Leadership & Organization Development Journal

Two sides of the same coin? Leadership and organizational culture

Melody P.M. Chong, Yufan Shang, Malika Richards, Xiji Zhu,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Melody P.M. Chong, Yufan Shang, Malika Richards, Xiji Zhu, (2018) "Two sides of the same coin?
Leadership and organizational culture", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, https://
[Link]/10.1108/LODJ-05-2017-0122
Permanent link to this document:
[Link]
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

Downloaded on: 10 September 2018, At: 08:08 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 47 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@[Link]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:380143 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit [Link]/authors for more information.
About Emerald [Link]
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
[Link]/[Link]

Leadership
Two sides of the same coin? and
Leadership and organizational
culture
organizational culture
Melody P.M. Chong
City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Received 13 May 2017
Yufan Shang Revised 15 October 2017
24 February 2018
Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China 29 April 2018
Malika Richards 25 July 2018
Accepted 8 August 2018
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA, and
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

Xiji Zhu
Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China

Abstract
Purpose – Researchers have adopted a somewhat narrow conceptualization of organizational culture,
founded on specific assumptions about the impact of founders or top leadership. The purpose of this paper is
to address this research gap.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on 356 Chinese employees, this paper examines the relationships
between organizational culture, leadership and employee outcomes. Specifically, the paper focuses on a mediation
model by looking at how different leadership processes impact the relationship between culture and outcomes.
Findings – Supportive and task leadership styles and a persuasive influence strategy are correlated with
team, detail and innovation cultures, respectively, and are significantly stronger than that of other leadership
styles/strategies. Partial support is found for the mediating effect of task and change leadership styles, and
assertive and persuasive influence strategies. Contrary to the authors’ second assumption regarding the
social learning effect on outcomes, the study provides a tentative conclusion that different culture types may
have different levels of strength in molding middle management and consequently influencing subordinate
outcomes. The model of “culture-leadership-outcome” generally shows a similar pattern with the reverse
effect of “leadership-culture-outcome.”
Originality/value – This study was the first to examine the impact of organizational culture on leadership
and their effect on organizational outcomes, and to compare the reverse relationship. It suggests a new model
that combines social cognitive theory with concepts drawn from the social learning perspective. Both the
significant and non-significant results enhance our understanding on the mediating effects of leadership and
culture. The findings also enrich leadership theory because no empirical studies systematically examined the
similarities and differences between style approaches and influence strategies.
Keywords Organizational culture, Leadership styles, Social learning theory, Organizational outcomes,
Influence strategies
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The success of companies is attributed to organizational culture, because culture can determine
whether or not the organization is able to survive under changing conditions (Smith and
Vecchio, 2007). Top management teams create organizational culture based on their histories
and personalities (Schein, 2010), this explains why research has extensively addressed the
impact of founders or leaders on organizational culture (Klein et al., 2013; Nguyen and
Mohamed, 2011; Sarros et al., 2002; Schein, 2010; Simosi and Xenikou, 2010; Smith and

The authors would like to thank Associate Editor, Dr Judith McKnight and two anonymous reviewers for
Leadership & Organization
their constructive comments on drafts. The work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant Development Journal
from College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, City University of Hong Kong (Project No. 9610133) to © Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7739
the first author. DOI 10.1108/LODJ-05-2017-0122
 LODJ Vecchio, 2007). However, such an approach results in only a partial view (Scott et al., 2003).
Failing to acknowledge the crucial role that culture plays in developing leaders can be costly
because culture is a major part of the context and its effects on leadership development is vital
to building sustainable businesses (Bal and Quinn, 2001).
Organizational culture and leadership can be seen as two sides of the same coin, to the
extent that leadership affects culture as much as culture influences leadership (Schein, 2010).
The study first examines the relationship of organizational culture with two widely
measured leadership behaviors (style approaches and influence strategies). Specifically, the
study tests the mediating effects of these two leadership behaviors on the relationship
between three types of organizational culture (team, detail and innovation) and three
employee work outcomes (organizational commitment, job satisfaction and work
performance). The study contributes to the literature of leadership and organizational
culture because it also tests the reverse mediation relationship (culture on leadership vs
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

leadership on culture) and should clarify hitherto under-researched implications.

By applying social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), the study integrates insights from
social cognitive theory in the explanation of learning behaviors among middle managers.
Despite the fact that leadership styles and influence strategies are widely tested leadership
behaviors, only a few prior studies (e.g. Howell and Higgins, 1990; Charbonneau, 2004) have
compared these two leadership processes. Our study therefore provides insights into how
top management can secure employee commitment, satisfaction and performance through
organizational culture and leadership development in terms of both the style of approach
and specific strategies.

Theoretical background, review and hypotheses

Social learning theory
Bandura (1977) states, “in a social learning system, new patterns of behavior can be acquired
through direct experience or by observing the behavior of others” (p. 3). The theory
encompasses an idea of imitation or observational learning which suggests that most people
learn behaviors by observing others and then “modeling” those behaviors perceived as effective
in an organization (Lefrancois, 2012). A form of learning is also rooted in direct experience
governed by the rewarding or punishing consequences that follow any given action through
the process of reinforcement, successful modes of behavior are selected while ineffectual ones
are discarded (Bandura, 1977). Social learning implies that learning can occur as a result of
social interaction (as a process) or is involved in discovering which behaviors are expected and
acceptable in different social situational contexts (as an outcome) (Lefrancois, 2012).
As shown in Figure 1, our argument is based on Bandura’s (1977) social learning
theory – that of imitation or observational learning, and the motivation functions of
expectancies and incentives during the course of learning processes. Here, imitation or
observation implies that a manager is significantly and strongly affected by a particular
organizational culture and thus will tend to utilize a particular leadership style or strategy at
work (team culture produces supportive leadership or relational influence strategy; so on
and so forth) when compared with other types of leadership styles or strategies. This will in
turn affect the subordinates’ organizational outcomes.

Organizational culture and work outcomes

The word “culture” implies the idea of making something grow, evolve, mature, improve
or maintain itself (Cooren, 2015). A strong culture is characterized by intensely held core
values that are clearly ordered and widely shared and communicated by members
within the organization (Robbins and Barnwell, 1998). Early studies identified
different cultural values and different studies categorized organizational culture with
 Leadership
Hypotheses of the study
and
organizational
culture
(1) Culture – Styles – Outcomes

Organizational Organizational Commitment

culture Leadership styles Job Satisfaction
(supportive, task, change) Work Performance
(team, detail, innovation)

(2) Culture – Strategies – Outcomes

Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

Organizational Organizational Commitment

Influence strategies Figure 1.
culture Job Satisfaction
(team, detail, innovation)
(relational, assertive, persuasive) Work Performance Theoretical models

different labels (Denison and Mishra, 1995; O’Reilly et al., 1991). In particular, team
culture (e.g. involvement, supportive and humanistic encouraging), detail culture
(e.g. consistency, stability and conventional) and innovation culture (e.g. adaptability,
mission and competitiveness) (Block, 2003; Kwantes and Boglarsky, 2007; Lok and
Crawford, 1999; Sarros et al., 2002) have been widely used and empirically tested. Research
has also shown that organizational culture has a positive effect on commitment and/or job
satisfaction (Lok and Crawford, 1999; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Silverthorne, 2004) and
performance (Denison and Mishra, 1995).

