Intl Journal of Public Administration, 28: 379–396, 2005

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Inc.

ISSN 0190-0692 print / 1532-4265 online
DOI: 10.1081/PAD-200055193

The Influence of Leader Behaviors on

Intl
285-6Taylor
Taylor
LPAD
3
1
2005
10.1081/PAD-200055193
55193
Perryer
The
4 Journal
Influence
&and
Francis
of
Jordan
&of
Public
FrancisTaylor
Leader
Inc. Administration
Behaviors
and Francis 325 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphiaPA191060190-06921532-4265

Organizational Commitment: A Study

in the Australian Public Sector

Chris Perryer and Catherine Jordan

Graduate School of Management, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

Abstract: Over the past decade the area of organizational commitment has received
considerable attention from both researchers and managers. Of particular interest are
the links between this and other constructs such as trust, task performance, and turn-
over. Despite the widespread acknowledgment of the importance and value of organi-
zational commitment, there has been limited research that has specifically addressed
the relationship between leader behavior and employee commitment, particularly in
the public sector. The present study examines the nature of the relationships between
organizational commitment and two dimensions of leader behavior—supportive
behaviors and extinction behaviors—in an Australian Federal Government organiza-
tion. It was found that, while controlling for demographic variables, both extinction
and supportive leader behaviors affect organizational commitment. Furthermore, a sig-
nificant interaction of these two variables was found. This indicates that an increase in
supportive leader behaviors together with a decrease in extinction leader behaviors will
likely lead to a more than proportionate increase in levels of organizational commit-
ment. Implications for managers and further research directions are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Leadership is usually defined as the process of influencing people to achieve

organizational objectives.(1) Successful leaders tend to create a climate within
the work environment where they are able to assist employees to set and
achieve individual, team, and ultimately organizational objectives. Creating
that climate involves working with employees to develop goals, celebrating
the achievement of those goals, and inculcating a positive performance ethic
into the work environment. Put simply, the leadership climate in a workplace
is a function of employee perceptions of leader behaviors.

Correspondence: Chris Perryer, Graduate School of Management, University of Western

Australia, Perth, Australia; Fax: +61 8 6488 1072; E-mail: cperryer@ecel.uwa.edu.au
380 Perryer and Jordan

Business leaders often aver that skilled and committed employees are the
only sustainable source of competitive advantage, and the increasing willing-
ness of Australian public-sector managers to embrace private-sector practices
over the last two decades has resulted in similar sentiments being expressed in
many government departments and agencies. Downsizing in the 1980s and
1990s made many public-sector employees cynical about such statements, but
organizational commitment is still an employee attitude that is highly
regarded by government employers. Committed employees are considered
necessary to build better relationships with clients and customers, to learn
more effectively, to be more adaptable to change, and generally to work more
efficiently.(2) From the employee’s perspective, organizational commitment
can lead to career advancement, increased compensation, and more intrinsi-
cally rewarding jobs.[3,4]
However, public-sector employees often see themselves as belonging to a
service rather than to a specific agency. These employees focus on legislative
constraints, precedence, adherence to procedures, and equity of client treat-
ment, rather than on individual agency performance and equity of client out-
comes. Consequently, modern public-sector leaders face the challenge of
creating a work climate where commitment to the organization rather than the
service is the norm, in order to make their agencies more responsive to the
changing needs of all their stakeholders.
Despite widespread acknowledgment of the importance and value of
organizational commitment, there has been limited research that has specifi-
cally addressed the relationship between leader behavior and employee com-
mitment, particularly within the public sector. There is, however, a
considerable body of literature that examines relationships between supervisor
behavior, particularly the level of support provided by supervisors, and a
range of desired organizational outcomes. It is argued that since employees do
not differentiate between supervisors, managers, and leaders in any practical
sense, supervisor behaviors can be equated to leader behaviors.
This paper reports the results of a study that examines the relationship
between perceptions of leader behavior in the work environment and levels of
organizational commitment among customer service employees in a large
Australian public-sector agency.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Leadership

