mediates the moderated relationship between TFL, group cohesion
perceptions, and employee CAOC such that the higher the group cohesion perceptions, (a) the
stronger the influence of TFL on interpersonal justice and (b) the stronger the influence of inter-
personal justice on CAOC.
We presented the conceptual framework of the hypothesized relationships in

Figure 1.
METHOD
Research Setting, Sample, and Procedures
The setting for this research was a large Chinese petroleum company undergoing
major administrative organizational change. The changes included abolishing life-
time employment, implementing a new performance evaluation system, and intro-
ducing continuous improvement programs through quality circles and regular
meetings and forums. Data were collected through survey administration a year after
the changes began. This time frame ensured that employees had ample time to form
their opinions about change as well as to experience the influence of their supervi-
sors in the midst of the change.
In phone interviews with the general manager prior to the survey administration,
we were able to establish that these were the first substantial change initiatives
within the organization, and therefore employees’ cynical attitudes about organiza-
tional change were not likely to be influenced by their previous experience with
changes in the company. Furthermore, the norm of stability in our state-owned focal
Informational
Justice
Perceptions (IFJ)
Cynicism about
Transformational Organizational
Cohesion
Leadership Change (CAOC)
Perceptions
(TFL)
Interpersonal
Justice
Perceptions (IPJ)
FIGURE 1: Conceptual Framework for the Study
organization in a noncompetitive planned economy (at least up to the time of our

data collection) also excluded the possibility of employee cynicism due to lack of
change attributed to leaders’ lack of capability or motivation to initiate change
(Wanous et al., 2004).
We conducted an introductory session with all the managers (including the HR
staff) to inform them to distribute the informed consent first, collect back the signed
consent, and then administer the anonymous survey. We then handed the surveys to
these managers to distribute to their first-line supervisors and employees after they
agreed to follow this survey administration procedure. The completed surveys were
returned anonymously and directly to the human resource department via the inter-
nal company mailing system to reduce employees’ socially desirable responses.
Among the 650 surveys distributed, 467 surveys were completed and usable, result-
ing in a response rate of 72%. Of the respondents, 68% in the sample were men, and
32% were women. The average age was 35.7 years old. The average job tenure was
15.6 years. Of the respondents, 74% were not in any managerial positions. All
respondents were Chinese.
Measures
We followed Brislin’s (1980) translation-back translation procedure to create a

Chinese version of the questionnaire.
Cynicism about organizational change. We used Reichers et al.’s (1997) eight-

item scale to measure employee CAOC. Participants responded to a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item is “The
people who are responsible for solving problems around here don’t have the skills
that are needed to do their jobs.” The coefficient alpha was .86.
Transformational leadership. We employed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ) Form 5X-Short (Bass & Avolio, 1995) to measure TFL. Each dimension of
TFL was measured with four items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items include “My supervisor talks optimisti-
cally about the future” and “My supervisor gets me to look at problems from many
different angles.” In the instructions, we asked the participants to evaluate their
immediate supervisor based on their interactions on issues relevant to the organiza-
tional change. Similar to prior research, the dimensions of TFL showed strong cor-
relations (rs = .43 to .69). Because prior research indicated that dimensions failed to
show discriminant validity (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995) and because we did not
specify hypotheses on dimensions of TFL, we averaged the 20 items to form a sin-
gle index of TFL. This practice is also consistent with prior research on TFL using
the MLQ as the instrument (e.g., Bass et al., 2003; Bono & Judge, 2003; Dvir et al.,
2002). The coefficient alpha was .89.
Group cohesion perceptions. We measured employee perceived cohesion by the

three-item measure developed by Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994). Participants
responded to the items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). A sample item is “The members of my work group stand up for
each other.” The coefficient alpha was .75.
Informational and interpersonal justice. We used Colquitt’s (2001) five-item

measure to assess informational justice and his four-item measure to assess inter-
personal justice. Participants responded to a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all)
to 5 (completely). They were asked in the instructions to evaluate their interactions
with their immediate supervisor on the matters relevant to the organizational change.
A sample item for informational justice is “Has he/she communicated details in a
timely manner?” A sample item for interpersonal justice is “Has he/she treated you
with respect?” Coefficients alpha for informational justice and interpersonal justice
measures were .84 and .85, respectively.
Control variables. We controlled for respondents’ sex, age, education, organiza-

