Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management

Police transformational leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of organizational

culture
Hee Sub Shim Youngoh Jo Larry T. Hoover
Article information:
To cite this document:
Hee Sub Shim Youngoh Jo Larry T. Hoover , (2015),"Police transformational leadership and organizational commitment:
mediating role of organizational culture", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 38 Iss 4
pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-05-2015-0066
Downloaded on: 26 October 2015, At: 06:34 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 27 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Rashmi Singh, Jogendra Kumar Nayak, (2015),"Mediating role of stress between work-family conflict and job satisfaction
among the police officials: moderating role of social support", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management, Vol. 38 Iss 4 pp. -
Nancy Bouranta, Yannis Siskos, Nikos Tsotsolas, (2015),"Measuring police officer and citizen satisfaction: comparative
analysis", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 38 Iss 4 pp. -
Anthony Gennaro Vito, Gennaro Francis Vito, (2015),"What police leaders learned from 'Lincoln on Leadership'", Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 38 Iss 4 pp. -

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:123705 []
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 www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
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.

 1

Introduction

Policing researchers have demonstrated that boosting officers' commitment is an

effective means to deter diffused work stress (Jaramillo, Nixon, & Sams, 2005), turnover

intention (Koslowsky, 1991), and even misbehavior (Haarr, 1997). The focus of research to

date is on a limited range of individual officer characteristics as predictors of police

organizational commitment (e.g., Jones, Jones, & Prenzler, 2005; Metcalfe & Dick, 2002).

Only limited policing studies, however, include organizational correlates, such as

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

transformational leadership (Indrayanto, Burgess, Dayaram, & Noermijati, 2014; Pillai &

Williams, 2004; Swid, 2014) and limited aspects of organizational culture (Jaramillo et al.,

2005; Pillai & Williams, 2004), to describe officers' commitment to the organization.

Given the robust transformational leadership-commitment link found across other

fields of research (see prior meta-analyses, such as Jackson, Meyer, & Wang, 2013; Judge &

Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), we extend the literature on police

commitment by testing the mediating role of organizational culture as the link between

transformational leadership and organizational commitment. Extensive fields of research

present strong evidence supportive of the transformational leadership-organizational culture

link (e.g., Ayman & Korabik, 2010; Pieterse, van Knippenberg, Schippers, & Stam, 2010;

Shao, Feng, & Liu, 2012; Wei, Liu, Zhang, & Chiu, 2008), as well as organizational culture-

commitment link (e.g., Park & Kim, 2009; Xenikou & Simosi, 2006). To date, however, due

attention has not been paid to examining the effects of both organizational correlates (i.e.,

transformational leadership and organizational culture) on police commitment. Based on the

notion that police organizational culture is heterogeneous and changeable (Paoline, 2003), we

attempt to use the competing values framework (Quinn, 1988), as well as a multiple

mediation model (see Preacher & Hayes, 2008), to quantify organizational culture.

Employing a sample of 358 Korean police officers from whom data was acquired in 2007, a
 2

series of structural equation modeling (SEM) approaches are conducted to test the respective

four hypotheses.

Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses

Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment

Officers' commitment levels to the organization are directly connected to overall

organization competitiveness (e.g., Moon & Jonson, 2012). Those who are not committed to

the organization tend to generate widespread negative ramifications for the organization,
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

creating an atmosphere in which diffused work stress (Jaramillo et al., 2005), turnover

intention (Koslowsky, 1991), and even misbehavior among coworkers (Haarr, 1997) prospers.

As a multidimensional construct, there are three aspects of organizational commitment: (a)

affective commitment focusing on emotional attachment; (b) normative commitment

focusing on one's obligatory loyalty toward the organization; and (c) continuance

commitment focusing on one's view about the organization as a group sharing a common

destiny (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Meyer & Allen, 1991).

Although individual officer characteristics, such as age, sex, length of service, and

education level, have consistently appeared to have some effect on officers' levels of

organizational commitment (e.g., Jones et al., 2005; Metcalfe & Dick, 2002), it should be

noted that organizational correlates are more likely than individual characteristics to affect

their perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors (Marsden, Kalleberg, & Cook, 1993). Though

understudied, the effects of organizational correlates on officers' commitment have

consistently attracted researchers' attention (e.g., Haarr, 1997; Dick & Metcalfe, 2001). A

body of research on corrections also presents supporting evidence that commitment is better

predicted by organizational correlates than individual characteristics (e.g., Hogan, Lambert,

Jenkins, & Wambold, 2006). A general consensus among the studies above is that officers'

levels of commitment are significantly affected by their social relations with supervisors,
 3

supporting the importance of leadership or organizational atmosphere for police human

resource research.

Transformational leadership has been found to be one of the important organizational

determinants of commitment because transformational leaders basically "stir employees to

look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group" (Bass, 1990, p. 21). Its concept

encompasses five components: vision, inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation,

supportive leadership, and personal recognition (Bass & Avolio, 1995; Rafferty & Griffin,
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

2004). That is, exercising leverage on their subordinates, transformational leaders expect that

“the followers feel trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect toward the leader, and they are

motivated to do more than they originally expected to do” (Yukl, 1999, p. 286). In this respect,

within the three-component model of commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Meyer & Allen,

1991) noted earlier, transformational leadership is likely to positively impact in particular

affective ("employees' desire to remain with the organization") and normative commitment

("their sense of obligation to work toward the fulfillment of a meaningful vision") (Jackson et

al., 2013, p. 86).

Consistent with findings from other fields of research, research argues that

transformational leadership significantly predicts police commitment (Swid, 2014; see also

Pillai & Williams, 2004). Further, the strength of the transformational leadership-commitment

correlation is more robust than the effects of the other styles of leadership on commitment

(see Swid, 2014; Indrayanto et al., 2014). In this respect, the following hypothesis is

proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Officers' perceptions of transformational leadership positively relate to

their levels of organizational commitment.

Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture

Given "the dynamic interplay between leaders, followers, and the contextual
 4

elements" (Murphy, 2008, p. 166 ), the impact of transformational leadership on subordinates'

commitment to the organization needs to be tested with police organizational culture being

simultaneously considered. Since "transformational leadership is a vital component in

changing police cultures" (Foster, 2003, p. 220), transformational leaders play a role in

forming police culture by altering "the trajectory of a culture" (Martin & Siehl, 1983, p. 72).

This linkage requires further discussion because there may be another argument—

organizational culture may exist as a constant.