Leadership has fascinated writers and historians for thousands of years, but
most scientific research into leadership has occurred only during the last hun-
dred years. Within the vast body of leadership literature, four major themes
have emerged. Some researchers have concentrated on leader traits or compe-
tencies, while others have considered the behavior of leaders. In the 1970s,
The Influence of Leader Behaviors 381

situational or contingency approaches to understanding leadership became

popular, and more recently researchers have investigated the antecedents and
consequences of transformational leadership.
Each of these streams of research has made, and continues to make, a
valid contribution to the understanding of leadership. Attempts to identify par-
ticular traits or competencies common to effective leaders have not always
produced consistent results, but some competencies, such as integrity and
emotional intelligence, continue to attract the attention of researchers. An
understanding of leader traits and competencies is necessary for leaders to
apply the most effective leadership strategies in different contingencies or sit-
uations. Transformational leadership, which involves creating, communicat-
ing, and modeling an organizational vision, and generating commitment to
that vision among followers, has helped to clarify the dynamics of leadership
during strategic organizational change activities.
Notwithstanding the merit of these approaches to the study of leadership,
an understanding of leader behavior remains of particular interest and rele-
vance to practicing managers. Studies that examine leader behavior have the
potential to provide examples for managers of what they might do to influence
activities in their own organizations. Leader behavior is a fundamental build-
ing block of a work environment. Consequently, the role of leaders in creating
an appropriate work environment has been the focus of many studies over the
last fifty years.
Some of the early studies of leader behavior were conducted by
researchers at Ohio State University during the early 1950s. Fleischman,(5)
for example, evaluated the effect of a training program with respect to the
“leadership climate” in the workplace. Fleischman considered that the leadership
climate consisted of two dimensions. The first dimension, “consideration,”
reflected the leader’s concern for the feelings of subordinates. The second
dimension, “initiating structure,” reflected the leader’s efforts to put in place
processes and interactions that would assist subordinates to attain organiza-
tional goals.
Numerous studies have noted a relationship between consideration, or
supportive supervisor behaviors, and a range of desired organizational out-
comes. For example, Butcher(6) found a positive relationship between supervi-
sor behavior and employee customer orientation, while Cummins(7)noted that
supervisory support can act as a stress buffer for some individuals. Shadur
et al.(8) found supportive climates are a significant predictor of the level of
employee involvement in organizations.
The two leadership climate dimensions of consideration and initiating
structure have subsequently formed the basis of many behavioral leadership
theories, one of the more widely used being the “Managerial Grid.”(9) More
recently, researchers have examined whether these two dimensions of leader
behavior have an impact upon a range of desired organizational outcomes,
including organizational commitment.[10,11] These studies, however, have focused
almost exclusively on employees involved in sales and marketing-related
382 Perryer and Jordan

activities. Little attention has been paid to employees in the services sector,
and even less attention has been paid to the public sector. Consequently, fur-
ther research is necessary to determine whether the findings of these studies
can be generalized to government employees.

Organizational Commitment

As has been noted, the literature suggests that supportive leadership climates
have the capacity to increase levels of employee organizational commitment.
Mowday et al.(12) define organizational commitment as the relative strength
of an individual’s identification with and involvement in an organization.
They see organizational commitment as a stable attitude, reflecting a general
affective response towards the organization as a whole, and consider behav-
iors that exceed formal or normative expectations to be overt manifestations
of that commitment (p. 225). Organizational commitment is more than just a
passive attachment to an organization. Committed employees feel the need to
go beyond normal job requirements in order to make a significant personal
contribution to the organization.(12) As a construct, organizational commit-
ment is more stable and more global than employee satisfaction, and conse-
quently more closely related to the achievement of long-term organizational
goals.
Organizational commitment is an important employee attribute from the
organization’s perspective. Several studies have found relationships between
high-commitment human resource policies and positive organizational out-
comes such as productivity, quality, and profitability.(13,14) Organizational com-
mitment has been studied in relation to employee performance.(15,16,17) While
there is some evidence to suggest that organizational commitment is a mediating
variable between leadership and performance,(18, 19) there is still considerable
controversy surrounding the precise nature of the relationship.(18) Consequently,
studies that examine the complex relationships and interaction between these
variables will be of value to management theorists and practitioners.
In addition to the studies previously mentioned, several studies have
focused on the relationship between supervisor support and organizational
commitment. Bartlett(20) and Stinglhamber,(21) for example, found that social
support, including supervisor support, was positively related to organizational
commitment. Kidd and Smewing(22) found a positive relationship between low
or high levels of supervisor support and organizational commitment, but when
support was moderate, organizational commitment decreased. They con-
cluded that a supervisor who displayed moderate levels of support was per-
ceived to be lacking in conviction or sincerity, and this led to a decline in
organizational commitment.
There are clear linkages between these findings and the concept of extinc-
tion, a concept used in the field of behavior modification theory, which is also
known as operant conditioning or reinforcement theory. A basic tenet of this
The Influence of Leader Behaviors 383

theory is that there is an immediate response of some sort to every effective

stimulus. Understanding the relationship between stimulus and response
allows the prediction and subsequently the modification of behavior. Extinc-
tion is the result of indifference on the part of the leader to goal achievement
by the employee, and is consequently a critical outcome of leader behavior.
Understanding the relationship of extinction behaviors as well as supportive
behaviors has the potential to shed further light on employee behavior. For
those public-sector employees who see themselves as members of a service
rather than members of an organization, the influence of extinction leader
behaviors may be even more critical to the generation of organizational com-
mitment than is the case for private-sector employees, since extinction leader
behaviors are less likely to engage employees in organizational objectives.
While this literature review relates specifically to leader behaviors, other
leadership perspectives also have links with organizational commitment.
Rowden,(3) for example, concluded that leaders who display charismatic lead-
ership are likely to engender higher levels of organizational commitment in
subordinates.