tional tenure, and managerial tenure to ensure that the influence of leadership is
above and beyond relevant demographic variables. We included these demographic
variables because of their potential relevance to the independent and dependent vari-
ables as suggested by previous research and the top management of the company.
Particularly, because of lifetime employment, the extremely low turnover rate until
the organizational change took place, and the tradition of promotion from within,
employee age, education, organizational tenure, and managerial tenure all helped
capture the level of status an employee enjoyed, which was difficult to measure yet
potentially critical in influencing employees’ perceptions of not only organizational
change but justice and group cohesion. Sex was also included as a control based on
the top management’s suggestion that because the majority of the managerial staff
in this company was men, female respondents were likely to have different perspec-
tives of organizational change relative to their male counterparts. Including these
control variables would help us partition out the variance attributable to the alterna-
tive explanations.
Remedies and Assessment of Common Method Biases
Because all of our measures were taken from the employees, we took several pro-
cedural remedies related to questionnaire design to minimize common method
biases following the suggestions by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff
(2003). First, we reordered the items in the questionnaire so that the dependent vari-
able followed rather than preceded the independent variables. This tactic reduces the
effects of consistency artifacts (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Second, to minimize the
possibility that social desirability serves as the common factor in explaining vari-
ances, we ensured anonymity in a statement in the informed consent that urged
respondents to answer as honestly as possible. Third, all the question items in the
survey were adopted from well-validated measures that have been tested and refined
to include items that measure a construct with a clearly defined domain; therefore,
very little room was left for subjective interpretations that allow consistency artifacts
to govern the responses to questions.
In addition, we conducted a Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003;
Podsakoff & Organ, 1986) to examine whether one single factor emerged to account
for the majority of the variances in the variables. The result indicated that eight fac-
tors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted, accounting for 61% of the
variance in total. The first component accounted for 30% of the total variance, indi-
cating that the single factor did not account for the majority of the variance.
Furthermore, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with all variables
combined as one factor. The poor model fit with the data (χ2/df = 18.22; goodness-
of-fit index [GFI] = .78; comparative fit index [CFI] = .77; root mean square error of
approximation [RMSEA] = .18) suggested that although obtained from a single
source, the study variables are unlikely to be dominated by one unobserved common
variance factor. Therefore, we concluded that common method bias was not a major
concern in the current study.
RESULTS
Following the methods employed by H. Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, and Chen
(2005), we first conducted three tests to verify the distinctiveness of TFL and the two
hypothesized mediating variables, informational justice and interpersonal justice.
First, we conducted a dimension-level CFA including TFL, informational justice,
interpersonal justice, cohesion perceptions, and CAOC in the model. We used four
dimensions of TFL as the indicators and randomly averaged the informational jus-
tice, interpersonal justice, cohesion perceptions, and CAOC items to create two
indicators for each construct (H. Wang et al., 2005). Second, we adopted Cohen and
Cohen’s (1983) test of correlations from a single sample to verify whether there is
significant difference in the correlations between the independent variable (CAOC)
and each of the variables under study. Unequal correlations would suggest discrim-
inant validity. Finally, in hierarchical regression, we entered TFL and observed the
change in R2 after entering informational justice and interpersonal justice.
Significant change in R2 would also imply that these two justice perceptions
explained additional variance in CAOC above and beyond TFL.
Table 1 shows the CFA results. As indicated, the baseline five-factor model fit the
data adequately (χ2 = 232.24; df = 55; GFI = .94; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .07). We also
tested alternative models, combining informational justice with TFL (Model 1),
interpersonal justice with TFL (Model 2), two justice perceptions with TFL (Model
3), and all five factors (Model 4), against the baseline five-factor model. Significant
∆χ2 tests showed that all of the alternative models fit the data significantly worse
than the five-factor model, providing evidence for distinctiveness of TFL, informa-
tional justice, interpersonal justice, cohesion perceptions, and CAOC.
The results of Cohen and Cohen’s (1983) t test of differences between two
Pearson correlations from the same sample also suggest discriminant validity
between transformational justice and justice perceptions. The correlation between
CAOC and TFL is significantly different from both those between CAOC and infor-
mational justice (t = 2.26, df = 464, p < .05) and between CAOC and interpersonal
justice (t = 2.49, df = 464, p < .01). Finally, the significant R2 change in the regres-
sion equation when informational justice was entered (∆F = 36.39, p < .01) and
when interpersonal justice was entered (∆F = 51.97, p < .01) after controlling for
TFL also indicated that informational justice and interpersonal justice perceptions
explained variance in CAOC above and beyond TFL. This and the results from the
other two tests suggest that TFL, informational justice, and interpersonal justice are
distinct constructs.
Table 2 displays means, standard deviations, and correlations among all vari-
ables. CAOC is significantly and negatively related to TFL, informational justice,
interpersonal justice, and cohesion perceptions. TFL is positively and signifi-
cantly related to interpersonal justice and informational justice and cohesion
perceptions.
To test the proposed moderation hypothesis, we conducted hierarchical regression
analyses. Following Aiken and West’s (1991) suggestions, we centered variables that
are the components of the interaction term in the moderation analysis. Table 3 sum-
marizes the results of regression analysis for testing Hypothesis 1, which states that
supervisors’ TFL is negatively related to followers’ CAOC, and Hypothesis 4, which
states that employees’ perceptions about group cohesion moderate the TFL influ-
ences on employee CAOC. At Steps 1 through 4, we entered the control variables,
TFL, cohesion perceptions, and the interaction between TFL and cohesion percep-
tions. Table 2 indicates that the ∆R2 associated with TFL was statistically significant
(in Step 2), lending support to Hypothesis 1. The R2 change was also significant with
the addition of the interaction term, indicating the presence of significant interaction
between TFL and cohesion perceptions. Figure 2 illustrates that the pattern of the
340
TABLE 1
Comparison of Measurement Models
Goodness-of- Comparative Root Mean Square
Model Factors χ2 df ∆χ2 Fit Index Fit Index Error of Approximation
Baseline model Five factors: transformational leadership 232.24 55 .94 .95 .07
(TFL), informational justice, interpersonal
justice, cohesion perceptions, and
cynicism about organizational
change (CAOC)
Model 1 Four factors: TFL and informational justice 412.79 59 180.55** .89 .90 .10
were combined as one factor
Model 2 Four factors: TFL and interpersonal justice 529.27 59 297.03** .87 .87 .12
were combined as one factor
Model 3 Three factors: TFL informational justice 633.20 62 400.96** .83 .84 .13
and interpersonal justice were combined
as one factor
Model 4 One factor: TFL informational justice, 999.42 65 767.18** .78 .74 .16
interpersonal justice, and CAOC all
combined as one factor
**p < .01.
TABLE 2
Zero-Order Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for the Study Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Sexa 1.32 0.47