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

For a start, there is a need to elaborate on how organizational culture is distinct from

occupational culture (see Paoline, 2003; Terrill, Paoline, & Manning, 2003), which helps us

understand why organizational culture is likely to vary across leaders. The focus of

occupational culture is on viewing police culture as the collectiveness (i.e., shared

values/norms, and attitudes among occupational colleagues) of occupational phenomena

which have been formed in the process of handling external strains and challenges from

citizens on the street (Manning, 1995). In this regard, occupational culture is spontaneously

created by front-line officers (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984), as well as through a socialization

process over a long period of time (Van Maanen, 1974). Organizational culture, on the other

hand, limits its focus of interest on within-organization challenges usually from high-ranked

police administrators (Schein, 1992; see also Wilson, 1968). That is, employees'

psychological (i.e., cognitive, affective, and even behavioral) responses to organizational

strains can be manifested by organizational culture (Schein, 1992). Thus, even though leaders

minimally impact occupational culture, organizational culture may be easily affected by them.

It should be also noted that organizational culture is not homogenous, but

heterogeneous (Paoline, 2003). Paoline (2003) argues that there are three main

determinants—organization, rank, and officer style—of variation in police occupational

culture. On the basis of the nested nature of organizational culture in occupational culture, the
 5

changeable characteristic of organizational culture is a prerequisite to address the variation in

occupational culture. Given that departmental styles of policing (e.g., legalistic, watchman,

and service), as occupational cultures, vary across organizations, as well as that police

leaders' understandings of their jurisdictional environments play a crucial role in determining

their departmental styles (Wilson, 1968), the core source of organizational culture variation

can be also found in leaders' differential understandings of their organizational settings.

Here, organizational culture cannot be fully defined by a monolithic belief/norm (see

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Paoline, 2003). Rather, it is reasonable to assume that organizational culture is constructed as

a quantitative value reflecting differential levels of internal or external organizational

concerns (Paoline, 2003; Schein, 1992). That is, organizational culture is a means to handle

both internally- and externally-oriented concerns (both internal and external foci). Such

concerns, on the other hand, can be expressed in either leader-driven (top-down) or follower-

driven (bottom-up) way. Although the leader-driven formation process of police culture is

relatively well addressed in extant policing literature (e.g., Schein, 1992; Wilson, 1968),

dynamic processes of culture formation can be understood in the context of Reuss-Iannni's

(1983) 'two cultures of policing.' She posits that the rank polarization between street cops and

management cops brings about two differential cultures. The street cop culture reflects low-

ranked officers' group cohesiveness and their unique experience-based practices on the streets,

whereas the management cop culture is internalized through a system-based, cost efficient

process. Accordingly, the street cop culture is likely to be flexible (flexibility focus), and, in

contrast, the management cop culture tends to be based on a formal control system (control

focus).

Quinn's (1988) competing values model (see also Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1981; Quinn

& Spreitzer, 1991) can be employed to quantitatively delineate the multifaceted nature of

police organizational culture discussed above, as well as the interlocking relations among its
 6

differential foci. Since the competing values framework posits that what employees concern

and emphasize forms organizational culture (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991), it is reasonable to

view police organizational culture as a composite of differential, competing values. Paoline

(2003, p. 211) also presents the idea that police cultural heterogeneity is "more about the

possibility of multiple cultures as opposed to no culture at all." On the basis of a two-by-two

(comprehensive of externality-internality and flexibility-control categories) matrix, four types

of organizational cultures (group, developmental, rational, hierarchical) are conceptualized

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

within the competing values framework.

In more detail, the group culture assumes that employees put stress on two aspects of

organizational values, flexibility and internal foci (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991). Thus, the main

concerns include participation, attachment and cohesiveness; since the developmental culture

focuses on two organizational values of flexibility and externality, both creativity and growth

are emphasized among employees; the rational culture emphasizes both organizational values

of stability and externality. Accordingly, productive and efficient process of goal achievement

which is planned ahead is important under the rational culture; while the hierarchical culture

highlights the two values of stability and internality. Thus, employees concern the value of

systematic control based on robust rules and order (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991).

The leadership-culture link has been supported by both private- (e.g., Avolio & Bass,

1988; Meyer et al., 2012) and public-sector research (e.g., Ayman & Korabik, 2010; Ergeneli,

Gohar, & Temirbekova, 2007; Pieterse et al., 2010). Further, a growing body of management

research (e.g., Park & Kim, 2009; Shao et al., 2012; Wei et al., 2008) attempts to directly use

the four types of organizational orientations to explain organizational performance. To date,

however, the competing values framework has attracted virtually no attention from policing

researchers. Focusing on a group cultural value (group cohesiveness), limited studies suggest

that transformational leadership affects group cohesiveness within a sample of fire fighters
 7

(Pillai & Williams, 2004). Nonetheless, the belief that transformational leaders can change

organizational culture has at least started to spread to the policing literature (see Cockcroft,

2014). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: Officers' perceptions of transformational leadership positively affect

their perceptions of four respective competing values of organizational cultures (group,

developmental, rational, hierarchical).

Organizational Culture and Organizational Commitment

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Organizational culture plays a role in addressing variation in followers' levels of

satisfaction at work and motivation to exert extra effort (Quinn & Kimberly, 1984; Parry &

Sinha, 2005). The competing values framework was originally designed to explain variation

in organizational effectiveness (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1981). Specifically, the organization-

level tension between both competing needs/concerns of transformation and equilibrium is

captured by the four types of organizational culture (Denison & Spreitzer, 1991), and, in turn,

the mixture of differential competing values, not the strength/congruence of a specific

organizational culture, predicts organizational effectiveness (Cameron & Freeman, 1982).

That is, group members' perceptions of organizational culture are expected to affect their

organizational commitment, as one of the subjective measures of organizational effectiveness.

Given that police officers differ in responses to strains across their perceptions of

organizational culture (Brown, 1988), to be aware of such perceptions can be a core means to

account for their attitudinal commitment. Since the organizational values/concerns of interest

vary across agencies, divisions, and workgroups, officers' levels of commitment are

changeable depending on where they reside, as well as their perception of organizational

culture (see Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991). As Paoline (2003) notes, moreover, the unique nature

of police culture tends to keep officers loyal to the organization (group loyalty), as well as

isolated from external society (social isolation). Coping with occupational environments
 8

filled with danger and uncertainty, group loyalty derives from a long-term socialization

processes within an organizational setting (Paoline, 2003; see also Terrill et al., 2003).

Considering that organizational commitment is in line with affective bonding among officers

(Allen & Meyer, 1996; Meyer et al., 2002), group loyalty is by nature connected to

organizational commitment.