Research Aims and Hypotheses

In order to understand the relationships between leader behavior and organiza-

tional commitment, the following hypotheses were tested:

H1: There will be a strong, negative relationship between extinction

leader behaviors and employee organizational commitment.

H2: There will be a strong, positive relationship between supportive

leader behaviors and employee organizational commitment.

Many studies in the area of organizational commitment have found that

demographic variables such as gender, age, and tenure significantly contribute
to levels of organizational commitment.(23,24,25,26) As a result, the present study
attempted to control for these variables to better understand the relationships
between extinction, support, and commitment. Articulating this hypothesis fur-
ther, it is expected that higher levels of extinction leader behaviors will result in
lower levels of organizational commitment, while controlling for the influence
of gender, age, and length of service. This leads to the third hypothesis:

H3: After controlling for gender, age, and length of service, extinction
leader behaviors will negatively predict organizational commitment.
Conversely, it is also expected that higher levels of supportive
leader behaviors will result in higher levels of organizational com-
mitment, after controlling for the influence of gender, age, and length
of service.
384 Perryer and Jordan

This leads to the fourth hypothesis:

H4: After controlling for gender, age, and length of service, supportive
leader behaviors will positively predict organizational commitment.

The last hypothesis relates to the influence of the combination of these

variables on organizational commitment. It is anticipated that the relationships
between the leadership climate variables will be complex:

H5: Controlling for gender, age, and length of service, and after the
additive and moderator terms have been added to the model, a statisti-
cally significant two-way interaction is expected between supportive
leader behaviors and extinction leader behaviors on OC.

It should also be noted that the position in the organization (i.e., level 1, 2,
3, or 4) was controlled for throughout the sampling method employed, as only
level 2 employees made up the population. This is discussed further in the
next section.

METHOD

Sample

The sample consisted of customer service employees in the Western Austra-

lian branch of a large Australian Federal Government organization.
From a population of 563, level 2 employees, 260 questionnaires were
returned. This represented a response rate of approximately 46 percent.
Through listwise deletion, this was reduced to 204 useable responses. The
proportion of males and females across the survey respondents compared
well to the proportion of males and female employees within the organiza-
tion. For example, 33 percent of respondents were male, compared with an
overall 25 percent of employees within the organization at level 2 being
male. Therefore we can assume that the survey respondents are similar and
representative of the overall employees within the organization in terms of
gender.

Measures

A questionnaire was made available to all customer service (level 2) employ-

ees in the organization. The data were collected as part of a larger study, with
the areas of interest for the present study being leadership climate and organi-
zational commitment.
The Influence of Leader Behaviors 385

Leadership Behaviors

This variable was measured using twenty items from the transfer climate
scales developed by Thayer and Teachout.(27) Only those items in the scales
that directly related to leader behaviors were used in analyses for this study.
Responses were obtained on a seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A typical item is “Supervisors help
staff set realistic goals for performing their work.” The decision to use this
instrument was made for several reasons. First, it met the broader require-
ments of the larger study of which this study formed a part. Second, the
scales were based on a well-developed theoretical base, reinforcement the-
ory, compared to the less rigorous model developed by Fleischman(5) and
others.

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ)

This variable was measured using the 15-item (α = .91) scale developed by
Mowday et al.12. Responses were obtained on a seven-point Likert-type scale,
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A typical item is “I could just
as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of work was
similar.” While there are a number of alternative measures,(28) this scale is the
most frequently used instrument for the measurement of organizational com-
mitment,(29) and has been used in numerous recent studies.[29–37]
Scale reliabilities in these studies have invariably been good. For exam-
ple, Subramaniam et al.(37) reported alpha reliabilities (α) ranging from .82 to
.93 for the 15-item scale, while Varona(29)reported an α value of .76.
Kuvaas(31) reported an α value of .84 for an abridged seven-item scale, and
Leiter & Maslach(33) reported and α value of .83, using only the positively
worded items from the complete scale.
The option of using the scales developed by Meyer and Allen(38) to mea-
sure this construct was also considered before the final choice was made. Fun-
damentally, Mowday et al.(12) view organizational commitment as a
unidimensional construct focusing only on affective attachment,(2) while
Meyer and Allen(38) prefer a multidimensional conceptualization of the con-
struct. They consider that organizational commitment consists of instrumental
as well as emotional attachment, and distinguished between three forms of
commitment: affective, normative, and continuance.
Despite the regular adoption of Meyer and Allen’s conceptualization and
measures, there is still criticism of some aspects of their scales.(39) It was
decided to employ the measure developed by Mowday et al.(12) because their
scale is considered to be more robust than the alternatives. In addition,
because this study does not attempt to differentiate between different dimen-
sions of commitment, but focuses on affective attachment, the issue of con-
struct multidimensionality is not of concern.
386 Perryer and Jordan

Demographic Variables

Information was also collected about the respondents’ age, gender, and length
of service (in years) with the public sector.