2. Age 35.73 5.28 –.05
3. Education 11.10 2.52 .08 –.21**
4. Organizational tenure 15.60 4.68 .03 .60** –.32**
5. Managerial tenure 2.38 5.12 –.08 .36** .18** .16**
6. Transformational leadership 3.63 0.49 .03 .03 .03 .10* .09* (.89)
7. Cohesion perceptions 3.87 0.68 .07 .01 –.05 .01 .08 .37** (.75)
8. Informational justice 3.35 0.71 .06 .02 .01 .14** .11** .65** .33** (.84)
9. Interpersonal justice 3.68 0.71 .12* –.05 –.03 .06 .06 .54** .31** .61** (.85)
10. Cynicism about organizational change 2.90 0.67 –.05 –.03 .01 –.05 .01 –.33** –.17** –.41** –.43** (.86)
NOTE: Internal reliabilities are on the diagonal, in parentheses (n = 469).

a. Dummy variable, male = 1, female = 2.
*p < .05, two-tailed test. **p < .01, two-tailed test.
341
TABLE 3
Results of Regression Analysis of Cynicism About Organizational Change on
Transformational Leadership, Cohesion Perceptions, and Their Interaction
Independent Variable R2 ∆R2 ∆F βa
Step 1: Controls .01 .01 0.58