The culture-commitment link is supported by extant policing literature (Jaramillo et

al., 2005; see also Pillai & Williams, 2004), as well as management literature (e.g., Park &
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Kim, 2009; Shao et al., 2012; Xenikou & Simosi, 2006). However, instead of examining the

competing values framework (Quinn, 1988; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991) as a whole, policing

researchers have focused on using a group cultural value (i.e., group cohesiveness) to predict

organizational commitment. For instance, Jaramillo and colleagues (2005) indicate that group

cohesiveness directly influences organizational commitment. Further, based on the belief that

police culture is heterogeneous (Paoline, 2003), as well as predisposed to be affected by

leaders (Schein, 1992; Wilson, 1968), its mediating role can be supported in the relation

between transformational leadership and organizational commitment. For example, Pillai and

Williams (2004) reveal that group cohesiveness partially (not fully) and positively mediates

the impact of transformational leadership on fire fighters' commitment levels. Thus, the

extant literature proposes the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: Officers' perceptions of four respective competing values of

organizational cultures (group, developmental, rational, hierarchical) positively

influence their levels of organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 4: Officers' perceptions of four respective competing values of

organizational cultures (group, developmental, rational, hierarchical) mediate the

relationship between their perceptions of transformational leadership and

organizational commitment.
 9

In sum, the literature review above leads to the following analytic model as an

attempt to explore the mediating role of organizational culture in the transformational

leadership-commitment link (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 about here

Context of the South Korean Police

Literature on leadership and commitment supports cultural variance. Overall South

Korean culture is regarded as collectivist emphasizing group attachment (Cheung & Kwok,
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

1998). It may be that police officers in South Korea are hesitant to exercise individuality

(Taylor et al., 2004) because, presumably, they give priority to organizational interests over

their personal emotions and gains. This culture-specific situation is in line with the notion

that, under the leverage of transformational leaders, an employee's self-interest can be

sacrificed in an effort to maximize the effectiveness of the organization (Yukl, 1999), which

is also a shared value in collectivist cultures (e.g., Triandis, 1995). In this respect, it is

reasonable to expect a stronger transformational leadership-commitment linkage in South

Korea, as a collectivistic culture, compared to that in other individualistic cultures (see

Jackson et al., 2013). Many publications support the expectation that transformational

leadership better fits collectivistic cultures than individualistic cultures (e.g., Pillai & Meindl,

1998; Walumbwa, Lawler, & Avolio, 2007; see also Jackson et al., 2013 as a meta-analysis).

Walumbwa and colleagues (2007), for instance, suggest that employees in collectivistic

countries (China, India, and Kenya) show a stronger association between transformational

leadership and commitment than those in the U.S.

On the other hand, it should be also noted that, since the late 1990s, the South

Korean police, along with the other public-sector organizations, introduced a performance-

based reward system, as well as an officer ranking system (Campbell & Im, 2015).

Experiencing the economic crisis (so called 'the IMF crisis') in 1997, the South Korean
 10

government attempted to implement numerous efforts to overcome "the economic difficulties

and negative sentiments of the people toward the government" (Park & Joo, 2010, p. 190).

Specifically, to reward an officer's excellence in performance (e.g., arresting a serious

offender and developing a cost efficient policy), as well as to punish their misconduct,

various merit-based systems, such as a special promotion system and a differential rate

system of piecework, have been implemented. Along with paramilitary characteristics

highlighting group cohesiveness (Van Maanen, 1974), it seems to be enough for the
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

competing values framework comprehensive of the two-by-two matrix (i.e., externality-

internality and flexibility-control categories) to reflect the holistic picture of the

organizational culture of the National South Korean police.

The Present Study

Data

The sample of South Korean police officers is from 'Survey on Improving Criminal

Investigations' collected by the Korean Data Archive (KSSDA, A1-2007-2008) in 2007 (Sin,

2007). The Korean Institute of Criminology, a reputable research organization in South Korea,

administered this survey to 358 Korean police officers attending multiple training programs.

Although random assignment was impossible, complete anonymity was guaranteed by using

no identifier in the questionnaire (Sin, 2007). In terms of demographic characteristics of the

respondents, the analysis sample includes about 5.3 percent female officers; 67 percent with

2-year-college- or higher-level of educational attainment; and 76 percent low-rank (sergeant

or lower) officers. Added to this, the average age and length of service of respondents are

about 39 years old and 13 years respectively (see Appendix I). These individual

characteristics are comparable to the whole population of the South Korean police which is a

centralized national force (see Shim, Jo, & Hoover, 2015). Since there are no variables with

more than 2 percent of missing values, the use of 'full information maximum likelihood'
 11

(FIML) is considered. FIML allows the current study to avoid data loss without any data

manipulation.

Measures

Organizational commitment. Four five-point Likert items (Cronbach's α = .830), such as

"I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization," are drawn from part of Allen and

Meyer's (1990, 1996) affective commitment scale items. Distinct from continuance

commitment, affective commitment, along with normative commitment, appear to be

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

positively influenced by transformational leadership (Jackson et al., 2013; see also e.g.,

Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). All four items, explained by the latent construct of organizational

commitment, are normally distributed (West, Finch, & Curran, 1996), and the results of

principal component analysis (PCA) show that the four items are well loaded on the single

component of officers' organizational commitment.

Transformational leadership. Part of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire developed

by Bass and Avolio (1995) is employed to quantify the construct of transformational

leadership (see also Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). Among the five sub-dimensions of

transformational leadership presented by them (i.e., vision, inspirational communication,

intellectual stimulation, supportive leadership, and personal recognition), the questionnaire

includes four, lacking the sub-dimension of personal recognition. Five five-point Likert items

are used to measure the four elements (Cronbach's α = .908). For example, police respondents

are asked to indicate how strongly they agree with statement, such as "The leader provides

the vision of the future of organization." All five items satisfy normality (West et al., 1996),

as well as are loaded on a single component (PCA results).

Organizational culture. The number of factors extracted from principal axis factoring with

oblique rotation is four, indicating that Quinn's (1988) competing values model is captured

well in our sample. Respondents were asked to rate their levels of agreement with respective
 12

items (five-point Likert), such as " The value of mutual trust is emphasized within the

organization" (group culture), " Commitment to development is emphasized within the

organization" (developmental culture), " It is more important to follow regulations and guard

against errors rather than to find new ways" (hierarchical culture), and " The organization is

very performance-oriented" (rational culture). Four sets of items are used to measure group (6

items; Cronbach's α = .866), developmental (6 items; Cronbach's α = .918), hierarchical (4

items; Cronbach's α = .812), and rational cultures (4 items; Cronbach's α = .853) respectively.
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

No normality issue is found in the respective items above.

Control variables. Our analyses also uses a total of seven control variables, including

sex (male = 1; female = 0), age (metric), length of service (metric), rank (1 = low-ranked,

below lieutenant; 0 = high-ranked, lieutenant and superintendent), education level (1 = high

school; 0 = college, university, and graduate), duty type (1 = outside-duty; 0 = inside-duty),

large department (=1, 0 = small department), and medium department (=1, 0 = small

department). Added to this, to avoid multicollinearity, both normally distributed variables of

age and length of service are grandmean-centered while analyzing all related-models.