Procedure

The survey was distributed to all customer service (level 2) employees. The
data were collected and then analyzed to provide further understanding of the
influences of supportive leader behaviors and extinct leader behaviors on
organizational commitment. Analyses included descriptive statistics, factor
analysis, correlations, and regression analysis. A detailed discussion of the
regression analysis follows.
The following procedure was used to perform the regression analysis.
In accordance with suggestions put forth by Lubinski and Humphreys(40)
and MacCallum and Mar,(41) a procedure known as the effect size (ES)
comparison method was used to distinguish between moderator and qua-
dratic effects of the predictor variables on the criterion variables. As argued
by Lubinski and Humphreys,(40) findings of moderator effects in regression
analysis may be spurious in the presence of individual predictor variables
that are curvilinearly related to the criterion variable. Intercorrelations
between quadratic and moderator terms would effectively mask the effect
of quadratic terms on the criterion in a moderated hierarchical multiple
regression analysis.
The ES comparison method is a descriptive procedure for the comparison
of competing regression models. The procedure entails the use of stepwise
regression analysis to determine whether the greatest increment in the squared
multiple correlation coefficient, over an original additive model, can be
obtained either from the inclusion of the interactive term or from the inclusion
of the quadratic term. The additive regression model can be shown as

Y = B1X + B2Z + U

where Y is the criterion variable, B1 and B2 are regression weights, X and Z

are the predictor variables, and U is the residual term. The moderated (also
known as the multiplicative) regression equation is written as

Y = B1X + B2Z + B3XZ + U

where XZ is the cross-product variable. The quadratic regression model is

shown as

Y = B1X + B2Z + B3X2 + U

The Influence of Leader Behaviors 387

where X2 is the quadratic term. The squared multiple correlation coefficients

for the three regression models are R2add, R2mod, and R2quad respectively. In
essence then, the ES comparison method compares the incremental significance
of R2mod - R2add with that of R2quad - R2add.
In applying the ES comparison method to the present data, the steps nec-
essary for distinguishing between moderator and curvilinear effects would be,
after adding in the control variables, to then enter the predictor variables of
supportive leader behaviors (SUPPORT) and extinction leader behaviors
(EXTINCT) into a stepwise regression to obtain the additive regression
model. Following this, the quadratic terms of SUPPORT squared and
EXTINCT squared would be entered. Last, the two-way interaction term
would be entered, consisting of the cross-product moderator variables of SUP-
PORT x EXTINCT. The resulting additive, moderated, and quadratic regres-
sion models would then be assessed in terms of changes in the multiple
correlation coefficient to determine the most appropriate model.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics were initially computed. Table 1 shows the means and
standard deviations for the levels of organizational commitment for males and
females within the organization.
From Table 1 it seems that both males and females are moderately com-
mitted to the organization. Furthermore, there is only a slight difference
between commitment levels of male and female employees.
Correlations were calculated to gain an initial understanding of the rela-
tionship between the factors. The demographic variables of gender, age, and
length of service were also included. Also of interest were the overall means
and standard deviations of the three constructs: Organizational Commitment,
Extinction, and Support. These are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that overall, the means are fairly similar in that they are all
close to 4, which is the “neither agree nor disagree” response on the seven-
point response scale. Of interest is the small standard deviation; responses are
clustering fairly tightly around the mean, suggesting general agreement
amongst respondents.
From the correlations in Table 2 it can be seen that all variables, except
EXTINCT, are positively correlated with organizational commitment.

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for organizational commitment with gender

Gender Male Female

n Mean SD n Mean SD
61 3.99 1.28 123 4.22 1.15

SD-standard deviation; n-sample size.

388 Perryer and Jordan

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations between independent variables,

demographic variables, and organizational commitment

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. OC 4.14 1.19 (.8874)

2. SUPP 3.95 1.13 .455** (.9371)
3. EXT 3.76 1.34 −.460** −.620** (.8442)
4. Gender — — .114 −.059 −.068
5. Age — — .167* .158* −.166* −.161*
6. Service — — .061 .086 −.125 −.260** .560**

Alpha reliabilities are shown in parentheses.