Sex –.05
Age –.04
Education .02
Organizational tenure –.01
Managerial tenure .05
Step 2: Transformational leadership .12** .11** 62.95** –.37**
Step 3: Cohesion perceptions .12** .00 0.12 –.05
Step 4: Transformational Leadership × Cohesion Perceptions .15** .02** 11.69** –.16**
a. Beta weights are reported for the final step (n = 469).
3.5
2.5
High Cohesion
CAOC
2
Perceptions
1.5
Low Cohesion
1 Perceptions
0.5
0
Low High
TFL
FIGURE 2: Interaction Between Transformational Leadership (TFL) and Cohesion Perceptions

on Cynicism About Organizational Change (CAOC)
NOTE: We used one standard deviation above and below the mean to represent high and low levels of
transformational leadership.
two-way interaction was consistent with Hypothesis 4. There is overall moderation

of the TFL influence. Specifically, the influence of TFL on CAOC was strongest
when employee’s group cohesion perception was high.
To test mediated moderation, we followed the steps suggested by Muller, Judd, and
Yzerbyt (2005). Similar to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) steps for testing mediation, there
are also several steps to test mediated moderation. We also centered variables that are
the components of the interaction term in the mediated moderation analysis. According
TABLE 4
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis
for Mediated Moderation (n = 469)
Model 1: Cynicism Model 2a: Model 2b:
About Organizational Informational Interpersonal Model 3:
Independent Variables Change (CAOC) Justice (IFJ) Justice (IPJ) CAOC
Controls
Sex –.05 .03 .09* –.01
Age –.04 –.11* –.13* –.10
Education .02 –.00 –.06 –.00
Organizational tenure –.01 .15** .05 .03
Managerial tenure .05 .08* .05 .08
Transformational leadership (TFL) –.37** .59** .45** –.11*
Moderator: Cohesion perceptions –.05 .12** .09* –.03
TFL × Cohesion Perceptions –.16** .01 –.12** –.05
Mediators
IFJ –.20**
IPJ –.33**
IFJ × Cohesion Perceptions –.07
IPJ × Cohesion Perceptions –.17**
F 9.93** 47.46** 26.87** 16.10**
R2 .15 .45 .32 .30
Adjusted R2 .13 .44 .30 .28
df 460 460 460 458
to Muller et al. (2005), mediated moderation can only be established if first of all the
overall moderating effect (between TFL and cohesion perceptions) is significant on the
dependent variable (CAOC). Then, either or both of the following two conditions need
to be met: (a) The effect of the overall interaction (between TFL and cohesion percep-
tions) on the mediators (informational justice and interpersonal justice) should be
nonzero and the partial effects of the mediators (informational justice and interpersonal
justice) on the dependent variable (CAOC) should also be nonzero, and/or (b) the
effects of the independent variable (TFL) on the mediators (informational justice and
interpersonal justice) are nonzero and the interactional effects between the moderator
(cohesion perceptions) and mediators (informational justice and interpersonal justice)
on CAOC are also nonzero. Lastly, the moderation of the residual effect of the inde-
pendent variables (the interaction between TFL and cohesion perceptions on CAOC
when the mediators and the interactions between the mediators and moderator are
included in the equation) on CAOC should disappear or be reduced in magnitude com-
pared to the overall effect of moderation. We summarized the statistical results for test-
ing mediated moderation in Table 4.
Table 4 shows the hierarchical regression results for Hypotheses 2 through 6
regarding the mediating roles of informational and interpersonal justice. In Model 1,
we regressed employee CAOC on control variables, TFL, group cohesion percep-
tions, and the interaction between TFL and group cohesion perceptions. Both TFL
and the interaction term contributed significantly to CAOC. In Models 2a and 2b, the