As noted above, two more types of controls (i.e., duty type and departmental size) are

used, along with individual officer characteristics. First, duty type is included because

different groups of officers are likely to have different norms/values, and attitudes due to the

different natures of respective police practices (Haarr, 1997; Ingram, Paoline, & Terrill, 2013;

Reuss-Ianni, 1983). Several recent studies show that the presence of officers' bifurcated duty

types (inside-duty versus outside-duty) explain variation in officers' attitudes toward record-

discretion (Shim et al., 2015), as well as corruption (Lee, Lim, Moore, & Kim, 2011). Second,

departmental size also needs to be considered. Departmental size is associated with both

population and crime rates of communities to reflect jurisdictional concerns and needs. The

relation between departmental size and officers' attitudes has been well supported by previous
 13

studies (e.g., Brooks & Piquero, 1998).

Results

Analytic Strategy

To test four respective hypotheses, a series of structural equation modeling (SEM)

approaches are used in Mplus 6.12 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2011). To use SEM enables us

to consider the complicated structural associations among multiple latent factors, with

respective measurement errors in observed items being controlled (Schumacker & Lomax,
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

2010). First, a measurement model, including six latent constructs (i.e., transformational

leadership, group, developmental, hierarchical, and rational cultures, and organizational

commitment), is examined before testing structural models (Schumacker & Lomax, 2010).

Second, a baseline model is estimated, without any structural linkages between constructs of

transformational leadership and four types of organizational cultures being considered. Here,

to focus on the relationships among the latent constructs, the effects of multiple observed

control variables are simultaneously controlled with respect to respective latent constructs.

Finally, a comparison structural model is estimated to consider the mediating roles of all four

organizational orientations in the transformational leadership-commitment link. That is, this

parallel four mediator model (or multiple mediation model) is comprehensive of one

exogenous variable (transformational leadership), four endogenous mediating variables (four

types of organizational orientations), and the other endogenous variable (organizational

commitment). Although both baseline and comparison models are non-nested, the two

models can be compared by using respective values of BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion)

because both models use the same estimator (Maximum Likelihood; ML) and set of variables

(Raftery, 1995).

Regarding the multiple mediation model, to use bias-corrected (BC) bootstrapping

methods providing 95% confidence intervals (CIs) is appropriate to ease the concern that it is
 14

questionable to assume the standard normal distribution of specific indirect effects (Preacher

& Hayes, 2008). Bootstrapping with BC has been known to "have higher power while

maintaining reasonable control over the Type I error rate," compared to other traditional

parametric methods to test mediation (Preacher & Hayes, 2008, p. 880). Given the small or

moderate sample size of the current study (n = 358), moreover, the nonparametric resampling

method (i.e., bootstrapping) is quite desirable (Briggs, 2006).

Measurement Model
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

A total of six latent constructs (i.e., transformational leadership, four types of

organizational cultures, and organizational commitment) are included in the measurement

model (confirmatory factory analysis), showing acceptable model fit indices: root-mean-

square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .051, comparative fit index (CFI) = .945, Tucker-

Lewis index (TLI) = .937, and standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) = .058

(Schumacker & Lomax, 2010). Though not reported, the measurement model has robust

levels of factor loadings and squared multiple correlation coefficients (ܴ ଶ ). Specifically, the

values of standardized factor coefficients range .624 to .916, and those of ܴ ଶ range .403

to .839 across all items of latent constructs included.

Table 1 shows the values of bivariate correlations between two latent constructs.

Given that all correlation values are below .80, no collinearity issue is found (Byrne, 2012).

Overall, except for hierarchical culture, most constructs are correlated with each other.

Specifically, transformational leadership appears to be strongly (or moderately) correlated

with two types of cultures (group and developmental cultures) and organizational

commitment (r = .506***; r = .541***; r = .328*** respectively), whereas weak or no

correlations are indicated with respect to rational (r = .157**) and hierarchical cultures (r = -

.114). A similar pattern of correlation for organizational commitment is found; organizational

commitment is well-connected with the rest of latent constructs excluding hierarchical and
 15

rational cultures (see Table 1).

Table 1 about here

Structural Model

Before testing respective hypotheses associated with a multiple mediation model

(comparison model), there is a need to estimate a baseline model in which no mediation

relation between latent constructs is constrained. Further discussion is meaningful on the

basis of the belief that the multiple mediation model is a better fit to the data than the baseline
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

model. As reported in Table 2, overall the comparison model shows better model fit indices

than the baseline model. For instance, although "SRMR is clearly sensitive to different sorts

of misspecification than the other GOF [goodness-of-fit] indexes" (Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004,

p. 337), the SRMR (= .106) of the baseline model does not reach an acceptable level (see e.g.,

SRMR ≤ .08; Hu & Bentler, 1999), in contrast to that (= .050) of the comparison model. Also

more variance in the endogenous variable (i.e., organizational commitment) is explained

within the comparison model than the baseline model (.306 versus .270). The value of ∆BIC

(= 84.431) between the two models is the other evidence indicating that the comparison

model is better than the baseline model with higher value of BIC (see Raftery, 1995). All this

evidence allow us to finally select the comparison model (multiple mediation model),

compared to the baseline model.

Table 2 about here

Testing hypothesis 1: Leadership-commitment link. Table 3 shows the results of the

multiple mediation model which is finally selected. It should be noted that p-value is not

presented because bootstrapping used in this model does not assume the normality of the

sampling distribution of interest. Given that this study aims to test multiple mediational

pathways (indirect effects) which cannot be assumed to be normally distributed particularly

in small samples, to interpret p-value is not meaningful. Hypothesis 1 is about whether

 16

transformational leadership positively affects organizational commitment. Interestingly,

although the two constructs are moderately or strongly correlated—also, though not reported,

the results of the baseline model supports the association of transformational leadership with

organizational commitment (see Table 2)—with each other (see Table 1), the impact of

transformational leadership on organizational commitment fails to reach statistical

significance in this model, with a BC 95% CI of -.032 to .252. That is, after considering the

mediational structure with four types of organizational cultures being worked as parallel
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

mediators, the direct effect of transformational leadership on organizational commitment

becomes nullified. Thus, the first hypothesis is not supported in the multiple mediation model.

Table 3 about here

Testing hypothesis 2: Leadership-culture link. Transformational leadership appears to

influence three out of four types of organizational cultures. Specifically, the effects of

transformational leadership on group, developmental, and rational cultures are significantly

different from zero, with BC 95% CIs of .262 to .445, .370 to .627, and .048 to .320

respectively (see Table 3). In more detail, officers who perceive their managers as

transformational leaders are likely to regard their organizational cultures as group,

developmental, and rational cultures. Also the impact of transformational leadership is

strongly manifested on developmental culture, compared to group and rational cultures (BC

95% CIs of .370 to .627 versus .262 to .445 and .048 to .320). On the other hand, no

significant association is found between transformational leadership and hierarchical culture.