*Significant at 0.05 level;
**Significant at 0.01 level.

EXTINCT was negatively correlated with organizational commitment as

expected, meaning that as levels of extinction leader behaviors increase, levels
of organizational commitment decline. With regard to the strength of these
relationships, support and extinction show moderate correlation with organi-
zational commitment, and the demographic variables show little to no correla-
tion. EXTINCT and SUPPORT are moderately intercorrelated, which may be
problematic in terms of the regression analysis to follow. The demographic
variables show little correlation with each other with the exception of length
of service and age, which show a positive, moderate correlation as expected.
The expected negative correlation for EXTINCT and positive correlation for
SUPPORT with the dependent variable organizational commitment was
found, thus supporting hypotheses 1 and 2 respectively.
Before conducting a regression analysis to understand the link between the
variables, a factor analysis was performed using maximum likelihood extraction
with promax rotation. As shown in table 3, with the exception of items OC1,
OC2, OC3, OC6, OC7, OC13, SUP4, SUP7, and SUP10, the items loaded
cleanly on their a priori factors. The removal of these items produced three clear
factors. The commitment scale, extinction scale, and support scale, with the
removal of these cross-loading items, were then used for further analysis.
A regression analysis was then conducted using the detailed procedure
discussed in the method section of this paper. The items making up each fac-
tor were determined by the findings of the factor analysis. All independent
variables were centered before the hierarchical multiple regression analyses
was conducted. Analyses employed organizational commitment as the depen-
dent variable; gender, age, and length of service as the control variables; and
SUPPORT and EXTINCT as the independent variables. Results from the
regression analysis are shown in Table 4. Assumptions pertaining to normality,
homogeneity of variance, and muticollinearity were tested prior to analysis
and whilst some evidence of skewness and kurtosis were evinced, the devia-
tions from normality were within acceptable limits. Analysis of the variance
The Influence of Leader Behaviors 389

Table 3. Support, Organizational Commitment, and Extinction Factor Loadings

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7 Factor 7

SUP1 .540
SUP2 .600
SUP3 .684
SUP4 .789 .454
SUP5 .831
SUP6 .674
SUP7 .920
SUP8 .842
SUP9 .759
SUP10
SUP11 .559
SUP12 .661
SUP13 .775
SUP14 .744
SUP15 .825
SUP16 .572
SUP17 .706
OC1
OC2 .425 .687
OC3
OC4 .736
OC5 .563
OC6 .541 .512
OC7
OC8 .860
OC9 .608
OC10 .811
OC11 .664
OC12 .577
OC13 .663
OC14 .938
OC15 .556
EXT1 −.701
EXT2 −.663
EXT3 −.567
EXT4 −.641
EXT5 −.597
EXT6 −.568

Only items loading above 0.4 are shown.

inflationary factors (VIFs) revealed that multicollinearity between the vari-

ables was not a cause for concern in this model.
Results from the multiple hierarchical regression analysis show that (at
the 0.05 significance level), after controlling for age, gender, and length of
390 Perryer and Jordan

Table 4. The effects of support and extinction on organizational commitment

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Gender .380 .351 .387* .389*

Age .118* .069 .062 .070
Service −.009 −.016 −.010 .000
Support .324* .336* .412*
Extinction −.265* −.264* −.195*
Support2 −.020 .032
Extinction2 .057 .116*
Support*Ext .149*
R .212 .540 .546 .563
R2 .045 .292 .298 .317
䉭R2 .247* .006 .019*
䉭F 2.727* 30.007* .724 4.808*

Values relating to each variable are beta values.

* p<0.05.

service, both EXTINCT and SUPPORT contribute linearly to the regression

model predicting organizational commitment, thus providing support for
hypothesis 3 and 4, respectively.
For SUPPORT, the quadratic term was not significant, suggesting that the
relationship between SUPPORT and organizational commitment is linear
rather than curvilinear. This was not the case for EXTINCT, which revealed a
significant curvilinear relationship with organizational commitment.
After controlling for demographic variables and additive and quadratic
terms, the two-way interaction between SUPPORT and EXTINCT was found
to predict significantly organizational commitment, indicating that support
and extinction leader behaviors combined interact to predict organizational
commitment, thus supporting hypothesis 5. This final model explained 31.7
percent of the variance in the dependent variable: organizational commitment,
with the additive terms contributing 24.7 percent of the variance explained.