hypothesized mediators, informational justice and interpersonal justice, were
regressed on the control variables, TFL, group cohesion perceptions, and the overall
interaction term (between TFL and cohesion perceptions). Because we hypothesized
that both informational and interpersonal justices would be the mediators, a multi-
variate regression analysis was first conducted for the omnibus test, with the same
independent variables included in Model 1. The omnibus multivariate regression
analysis showed that the independent variables overall contributed to informational
and interpersonal justice (Wilks’s Λ = .50, F = 24.09, df = 16, p < .01). Therefore,
we proceeded to conduct two univariate regression analyses on informational and
interpersonal justice, respectively, to identify whether TFL and the interaction term
were significant. As Models 2a and 2b indicate, TFL contributed significantly to
both informational justice and interpersonal justice above and beyond the control
variables. The interaction term however was significantly related to only interper-
sonal justice but not informational justice. In Model 3, we regressed CAOC on con-
trol variables, TFL, cohesion perceptions, the interaction between TFL and cohesion
perceptions, two hypothesized mediators (informational justice and interpersonal
justice), the interaction between informational justice and cohesion perceptions, and
the interaction between interpersonal justice and cohesion perceptions.
The results indicate that both TFL and the interaction between TFL and cohesion
perceptions contributed to CAOC significantly and negatively (Model 1), which ful-
filled the first condition. The interactional effect between TFL and cohesion percep-
tions was significant on interpersonal justice but not informational justice (Models
2a and 2b), but both interpersonal and informational justice were significant when
regressed on CAOC (Model 3). Therefore, Condition a in Step 2 is fulfilled for inter-
personal justice but not informational justice. Furthermore, the effects of TFL on
informational justice and interpersonal justice were significant (Model 2), and the
interaction between cohesion perceptions and interpersonal justice was significant
on CAOC, whereas the interaction between cohesion perceptions and informational
justice was not significant (Model 3). As a result, Condition 2b for mediated moder-
ation was also fulfilled for interpersonal justice but not informational justice. Finally,
the moderating effect of cohesion perceptions on TFL was reduced from –.16 (p <
.01, Model 1) to –.05 (ns, Model 3), which fulfilled the last condition for mediated
moderation. These findings suggest that the overall moderating effect of cohesion
perceptions on the TFL–CAOC relationship was fully mediated by interpersonal jus-
tice but not informational justice. Hypothesis 6 was therefore supported, whereas we
found no evidence supporting Hypothesis 5.
Although informational justice did not mediate the moderation, TFL was signifi-
cant when predicting informational justice and interpersonal justice (Models 2a and
2b), and the effect of TFL on CAOC was reduced from –.37 (p < .01 in Model 1) to
–.11 (p < .05 in Model 3) when both mediators (interpersonal and informational jus-
tice) were included in the model. These findings indicate that informational justice
and interpersonal justice partially mediated the effect of transformational leadership
on CAOC, lending support to Hypotheses 2 and 3. The results of the hypotheses test-
ing are presented in Figure 3.
Informational
Justice
Perceptions (IFJ)
Cynicism about
Transformational Organizational
Cohesion
Leadership Change (CAOC)
Perceptions
(TFL)
Interpersonal
Justice
Perceptions (IPJ)
FIGURE 3: Conceptual Framework Showing the Results of Hypotheses Testing