Leadership and organizational outcomes

Leadership styles and influence strategies are two different systems of action and they have
their own impacts on organizational outcomes (Yukl, 2002). This study tests three
leadership styles: supportive, task and change leadership because these capture the most
important components of prior leadership research. Supportive leadership includes a variety
of behaviors by which a leader shows consideration, acceptance and concern for the needs
and feelings of a subordinate. Task leadership means that a leader is primarily concerned
with accomplishing the task, utilizing resources efficiently and maintaining stable and
reliable operations. Change leadership includes key leadership components such as
articulating an appealing vision, proposing innovative strategies and making persuasive
appeals about the need for change ( for details, see Yukl, 2002). These leadership behaviors
have an impact on commitment, job satisfaction and performance (e.g. Herold et al., 2008).
Leadership also involves influence strategies which refer to the actions taken by leaders
to change the attitudes, beliefs or behavior of subordinates (Van Knippenberg et al., 1999).
A relational influence strategy includes gift-giving, socializing, praising, etc. In an assertive
influence strategy, the leader uses pressure and checks work progress. A persuasive
influence strategy is one in which the manager uses consultation, collaboration, logical
arguments and inspirational appeals to persuade his subordinates (Chong et al., 2013).
Leadership influence behaviors have an effect on subordinate organizational commitment
(Chong, 2014; Chong et al., 2013, 2015) and yielded an outcome of compliance, commitment
or resistance (Chong et al., 2013; Yukl and Tracey, 1992). Only a few studies have examined
correlations between these two leadership processes (e.g. Charbonneau, 2004; Howell and
Higgins, 1990). Our investigation thus helps clarify their functions and effectiveness on
organizational outcomes.
 LODJ The leadership-culture research debates
There has been a gradual development of leadership-culture research (Klein et al., 2013;
Nguyen and Mohamed, 2011; Schein, 2010; Simosi and Xenikou, 2010; Smith and Vecchio,
2007). Recent studies testing the leadership-culture or culture-leadership relationship
address the debate of which comes first (Block, 2003; Kwantes and Boglarsky, 2007;
Sarros et al., 2002). Sarros et al. (2002) show that leadership is a stronger predictor of culture
while Block (2003) indicates that immediate supervisors have a greater influence on
employee perceptions of culture than do higher leadership levels.
Based on the above findings and the social learning perspective, we argue that an
important way people learn is by observing others’ experiences. We predict that a team
culture will have the strongest effect on supportive leadership and a relational influence
strategy because a team culture reflects that most colleagues are willing to help and support
each other to solve problems (O’Reilly et al., 1991). A detail culture suggests that most
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

colleagues strictly follow the company policy and the organization has a high expectation on
task standards (O’Reilly et al., 1991). A detail culture will have the strongest effect on both
task leadership and an assertive influence strategy because this culture type is consistent
with the way a task-oriented leader performs his work, such as planning and monitoring
operations (Yukl, 2002), whereas the assertive influence strategy also comprises tactics of
demanding and pressure during the influence process (Chong et al., 2013). An innovation
culture, where an organization shows flexibility and responds quickly to market changes,
will have an impact on change leadership because these traits are consistent with
the component behavior of a change leader who is willing to adapt to changes in the
environment (Yukl, 2002) and a leader who uses a persuasive influence strategy, such as
logic and inspirational appeal, to influence his subordinates (Chong et al., 2013).
We predict that middle level managers will model themselves to fit in with the
organizational culture, and their leadership style and influence strategy will significantly
support a similar organizational culture when compared with other types of leadership
styles and strategies. It is hypothesized:
H1. A team culture is positively and significantly more strongly related to (a) a
supportive leadership style and (b) a relational influence strategy when compared
with other two types of leadership styles/influence strategies.
H2. A detail culture is positively and significantly more strongly related to (a) a task
leadership style and (b) an assertive influence strategy when compared with other
two types of leadership styles/influence strategies.
H3. An innovation culture is positively and significantly more strongly related to (a) a
change leadership style and (b) a persuasive influence strategy when compared with
other two types of leadership styles/influence strategies.

The mediating role of middle management’s leadership

Recent research has tested the mediating or moderating effects of organizational culture between
leadership and work outcomes, such as commitment (e.g. Simosi and Xenikou, 2010), firm
performance and effectiveness (e.g. Klein et al., 2013; Xenikou and Simosi, 2006) and innovation
and knowledge management (e.g. Nguyen and Mohamed, 2011). However, the mediating role of
leadership, especially as associated with middle management, continues to be overlooked. In
most hypothesized models, leadership is only considered as an antecedent of culture.
Organizational culture consists of the learning experiences of members. Recent research
has shown the importance of organizational culture for employee learning (Santos-Vijande
et al., 2012). These learning experiences become beliefs, values and assumptions, which are
transmitted through the middle managers to their immediate subordinates (Schein, 2010).
 Mintzberg (2011) points out that middle managers are in a critical position to communicate Leadership
with and facilitate the downward flow of information. They learn from their own and
experiences and use those experiences to help bring out the best in other people. In this organizational
respect, we propose that managers who have been modeled by the organizational culture, in
turn, influence their subordinates’ organizational outcomes. culture
Klein et al. (2013) also find that organizational effectiveness is related to particular types
of culture and that a cultural norm is also related to a particular type of leadership style.
However, prior research also shows that different types of culture are not mutually
exclusive, such that a culture type could be equally strong on two or more leadership styles
at the same time. For instance, transformational and transactional leadership, which share
similar characteristics of task-oriented, supportive and change leadership behaviors, have
been found to be correlated with cultures such as achievement, humanistic, adaptive,
hierarch and mission (Nguyen and Mohamed, 2011; Xenikou and Simosi, 2006). In order to
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

comprehensively examine the mediation relationships, we test the hypothesized model by

also comparing the results of the two matched mediating relationships. It is hypothesized:
H4. A supportive leadership style mediates the relationship between a team culture and
(a) organizational commitment, (b) job satisfaction and (c) work performance
(Step 1), and the mediating effect will be stronger than task and change leadership
styles (Step 2).
H5. A relational influence strategy mediates the relationship between a team culture and
(a) organizational commitment, (b) job satisfaction and (c) work performance
(Step 1), and the mediating effect will be stronger than assertive and persuasive
influence strategies (Step 2).
H6. A task leadership style mediates the relationship between a detail culture and (a)
organizational commitment, (b) job satisfaction and (c) work performance (Step 1),
and the mediating effect will be stronger than supportive and change leadership
styles (Step 2).
H7. An assertive influence strategy mediates the relationship between a detail culture
and (a) organizational commitment, (b) job satisfaction and (c) work performance
(Step 1), and the mediating effect will be stronger than relational and persuasive
influence strategies (Step 2).
H8. A change leadership style mediates the relationship between an innovation culture
and (a) organizational commitment, (b) job satisfaction and (c) work performance
(Step 1), and the mediating effect will be stronger than supportive and task
leadership styles (Step 2).
H9. A persuasive influence strategy mediates the relationship between an innovation
culture and (a) organizational commitment, (b) job satisfaction and (c) work
performance (Step 1), and the mediating effect will be stronger than relational and
assertive influence strategies (Step 2).