DISCUSSION

The study attempted to confirm the relationships between both support and
extinction leader behaviors with organizational commitment. Additionally,
their combined contribution to predicting organizational commitment was
also of interest. Specifically it was hypothesized that there would be a positive
correlation between supportive leader behaviors and the dependent variable
organizational commitment, and a negative association between extinction
leader behaviors and organizational commitment. Secondly, it was expected
that both supportive and extinction leader behaviors would significantly predict
organizational commitment, after controlling for the demographic variables
The Influence of Leader Behaviors 391

age, gender, and length of service. Last, a statistically significant two-way

interaction between support and extinction with organizational commitment
was predicted.
A moderate negative correlation was found for extinction leader behav-
iors and organizational commitment, providing support for hypothesis 1. This
relationship suggests that, as the level of extinction leader behaviors increase,
the level of organizational commitment can be expected to decrease. As well,
there was a moderate, positive correlation between supportive leader behav-
iors and organizational commitment, providing support for hypothesis 2. This
finding suggests that as the level of supportive leader behaviors increase, so
too does the level of organizational commitment. These findings provide con-
firmation of previous research in this area.(20,21,22)
The study next attempted to determine whether curvilinear relationships
exist between SUPPORT and EXTINCT with organizational commitment.
Other researchers(40,42,43) have cautioned that studies that do not control for
curvilinear relationships(44,45) will result in a “spurious” significant relation-
ship that may in fact not exist. Although the present study took into account
the possibility of these relationships existing, the results were mixed. There
was a significant quadratic relationship between EXTINCT and organiza-
tional commitment but not between SUPPORT and organizational commit-
ment. This finding suggests that the relationship between extinction leader
behaviors and organizational commitment is curvilinear, while the relation-
ship between SUPPORT and organizational commitment may simply be linear.
After controlling for curvilinear relationships, a two-way interaction for
SUPPORT together with EXTINCT as a predictor of organizational commit-
ment was found to be significant. This indicates that there is a synergistic rela-
tionship between these two predictor variables and the dependent variable
organizational commitment. Consequently, an increase in supportive leader
behaviors together with a decrease in extinction leader behaviors will likely
lead to a more than proportionate increase in levels of organizational commit-
ment. Since many researchers have claimed that previous support for interac-
tive terms have been spurious, as they have not accounted for curvilinearity,
this finding is of particular interest.
It is important to be cautious about the findings of this study due to the
correlational nature of the study. With correlational studies it is difficult to
determine causation, and thus in this study the observed relationships may in
fact be the reverse, meaning that organizational commitment may actually be
the predictor of extinction and supportive leader behaviors. However, given
that past studies have found organizational commitment to be the outcome
variable, the hypothesized direction of the relationships is likely.(20,21,22)
With the overall model explaining 31.7 percent of the variance in organi-
zational commitment, and the interaction term accounting for nearly 1 percent
of the variance explained, this model replicates and extends previous research
in the areas of leadership and organizational commitment. Although explaining
only a moderate proportion of the variance, this does not rule out the relevance
392 Perryer and Jordan

of the findings, as this is typical for field investigations with interactions,

which are notoriously difficult to detect. Additionally, the amount of variance
explained by empirical studies is small due to their use of limited operational-
ization of the construct of concern. For example, in the present study, affec-
tive commitment was the only consideration for the construct of commitment.
Additionally, other attitudinal measures may have been useful in further
explaining the variance unaccounted for with the present model.

Implications for Managers

There are several important implications for public-sector managers that arise
from this study. First, the results of the study show that leader behavior has
similar effects in both the public and private sectors. Too often public-sector
employees claim that private-sector practices are not relevant to their work.
This study shows that the relationship between leader behaviors and organiza-
tional commitment is in fact comparable to that found in the marketing and
sales industries.
Secondly, the study serves as a warning to public sector managers that it
is not sufficient merely to be supportive. Eradicating leader extinction behav-
iors requires more discipline, particularly when managers are under pressure
to manage in a complex human resource management regulatory framework.
Supportive behaviors such as providing positive feedback are important, but it
is also necessary to ensure that managers do not ignore poor performers or
poorly trained employees. The results of this study suggest that failing to
make appropriate responses to the full range of employee behaviors is likely
to have an adverse impact upon commitment.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There are several limitations that need to be specified in relation to this study.
One limitation already discussed is that causation cannot be determined due to
the correlational nature of the research. Further studies in this area will be
needed to determine the direction of these relationships with the use of longi-
tudinal data. Additionally, this research was conducted at one employee level
in a single public-sector organization. The generalizability, both across levels
within the organization and beyond the organization to other public-sector
agencies, is questionable. Again, future studies using different samples will be
needed to establish whether the relationships are maintained across organiza-
tions. Further concerns relate to the fact that the data were derived from a sin-
gle source (self-report). Confirmation with supervisor ratings and
organizational data (such as financial figures) would substantially strengthen
these findings, and provide support for these relationships and their relevance
to desired organizational outcomes. Last, the study examined only one outcome
The Influence of Leader Behaviors 393

of leader behaviors. It would also be of considerable theoretical and practical

interest to have examined the impact of different leadership behaviors on a
wide range of outcome variables (beyond organizational commitment).