NOTE: Dotted lines denote nonsupported hypotheses.
DISCUSSION
Despite the extensive research on transformational leadership, an immediate

supervisor’s transformational leadership rarely has been examined in the context of
organizational change in spite of the suggestion that supervisory effectiveness is an
antecedent to employees’ attitudes about change (Wanous et al., 2000). We are also
not aware of studies examining supervisors’ transformational leadership influences
in organizational change in a Chinese context, an area that is in need of more
research attention (Tsui et al., 2004). The current study addressed this research gap
by investigating the impact of supervisors’ transformational leadership on employee
cynicism about organizational change in a large Chinese organization. In this con-
text, transformational leadership was negatively related to CAOC. Furthermore, our
findings indicate that this relationship was mediated by employees’ informational
and interpersonal justice perceptions and enhanced when employees perceived their
work group as cohesive. In addition, the overall moderating effect of cohesion per-
ceptions on the TFL–CAOC relationship was fully mediated by interpersonal justice.
A significant contribution of this study is that it uncovers the followers’ psycho-
logical processes by which transformational leadership yields its influence on
employee CAOC. Wanous et al. (2000) identified a number of leadership character-
istics that may reduce employee CAOC. Expanding their initial results, our findings
indicate that interpersonal and informational justice perceptions mediate the
TFL–CAOC relationship. Although organizational justice researchers have tested
the impact of employee justice perceptions on the quality of leader–member
exchange (e.g., Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002), to our knowledge, the current study is
the first one to test agent-referent justice perceptions (i.e., interpersonal and infor-
mational justice; Colquitt, 2001) as the mediating mechanisms of leadership.
Another contribution of our research is theorizing an interactional approach by
identifying whether employee perceptions of group cohesion enhance the effectiveness
of transformational leadership. This advances research in another area of transforma-
tional leadership that is in need of investigation (Avolio & Bass, 1988). Because trans-
formational leadership is collective oriented, its effectiveness is enhanced in a
collective context. Recent cross-cultural findings that transformational leadership has
a more pronounced influence on employee attitudes in collectivistic cultures than indi-
vidualistic cultures are consistent with this context-congruency argument (Walumbwa
& Lawler, 2003). In the literature of leadership substitutes (Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr,
1986), factors that boost the leadership effectiveness are identified as leadership
enhancers. Because cohesion perceptions did not contribute to CAOC as a main effect,
it did not meet the necessary conditions for a leadership substitute—having a positive
and direct relationship with the dependent variable (Howell et al., 1986). Rather, our
results indicate that group cohesion perceptions serve as a leadership enhancer when
it is high and a leadership neutralizer when it is low.
Furthermore, no other studies have tested supervisors’ transformational leadership
on followers’ cynical attitude toward organizational change in a Chinese setting.
Therefore, the current study also adds to the literature by confirming the generaliz-
ability of transformational leadership to a non–Western setting, where studies on
transformational leadership and organizational change have been understudied.
Limitations
Although the use of a Chinese sample provided support for the generalizability and
robustness of transformational leadership across cultures, the characteristics of the
Chinese culture may also limit the generalizability of the current findings to the Western
societies. As a collective-oriented leadership style, the impact of transformational
leadership on employee CAOC and other attitudes toward change may be more pro-
nounced in collectivistic societies (e.g., China) than individualistic societies (e.g., the
United States). This may explain previous research that found a nonsignificant rela-
tionship between transformational leadership and employee commitment to an organi-
zational change program in a U.S. organization (Neubert & Cady, 2001). In addition,
because of the collectivist orientation in our study context that would potentially yield
a higher average level of group cohesion, future research is needed to replicate the cur-
rent findings in a Western organization.
Furthermore, the organization we studied went through a specific type of organi-
zational change, administrative organizational change, which tends to encounter
even greater resistance relative to technical change in emerging economies such as
China (Zhou et al., 2006). This may somewhat limit the generalizability of our find-
ings to other types of organizational change. As China is going through various
forms of massive enterprise reform, we encourage future research to replicate and
expand our current model and findings to other types of organizational change.
Another possible limitation of our study is that all the measures were collected from
employees, making our data vulnerable to common method biases (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). Our methodological approach is consistent with our theoretical approach of