Thus, the second hypothesis is supported with respect to three types of organizational

orientations excluding hierarchical culture. Here, two pairs of organizational culture

constructs—group and developmental cultures, and hierarchical and rational cultures—are

found to be significantly correlated.

Testing hypothesis 3: Culture-commitment link. As indicated in Table 3, only group culture

 17

is found to positively affect organizational commitment, with a BC 95% CI of .336 to .978.

That is, when police officers perceive that they belong in group culture, they are likely to

commit to the organization. Meanwhile, the other three types of organizational orientations

(developmental, hierarchical, and rational cultures) fail to influence officers' levels of

commitment. Accordingly, the third hypothesis is supported only in the relation between

group culture and organizational commitment.

Testing hypothesis 4: Mediating role of culture in the leadership-commitment link.

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

The specific indirect effect of group culture in the transformational leadership-

commitment link is significantly different from zero (a 95% CI of .118 to .367), whereas the

other specific indirect effects through developmental, hierarchical, and rational cultures are

all found to be insignificant (see Table 3). Given the insignificant direct effect of

transformational leadership on organizational commitment (a 95% CI of -.032 to .252), it is

found that the transformational leadership-commitment link is fully mediated by group

culture. That is, officers who perceive their leaders as transformational are likely to consider

their organizations as closely related to group, developmental, and rational cultures, and, in

turn, only those who believe that they belong in group culture tend to commit to the

organization.

Focusing on the effects of multiple control variables on respective latent constructs,

only two variables of rank (1 = low-ranked; 0 = high-ranked) and duty type (1 = outside-duty;

0 = inside-duty) appear to impact rational culture. That is, low-ranked officers are more likely

than high-ranked officers to believe that they belong in rational culture. Also those who work

outside are more likely than those working inside to consider the organization as related to

rational culture.

Discussion and Conclusions

Given the importance of maintaining high levels of officers' commitment to the

 18

organization (e.g., Haarr, 1997; Jaramillo et al., 2005), the current study examined whether

variation in commitment can be explained by organizational correlates (i.e., transformational

leadership and organizational culture) of importance. To date, virtually no attention has been

paid to the relations among transformational leadership, organizational culture, and police

commitment to the organization. We tested a multiple mediation model in which four types of

organizational orientations (i.e., group, developmental, hierarchical, rational) work as parallel

mediators in the linkage between transformational leadership and commitment. This analytic
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

design builds on previous findings that organizational culture works as an outcome of

transformational leadership (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 1988; Ayman & Korabik, 2010; Cockcroft,

2014; Ergeneli et al., 2007; Pieterse et al., 2010; Pillai & Williams, 2004), as well as a cause

of organizational commitment (e.g., Jaramillo et al., 2005; Park & Kim, 2009; Pillai &

Williams, 2004; Shao et al., 2012; Xenikou & Simosi, 2006). Also it has been consistently

indicated that transformational leadership directly affects commitment (e.g., Indrayanto et al.,

2014; Jackson et al., 2013; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996; Pillai & Williams, 2004;

Swid, 2014).

Overall the parallel four mediator model (see Table 3) indicates that the link between

transformational leadership and organizational commitment was fully mediated by group

culture (Hypothesis 4). More specifically, officers' perceptions of transformational leaders

were linked to the presence of group, developmental, and rational cultures (Hypothesis 2),

and, in turn, respondents showed positive attitudes toward organizational commitment only

when they considered the organization in connection with group culture (Hypothesis 3).

Despite the fact that a moderate bivariate correlation (r = .328) was found between

transformational leadership and organizational commitment (see Table 1 and the baseline

model in Table 2), no direct pathway linking transformational leadership to commitment was

found in this study (Hypothesis 1).

 19

The findings raise several issues that require further discussion. First, the full

mediation pathway linking transformational leadership to commitment with group culture is

not perfectly consistent with limited previous research. For instance, Pillai and Williams

(2004) found a direct effect of transformational leadership on fire fighters' commitment,

along with the indirect effect of transformational leadership on commitment through group

cohesiveness (i.e., partial mediation). Presumably, their finding might stem from the

possibility that the use of a single group cultural value (i.e., group cohesiveness) does not
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

fully delineate the heterogeneous nature of organizational culture (see Paoline, 2003). Rather,

police officers' commitment can be understood in the context that a variety of

values/concerns of the organization—raised while coping with numerous and uncertain

everyday events—are internalized as a mixture of differential competing values (Cameron &

Freeman, 1982). A recent management study (Shao et al., 2012) also provided supporting

evidence that transformational leadership influenced the success of a management process

system fully through the four organizational cultures, as multiple mediators.

Second, although transformational leadership appeared to be best connected with

developmental culture, followed by group and rational cultures, only officers' perceptions of

group culture further influenced their attitudinal commitment to the organization (see Table 3).

This is in line with repeated previous findings that the transformational leadership-

commitment link is better manifested for employees in collectivistic cultures than those in

individualistic cultures (e.g., Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Walumbwa et al., 2007). As noted earlier,

although the South Korean police have implemented various merit-based systems

emphasizing competition (i.e., flexibility focus in the competing values framework)

(Campbell & Im, 2015; Park & Joo, 2010), the paramilitary characteristics—highlighting the

value/norms of loyalty and group cohesiveness (i.e., stability focus)—of the police (Van

Maanen, 1974) were better supported in the context of the South Korean police. Park and Joo
 20

(2010) also suggested that previous governmental efforts for management-based reforms in

the Korean public sector could be seriously constrained by cultural-specificity.

The inclusion of both transformational leadership and differential organizational

cultures (as organizational correlates) seemed to nullify the effects of individual officer

characteristics on commitment. To focus on the relations among respective unexplained

variance in all latent constructs, this study controlled for multiple individual characteristics

(i.e., age, sex, education level, rank, and length of service) which have been frequently found
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

to be significant in the research on police commitment (e.g., Jones et al., 2005; Metcalfe &

Dick, 2002). Among multiple others, however, only one pathway linking rank to rational

culture appeared to be significant (see Table 3). This pattern of results hints that both

transformational leadership and differential types of organizational orientations have greater

influences on commitment, compared to individual officer characteristics. Several researchers

in the field of law enforcement also provide evidence supportive of the strong effects of either

(both) transformational leadership or (and) organizational culture on commitment, in

comparison to those of individual characteristics (Jaramillo et al., 2005; Pillai & Williams,

2004; Swid, 2014).

To consider both between-workgroup and -agency variance in respective constructs,

both duty type and departmental size were also controlled. Even within a single agency,

officers can belong in various sub-dimensional cultures depending on respective, unique

characteristics of their workgroups (Ingram et al., 2013; Reuss-Ianni, 1983). In addition,

given previous findings supportive of the impact of departmental size on officers' attitudes

(Brooks & Piquero, 1998), three types of departmental sizes were additionally controlled.

Findings, however, suggest that duty type was significantly related to only rational culture,

and that departmental size had no influence on all constructs used. The positive association of

duty type (reference group = outside-duty) with rational culture is reasonable because rational
 21

culture highlighting the value of externality (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991) is basically in line

with outside-duty officers' work environments of interest. With respect to the lack of impact

of departmental size, the South Korean police context can provide a possible explanation.

Due to the centralized nature of Korean policing, the organizational structures and

administrative guidelines/rules of all local-level police agencies are virtually the same. This

culture-specificity might prevent the effects of departmental size on respective constructs

from reaching statistical significance.

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Our findings lead to an important practical implication. As Jackson and colleagues'

(2013) meta-analytic test points out, a general consensus among existing publications is that,

regardless of culture-specificity, an officer's level of commitment, affective commitment in

particular, is influenced by his/her transformational leader. Drawing on the competing values

framework (Quinn, 1988), however, the current study found that the relation between

transformational leadership and commitment was fully mediated by group culture. This

detailed finding implies that simply providing leadership training cannot be an effective

means to increase officers' levels of commitment. Instead, given that group culture highlights

the values of attachment, cohesiveness, and membership, both policy-makers and

practitioners responsible for police human resource management need to develop more

nuanced leadership training programs optimized for fostering 'considerate and supportive

leaders' who are regarded to easily influence group culture (Denison & Spreitzer, 1991). On

the basis of understanding of the mediational role of organizational culture in the

transformational leadership-commitment link, police performance can be ultimately enhanced.

Future research needs to add some important considerations to the extant policing

research. One need is to guarantee causal ordering among constructs, through the use of a

longitudinal research design. Since one of the starting points of this study is Paoline's (2003)

argument that, along with occupational culture, police organizational culture is changeable
 22

and heterogeneous, it is important to examine whether or not such leadership-culture

dynamics can be found from a developmental perspective.

Another is to note that there are validity concerns over the uni-dimensional construct

of transformational leadership (e.g., van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013; Rafferty & Griffin,

2004). According to van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013), although researchers have paid

attention to Bass and Avolio's (1995) MLQ instrument, the current absence of conclusive,

theoretical grounds on its conceptualization and operationalization can also bring about the
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

possibility to gainsay a whole array of prior findings acquired from the MLQ. Specifically,

the multiple dimensions—charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration—

of transformational leadership might influence other constructs, such as mediators and

outcome variables, in a variety of patterns (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Although, to

date, no alternative has gained solid support in place of the MLQ, acknowledging limitations

indigenous to the measurement of transformational leadership is worthy of future research on

various employee outcomes of importance.

It is also important to consider whether there exists another mediational or

moderation layer either between leadership and culture or between culture and commitment.

For instance, Gillet and Vandenberghe (2014) indicate that the construct of job characteristics

works as a mediator between transformational leadership and organizational commitment

(see also van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Since the construct of job characteristics,

comprehensive of feedback from job, decision-making autonomy, and task variety, can vary

across organizational cultures (see Paoline, 2003), there may be some room for the same lines

of constructs to be introduced within the relations among leadership, culture, and

commitment.

In a similar vein, due attention needs to be paid to the applicability of leader-member

exchange (LMX) theory (e.g., Lord & Brown, 2004) to criminal justice systems. Given that
 23

the variability in police occupational culture is affected by rank, along with organization and

officer style (Paoline, 2003), it is reasonable to assume the presence of reciprocal reactions

between leaders and followers. Although this study could not consider the dynamic aspect

due to data constraints, to fully understand the impact of leadership over the followers,

adopting either a leader-centered approach or a follower-centered approach is not enough

(Lord & Brown, 2004). Further, LMX patterns can also vary depending on which level (e.g.,

individual, team, and organizational) is related to the unit of analysis (Henderson, Liden,
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Glibkowski, & Chaudhry, 2009).

Leader-member exchange is particularly relevant in "cut back" political

environments. Transformational leadership assumes reasonable resources, as well as at least a

modicum of receptivity to change. Rhetoric calling for doing more with less seldom inspires

rank-and-file organizational members to do so. Indeed, development or growth of

impediments to meaningful hierarchical communication is almost a certainty. Protection of

the status quo is the predominant concern of followers at virtually every organizational level

when cut backs are even threatened. Transformational leadership in such environments is

unlikely to succeed. By replicating the findings of the current study with cross-cultural

samples of police officers, generalizability can be acquired.

 24

References

Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the

organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49,

252-276.

Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance

and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology,

63, 1-18.
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J.G.

Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.) , Emerging leadership

vitas (pp. 29-49). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American

Psychologist, 65, 157-170.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the

vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1995). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research.

Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Briggs, N. E. (2006). Estimation of the standard error and confidence interval of the indirect

effect in multiple mediator models (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=estimation+of+the+standard+error+and

+confidence+interval+of+the+indirect+effect+in+multiple+mediator+models&btnG=

&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=

Brooks, L. W., & Piquero, N. L. (1998). Police stress: Does department size matter? Policing:

An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 21, 600-617.

Brown, M. K. (1988). Working the street: Police discretion and the dilemmas of reform (2nd
 25

ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Byrne, B.M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with mplus: Basic concepts, applications,

and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cameron, K.S., & Freeman, S.J. (1991). Cultural congruence, strength, and type:

Relationships to effectiveness. Research in Organizational Change and Development,

5, 23-58.

Campbell, J. W., & Im, T. (2015). PSM and turnover intention in public organizations: Does
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior play a role? Review of Public

Personnel Administration. Advance online publication. doi:

10.1177/073437X14567366.

Cheung, C., & Kwok, S. (1998). Social studies and ideological beliefs in mainland China and

Hong Kong. Social Psychology of Education, 2, 217-236.

Cockcroft, T. (2014). Police culture and transformational leadership: Outlining the contours

of a troubled relationship. Policing. Advance online publication. doi:

10.1093/police/pat040.

Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational

development: A competing values approach. Research in Organizational Change and

Development, 5, 1-21.

Dick, G., & Metcalfe, B. (2001). Managerial factors and organisational commitment. The

International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14, 111-128.

Ergeneli, A., Gohar, R., & Temirbekova, Z. (2007). Transformational leadership: Its

relationship to culture value dimensions. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 31, 703-724.

Foster, J. (2003). Police cultures. In Newburn, T. (Ed.), Handbook of policing (pp. 196-227).

Cullompton: Willan.
 26

Gillet, N., & Vandenberghe, C. (2014). Transformational leadership and organizational

commitment: The mediating role of job characteristics. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 25, 321-347.

Harr, R.N. (1997). 'They're making a bad name for the department': Exploring the link

between organizational commitment and police occupational deviance in a police

patrol bureau. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,

20, 786-812.
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX

differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes.

The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 517-534.

Hogan, N.L., Lambert, E.G., Jenkins, M., & Wambold, S. (2006). The impact of occupational

stressors on correctional staff organizational commitment: A preliminary study.

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22, 44-62.

Indrayanto, A., Burgess, J., Dayaram, K., & Noermijati (2014). A case study of

transformational leadership and para-police performance in Indonesia. Policing: An

International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 37, 373-388.

Ingram, J.R., Paoline III, E.A., & Terrill, W. (2013). A multilevel framework for

understanding police culture: The role of the workgroup. Criminology, 51, 365-397.

Jackson, T. A., Meyer, J. P., & Wang, X. -H. (2013). Leadership, commitment, and culture: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20, 84-106.

Jaramillo, F., Nixon, R., & Sams, D. (2005). The effect of law enforcement stress on

organizational commitment. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &

Management, 28, 321-336.

Jones, D., Jones, L., & Prenzler, T. (2005). Tertiary education, commitment, and turnover in

police work. Police Research and Practice, 6, 49-63.

 27

Judge, T.A., & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-

analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.

van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-

transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of

Management Annals, 7, 1-60.

Koslowsky, M. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of job satisfaction, commitment, and intention

to leave. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 40, 405-415.

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Lee, H., Lim, H., Moore, D. D., & Kim, J. (2011). How police organizational structure

correlates with frontline officers’ attitudes toward corruption: A multilevel model.

Police Practice and Research: An International Journal. Advance online publication.

doi:10.1080/15614263.2011.635483.

Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower identity. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lowe, K.B., & Kroeck, K.G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ

literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.

Manning, P. K. (1995). The police occupational culture in Anglo-American societies. In W.

Bailey (Ed.), The encyclopedia of police science (pp. 472-475). New York, NY:

Garland Publishing.

Marsden, P.V., Kalleberg, A.L., & Cook, C.R. (1993). Gender differences in organizational

commitment: Influences of work positions and family roles. Work and Occupations,

20, 368-390.

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. -T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on

hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in

overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A

 28

Multidisciplinary Journal, 11, 320-341.

Martin, J., & Siehl, C. (1983). Organizational culture and counterculture: Co uneasy

symbiosis. Organization Dynamics, 3, 52-64.

Metcalfe, B., & Dick, G. (2002). Is the force still with her? Gender and commitment in the

police. Women in Management Review, 17, 392-403.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of commitment.

Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Jackson, T. A., McInnis, K. J., Maltin, E. R., & Sheppard, L.

(2012). Affective, normative, and continuance commitment levels across cultures: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 225-245.

Moon, M. M., & Jonson, C. L. (2012). The influence of occupational strain on organizational

commitment among police: A general strain theory approach. Journal of Criminal

Justice, 40, 249-258.

Murphy, S.A. (2008). The role of emotions and transformational leadership on police culture:

An autoethnographic account. International Journal of Police Science & Management,

10, 165-178.

Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2011). Mplus User’s Guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles,

CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Paoline III, E.A. (2003). Taking stock: Toward a richer understanding of police culture.

Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 199-214.

Park, C. -O., & Joo, J. (2010). Control over the Korean bureaucracy: A review of the NPM

Civil Service Reforms under the Roh Moo-Hyun government. Review of Public

Personnel Administration, 30, 189-210.

Park, J. S., & Kim, T. H. (2009). Do types of organizational culture matter in nurse job

satisfaction and turnover intention? Leadership in Health Services, 22, 20-38.

 29

Parry, K. W., & Sinha, P. N. (2005). Researching the trainability of transformational

organizational leadership. Human Resource Development International, 8, 165-183.

Pieterse, A.N., Knippenberg, D.V., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and

transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of

psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 609-623.

Pillai, R., & Meindl, J.R. (1998). Context and charisma: A 'meso' level examination of the

relationship of organic structure, collectivism and crisis to charismatic leadership.

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Journal of Management, 24, 643-671.

Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group

cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 17, 144-159.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing

and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research

Methods, 40, 879-891.

Quinn, R.E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing

demands of high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Quinn, R.E., & Kimberly, J. (1984). Managing organizational transitions. Homewood, IL:

Dow Jones-Irwin.

Quinn, R.E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational

effectiveness. Public Productivity Review, 5, 122-140.

Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). The psychometrics of competing values culture

instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. In

R. W. Pasmore & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and

Development (pp. 115-142). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership:

 30

Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329-354.

Rafferty, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology,

25, 111-163.

Reuss-Ianni, E. (1983). Two cultures of policing. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Josey Bass

Publishers.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner's guide to structural equation

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

modeling. New York, NY: Routledge.

Shao, Z., Feng, Y., & Liu, L. (2012). The mediating effect of organizational culture and

knowledge sharing on transformational leadership and enterprise resource planning

systems success: An empirical study in China. Computers in Human Behavior, 28,

2400-2413.

Shim, H. S., Jo, Y., & Hoover, L. T. (2015). Police record-discretion as misconduct in South

Korea. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice. Advance online publication.

doi: 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2015.01.004.

Sin, Y. G. (2007). Survey of police officers’ perception on crime investigation. Seoul, South

Korea: Korean Institute of Criminology, provided by Korean Social Science Data

Archive (2008), (A1-2007-0008).

Swid, A. (2014). Police members perception of their leaders' leadership style and its

implications. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,

37, 579-595.

Taylor, S. E., Sherman, D. K., Kim, H. S., Jarcho, J., Takagi, K., & Dunagan, M. S. (2004).

Culture and social support: Who seeks it and why? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 87, 354-362.

Terrill, W., Paoline III, E.A., & Manning, P.K. (2003). Police culture and coercion.
 31

Criminology, 41, 1003-1034.

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Van Maanen, J. (1974). Working the street: A developmental view of police behavior. In H.

Jacob (Ed.), The potential for reform of criminal justice (pp. 83-130). Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage.

Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in

organizations. In B. M. Staw & C.C. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 287-365). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Leadership, individual differences,

and work-related attitudes: A cross-culture investigation. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 56, 212-230.

Wei, L. -Q., Liu, J., Zhang, Y., & Chiu, R. K. (2008). The role of corporate culture in the

process of strategic human resource management: Evidence from Chinese enterprises.

Human Resource Management, 47, 777-794.

West, S.G., Finch, J., & Curran, P. (1996). Structural equation models with nonnormal

variables: Problems and remedies. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling:

Concepts, issues, and application (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wilson, J. Q. (1968). Varieties of police behavior: The management of law and order in eight

communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Xenikou, A., & Simosi, M. (2006). Organizational culture and transformational leadership as

predictors of business unit performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 566-

579.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic

leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285-305.

 1

Dr. Hee S. Shim is a research associate in the Research Support Center at Korean National Police University.
His research interests include police behavior, attitudes toward the police, and criminological theory testing. He
has recently completed his dissertation, "A longitudinal study on juvenile attitudes toward the police:
Instrumental and expressive perspectives," at Sam Houston State University. His work has appeared in journals
includingAsian Journal of Criminology, and International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice.

Youngoh Jo, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the College at Brockport,
State University of New York. His research focuses on the correlates of juvenile delinquency and victimization
within a developmental approach. His research interests also include factors of officers' perception on criminal
justice administration issues.

Dr. Larry Hoover received his Ph.D. from Michigan State University, has been on the criminal justice faculty
at Sam Houston State University since 1977, and directs its Police Research Center. Dr. Hoover, a past president
of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, is the recipient of the Academy’s Founder’s Award as well as
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

the O. W. Wilson Award from its Police Section. He was recognized by Michigan State University by induction
to MSU’s School of Criminal Justice “Wall of Fame.”
 2

Appendix I Descriptive statistics of demographic variables (n = 358)

Min. Max. Mean SD
Length of service 0 31 13.06 6.46
Rank (1 = low-ranked) 0 1 .76 .43
Education level 0 1 .33 .47
(1 = low; high-school)
Sex (1 = male) 0 1 .95 .22
Age 26 54 39.27 6.19
Duty type 0 1 .39 .49
(1 = outside-duty)
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)
 Figure 1 Hypothesized mediating model of organizational commitment
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Note. TFL = transformational leadership, GC = group culture, DC = developmental culture, HC = hierarchical

culture, RC = rational culture, and OC = organizational commitment
 Table 1 Bivariate correlation matrix for the latent variables
TFL GC DC HC RC OC
TFL 1.000
GC .506*** 1.000
DC .541*** .728*** 1.000
HC -.114 -.065 -.153* 1.000
RC .157** .101 .143* .352*** 1.000
OC .328*** .509*** .369*** -.022 .151* 1.000

Note. ***p < .001, **p < .005, and *p < .01; TFL = transformational leadership, GC = group culture, DC =
developmental culture, HC = hierarchical culture, RC = rational culture, and OC = organizational commitment
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Table 2 Goodness-of-fit indices of the baseline and comparison models

RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR BIC ܴଶ of OC
Baseline Model .050 .919 .906 .106 21017.974 .270
Comparison Model .045 .937 .925 .050 20933.543 .306

Note. OC = organizational commitment

 Table 3 Multiple mediation model (comparison model), using four types of organizational
cultures as mediators (n = 352)
Parameter Unstandardized Standard BC 95% CI ܴଶ
Estimate (B) Error (SE) (Lower, Upper)
Organizational Commitment ← .306
Transformational Leadership .109 .076 -.032, .252
Group Culture .627 # .172 .336, .978
Developmental Culture -.027 .108 -.240, .181
Hierarchical Culture .321 .016 -.152, .153
Rational Culture .069 .073 -.090, .208
Length of Service .022 .012 -.002, .046
Rank -.031 .096 -.221, .149
Education Level .077 .086 -.094, .255
Sex -.100 .162 -.390, .253
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Age -.031 .012 -.057, -.008

Duty Type .088 .075 -.048, .269
Large Department -.116 .107 -.309, .107
Medium Department .021 .083 -.145, .171
Group Culture ← .290
Transformational Leadership .345 # .048 .262, .445
Length of Service .003 .009 -.015, .020
Rank -.011 .065 -.145, .111
Education Level .024 .058 -.096, .135
Sex -.130 .086 -.298, .035
Age -.006 .009 -.024, .012
Duty Type -.013 .055 -.112, .096
Large Department .121 .103 -.060, .344
Medium Department -.065 .069 -.207, .071
Developmental Culture ← .329
Transformational Leadership .500 # .064 .370, .627
Length of Service .003 .014 -.027, .028
Rank -.065 .083 -.233, .106
Education Level .027 .080 -.132, .186
Sex -.011 .178 -.364, .347
Age .010 .013 -.014, .036
Duty Type .119 .074 -.008, .274
Large Department .152 .130 -.130, .384
Medium Department -.076 .089 -.270, .087
Hierarchical Culture ← .029
Transformational Leadership -.110 .064 -.245, .009
Length of Service -.009 .015 -.042, .018
Rank .064 .111 -.154, .277
Education Level -.049 .095 -.227, .137
Sex .070 .173 -.296, .376
Age .003 .014 -.028, .029
Duty Type .059 .083 -.105, .229
Large Department -.033 .135 -.291, .223
Medium Department .052 .107 -.169, .251
Rational Culture ← .077
Transformational Leadership .183 # .070 .048, .320
Length of Service .022 .014 -.005, .050
Rank .211 # .094 .032, .405
Education Level .011 .101 -.154, .236
Sex -.196 .136 -.476, .085
 Age -.022 .015 -.051, .009
Duty Type .204 # .090 .040, .395
Large Department -.220 .133 -.496, .028
Medium Department .114 .109 -.090, .330
Transformational Leadership← .038
Length of Service -.012 .017 -.042, .025
Rank -.151 .107 -.351, .064
Education Level -.134 .097 -.348, .040
Sex -.099 .199 -.466, .294
Age .021 .016 -.015, .051
Duty Type .053 .090 -.129, .208
Large Department .215 .155 -.062, .560
Medium Department -.174 .097 -.354, .038
Group Culture with
Developmental Culture .143 # .024 .102, .198
Hierarchical Culture -.001 .019 -.038, .038
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)

Rational Culture .006 .019 -.030, .040

Developmental Culture with
Hierarchical Culture -.036 .027 -.087, .013
Rational Culture .030 .027 -.017, .091
Hierarchical Culture with
Rational Culture .159 # .038 .098, .250

Direct Effect
Transformational Leadership → .109 .076 -.032, .252
Organizational Commitment
Specific Indirect Effect
Transformational Leadership → .216 # .065 .118, .367
Group Culture →
Organizational Commitment
Transformational Leadership → -.013 .055 -.120, .098
Developmental Culture →
Organizational Commitment
Transformational Leadership → -.001 .010 -.025, .018
Hierarchical Culture →
Organizational Commitment
Transformational Leadership → .013 .076 -.011, .252
Rational Culture →
Organizational Commitment

Model Fit Indices

RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR
.045 .937 .925 .050

Note. # = significantly different from zero; BC = bias-corrected; CI = confidence interval; the estimates above are
drawn from 500 bootstrap samples.
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 06:34 26 October 2015 (PT)