CONCLUSION

Despite its shortcomings, the present study adds to and extends the existing
literature in the areas of leader behavior and organizational commitment. It
does this by providing a greater understanding of the impact of two dimen-
sions of leader behaviors on organizational commitment. It suggests ways in
which the findings of this study can assist managers in public-sector agencies.
It also adds to the very limited number of studies that have examined these
variables in a public sector context.

REFERENCES

1. McShane, S.L.; Travaglione, A. Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific

Rim; McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd: Roseville, 2003; 466–482.
2. Mowday, R.T. Reflections on the Study and Relevance of Organizational
Commitment. Human Resource Management Review 1998, 8 (4), 387–401.
3. Rowden, R.W. The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Behav-
iors and Organizational Commitment. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal 2000, 21 (1/2), 30–35.
4. Young, B.S.; Worchel, S.; Woehr, D.J. Organizational Commitment
among Public Service Employees. Public Personnel Management 1998,
27 (3), 339–348.
5. Fleischman, E. Leadership Climate, Human Relations Training, and
Supervisory Behavior. Personnel Psychology 1953, 6, 205–222.
6. Butcher, A.H. Supervisors Matter More Than You Think: Components of
a Mission-centred Organizational Climate. Hospital and Health Services
Administration 1994, 39 (4), 505–520.
7. Cummins, R.C. Job Stress and the Buffering Effect of Supervisory Sup-
port. Group and Organization Studies 1990, 15 (1), 92–104.
8. Shadur, M.A.; Kienzle, R.; Rodwell, J.J. The Relationship between Orga-
nizational Climate and Employee Perceptions of Involvement: The
Importance of Support. Group and Organization Management 1999, 24
(4), 479–503.
9. Blake, R.R.; Mouton, J.S. The Managerial Grid III; Gulf Publishing:
Houston, TX, 1984.
10. Agarwal, S.; DeCarlo, T.E.; Vyas, S.B. Leadership Behavior and Organi-
zational Commitment: A Comparative Study of American and Indian
Salespersons. Journal of International Business Studies 1999, 30 (4),
727–743.
394 Perryer and Jordan

11. Johnson, M.W.; Parasuraman, A.; Futrell, C.M.; Black, W.C. A Longitu-
dinal Assessment of the Impact of Selected Organizational Influences on
Salespeople's Organizational Commitment During Early Employment.
Journal of Marketing Research 1990, 27, 333–344.
12. Mowday, R.T.; Steers, R.M.; Porter, L.W. The Measurement of Orga-
nizational Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 1979, 14,
224–247.
13. Huselid, M.A. The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on
Turnover, Productivity,and Corporate Financial Performance. Academy
of Management Journal 1995, 38, 635–672.
14. MacDuffie, J.P. Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Perfor-
mance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systens in the
World Auto Industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 1995, 48,
197–221.
15. Larson, E.W.; Fukami, C.V. Relationships Between Worker Behavior
and Commitment to the Organization and Union. Proceedings of the
Academy of Management, 1984; 222–226.
16. Tesluk, P.E.; Farr, J.L.; Mathieu, J.E.; Vance, R.J. Generalization of
Employee Involvement Training to the Job Setting: Individual and Situa-
tional Effects. Personnel Psychology 1995, 48 (3), 607–632.
17. Van Maanen, J. Police Socialization: A Longitudinal Examination of Job
Attitudes in an Urban Police Department. Administrative Science Quar-
terly 1975, 20, 207–228.
18. Suliman, A.M.T. Is it Really a Mediating Construct? The Mediating Role
of Organizational Commitment in Work Climate–performance Relation-
ship. The Journal of Management Development 2002, 21 (3/4), 170–183.
19. Yousef, D.A. Organizational Commitment: A Mediator of the Relation-
ships of Leadership Behavior with Job Satisfaction and Performance in a
Non-Western Country. Journal of Managerial Psychology 2000, 15 (1),
6–18.
20. Bartlett, K.R. The Relationship Between Training and Organizational
Commitment: A Study in the Health Care Field. Human Resource Devel-
opment Quarterly 2001, 12 (4), 335–352.
21. Stinglhamber, F.; Vandenberghe, C. Organizations and Supervisors as
Sources of Support and Targets of Commitment: A Longitudinal Study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 2003, 24 (3), 251–270.
22. Kidd, J.M.; Smewing, C. The Role of the Supervisor in Career and Orga-
nizational Commitment. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology 2001, 10 (1), 25–40.
23. Blau, G.; Boal, K. Using Job Involvement and Organizational Commit-
ment Interactively to Predict Turnover. Journal of Management 1989, 15
(1), 115–127.
24. Chen, Z.X.; Francesco, A.M. Employee Demography, Organizational
Commitment, and Turnover Intentions in China: Do Cultural Differences
Matter? Human Relations 2000, 53 (6), 869–887.
The Influence of Leader Behaviors 395

25. Lok, P.; Crawford, J. Antecedents of Organizational Commitment and the

Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology
2001, 16 (8), 594–613.
26. Taormina, R.J. Predicting Employee Commitment and Satisfaction: The
Relative Effects of Socialization and Demographics. International Journal
of Human Resource Management 1999, 10 (6), 1060–1076.
27. Thayer, P.W.; Teachout, M.S. A Climate for Transfer Model (AL/HR-
TP-1995-0035), 1995 Brooks Air Force Base TX: Technical Training
Research Division; Armstrong Laboratory.
28. Barge, K. A Critical Evaluation of Organizational Commitment and
Identification. Management Communication Quarterly 1988, 2 (1),
116–133.
29. Varona, F. Relationship Between Communication Satisfaction and Orga-
nizational Commitment in Three Guatemalan Organizations. The Journal
of Business Communication 1996, 33 (2), 111–140.
30. Good, L.K.; Page, T.J.J.; Young, C.E. Assessing Hierarchical Differences
in Job-related Attitudes and Turnover Among Retail Managers. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 1996, 20 (1), 27–36.
31. Kuvaas, B. Employee Ownership and Affective Organizational Commit-
ment: Employees' Preceptions of Fairness and their Preference for Com-
pany Shares over Cash. Scandinavian Journal of Management 2003, 19,
193–212.
32. Leiter, M.P.; Harvie, P. Correspondence of Supervisor and Subordinate
Perspectives During Major Organizational Change. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology 1997, 2 (4), 343–352.
33. Leiter, M.P.; Maslach, C. The Impact of Interpersonal Environment on
Burnout and Organizational Commitment. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 1988, 9 (4), 297–308.
34. Michaels, R.E.; Cron, W. L.; Dubinsky, A.J.; Joachimsthaler, E.A. Influ-
ence of Formalization on the Organizational Commitment and Work
Alienation of Salespeople and Industrial Buyers. Journal of Marketing
Research 1988, 25, 376–383.
35. Michaels, R.E.; Dixon, A.L. Sellers and Buyers on the Boundary: Poten-
tial Moderators of Role Stress–Job Outcome Relationships. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 1994, 22 (1), 62–73.
36. Siguaw, J.A.; Brown, G.; Widing, R.E.I. The Influence of the Market Ori-
entation of the Firm on Sales Force Behavior and Attitudes. Journal of
Marketing Research 1994, 31, 106–116.
37. Subramaniam, N.; McManus, L.; Lokman, M. Enhancing Hotel Manag-
ers' Organisational Commitment: An Investigation of the Impact of Struc-
ture, Need for Achievement and Participative Budgeting. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 2002, 21, 303–320.
38. Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.J. A Three-component Conceptualization of Orga-
nizational Commitment.Human Resource Management Review 1991, 1
(1), 61–89.
396 Perryer and Jordan

39. Culpepper, R.A. A Test of Revised Scales for the Meyer and Allen (1991)
Three-component Commitment Construct. Educational and Psychologi-
cal Measurement 2000, 60 (4), 604–616.
40. Lubinski, D.; Humphreys, L.G. Assessing Spurious Moderator Effects:
Illustrated Substantively with the Hypothesised (“Synergistic”) Relation
Between Spatial and Mathematical Ability. Psychological Bulletin 1990,
107 (3), 385–393.
41. MacCallum, G.H.; Mar, C.M. Distinguishing Between Moderator and
Quadratic Effects in Multiple Regression. Psychological Bulletin 1995,
118, 405–421.
42. Fletcher, B.; Jones, F. A Refutation of Karasek’s Demand–Discretion
Model of Occupational Stress with a Range of Dependent Measures.
Journal of Organizational Behaviour 1993, 14, 319–330.
43. Sevastos, P. Job related affective well-being and its relation to intrinsic
job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral theses, Curtin University of Tech-
nology, Western Australia, 1996.
44. Parkes, K.R.; Mendham, C.; von Rabenau, C. Social Support and the
Demand–Discretion Model of Job Stress: Tests of Additive and Interac-
tive Effects in Two Samples. Journal of Vocational Behavior 1994, 44,
91–113.
45. Karasek, R. Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain:
Implications for Job Redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly 1979,
24, 335–357.