focusing on individual attitude and perception of leadership. As such, obtaining multi-
ple response sources such as supervisors reporting on employee attitudes or supervi-
sors self-reporting their own leadership and behaviors may not provide better measures
than employees’ self-reports (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition to the remedial strate-
gies we adopted in the questionnaire design, both Harman’s single-factor test
(Podsakoff et al., 2003; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986) and confirmatory factor analysis
indicated that common method bias is not a concern in our study. Even so, future
research that includes multiple sources of data or collects data at multiple points in
time is strongly encouraged to completely eliminate common method biases.
Finally, we collected the data a year after the beginning of the change to ensure that
employees responded to the questions with greater accuracy because of the adequate
length of time during which they experienced the organizational change. Although the
cross-sectional design of this study limits us from asserting a causal relationship
between transformational leadership and employee CAOC, two previous longitudinal
studies showed consistent findings that prudent first-level leadership indeed resulted in
less CAOC (Wanous et al., 2000) and higher leadership effectiveness (Wanous &
Reichers, 1998). Future longitudinal research is needed to further confirm the causal-
ity of the TFL–CAOC relationship to make additional contribution to the literatures of
transformational leadership and organizational change.
Practical Implications
This research suggests several practical implications for those who manage
change, particularly administrative change, where the new organizational structure
and/or administrative processes would yield a greater departure from existing orga-
nizational routines. It appears from our research that the power of transformational
leadership lays in its personal focus (Bass, 1985). Immediate supervisors impact jus-
tice perceptions through their interpersonal behavior (Cohen-Charash & Spector,
2001). Although transformational leadership has a dispositional component (Judge
& Bono, 2000), it also can be developed (Dvir et al., 2002; Kelloway, Barling, &
Hellur, 2000). As such, it is critical that plans for change include training supervi-
sors in interpersonal communication skills. Training supervisors to demonstrate
transformational leadership behaviors will help effectively manage organizational
change by reducing employees’ cynical attitudes toward organizational change.
Our research also suggests that the context (as perceived by employees) in which
transformational leadership is enacted impacts its degree of influence. A perceived
cohesive or group-oriented environment, particularly in a Chinese context, enhances
the influence of transformational leaders in reducing cynicism. In other words, for
transformational leadership to have its greatest impact, supervisors should not only
be trained in leadership skills but also in skills for building a cohesive group.
Moreover, followers must be afforded the time, opportunity, and resources necessary
to engage in group activity that facilitates cohesion.
Finally, the booming economic development and globalization that is foster-
ing changes in Chinese organizations, particularly in state-owned organizations
(Z.-M. Wang, 2000) such as the one surveyed in this study, accentuates the impor-
tance of understanding change management in China. Developing management
competencies to respond to these changes is of great practical interest (Z.-M. Wang,
2003). Despite the doubts of transferability of Western management theories to
developing economies (Erez, 1994), our research provides initial evidence that
developing transformational leadership is an effective way to manage organizational
change in Chinese organizations. In fact, the collective orientation of Chinese firms
may even enhance the impact of transformational leadership. Although there is much
more to be learned about Chinese employees’ responses to change, this research con-
firms that transformational leadership is critical, possibly even more so in China than
in Western contexts, to managing employees’ cynicism about change.
Across the world, organizations are undergoing change in response to a compet-
itive global business environment. Despite the assertions that transformational
leadership is critical to implementing successful change, there is paucity of theoret-
ically grounded empirical field studies examining transformational leadership in the
context of organizational change. This research advances knowledge for managing
change by finding that transformational leadership influences employee cynicism
about organizational change and by identifying mediating and moderating mecha-
nisms that influence its impact.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 18, 449-469.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J. G. Hunt &
B. R. Baliga (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 29-49). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychologi-
cal research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational
and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European
Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire (2nd ed.). Redwood City,
CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207-218.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki,
B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination.
Social Forces, 69, 479-504.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational
effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 554-571.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis &
W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 349-444). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at
work. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 86, 35-66.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessment of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of
transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478.
Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group
Research, 31, 89-106.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.
Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Emotion as mediators of the relations between perceived
supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27, 463-484.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a mea-
sure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., Conlon, D. E., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the mil-
lennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 425-445.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). Self-determination theory: When mind mediates behavior. Journal of
Mind & Behavior, 1, 33-43.
Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group
Dynamics, 4, 7-26.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower
development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735-744.
Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., & Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of organiza-
tional change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 80-88.
Erez, M. (1994). Toward a model of cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology. In H. C. Triandis,
M. Dunnette, & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4, 2nd
ed., pp. 559-607). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational
justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource
management (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). The relevance of charisma for transformational leadership in stable
organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 105-119.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership research. Academy of
Management Review, 11, 88-102.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eyes of the beholder: Cross cul-
tural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67-90.
Johnson, J. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2003). The effects of psychological contract breach and organi-
zational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24, 627-647.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765.
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.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on per-
formance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 208-218.
Kelloway, E. K., Barling, J., & Hellur, J. (2000). Enhancing transformational leadership: The roles of
training and feedback. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 21, 145-149.
Kiggundu, M. N. (1989). Managing organizations in developing countries: An operational and strategic