Methods
Design, procedures and samples
Our study employed a convenience sample of employees based in the Shaanxi and Shenzhen
provinces of mainland China. Questionnaires were distributed physically to working MBA
students. Two of the students, both full-time managers, also helped distribute an electronic
version through the human resource department of their companies. In total, 385 surveys
were returned out of 435 questionnaires over a three-month period. In total, 29 of the 385
 LODJ questionnaires were dropped because of missing data. The response rate was 81.8 percent
(N ¼ 356). Most participants (85.6 percent) were under 35 years. In total, 62 percent were
male. Most were general staff (66.6 percent). In total, 4.8 percent worked for small-scale
companies and 46.6 percent worked for large-scale companies. The majority of participants
(40.1 percent) reported working in finance, banking, human resources and professional
related fields. Most (93.8 percent) had worked with the immediate superior for one to five
years, and this superior was under 45 years (80.8 percent). In total, 84 percent of the
superiors had titles of supervisor, assistant manager, manager or senior manager.
We consider that our sample represents the majority of middle management because they
have more interactions at work with the front line staff.

Measures
The questionnaire was translated into Chinese and back-translated into English. Items were
measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1“strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”), aside
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

from influence strategies, using a five-point fixed response scale (1 “never” to 5 “very often”).
Organizational culture was measured using 12 modified items of organizational
culture profile developed by O’Reilly et al. (1991). Sample items include: “there is a
harmonious relationship between most colleagues (team/6-item)”; “this is a rule-orientated
company (detail/3-item)”; and “the organization is very responsive to new opportunities
(innovation/3-item).”
Leadership styles (15 items) were modified instruments developed from Yukl (1999).
Sample items include: your immediate superior “provides support and encouragement when
there is a difficult or stressful task (supportive/5-item),” “plans in detail how to accomplish
an important task (task/5-item)” and “encourages members to try new methods and evaluate
their effectiveness (change/5-item).” One item on change leadership was dropped due to a
low factor loading.
Influence strategies were measured by 15 tactics with two items explaining each
individual tactic, totaling 30 items (Chong et al., 2013). Sample items are: your immediate
superior “describes how the task is consistent with your personal ideals and values
(persuasive/10-item),” “comes to you many times to tell you the urgency and importance of
this task (assertive/8-item)” and “talks about something like events that you are interested in
before asking you to do the work (relational/12-item).” Legitimating and coalition tactics
were dropped due to lower factor loadings. Prior research also shows that these two tactics
do not always fall into an assertive influence strategy (Chong et al., 2013, 2015).
Organizational commitment was measured using nine items of the Organizational
Commitment Questionnaire (nine items) developed by Porter and Smith (1970).
Job satisfaction (three items) and work performance (seven items) were developed by
Brayfield and Rothe (1951) and Tsui et al. (1997), respectively.
Demographic variables are argued to have an impact on commitment, satisfaction and
performance (e.g. Lok and Crawford, 1999). Becker (2005), however, indicates potential
problems in the statistical control of variables. As we did not find strong correlations
between the demographics and the three dependent variables, we do not include
demographics in the analysis.

Data analysis
Structural equation models and SPSS AMOS were used to estimate the parameters and
model-data-fit of our theoretical models. Hypothesis testing was conducted using an SPSS
macro named PROCESS, as developed by Hayes (2013). Preacher and Hayes (2008) indicate
that this macro allows researchers to test the total and specific indirect effects using
bootstrapping confidence intervals and to conduct a pairwise contrasts test in multiple
mediator models.
 Results Leadership
Confirmatory factor analyses and
To minimize common method variance, ex ante and ex post methods were employed organizational
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). We conducted two pilot studies to test the validity of the survey and
used different response formats. The respondents’ answers were kept anonymous. culture
Harman’s one-factor test and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were also conducted to test
the presence of common method effect. While the results of these analyses do not preclude
the possibility of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003), they suggest that
common method variance is unlikely to confound the interpretations of results. Results from
the Harman’s one-factor test indicated that the first (largest) factor did not account for a
majority of the variance (38.58 percent), i.e. no general factor was apparent.
We followed the common method approach (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) to conduct
CFA. We averaged the items with the highest and lowest loadings to form three indicators
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

for each variable (Mathieu et al., 1993). A one-factor measurement model (12 study variables,
with 36 indicators) resulted in a good fit, χ2(529) ¼ 1,748.91, p o0.0001; CFI ¼ 0.88;
TLI ¼ 0.84; RMSEA ¼ 0.081. The CFA of the full-hypothesized model (three leadership
styles as mediators, with 27 indicators) yielded a good and better fit, χ2(288) ¼ 911.19,
p o 0.0001; CFI ¼ 0.93; TLI ¼ 0.91; RMSEA ¼ 0.078. Similarly, the CFA of the
full-hypothesized model (three influence strategies as mediators, with 27 indicators) also
yielded a good fit, χ2(289) ¼ 85.22, p o0.0001; CFI ¼ 0.91; TLI ¼ 0.89; RMSEA ¼ 0.076.

Descriptive statistics
Table I presents the means, standard deviations, zero-order Pearson correlations and Cronbach’s α
reliabilities. All variables had good internal consistency with coefficient α values over 0.83.
The associations between the persuasive influence strategy with all three types of cultures and
leadership show its similarity as well as effectiveness in nature with most leadership styles.
While the relational influence strategy is not correlated with two types of cultures or had lower
correlation coefficient values, it is significantly correlated with satisfaction (0.74).

Testing the correlations between culture and leadership

To perform the correlation tests, results were confirmed by converting the correlation
coefficients into a one-tailed z-scores test using Fisher’s r-to-z transformation (Lee and
Preacher, 2013). The transformation test reveals that the correlation between team culture
and supportive leadership is significantly higher than that between team culture and task
leadership (z-score ¼ 2.17, p ¼ 0.01)/change leadership (z-score ¼ 2.17, p ¼ 0.02). H1a is
supported. However, the result is non-significant for relational influence strategy. H1b is
not supported. The test shows that the correlation between detail culture and task
leadership is significantly higher than that between detail culture and supportive leadership
(z-score ¼ 1.90, p ¼ 0.03)/change leadership (z-score ¼ 4.40, p ¼ 0.00). H2a is supported.
In H2b, we yielded a significant but negative result, and thus H2b is not supported. The test
reveals that the correlation between innovation culture and change leadership is not
significantly higher than that between innovation culture and task/supportive leadership.
H3a is not supported. The test shows that the correlation between innovation culture and
persuasive influence strategy is significantly higher than that between innovation culture
and relational influence strategy (z-score ¼ 6.84, p ¼ 0.00)/assertive influence strategy
(z-score ¼ 10.83, p ¼ 0.00). H3b is supported.

Bootstrapping results for the mediating effects

In Table II, results indicate that the indirect effects (team culture–supportive leadership)
are non-significant for commitment, satisfaction and performance because 0 is contained in
 Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

LODJ

Table I.

deviations,

coefficients
Mean, standard

correlations and
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Team orientation culture 4.96 1.18 (0.94)

2. Detail orientation culture 4.84 1.12 0.74** (0.84)
3. Innovation orientation culture 4.64 1.23 0.74** 0.70** (0.83)
4. Supportive leadership 4.91 1.29 0.73** 0.59** 0.67** (0.94)
5. Task leadership 4.89 1.22 0.69** 0.63** 0.68** 0.87** (0.95)
6. Change leadership 4.70 1.29 0.68** 0.51** 0.67** 0.85** 0.79** (0.92)
7. Relational influence strategy 1.62 0.63 0.08 0.03 0.12* 0.13* 0.02 0.16** (0.89)
8. Assertive influence strategy 2.00 0.78 −0.28** −0.20** −0.29** −0.40** −0.39** −0.37** 0.31** (0.87)
9. Persuasive influence strategy 2.95 0.80 0.48** 0.41** 0.51** 0.62** 0.58** 0.56** 0.29** −0.19** (0.91)
10. Organizational commitment 4.69 1.14 0.71** 0.64** 0.76** 0.75** 0.73** 0.74** 0.11* −0.36** 0.53** (0.94)
11. Job satisfaction 4.58 1.26 0.58** 0.71** 0.64** 0.76** 0.75** 0.73** 0.74** 0.11* −0.36** 0.53** (0.94)
12. Work performance 5.03 0.89 0.46** 0.37** 0.47** 0.49** 0.46** 0.49** 0.16** −0.23** 0.29** 0.56** 0.46** (0.91)
Notes: n ¼ 356. Reliability coefficients (alpha) are on the diagonal. Correlations between the three culture types and the three leadership types range between 0.51 and
0.73; and correlations between the three culture types and persuasive influence strategy range between 0.41 and 0.51, assertive influence strategy range between −0.20
and −0.29. The narrow range of correlations between the three styles of leadership and persuasive influence strategy is between 0.56 and 0.62. *p o0.05; **p o0.01
 Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

Organizational commitment Job satisfaction Work performance

Independent variable Mediators BC 95% CI BC 95% CI BC 95% CI
Organizational culture Leadership styles Point Estimate Lower Upper Point Estimate Lower Upper Point Estimate Lower Upper
Team culture (H4a–H4c) Indirect effects
Supportive 0.0991 −0.0228 0.2154 −0.0269 −0.1897 0.1392 0.0541 −0.0707 0.1676
Task 0.1202 0.0165 0.2210 0.2351 0.1109 0.3678 0.0333 −0.0587 0.1241
Change 0.1832 0.1086 0.2654 0.1628 0.0545 0.2619 0.1215 0.0303 0.2213
Total indirect 0.4025 0.3190 0.4958 0.3711 0.2694 0.4840 0.2090 0.1279 0.2971
Contrasts
Supportive vs task −0.0211 −0.2181 0.1732 −0.2620 −0.5201 −0.0014 0.0208 −0.1726 0.1938
Supportive vs change −0.0842 −0.2623 0.0758 −0.1897 −0.4139 0.0521 −0.0674 −0.2694 0.1077
Task vs change −0.0631 −0.2003 0.0656 0.0722 −0.1035 0.2469 −0.0882 −0.2328 0.0441
Detail culture (H6a–H6c) Indirect effects
Supportive 0.1238 0.0215 0.2298 0.0099 −0.1228 0.1484 0.0688 −0.0363 0.1681
Task 0.0621 −0.0407 0.1540 0.1724 0.0374 0.3025 0.0207 −0.0738 0.1116
Change 0.1805 0.1177 0.2577 0.1604 0.0783 0.2478 0.1118 0.0413 0.1895
Total indirect 0.3663 0.2830 0.4554 0.3427 0.2536 0.4439 0.2013 0.1371 0.2733
Contrasts
Supportive vs task 0.0617 −0.1053 0.2438 −0.1624 −0.3989 0.0762 0.0481 −0.1276 0.2140
Supportive vs change −0.0568 −0.2029 0.0840 −0.1504 −0.3365 0.0450 −0.0430 −0.2067 0.1111
Task vs change −0.1185 −0.2584 −0.0037 0.0120 −0.1631 0.1750 −0.0911 −0.2206 0.0280
Innovation culture (H8a–H8c) Indirect effects
Supportive 0.1298 0.0277 0.2351 0.0132 −0.1235 0.1523 0.0695 −0.0440 0.1733
Task 0.0612 −0.0322 0.1551 0.1773 0.0539 0.3076 0.0128 −0.0748 0.1012
Change 0.1333 0.0590 0.2102 0.1194 0.0222 0.2158 0.1012 0.0084 0.1940
Total indirect 0.3242 0.2512 0.4103 0.3098 0.2220 0.4089 0.1835 0.1129 0.2596
Contrasts
Supportive vs task 0.0686 −0.1075 0.2474 −0.1641 −0.4026 0.0787 0.0567 −0.1207 0.2172
Supportive vs change −0.0035 −0.1642 0.1533 −0.1062 −0.3051 0.0999 −0.0317 −0.2214 0.1416
Task vs change −0.0721 −0.1928 0.0393 0.0579 −0.1082 0.2161 −0.0884 −0.2218 0.0382
Organizational commitment Job satisfaction Work performance
Independent variable Mediators BC 95% CI BC 95% CI BC 95% CI
Organizational culture Influence strategies Point estimate Lower Upper Point estimate Lower Upper Point estimate Lower Upper
Team culture (H5a–H5c) Indirect effects
Relational 0.0045 −0.0009 0.0178 0.0065 −0.0013 0.0252 0.0102 −0.0023 0.0346
Assertive 0.0491 0.0248 0.0839 0.0737 0.0392 0.1213 0.0370 0.0141 0.0675

(continued )
organizational
Leadership

culture
and

Results of
bootstrapping: H4–H9
Table II.
 Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

LODJ

Table II.
Persuasive 0.1003 0.0603 0.1463 0.0750 0.0232 0.1311 0.0079 −0.0396 0.0533
Total indirect 0.1539 0.1081 0.2081 0.1553 0.0944 0.2213 0.0551 0.0073 0.1024
Contrasts
Relational vs assertive −0.0446 −0.0800 −0.0202 −0.0672 −0.1168 −0.0315 −0.0269 −0.0636 0.0051
Relational vs persuasive −0.0958 −0.1423 −0.0553 −0.0685 −0.1247 −0.0165 0.0023 −0.0455 0.0601
Assertive vs persuasive −0.0512 −0.1080 0.0033 −0.0013 −0.0700 0.0691 0.0292 −0.0274 0.0882
Detail culture (H7a–H7c) Indirect effects
Relational −0.0001 −0.0130 0.0131 −0.0001 −0.0163 0.0154 −0.0001 −0.0167 0.0200
Assertive 0.0511 0.0243 0.0901 0.0670 0.0324 0.1158 0.0361 0.0145 0.0669
Persuasive 0.1069 0.0674 0.1566 0.0753 0.0281 0.1279 0.0215 −0.0211 0.0625
Total indirect 0.1579 0.1086 0.2183 0.1422 0.0823 0.2063 0.0575 0.0116 0.1013
Contrasts
Relational vs assertive −0.0511 −0.0963 −0.0194 −0.0671 −0.1216 −0.0255 −0.0362 −0.0766 −0.0041
Relational vs persuasive −0.1069 −0.1529 −0.0683 −0.0754 −0.1267 −0.0266 −0.0215 −0.0612 0.0274
Assertive vs persuasive −0.0558 −0.1159 −0.0009 −0.0083 −0.0742 0.0599 0.0146 −0.0371 0.0714
Innovation culture Indirect effects
(H9a and H9b) Relational 0.0038 −0.0021 0.0161 0.0072 −0.0012 0.0263 0.0140 0.0016 0.0385
Assertive 0.0416 0.0207 0.0729 0.0654 0.0345 0.1096 0.0342 0.0127 0.0651
Persuasive 0.0838 0.0473 0.1273 0.0586 0.0072 0.1144 0.0040 −0.0428 0.0454
Total indirect 0.1292 0.0851 0.1804 0.1312 0.0690 0.1965 0.0522 0.0088 0.0957
Contrasts
Relational vs assertive −0.0378 −0.0684 −0.0168 −0.0582 −0.1026 −0.0255 −0.0202 −0.0582 0.0106
Relational vs persuasive −0.0800 −0.1256 −0.0414 −0.0514 −0.1097 0.0036 0.0100 −0.0362 0.0663
Assertive vs persuasive −0.0422 −0.0946 0.0048 0.0068 −0.0628 0.0752 0.0302 −0.0229 0.0874
Notes: Bootstrap samples ¼ 5,000. BC 95% CI means bias corrected 95% confident interval; Seed number ¼ 34,421. Significant results are in italic; when 0 does not occur
in the confident interval, then we can conclude that the total indirect effect is significant
 the interval. H4a–H4c are not supported. The mediation effects (relational influence strategy) of Leadership
H5a–H5c are also non-significant. and
Results show that the indirect effects (detail culture – task leadership) are non-significant organizational
for commitment and performance; H6a and H6c are not supported. Results indicate that the
indirect effect is significant for satisfaction (point estimate ¼ 0.1724, 95% CI[0.0374, 0.3025] ) culture
(Step1). However, examination of the pairwise contrasts of the indirect effects suggests that
the specific indirect effect through task leadership is not larger than the effect through
supportive/change leadership (Step 2). H6b is partially supported.
The indirect effects (assertive influence strategy) are significant for commitment (point
estimate ¼ 0.0511, 95% CI[0.0243, 0.0901] ), satisfaction (point estimate ¼ 0.0670, 95% CI
[0.0324, 0.1158] ) and performance (point estimate ¼ 0.0361, 95% CI[0.0145, 0.0669] ) (Step1).
The pairwise contrasts test shows that the specific indirect effect through the assertive
influence strategy is larger than the effect through the relational influence strategy (with
BC95% CI of −0.0963 to −0.0194 for commitment; BC95% CI of −0.1216 to −0.0255 for
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

satisfaction; and BC95% CI of −0.0776 to −0.0041 for performance) but not the persuasive
influence strategy (Step 2). H7a–H7c are partially supported.
Results (innovation culture – change leadership) indicate that the indirect effects are
significant for commitment (point estimate ¼ 0.1333, 95% CI[0.0590, 0.2102]), satisfaction
(point estimate ¼ 0.1194, 95% CI[0.0222, 0.2158] ) and performance (point estimate ¼ 0.1012,
95% CI[0.0084, 0.1940] ) (Step 1). However, the pairwise contrasts test shows that the specific
indirect effect through change leadership is not larger than the effect through supportive/
task leadership (Step 2). H8a–H8c are partially supported.
The indirect effects (persuasive influence strategy) are significant for commitment (point
estimate ¼ 0.0838, 95% CI[0.0473, 0.1273]), satisfaction (point estimate ¼ 0.0586, 95% CI
[0.0072, 0.1144] ), but not for performance (Step 1). Examination of the pairwise contrasts of
the indirect effects shows that the specific indirect effect through a persuasive influence
strategy is larger than the effect through a relational influence strategy (with BC95% CI of
−0.1256 to −0.0414 for commitment; ns. for satisfaction and performance) but not an
assertive influence strategy (Step 2). H9a and H9b are partially supported.
Table III presents a summary of the relative mediation model results.

Discussion and implications

Theoretical significance and suggestions for future research
The correlations test met half of our predictions that a particular type of culture can be
positively and more strongly correlated with a “compatible type” of leadership style/
strategy when compared with the other types of leadership. However, the strongest
correlation is only directly reflected in the correlations between team/detail/innovation
culture and supportive/task leadership/persuasive influence strategy. An innovation culture
is also correlated with other types of leadership styles. The effect of a persuasive influence
strategy (including tactics of rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation and
collaboration) is endorsed more strongly and correlated with all types of cultures and
leadership styles when compared with other types of influence strategies. This result is
consistent with previous findings (e.g. Chong et al., 2013, 2015), suggesting that this strategy
is the most effect form of influence because the influence processes consist of logical
arguments, emotional/value-based appeal, participation of decision making and an offer of
the needed resources (Yukl, 2002; Yukl et al., 2005). Our study reveals a positive relationship
between this influence strategy and various types of organizational culture and leadership
behaviors, further highlighting its effectiveness at work.
Three overarching findings are that: a team culture is not related to a relational influence
strategy; a detail culture is “negatively” related to an assertive influence strategy; and an
innovation culture is generally correlated with all types of leadership styles. We have
 Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

LODJ

Table III.
Comparison of
mediating effects:
culture vs leadership
Culture–leadership styles–outcomes Step Step Leadership styles–culture– Step Step A summary of results
results, see also Table II 1 2 outcomes results, see also 1 2
Table AI
Team–supportive–OC (H4a) X X Supportive–team–OC X X Similar, non-significant results and effects on organizational commitment
Point estimate: 0.0991 Point estimate: 0.0661
95% CI [−0.0228, 0.2154] 95% CI [−0.0191, 0.1532]
Team–supportive–SAT (H4b) X X Supportive–team–SAT X X Similar, non-significant results and effects on job satisfaction
Point estimate: −0.0269 Point estimate: 0.0437
95% CI [−0.1897, 0.1392] 95% CI [−0.0740, 0.1561]
Team–supportive–WP (H4c) X X Supportive–term–WP X X Similar, non-significant results and effects on work performance
Point estimate: 0.0541 Point estimate: 0.0640
95% CI [−0.0707, 0.1676] 95% CI [−0.0268, 0.1594]
Detail–task–OC (H6a) X X Task–detail–OC X X Similar, non-significant results and effects on organizational commitment
Point estimate: 0.0621 Point estimate: 0.0184
95% CI [−0.0407, 0.1540] 95% CI [−0.0424, 0.0798]
Detail–task–SAT (H6b) | X Task–detail–SAT X X Different, partial support when task leadership as a mediator; similar,
Point estimate: 0.1724 (PS) Point estimate: 0.0417 non-significant results and effects on job satisfaction when comparing
95% CI [0.0374, 0.3025] 95% CI [−0.0365, 0.1264] with other styles/culture types
Detail–task–WP (H6c) X X Task–detail–WP X X Similar, non-significant results and effects on work performance
Point estimate: 0.0207 Point estimate: −0.0281
95% CI [−0.0738, 0.1116] 95% CI [−0.0930, 0.0394]
Innovation–change–OC (H8a) | X Change–innovation–OC | X Similar; yielded partial support when change leadership/innovation culture
Point estimate: 0.1333 (PS) Point estimate: 0.3130 (PS) as a mediator; non-significant results and effects on organizational
95% CI [0.0590, 0.2102] 95% CI [0.2239, 0.4258] commitment when comparing with other styles/culture types
Innovation–change–SAT (H8b) | X Change–innovation–SAT | X Similar; yielded partial support when change leadership/innovation culture
Point estimate: 0.1194 (PS) Point estimate: 0.2822 (PS) as a mediator; non-significant results and effects on job satisfaction when
95% CI [0.0222, 0.2158] 95% CI [0.1561, 0.4506] comparing with other styles/culture types
Innovation–change–WP (H8c) | X Change–innovation–WP | X Similar; yielded partial support when change leadership/innovation culture
Point estimate: 0.1012 (PS) Point estimate: 0.1585 (PS) as a mediator; non-significant results and effects on work performance
95% CI [0.0084, 0.1940] 95% CI [0.0652, 0.2706] when comparing with other styles/culture types
Culture influence – strategies Step Step Influence strategies – Step Step A summary of results
outcomes 1 2 culture outcomes 1 2

(continued )
 Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

Team–relational–OC (H5a) X X Relational–team–OC X X Similar, non-significant results and effects on organizational commitment
Point estimate: 0.0045 Point estimate: 0.0380
95% CI [−0.0009, 0.0178] 95% CI [−0.0101, 0.1111]
Team–relational–SAT (H5b) X X Relational–team–SAT X X Similar non-significant results and effects on job satisfaction
Point estimate: 0.0065 Point estimate: 0.0296
95% CI [−0.0013, 0.0252] 95% CI [−0.0048, 0.1033]
Team–relational–WP (H5c) X X Relational–term–WP X X Similar non-significant results and effects on work performance
Point estimate: 0.0102 Point estimate: 0.0259
95% CI [−0.0023, 0.0346] 95% CI [−0.0055, 0.0793]
Detail–assertive–OC (H7a) | X Assertive–Detail–OC X X Different, partial support when assertive influence strategy as a
Point estimate: 0.0511 (PS) Point estimate: −0.0280 mediator; similar, non-significant results and effects on organizational
95% CI [0.0243, 0.0901] 95% CI [−0.0769, 0.0024] commitment when comparing with other strategies/culture types
Detail–assertive–SAT (H7b) | X Assertive–detail–SAT | X Similar, yielded partial support when assertive influence strategy/detail
Point estimate: 0.0670 (PS) Point estimate: −0.0440 (PS) culture as a mediator; non-significant results and effects on job satisfaction
95% CI [0.0324, 0.1158] 95% CI [−0.1078, −0.0054] when comparing with other strategies/culture types
Detail–assertive–WP (H7c) | X Assertive–detail–WP X X Different, partial support when assertive influence strategy as a
Point estimate: 0.0361 (PS) Point estimate: 0.0052 mediator; similar, non-significant results and effects on work
95% CI [0.0145, 0.0669] 95% CI [−0.0318, 0.0439] performance when comparing with other strategies/culture types
Innovation–persuasive–OC (H9a) | X Persuasive–innovation–OC | X Similar, yielded partial support when persuasive influence strategy/
Point estimate: 0.0838 (PS) Point estimate: 0.3130 (PS) innovation culture as a mediator; non-significant results and effects on
95% CI [0.0473, 0.1273] 95% CI [0.2239, 0.4258] organizational commitment when comparing with other strategies/culture
types
Innovation–persuasive–SAT (H9b) | X Persuasive–innovation– | X Similar, yielded partial support when persuasive influence strategy/
Point estimate: 0.0586 (PS) SAT (PS) innovation culture as a mediator; non-significant results and effects on job
95% CI [0.0072, 0.1144] Point estimate: 0.2822 satisfaction when comparing with other strategies/culture types
95% CI [0.1561, 0.4506]
Innovation–persuasive–WP (H9c) X X Persuasive–innovation– | X Different, partial support when innovation culture as a mediator; similar,
Point estimate: 0.0040 WP (PS) non-significant results and effects on work performance when comparing
95% CI [−0.0428, 0.0454] Point estimate: 0.1585 with other strategies/culture types
95% CI [0.0652, 0.2706]
Notes: OC, organizational commitment; SAT, job satisfaction; WP, work performance; |, significant; X, non-significant; PS, partially supported. Bootstrap
samples ¼ 5,000. BC 95% CI means bias corrected 95% confident interval; Seed number ¼ 34,421. Significant results are in italic; when 0 does not occur in the confident
interval, then we can conclude that the total indirect effect is significant
organizational
Leadership

culture
and

Table III.
 LODJ several explanations for these results. First, a relational influence strategy includes tactics
such as asking for favors and socializing, which may not be frequently used by middle
managers. Second, in companies with a detail culture, where “policies and rules” are
significant and dominant, middle managers tend to avoid using assertive influence, which
involves not only demanding behavior but also threatening behavior, which may be
perceived as socially unacceptable and a dark side of this tactic (Bacon, 2012). Third, it
seems that an innovation culture is the most effective type of organizational culture to help
enhance different types of leadership styles. Taken together, while the two leadership
processes share similar ingredients (i.e. being supportive, demanding and visionary), there
are also significant differences, especially when the leadership tactics involve negative
(i.e. pressure) and non-work-related (i.e. socializing) influence behaviors. These tentative
findings enrich leadership theory and practice because, to the best of our knowledge, no
empirical studies have been done to systematically examine the similarities and differences
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

between leadership style approaches and influence strategies.

Among the three organizational cultures, partial support was found in the mediation
models, specifically: a detail culture – task leadership – job satisfaction link; a detail
culture – assertive influence strategy – all outcomes link; an innovation culture – change
leadership/persuasive influence strategy – all outcomes link. Although these results support
our basic assumption that a manager who is affected by a particular type of organizational
culture may in turn impact a subordinate’s work outcome, none of these styles/strategies
show the strongest mediating effect in the pairwise contrasts test. There are also two
interesting findings: the three culture types have the strongest impact on outcomes
primarily through a change leadership or persuasive influence strategy; although a detail
culture is negatively correlated with an assertive influence strategy (H2b), the mediating
effect of assertive influence shows a positive relationship between a detail culture and
outcomes (H7). We have several thoughts regarding these findings. First, to a certain
degree, it makes sense that because in organizational contexts, positive types of culture may
stimulate a manager’s capability, particularly the ability to inspirationally influence
subordinates. Overall, our study confirms prior findings that different types of culture are
not mutually exclusive – a culture type could be equally strong on two or more leadership
styles (Nguyen and Mohamed, 2011; Xenikou and Simosi, 2006). It also highlights the
importance of open-minded, rational and inspirational leadership behaviors and strategies.
This is consistent with prior research – valuing innovativeness and creativity contributes to
employee commitment (Simosi and Xenikou, 2010). However, in the context of a detail
culture, the mediating effect of an assertive influence strategy, in which a manager uses
demands and pressure, is partially linked to positive work outcomes. In our study, the effect
of these findings is weak. However, they are worthy for re-testing. Our models may have
omitted other factors. Although we have included six leadership processes and three
outcomes, there are other possible situational variables that may affect the causal
relationships in our theoretical models. Based on the substitutes-for-leadership theory (Kerr
and Jermier, 1978), Avolio et al. (2009) indicate that other factors may neutralize the
leadership dynamic and influence. Therefore, future research should consider testing a
mediated moderation relationship by adding other moderating variables such as
subordinate/task/organizational characteristics (Kerr and Jermier, 1978).
As a main objective, we compared the mediating effect of organizational culture with
our hypothesized model. Table III shows minor differences between the two models:
partial support was found for the mediating effect of task leadership between a detail
culture and satisfaction; partial support was yielded when an assertive influence strategy
served as a mediator between a detail culture and commitment/performance; and partial
support was found when an innovation culture served as a mediator between a persuasive
influence strategy and work performance. Despite these differences, as shown in Table III
 (a summary of results), whether leadership or culture is a mediator, most of the results Leadership
show a similar pattern. The hypothesized model generally resembles the reverse model in and
terms of significant (i.e. partial support, Step 1) and non-significant results (Step 2). organizational
The non-significant results also provide important theoretical implications. When
comparing the two mediating models (leadership vs culture as a mediator), the findings culture
strengthen our overall assumption that “leadership and culture are two sides of the same
coin” (Schein, 2010, p. 1). But we note that these results are indeed contradictory to our
second assumption regarding the effect of social learning on outcomes – the mediating
effects of leadership do not show the strongest effect when compared with other types of
leadership styles/strategies. Therefore, replication studies are needed to determine
whether our tentative conclusion is valid.

Practical implications
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

Our study sends a message to top management and human resources managers: developing
a positive organizational culture (whether team, detail or innovation) is important because it
may help encourage more change leadership behaviors and persuasive influence strategies,
and enhance employee commitment, satisfaction and performance. Van Maanen (1975) also
indicates that organizational members internalize an organization’s values and norms;
however, the challenge remains not just how leaders communicate these values and engage
their employees (Cowan, 2014) but also the ability of middle level leaders in accepting a
particular cultural value. Finally, additional knowledge in this research area helps us
advance the practical implications in the Chinese context. The study informs top
management working in Chinese companies about the important role of middle
management and organizational culture because these factors may impact employees’
work outcomes.

Limitations and directions for future research

The study gathered data from mainland China and responses from subordinates, because it
was our purpose to gather subordinates’ opinions. Future research could expand the
investigation to other geographic locales, could use a case study methodology and collect
data from multiple sources. This study included three subscales of organizational culture;
future research could include additional variables. Despite its limitations, this study
provides useful insights that have been overlooked by previous studies, such as the
relationships and functions of the two leadership processes, and the mediation model of
culture-leadership in predicting employee outcomes.

References
Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009), “Leadership: current theories, research, and future
directions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 421-449.
Bacon, T.R. (2012), Elements of Influence: The Art of Getting Others to Follow Your Lead, Amacom,
New York, NY.
Bal, V. and Quinn, L. (2001), “The missing link: organizational culture and leadership development”,
Leadership in Action, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 14-17.
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Becker, T.E. (2005), “Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research:
a qualitative analysis with recommendations”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 274-289.
Block, L. (2003), “The leadership-culture connection: an exploratory investigation”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 318-334.
 LODJ Brayfield, A.H. and Rothe, H.F. (1951), “An index of job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 307-311.
Charbonneau, D. (2004), “Influence tactics and perceptions of transformational leadership”, Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 565-576.
Chong, M.P.M. (2014), “Influence tactics and organizational commitment: a comparative study”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 54-78.
Chong, M.P.M., Muethel, M., Richards, M., Fu, P.P., Peng, T.K., Shang, Y.F. and Caldas, M.P. (2013),
“Influence behaviors and employees’ reactions: an empirical test amongst six societies based on
a transactional-relational model”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 373-384.
Chong, M.P.M., Peng, T.K., Fu, P.P., Richards, M., Muethel, M., Caldas, M.P. and Shang, Y.F. (2015),
“Relational perspectives on leaders’ influence behavior: the mediation of western leader-member
exchange (LMX) and Chinese guanxi”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 1,
pp. 71-87.
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

Cooren, F. (2015), Organizational Discourse: Communication and Constitution, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Cowan, D. (2014), Strategic Internal Communication: How to Build Employee Engagement and
Performance, Kogan Page, London.
Denison, D.R. and Mishra, A.K. (1995), “Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness”,
Organizational Science, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 204-223.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. and Liu, Y. (2008), “The effects of transformational and change
leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: a multilevel study”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 346-357.
Howell, J.M. and Higgins, C.A. (1990), “Leadership behaviors, influence tactics, and career experiences
of champions of technological innovation”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 249-264.
Kerr, S. and Jermier, J.M. (1978), “Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 375-403.
Klein, A.S., Wallis, J. and Cooke, R.A. (2013), “The impact of leadership styles on organizational culture
and firm effectiveness: an empirical study”, Journal of Management & Organization, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 241-254.
Kwantes, C.T. and Boglarsky, C.A. (2007), “Perceptions of organizational culture, leadership
effectiveness and personal effectiveness across six countries”, Journal of International
Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 204-230.
Lee, I.A. and Preacher, K.J. (2013), “Calculation for the test of the difference between two dependent
correlations with one variable in common [computer software]”, available at: [Link]
(accessed July 27, 2018).
Lefrancois, G.R. (2012), Theories of Human Learning: What the Professor Said, Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning, Belmont, CA.
Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (1999), “The relationship between commitment and organizational culture,
subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and development”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 365-374.
Mathieu, J.E., Hofmann, D.A. and Farr, J.L. (1993), “Job perception-job satisfaction relations: an
empirical comparison of three competing theories”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 370-387.
Mintzberg, H. (2011), Henry Mintzberg Managing, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Nguyen, H.N. and Mohamed, S. (2011), “Leadership behaviors, organizational culture and knowledge
management practices: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 30
No. 2, pp. 206-221.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
 O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), “People and organizational culture: a profile Leadership
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit”, Academy of Management Journal, and
Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 487-516.
organizational
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of culture
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Porter, L.W. and Smith, F.J. (1970), The Etiology of Organizational Commitment, University of
California, Irvine.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Robbins, S.P. and Barnwell, N. (1998), Organizational Theory: Concepts and Cases, Prentice Hall, Sydney.
Santos-Vijande, M.L., Lopez-Sanchez, J.A. and Gonzalez-Mieres, C. (2012), “Organizational learning,
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

innovation, and performance in KIBS”, Journal of Management & Organization, Vol. 18 No. 6,
pp. 870-904.
Sarros, J.C., Gray, J.H. and Densten, I.L. (2002), “Leadership and its impact on organizational culture”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 1-26.
Schein, E.H. (2010), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H. and Marshall, M. (2003), “The quantitative measurement of
organizational culture in health care: a review of the available instruments”, Health Services
Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 923-945.
Silverthorne, C. (2004), “The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on
organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 592-599.
Simosi, M. and Xenikou, A. (2010), “The role of organizational culture in the relationship between
leadership and organizational commitment: an empirical study in a Greek organization”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 1598-1616.
Smith, C.G. and Vecchio, R.P. (2007), Organizational Culture and Strategic Leadership: Issues in the
Management of Strategic Change, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN.
Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W. and Tripoli, A.M. (1997), “Alternative approaches to the employee-
organization relationship: does investment in employees pay off?”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1089-1121.
Van Knippenberg, B., Van Knippenberg, D., Blaauw, E. and Vermunt, R. (1999), “Relational
considerations in the use of influence tactics”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 806-819.
Van Maanen, J. (1975), “Police socialization: a longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban
police department”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 207-228.
Xenikou, A. and Simosi, M. (2006), “Organizational culture and transformational leadership as
predictors of business unit performance”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 566-579.
Yukl, G. (1999), “An evaluation essay on current conceptions of effective leadership”, European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 33-48.
Yukl, G. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.
Yukl, G. and Tracey, B. (1992), “Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers and
the boss”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 525-535.
Yukl, G., Chavez, C. and Seifert, C.F. (2005), “Assessing the construct validity and utility of two new
influence tactics”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 705-725.
 Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

LODJ

Results of
Table AI.

bootstrapping:

(reverse effect)
additional analyses
Organizational commitment Job satisfaction Work performance
Appendix

Independent variable Mediators BC 95% CI BC 95% CI BC 95% CI

Leadership styles Organizational culture Point Lower Upper Point Lower Upper Point Lower Upper
estimate estimate estimate
Supportive leadership Indirect effects
Team culture 0.0661 −0.0191 0.1532 0.0437 −0740 0.1561 0.0640 −0.0268 0.1594
Detail culture 0.0427 −0.0146 0.1042 0.0694 −0.0079 0.1534 −0.0143 −0.0761 0525
Innovation culture 0.2348 0.1686 0.3093 0.2121 0.1071 0.3346 0.1048 0.0247 0.1948
Total indirect 0.3436 0.2721 0.4217 0.3253 0.2227 0.4396 0.1545 0.0792 0.2284
Contrasts
Team vs detail 0.0234 −0.1024 0.1414 −0.0257 −0.1837 0.1281 0.0784 −0.0484 0.2100
Team vs innovation −0.1687 −0.3020 −0.0444 −0.1684 −0.3738 0.0141 −0.0408 −0.2024 0.1059
Detail vs innovation −0.1921 −0.2993 −0.0909 −0.1427 −0.2979 0.0161 −0.1191 −0.2438 0.0004
Task leadership Indirect effects
Team culture 0.1101 0.0366 0.1943 0.0637 −0.0317 0.1611 0.0865 0.0085 0.1712
Detail culture 0.0184 −0.0424 0.0798 0.0417 −0.0365 0.1264 −0.0281 −0.0930 0.0394
Innovation culture 0.2280 0.1602 0.3019 0.1882 0.0913 0.3068 0.1027 0.0263 0.1922
Total indirect 0.3565 0.2822 0.4407 0.2936 0.2029 0.3971 0.1611 0.0873 0.2338
Contrasts
Team vs detail 0.0917 −0.0226 0.2106 0.0221 −0.1242 0.1644 0.1147 0.0012 0.2375
Team vs innovation −0.1178 −0.2337 −0.0046 −0.1245 −0.3071 0.0410 −0.0162 −0.1649 0.1133
Detail vs innovation −0.2096 −0.3168 −0.1061 −0.1465 −0.2946 0.0021 −0.1308 −0.2498 −0.0169
Change leadership Indirect effects
Team culture 0.0684 −0.0111 0.1529 0.0392 −0.0659 0.1407 0.0583 −0.0255 0.1426
Detail culture 0.0571 0.0114 0.1141 0.0769 0.0152 0.1519 0.0010 −0.0469 0.0574
Innovation culture 0.1958 0.1338 0.2663 0.1719 0.0766 0.2877 0.0811 0.0054 0.1638
Total indirect 0.3212 0.2577 0.3926 0.2881 0.2005 0.3920 0.1404 0.0701 0.2091
Contrasts
Team vs detail 0.0113 −0.1049 0.1285 −0.0377 −0.1884 0.0974 0.0572 −0.0517 0.1747
Team vs innovation −0.1274 −0.2476 −0.0118 −0.1327 −0.3184 0.0252 −0.0229 −0.1635 0.1100
Detail vs innovation −0.1387 −0.2341 −0.0472 −0.0950 −0.2377 0.0412 −0.0801 −0.1881 0.0259

(continued )
 Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

Organizational commitment Job satisfaction Work performance

Independent variable Mediators BC 95% CI BC 95% CI BC 95% CI
Influence strategies Organizational culture Point Lower Upper Point Lower Upper Point Lower Upper
estimate estimate estimate
Relational Influence Indirect effects
Strategies Team culture 0.0380 −0.0101 0.1111 0.0296 −0.0048 0.1033 0.0259 −0.0055 0.0793
Detail culture −0.0001 −0.0224 0.0200 −0.0001 −0.0308 0.0288 0.0000 −0.0123 0.0118
Innovation culture 0.1008 0.0100 0.2094 0.0898 0.0091 0.2089 0.0444 0.0058 0.1171
Total indirect 0.1388 −0.0117 0.2979 0.1193 −0.0204 0.2686 0.0703 −0.0034 0.1526
Contrasts
Team vs detail 0.0381 0.0022 0.1116 0.0297 −0.0012 0.0959 0.0259 −0.0066 0.0878
Team vs innovation −0.0628 −0.1572 0.0027 −0.0602 −0.1866 0.0049 −0.0184 −0.0831 0.0301
Detail vs innovation −0.1009 −0.2027 −0.0225 −0.0899 −0.2049 −0.0255 −0.0444 −0.1255 −0.0046
Assertive influence Indirect effects
strategies Team culture −0.1080 −0.1907 −0.0521 −0.0748 −0.1603 −0.0087 −0.0774 −0.1512 −0.0263
Detail culture −0.0280 −0.0769 0.0024 −0.0440 −0.1078 −0.0054 0.0052 −0.0318 0.0439
Innovation culture −0.1897 −0.2931 −0.1061 −0.1611 −0.2889 −0.0809 −0.0891 −0.1703 −0.0398
Total indirect −0.3257 −0.4671 −0.1975 −0.2799 −0.4132 −0.1677 −0.1613 −0.2295 −0.1037
Contrasts
Team vs detail −0.0800 −0.1765 −0.0043 −0.0309 −0.1308 0.0643 −0.0827 −0.1751 −0.0126
Team vs innovation 0.0817 −0.0072 0.1933 0.0862 −0.0293 0.2527 0.0117 −0.0843 0.1224
Detail vs innovation 0.1617 0.0757 0.2742 0.1171 0.0239 0.2528 0.0944 0.0280 0.1993
Persuasive influence Indirect effects
strategies Team culture 0.1730 0.0891 0.2783 0.1344 0.0240 0.2505 0.1327 0.0437 0.2360
Detail culture 0.0486 −0.0150 0.1244 0.0766 −0.0062 0.1773 −0.0132 −0.0793 0.0592
Innovation culture 0.3130 0.2239 0.4258 0.2822 0.1561 0.4506 0.1585 0.0652 0.2706
Total indirect 0.5347 0.4213 0.6566 0.4931 0.3784 0.6278 0.2780 0.1980 0.3700
Contrasts
Team vs detail 0.1244 −0.0057 0.2676 0.0578 −0.1057 0.2224 0.1460 0.0242 0.2919
Team vs innovation −0.1400 −0.2961 0.0041 −0.1478 −0.3906 0.0592 −0.0257 −0.2035 0.1356
Detail vs innovation −0.2644 −0.4016 −0.1374 −0.2056 −0.4031 −0.0313 −0.1717 −0.3141 −0.0404
Notes: Bootstrap samples ¼ 5,000. BC 95% CI means bias corrected 95% confident interval; Seed number ¼ 34,421. Significant results are in italic; when 0 does
not occur in the confident interval, then we can conclude that the total indirect effect is significant
organizational
Leadership

culture
and

Table AI.
 LODJ About the authors
Melody P.M. Chong is Instructor at the Department of Asian and International Studies, City University of
Hong Kong. She has published research papers in Journal of World Business, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Chinese Management Studies, etc.
Her research interests center on leadership, organizational behavior and cross-cultural management.
Melody P.M. Chong is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: ctchong@[Link]
Yufan Shang is Professor at the Management School, Xi’an Jiaotong University. She has recently
published in journals such as International Journal of Human Resource Management, Journal of
Management & Organization, European Management Journal, Chinese Management Studies, etc.
Her research interests focus on leadership and organizational communication.
Malika Richards is Professor of Management at Penn State University, Berks. She has published in
journals such as the Journal of International Management, International Business Review, Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology and The Journal of World Business. Her research interests are the impact of
culture on international management and multinational firm strategy.
Xiji Zhu is currently Assistant Professor in Business School, Central University of Finance and
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 08:08 10 September 2018 (PT)

Economics. His research interests include disability and inclusion in the workplace, social stigma
and identity management, emotions in the workplace, especially emotion regulation and empathy, and
research methodology, especially big data in management.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
[Link]/licensing/[Link]
Or contact us for further details: permissions@[Link]