approach. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In U. Kim,
H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory,
method, and applications (pp. 19-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Larkin, T. J., & Larkin, S. (1996). Reaching and changing front-line employees. Harvard Business
Review, 74, 95-104.
Lau, C.-M., & Ngo, H. Y. (2001). Organizational development and firm performance: A comparison of
multinational and local firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 95-114.
Lau, C.-M., Tse, D. K., & Zhou, N. (2002). Institutional forces and organizational culture in China:
Effects on change schemas, firm commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of International Business
Studies, 33, 533-550.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social
exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 738-748.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An inte-
gration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moder-
ated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852-863.
Neubert, M. J., & Cady, S. H. (2001). Program commitment: A multi-study longitudinal field investiga-
tion of its impact and antecedents. Personnel Psychology, 54, 421-448.
Nibler, R., & Harris, K. L. (2003). The effects of culture and cohesiveness on intragroup conflict and
effectiveness. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 613-631.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Caldwell, D. F. (1985). The impact of normative social influence and cohesiveness
on task perceptions and attitudes: A social information processing approach. Journal of Occupational
Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 13, 797-837.
Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on transfor-
mational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management Review, 22, 80-109.
Pillai, R., Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (1999). Leadership and organizational justice: Similarities
and differences across cultures. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 763-779.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). An examination of the psychometric properties and nomo-
logical validity of some revised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales. Journal of Applied
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). An examination of substitutes for leadership within a level-
of-analysis framework. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 289-328.
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
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects.
Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.
Pope, K. S., Butcher, J. N., & Seelen, J. (1993). The MMPI, MMPI-2 & MMPI-A in court: A practical
guide for expert witnesses and attorneys. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about orga-
nizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11, 48-59.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in
predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior &
Human Decision Processes, 89, 925-946.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task
design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A
self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.
Spreitzer, G. M., Perttula, K. H., & Xin, K. (2005). Traditionality matters: An examination of the effec-
tiveness of transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26, 205-227.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Tsui, A. S., Schoonhoven, C. B., Meyer, M. W., Lau, C.-M., & Milkovich, G. T. (2004). Organization and
management in the midst of societal transformation: The People’s Republic of China. Organization
Science, 15, 133-144.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations: Transformational leadership,
collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviours in three emerging
economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 1083-1101.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a
mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and
organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420-432.
Wang, Z.-M. (2000). Economic reform foundation’s president Shangquan Gao on organizational reform
and sustainable business development. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 8-11.
Wang, Z.-M. (2003). Managerial competency modeling and the development of organizational psychol-
ogy: A Chinese approach. International Journal of Psychology, 38, 323-334.
Wanous, J. P., & Reichers, A. E. (1998). Union elections at the local level: The role effectiveness of com-
mittee persons. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 99-107.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change:
Measurements, antecedents, and correlates. Group and Organization Management, 25, 132-153.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2004). Cynicism about organizational change: An attribu-
tion process perspective. Psychological Reports, 94, 1421-1434.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zhou, K. Z., Gao, G. Y., Yang, Z., & Zhou, N. (2005). Developing strategic orientation in China:
Antecedents and consequences of market and innovation orientations. Journal of Business Research,
58, 1049-1058.
Zhou, K. Z., Tse, D. K., & Li, J. J. (2006). Organizational change in emerging economies: Drivers and
consequences. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 248-263.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Kel 2 Sinis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Kel 2 Sinis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Transformational Leadership, Cohesion

Perceptions, and Employee Cynicism About

The impact of supervisors’ transformational leadership (TFL), informational and

Keywords: cynicism about organizational change; transformational leadership;

relies on employees’ commitment, discretionary performance, and follow-through

CAOC, JUSTICE PERCEPTIONS, AND

communicating necessary information and providing support to employees during

Based on the aforementioned discussion, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Supervisor TFL is negatively related to follower CAOC.

THE MODERATING ROLE OF PERCEIVED GROUP COHESION

Because leadership is embedded within the organization, contextual characteris-

which highlights the salience of collective identity in employees’ self-concept

Moreover, the aforementioned discussion also suggests that perceptions of infor-

We presented the conceptual framework of the hypothesized relationships in

Research Setting, Sample, and Procedures

FIGURE 1: Conceptual Framework for the Study

organization in a noncompetitive planned economy (at least up to the time of our

We followed Brislin’s (1980) translation-back translation procedure to create a

Cynicism about organizational change. We used Reichers et al.’s (1997) eight-

Transformational leadership. We employed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

Group cohesion perceptions. We measured employee perceived cohesion by the

Informational and interpersonal justice. We used Colquitt’s (2001) five-item

Control variables. We controlled for respondents’ sex, age, education, organiza-

Remedies and Assessment of Common Method Biases

1. Sexa 1.32 0.47

NOTE: Internal reliabilities are on the diagonal, in parentheses (n = 469).

Step 1: Controls .01 .01 0.58

FIGURE 2: Interaction Between Transformational Leadership (TFL) and Cohesion Perceptions

two-way interaction was consistent with Hypothesis 4. There is overall moderation

*p < .05, two-tailed test. **p < .01, two-tailed test.

FIGURE 3: Conceptual Framework Showing the Results of Hypotheses Testing

Despite the extensive research on transformational leadership, an immediate

2003). Our methodological approach is consistent with our theoretical approach of

Kiggundu, M. N. (1989). Managing organizations in developing countries: An operational and strategic

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen