Next Article in Journal
The Spatio-Temporal Heterogeneity of Financial Agglomeration on Green Development in China Cities Using GTWR Model
Next Article in Special Issue
Relationship between Perceived Teamwork Effectiveness and Team Performance in Banking Sector of Serbia
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Resistance Training with Different Pyramid Systems on Bioimpedance Vector Patterns, Body Composition, and Cellular Health in Older Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Previous Article in Special Issue
Confirmatory and Exploratory Analysis of the Questionnaire to Evaluate the Disposition towards Organizational Change (CEDCO)
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Empirical Research in Colombian Services Sector: Relation between Transformational Leadership, Climate and Commitment

Miguel A. Mañas-Rodríguez
Eleonora Enciso-Forero
Carmen M. Salvador-Ferrer
Rubén Trigueros
3,* and
José M. Aguilar-Parra
Department of Psychology, Hum-923 IPTORA Research Team, University of Almería, Ctra. Sacramento s/n, 04120 Almería, Spain
Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Colombia, Av. Caracas, 46, 111311 Bogotá, Colombia
Department of Psychology, Hum-878 Research Team, Health Research Centre, University of Almería, Ctra. Sacramento s/n, 04120 Almería, Spain
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(16), 6659;
Submission received: 13 July 2020 / Revised: 29 July 2020 / Accepted: 14 August 2020 / Published: 18 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Leaders and Team Members’ Perceptions of Cooperation at Work)


The objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between the variables of transformational leadership, climate and commitment in a sample of 319 workers of a multinational organization in the Colombian Services Sector. For data collection, we used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), the climate/culture questionnaire FOCUS-93 and the Intellectual, Social and Affective Commitment Scale (ISA). Data were processed with SPSS 23 and AMOS 22 for modeling with structural equations. In the path diagram, calculated according to the indicators of structural adjustments, variances were obtained for the dimensions of organizational commitment. The resulting model presented favorable adjustment indicators as evidenced in the results, and the relationship between commitment and climate was significant (β = 4.61; p = 0.001), as well as between climate and commitment (β = 0.018; p = 0.001). However, the relationship between transformational leadership and commitment was not direct but mediated through organizational climate.

1. Introduction

The current crisis generated by the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance that world leaders have in creating favorable climates in their countries/organizations to achieve the commitment of citizens/workers regarding compliance with the security protocols established to safeguard lives. Various investigations have managed to identify the direct, positive and significant relationship of these three variables (leadership, climate and commitment) in matters of safety, since the leader, with managerial and technological tools, enables the fundamental safety climate for workers to commit themselves to adopt practices and comply with safety protocols and standards [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Reviewing the research, it was also observed that transformational leadership generates a supportive climate and increases commitment [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19].
The concept of transformational leadership was introduced by Burns [20] and, subsequently, Bass and Riggio [21] expanded his study. These studies converted transformational leadership into a new paradigm when speaking about leadership. According to Bass and Riggio [21], transformational leadership consists of the following dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Idealized influence refers to the degree to which the leader’s example, the impeccable actions, and his quality of life make collaborators want to imitate him. Inspiring motivation is defined as the capability of the leader to inspire followers with a strong vision of the future in alignment with personal and organizational goals. The intellectual challenge highlights the capability of the leader to increase the potential of those around him. Individualized consideration refers to the fact that the leader must be vigilant to the achievement needs, growth, and support of his collaborators. Studies by Piccolo and Coulquitt [22], and Nielsen Randall, Yarker and Brenner [23] validated that transformational leadership was closely associated with followers’ working conditions, namely the involvement with intrinsic values of work and with the confidence in their capabilities, which has been confirmed in several studies [24,25].
Literature supports the relation between leadership and a suitable work climate [26,27] considering that collaborators who have a transformational leader perceive a positive climate. There on, Pilbeam, Doherty, Davidson and Denyer [28] made a systematic review that included 25 empirical studies on transformational leadership. On the other hand, Ortiz and Castaño [29] found that motivational inspiration, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation were important transformational leadership factors in an organizational climate. The influence that leadership can exert on individual climate perceptions was recognized by the first researchers that theorized on the topic [30,31]. In two different occupational samples, Pedraja and Rodríguez [32] and González-Roma [33] proved that leaders’ consideration behaviors influence the individual perceptions of support and direction to rule positively, while leaders’ structure and initiation behaviors have a positive effect on innovation facets and goals–orientation. These four dimensions are part of the model proposed by Van Muijen [34], which is based on a theoretical framework grounded on the Competing Values Framework of Quinn [35], which was the model for this research. Thus, each one of these dimensions refers to what is stated below: (a) support, as the degree in which the relations between the members of the organization are in friendly and mutual collaboration; (b) the direction of rules, as the degree to which the behavior of employees is regulated by rules and formal regulations; (c) the direction to goals, as the degree to what the activities and behaviors are oriented towards the achievement of previously established objectives; and finally (d) innovation, as the degree to which the new ideas and projects are welcomed and stimulated [33].
Salvador and García [36] argued that the workers who were committed to the company were those whose managers focused their efforts on consolidating the workers’ achievement goals, thus promoting institutional efficiency, productivity and effectiveness. Mañas-Rodríguez et al. [37] reaffirmed the importance of the issue manifesting the increasing number of results in studies on commitment in the academic area, going from just 20 results between the years 2000 and 2005, to more than 1100 between 2011 and 2015.
Different measures and definitions of the term commitment concur when considering it as a link of the individual with the organization, and as an attitude to reflect the loyalty of the employees to their organization and their concern about its success and permanent well-being [38,39,40,41].
As stated by Bayona, Legaz and Madorrán [42], organizational commitment is a psychological state that allows the employees to be willing to establish a greater commitment with their occupation. It is in line with findings by Matieu and Farr [43] and with the organization as said by Salgado, Remeserio and Iglesias [44]. According to Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá and Bakker [45], as well as to Carrasco González, de la Corte, Rubio and María [46], commitment is a positive and satisfying state of mind, related to work. It also refers to an affective–cognitive state, which is not focused on an object, situation, individual or specific behavior.
The general concept of commitment was extended through the social commitment dimension, because when employees work as a group, their work is more recognized [47]. Kahn [48] suggests that social commitment is the experience of the connection with other people, that could be colleagues, but can be anyone with whom the work role provides the opportunity to interact. He also affirms that connectivity is an integral feature of the experience of involvement. The importance of social context to the commitment has been recognized by other academics [49] and it has been related to the perspectives of human resources systems. Social commitment allows the collaborators a connection by sharing common values in their working environment [50,51,52].
Furthermore, according to Soane et al. [53], among the commitments are (a) the intellectual one, which implies empowerment and the approach to release cognitive effort towards the objective achievement or the solution to a challenge; (b) positive affection which has the role of encouraging the thinking process [54]; (c) affective commitment which enables positive affect [52,55]; (d) social commitment which requires initiating and maintaining the social interactions related to work, as well as demands and active commitment with other people [56]. Thus, affective commitment is significant for a variety of positive results related to the improvements and construction of personal resources [54]. The intellectual commitment is relevant to performance as well as other results such as innovation [57]. Social commitment could be particularly relevant for the organizational change since social effective processes are essential for the positive change results [49].
Research studies by Economist Intelligence Unit [58] stated that when the voices of employees were heard individually, and the obtained information was used as a transformational mechanism to optimize the development of the organization, the employees were more willing to meet the work commitments and remain. Likewise, Kwon, Farndale and Park [59] stated that when employees are heard, they perceive management oversight more lawfully because the decision-making in relation to work is guided by those who carry out the work directly. Chernyak-Hai and Tziner [4] showed how organizational climate mediates even the relationship between company commitment and a worker’s personal values. Martínez-Córcoles and Stephanou [6] and Tappura, Nenonen and Kivistö-Rahnasto [5] found that organizational climate quality influences positively on workers’ commitment. Finally, Totin, Roncoli, Traoré, Somda and Zougmoré [60] concluded that institutional identity is a commitment indicator in relation to participation climate in the organization, and configures the organizational capability to achieve the objectives.
On the other hand, the strong relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment was described by authors such as Jena, Pradhan and Panigrahy [61] who referred to the positive transformational leadership effect on the commitment of the employee and on organizational confidence. Pradhan and Pradhan [62] found that in a group of workers, there was a causal effect between the existence of transformational leaders in the organization and the development of significant work at a high commitment level; Buil, Martínez and Matute [63] also observed in a sample of Spanish employees that transformational leadership was supplied by work commitment.
Yukl, O’Donnell and Taber [64] noticed in their studies that companies which have transformational leaders present higher levels of organizational commitment. Similarly, Ding, Li, Zhang, Sheng and Wang [65], showed how transformational leadership is positively related with employees’ work commitment, particularly with leadership factors, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence or charisma. Although generally a relation between leadership, climate, and commitment has been empirically evidenced, Amah [66] stated that the relation between leadership style and employee commitment is not direct but mediated through variables that arise from the environment created by leadership behavior. According to this approach, the relationship between those variables is given in such a way that transformational leadership presence positively affects organizational climate, and the variation of this contributes on organizational commitment, that is, climate is the mediator of the relation between leadership and commitment.
This paper is consistent with others published in different countries, which are more and more relevant in transformational leader training, with their valuable contribution to improve organizational climate and collaborative commitment, making possible a greater competitiveness among companies and a better quality of life for their workers. Our study contributes to the current literature since there are no works studying the detailed relationship between the three variables, especially in relation to the measured relationship.
This study presents the same relational structure with the mediator role of organizational climate as a nexus between transformational leadership and organizational commitment, as shown in Figure 1. It becomes especially evident in studies such as those by De Clercq and Rius [67], Gözükara and Faruk Sùimúek [68] and Gyensare, Kumedzro, Sanda and Boso [69]. However, there are few works in the Colombian context that focus on studying the relationship between these terms.
According to the empirical findings mentioned, the current research proposed as its objective to identify the relation between transformational leadership, climate, and organizational commitment in a multinational company in the service sector in Colombia.
First, we intend to study the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational climate in the service sector of a Colombian multinational company. There are very few works that study these variables in a Colombian cultural context. Previous literature supports the positive effects that transformational leadership has on organizational climate. There is some research that shows the relationship between these variables and, in this line, we can find the works by Cuadra-Peralta and Veloso-Besio [27], Zohar and Luria [26] and Ortíz and Castaño [29]. These authors validate the relation between transformational leadership and work climate [26,27] considering that the collaborators who have a transformational leader perceive a positive climate. Thus, on the hypotheses of the previous literature we propose the following ones:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
There is a positive and significant correlation between the variables of transformational leadership and organizational climate.
Secondly, we are interested in knowing if the role of the leader is essential to get Colombian workers committed to the organization. Previous research shows the causal relationship between these terms, specifically the causal relationship between leadership and commitment, is essential in the organization. We support our work in the investigations carried out by Jena, Pradhan and Panigrahy [61], Pradhan and Pradhan [62] and Buil, Martínez and Matute [63]. It is important to note that these authors proved that they referred to the positive transformational leadership effect on the commitment of the employee. Based on this, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
There is a positive and significant correlation between the variables of transformational leadership and organizational commitment.
Thirdly, we are interested in studying the relationship between organizational climate and commitment of Colombian workers. Our research is supported by the works of Eldor and Harpaz [70], Powell, Davies and Norton [71], Martínez-Córcoles and Stephanou [6] and Tappura, Nenonen and Kivistö-Rahnasto [5], since these authors validate that climate positively influences commitment of workers and that organizational climate quality influences on workers’ commitment. The prevailing evidence suggests the link between both variables. So, our hypothesis proposal is as follows:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
There is a positive and significant relationship between the variables of organizational climate and organizational commitment.
Fourthly, there are few works that focus on studying the relationship between leadership and worker commitment measured by organizational climate. It should also be noted that there are no previous investigations in Colombia. Interested in these variables, we will explore this mediated relationship in more detail, performing a more robust analysis of structural equations. We support this hypothesis in the approaches of Ford and Seers [72], Wu et al. [73], Dahl and Olsen [74], who found the mediation of climate, whereas Amah [66] pointed out the need to promote work in this direction; specifically, as we have previously explained, this author establishes that the relationship between leadership and commitment is mediated by organizational climate. Our hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
The variables of transformational leadership and organizational commitment are related to the mediation of organizational climate.
In this situation, this article has theoretical contributions to the existing literature, since it starts from a previous line of work related to the studied variables. Regarding the additional values of this study, we would like to highlight that this is a novel investigation carried out in Colombia in the service sector. On the other hand, concerning theoretical contributions, we want to stress that it checks the validity of a theoretical model reflecting the solid relationship between the variables studied.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The sample was composed of 319 participants, aged between 20 and 60; 186 (58%) of the study participants were men and 133 (42%) were women. Regarding the time they had been employed at the company, 198 people (62%) were there longer than 3 years, 73 had been there 1–3 years (23%) and 48 had been there less than 1 year (15%). According to age, 44% corresponds to people aged between 31–40, 29% between 20–30, 22% between 41–50 and 5% between 51–60. Respecting the kind of work of the population surveyed, 27% were general service leaders, followed by 18% of general service coordinators, 17% were shift managers, 14% maintenance leaders, 13% leaders of other areas and 11% were maintenance professionals. They all worked in different cities of Colombia, most of them in Bogotá (34%) and Medellín (32%) and the rest (34%) worked in Cali, Barranquilla, Cartagena, Bucaramanga, Eje Cafetero and Neiva.

2.2. Instruments

To assess transformational leadership, we used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) of Avolio and Bass [75]. This questionnaire assesses transformational leadership through 4 dimensions and a total of 15 Likert-type items, whose scale goes from totally disagree (=1) to totally agree (=7) (e.g., it says positive features about the department/area), with an internal consistency of Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach alpha = 0.928).
The organizational climate assessment was done by means of [34] FOCUS-93 (First organizational Climate/Culture Unified Search) questionnaire in its short version. This instrument measures climate with 4 dimensions and a total of 12 Likert items whose scale ranges from totally disagree (=1) to totally agree (=7) (e.g., it puts into practice new ideas to improve work and its results). Internal consistency is measured with Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.895).
The organizational commitment was assessed by means of the Escala de compromiso Intelectual, Social and Afectivo (ISA) by Soane et al. [53] in the Spanish version of Mañas et al. [37]. This scale evaluates the commitment in 3 dimensions with 9 Likert-type items whose scale ranges from totally disagree (=0) to totally agree (=6) (e.g., I share the same work values as my partners). The internal consistency was measured with Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.844).

2.3. Procedure

In the first place, a letter was sent to a multinational company in the service sector requesting its collaboration, specifying the research features and the commitment to confidential data treatment. Secondly, the human resources section sent an e-mail to each collaborator indicating the objective of the study and the importance of their participation and collaboration to answer the scales on a voluntary basis. We agreed on how much time (15 days) to complete online the 3 questionnaires (MLQ: leadership, FOCUS: climate, and ISA: commitment), which comprised a total of 45 questions to be answered in 15–20 min. After that, the human management area reviewed the information online. Then, the information was incorporated into an Excel sheet and the structural equations were modeled with [76,77] IBM SPSS Statistics version 23, and AMOS 22.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data were prepared reviewing the normal data distribution and verifying that the indicators of asymmetry and kurtosis were in admissible ranges to assume the multivariate parametric models. It was perceived that affective and intellectual commitment values presented anomalies in distribution, showing extremes to be corrected. Therefore, it was resolved carrying out a transformation to z scores to correct the distribution of the variable and to carry out a subsequent statistical analysis.
Once the database was adjusted, we analyzed the correlations between the study variables to examine, with the r of Pearson, the relation between transformational leadership, organizational climate, and commitment.
AMOS was generated to confirm the relationship between the variables of transformational leadership, organizational climate, and commitment. It is an exploratory path that allows the analysis of this interaction, establishing higher and meaningful relations between leadership and climate, such as between climate and commitment but not in regard to the expected association between leadership and commitment. In such a way, it presents a regression model to identify the nature of relations between these variables, considering an indirect causal relation where the association between leadership and commitment is measured by the climate variable.
According to the above, it processed to set up a theoretical model of indirect relation. For this purpose, a Structural Equational Modeling (SEM) was designed with a statistic model of Maximum Likelihood (ML) with AMOS 22 software.

3. Results

The information obtained was analyzed, both with the SEM and with descriptive statistics. As a previous step, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed (see data in Table 1). In Table 1 appear the statistically meaningful correlations between leadership and organizational climate (r = 0.681, p < 0.01); although minors in leadership and commitment (r = 0.239, p < 0.01), X established a meaningful theoretical model between organizational climate and commitment (r = 0.412, p < 0.01); these values do not present scores higher than r = 0.90 and they are established as indicators of multicollinearity absence between variables, a precondition to multivariate analyses used with path analysis and structural equations.
Using the information obtained from the Structural Equations Modeling (SEM), the observable and dormant variables are observed as conformed by the dimension on each construct (Figure 2). The obtained model was calculated according to the indicators of structural adjustments, the kindness absolute fit variables; and the use of the reason index χ2 (Chi square with its p-value) is recommended to indicate the predictive capacity of correlatives–plausibility matrix, given the χ2 is sensitive to sample size and other factors as the number of χ2/DF (Chi squared over freedom degrees) that should be below 3; at the same time, values higher than 0.90 are expected preferably above 0.95 to CFI (Comparative fit index), GFI (Goodness Fit Index), AGFI (Adjusted Goodness Fit Index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index); and values below 0.08 in [78] RMSEA (the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) indicates a minimum error of approximation of the model to the data obtained [79]. The adjusted values obtained are in Table 2.
The resulting structural relation model, according to the adjustment indicators, is shown in Table 2. Variances were obtained and explained for the dimensions of organizational commitment. According to transformational leadership, the measures with ISA were between 0.18 and 0.96, and organizational climate with 0.80. The obtained values in the predictive analysis agree with the unstandardized estimated regression values obtained from AMOS 22 (See Table 3), given with respect to the study hypothesis of leadership as a climate predictor (β = 0.461, DE = 10.895, p = 0.001). Likewise, climate is a commitment predictor (β = 0.018, DE = 6.125, p = 0.001), as it evidences that the effect between leadership and commitment occurs through climate. On the other hand, the R2 factors for climate and commitment were 0.45 and 0.52, respectively.
Finally, a review is made about direct, indirect, and total effects of the three variables that integrated the proposal model. As noted in Table 3, leadership has an important director climate effect; so, if the first variable increases in a standard deviation, the second one increases in 0.802, similarly in 0.0441 concerning climate and commitment. These direct effects have, as a consequence, a direct effect between leadership and commitment, in such a way that the standard deviation increases in the first one and added increase to the second in 0.353 standard deviations.
The proposed model was developed looking for the higher explanatory level that could be possible between variables, given as a result that a model does not contemplate the direct interrelation between the three variables, but it is mediated by work climate behavior in the organization.

4. Discussion

The present study uses the correlation analysis to explore potential relations between constructs and subscales of the study variables, and it uses structural equations as statistical analysis techniques as a multivariate alternative that serves to contrast the relation of the proposal model between the variables of transformational leadership, climate, and organizational commitment.
The first hypothesis was contrasted with the correlational analysis confirming the relationship between the two study variables, proving a meaningful correlation between transformational leadership and organizational climate with an r value of 0.681. Likewise, hypothesis 2 was verified by means of meaningful correlations between transformational leadership and organizational commitment with an r value of 0.239. As regards to hypothesis 3, looking for the relation between organizational climate and organizational commitment, it also presents a meaningful and high relation with an r value of 0.412.
When analyzing the values of the subvariables, a positive and high relation between the affective commitment variables and organizational climate was obtained, being the subvariable with the higher value of correlation. On the other hand, the organizational commitment variables have higher correlation values with the other transformational leadership subvariables.
To make the analysis needs to check out hypothesis 4, the particular analysis of interaction between the three variables confirmed the relation between transformational leadership and organizational climate, and between organizational climate and organizational commitment, and it does not prove a meaningful relation between transformational leadership and organizational commitment, which was necessary to develop a model based on confirmed relations and to explore a potential mediating effect between transformational leadership and organizational commitment. So, regarding the relation between transformational leadership and climate, it is evident that the variable effects on the organizational climate perceptions of its collaborators, such as numerous authors had reported beforehand [80]. In regard to the relation between climate and commitment, it is reaffirmed the exposed by Chernyak-Hai and Tziner [4], Tappura, Nenonen and Kivistö-Rahnasto [5], Martínez-Córcoles and Stephanou [6] and Totin, Roncoli, Traoré, Somda and Zougmoré [60], who had expressed that organizational climate has a positive effect on workers’ commitment.
However, the mediation model template presented favorable adjustment indicators as it was evidenced in results, according to which, leadership acts as an organizational climate predictor, and this as commitment predictor, showing in the first place the meaningful associations between these variables and, secondly, the mediator effect on the climate variable in respect to the relation between transformational leadership and organizational commitment, confirming the previous findings reported by Payne, and Pugh [81], Kopelman, Brief and Guzzo [82], Gözükara and Faruk Sùimúek [68] and Gyensare, Kumedzro, Sanda and Boso [69].
Regarding the role of the mediator of organizational climate in the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment, it is worth delving into the remark made by Menges, Walter, Vogel and Bruch [9], who confirmed the results found in this study. On the other hand, De Clercq and Rius [67] discovered that affective relationships born from climates increase the presence of organizational commitment behaviors because, according to the authors, the organization’s perception of interest in providing a positive experience makes the worker want to be mutual, offering a greater commitment to the institution. These approaches prove how climate acts as a mediator between organizational commitment and transformational leadership. In this sense, it is essential that employers try to promote a positive and achievement-focused climate in the workplace so that workers feel more committed to the work they do.
Given that the structural equation models are based in the existent correlation between variables in a sample of subjects in a transversal way, as performed in this case with the multinational services company, also emphasizes for its social responsibility programs. It can be concluded that for this kind of organization, it is favorable to rely on transformational leaders because these create a positive climate and greater collaborator commitment that is recommendable when a company wishes to work with inclusion and to contribute with peace and conciliation. It should be noted that the added value in the current work has validated the relationship described in a Colombian sample of a multinational company in the service sector.
However, it is of particular interest to the investigative exercise to consider in depth the findings with respect to the mediator role of the organizational climate variable [83]. This represents a potential field analysis as to action and impact spectrum that could be the climate in different organizational variables, and the interaction between them. Likewise, for the particular processes promoting from this, a study of Ngo, Foley and Loi [84] reported the mediator role of organizational climate between work friendly practices and organizational efficiency. Messersmith, Patel, Lepak and Gould-Williams [85] indicated that organizational climate mediates the connection between human resources practices, and job innovative performance. In the same way, Yasir, Imran and Kashif Irshad [86] reported a significant relationship between job performance and individual consideration, mediated by organizational climate. Green, Albanese, Cafri and Aarons [14] declared in their analysis that climate is an effective mediator between leadership and work alliances; and Nelson, Boudrias, Brunet, Morin, De Civita, Savoie and Alderson [87] found that climate mediates relations between leadership and work well-being. In this way, workers will be much more involved in the work if they perceive some support from the business organization.

4.1. Limitations and Future Directions

Among the principal limitations of this work is the fact that the sample belongs to a multinational company located in Colombia and, in this sense, the findings can only be extrapolated to the Colombian population. To exceed this limitation, it would be advisable to review studies in other countries with the same variables of transformational leadership, organizational climate, and organizational commitment. It is recommended to continue exploring in other organizations committed with social responsibility. In addition to the cultural limitation that we have just mentioned, in our opinion, there is another limitation that should be highlighted; this is a cross-sectional investigation, that is, the results are conditioned by the time point in which the questionnaire was applied. In this sense, if we intend to generalize the results, we will need to promote longitudinal studies and to extend them to private, public, and NGO organizations of any kind, and to other countries. Besides, in order to offer more detailed explanations, we suggest to consider other variables, such as stress and human capital, to complete the social capital of organizations to emphasize the social commitment (SC) since it was the single variable that was not meaningful in the leadership indicator. Finally, this study uses cross-sectional data to test the mediation model [88].

4.2. Practical Implications

Our work makes an important scientific contribution, since it offers a scientifically supporting theoretical framework that could guide organizations to know what variables to work with if they intend to engage their workers. On the other hand, in order to contribute from the applied research, it could be useful for groups of leaders to develop skills as transformational leaders; to make comparative studies between transformational leaders; for those who have not received training, it would be effective to create transformational leader groups to train them; and determine the correlation with organizational climate and workers’ commitment in creating experimental and control groups in the same organization to review positive occupational psychology techniques, making possible those advances. With these findings, the importance of transformational leaders’ work at organizational level could be more and more substantiated.
Therefore, this current research contributes for those who manage human resources to recognize the importance of increasing the commitment of employees, as stated in previous researches [74,75]: Employees with more commitment will have a better performance in their jobs, and will increase their effort and motivation as well as their positive cycle of emotions and cognitions. Performance, innovation, organizational citizen behaviors and their positive attitude towards change will improve, whereas rotation will be reduced.

5. Conclusions

From a corporate point of view, the significance of this article refers to the following scientific contributions: First, there will be a validated theoretical model showing the relationships between these variables in a given sociocultural context. Second, the joint analysis of variables that until now had been partially studied, was proposed in this article to verify the short-term relationship between variables. Finally, as previously mentioned, there are few studies that carry out mediation analyses in relation to the organizational climate in a Colombian sample. Therefore, this work will offer a general and scientific overview of the mediated relationship.
In summary, this research offers an empirical support that tries to clarify the relationships between worker commitment, transformational leadership, and organizational climate. Furthermore, the decisive role that the leader has to commit Colombian workers has been explained in a robust way. Additionally, it has been verified that the most effective leadership style to achieve organizational commitment of Colombian workers is transformational leadership. Finally, if in the Colombian context we want to retainworkers, it is necessary to keep in mind the profile of the transformational leader and the type of organizational climate.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.M.-R.; data curation, C.M.S.-F.; formal analysis, R.T. and J.M.A.-P.; methodology, J.M.A.-P.; project administration, M.A.M.-R.; resources, C.M.S.-F.; software, C.M.S.-F.; supervision, J.M.A.-P.; visualization, R.T.; writing—original draft, E.E.-F.; writing—review & editing, M.A.M.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Neal, A.F.; Griffin, M.A.; Hart, P. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hsu, S.H.; Lee, C.-C.; Wu, M.-C.; Takano, K. The influence of organizational factors on safety in Taiwanese high-risk industries. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 2010, 23, 646–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bronkhorst, B.; Tummers, L.; Steijn, B.; Vijverberg, D. Organizational climate and employee mental health outcomes. A systematic review of studies in health care organizations. Health Care Manag. Rev. 2015, 40, 254–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Chernyak-Hai, L.; Tziner, A. The “I believe” and the “I invest” of Work-Family Balance: The indirect influences of personal values and work engagement via perceived organizational climate and workplace burnout. Rev. Psicol. Trab. Organ. 2016, 32, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Tappura, S.; Nenonen, N.; Kivistö-Rahnasto, J. Managers’ viewpoint on factors influencing their commitment to safety: An empirical investigation in five Finnish industrial organisations. Saf. Sci. 2017, 96, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Martínez-Córcoles, M.; Stephanou, K. Linking active transactional leadership and safety performance in military operations. Saf. Sci. 2017, 96, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Loh, M.Y.; Idris, M.A.; Dormann, C.; Muhamad, H. Organizational climate and employee health outcomes: A systematic review. Saf. Sci. 2019, 118, 442–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Flatau-Harrison, H.; Griffin, M.A.; Gagné, M. Trickling down: The impact of leaders on individual role clarity through safety climate strength across time. Saf. Sci. 2020, 121, 485–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Menges, J.I.; Walter, F.; Vogel, B.; Bruch, H. Transformational leadership climate: Performance linkages, mechanisms, and boundary conditions at the organizational level. Leadersh. Q. 2011, 22, 893–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kapp, E. The influence of supervisor leadership practices and perceived group safety climate on employee safety performance. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 1119–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. López-Domínguez, M.; Enache, M.; Sallan, J.M.; Simo, P. Transformational leadership as an antecedent of change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 2147–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Sun, W.; Xu, A.; Shang, Y. Transformational leadership, team climate, and team performance within the NPD team: Evidence from China. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2012, 31, 127–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Trigueros, R.; Mínguez, L.A.; González-Bernal, J.J.; Jahouh, M.; Soto-Camara, R.; Aguilar-Parra, J.M. Influence of Teaching Style on Physical Education Adolescents’ Motivation and Health-Related Lifestyle. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Green, A.E.; Albanese, B.J.; Cafri, G.; Aarons, G.A. Leadership, Organizational Climate, and Working Alliance in a Children’s Mental Health Service System. Community Ment. Health J. 2013, 50, 771–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Jaiswal, N.; Dhar, R.L. Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative self-efficacy and employee creativity: A multilevel study. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 51, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lin, H.-C.; Dang, T.T.H.; Liu, Y.-S. CEO transformational leadership and firm performance: A moderated mediation model of TMT trust climate and environmental dynamism. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2016, 33, 981–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Smith, T.D.; Eldridge, F.; DeJoy, D.M. Safety-specific transformational and passive leadership influences on firefighter safety climate perceptions and safety behavior outcomes. Saf. Sci. 2016, 86, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kao, R.-H. The relationship between work characteristics and change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: A multi-level study on transformational leadership and organizational climate in immigration workers. Pers. Rev. 2017, 46, 1890–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mañas-Rodríguez, M.-Á.; Díaz-Fúnez, P.-A.; Llopis-Marín, J.; Nieto-Escámez, F.; Salvador-Ferrer, C. Relationship between transformational leadership, affective commitment and turnover intention of workers in a multinational company. Int. J. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 35, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Burns, J.M. Leadership; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bass, B.M.; Riggio, R.E. Transformational Leadership; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  22. Piccolo, R.F.; Colquitt, J.A. Transformadoras de liderazgo y de trabajo conductas: El papel mediador de las características básicas de trabajo. Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 49, 327–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Nielsen, K.; Randall, R.; Yarker, J.; Brenner, S. Los efectos del liderazgo transformacional en las características del trabajo percibidos seguidores y bienestar psicológico: Un estudio longitudinal. Trab. Estrés 2008, 22, 16–32. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kovjanic, S.; Schuh, S.C.; Jonas, K. El liderazgo transformacional y el rendimiento: Una investigación experimental de los efectos mediadores de la satisfacción de las necesidades básicas y el engagement. J. Occup. Psychol. Organ. 2013, 86, 543–555. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kovjanic, S.; Schuh, S.C.; Jonas, K.; Van Quaquebeke, N.; Van Dick, R. “Cómo los líderes transformacionales alientan los resultados positivos de los empleados” Un análisis basado en la libre determinación de las necesidades de los empleados como enlaces mediadores. D Comport. Organ. 2012, 33, 1031–1052. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zohar, D.; Luria, G. Climate as a Social -Cognitive Construction of Supervisory Safety Practices: Scripts as Proxy of Behaviour Patterns. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 89, 322–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cuadra-Peralta, A.A.; Veloso-Besio, C.B. Grado de Supervisión Como Variable Moderadora Entre Liderazgo y Satisfacción, Motivación y Clima Organizacional. Ingeniare Rev. Chil. Ing. 2010, 18, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pilbeam, C.; Doherty, N.; Davidson, R.; Denyer, D. Safety leadership practices for organizational safety compliance: Developing a research agenda from a review of the literature. Saf. Sci. 2016, 86, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ortíz, A.M.; Castaño, J.C. Factores de Liderazgo Transformacional que Impactan el Clima Organizacional de la Corporación Batuta Risaralda. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, Pereira, Colombia, 2017. Available online: (accessed on 13 June 2020).
  30. Blake, R.R.; Mouton, J.S. El Modelo de Cuadro Organizacional Grid; Fondo Educativo Interamericano: Bogota, Colombia, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  31. Likert, R. New Patterns of Management; Mc Graw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pedraja, R.L.; Rodriguez, P.E. Efectos del Estilo de Liderazgo Sobre la Eficacia de las Organizaciones Públicas. Rev. Fac. Ing. Univ. Tarapacá 2004, 12, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. González-Romá, V.; Ferreres, A.; Tomás, I.; Mañas, M.A.; Subirats, M.; Tordera, N. Temporary stability of the FOCUS organizational climate questionnaire (short version). In Proceedings of the 10th European Meeting of the Psycometric Society, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 15–18 July 1997. [Google Scholar]
  34. Van Muijen, J.J.; Al, E. Organizational Culture: The Focus Questionnaire. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 1999, 8, 551–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Quinn, R.E. Beyond Rational Management: Masteringthe Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, SF, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  36. Salvador, C.; García, E. El compromiso y la inteligencia emocional en los rasgos de personalidad de una muestra de mediadores del Poder Judicial de Oaxaca. Diversitas 2010, 6, 467. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mañas-Rodríguez, M.Á.; Alcaraz-Pardo, L.; Pecino-Medina, V.; Limbert, C. Validación de la versión española de la Escala de Engagement (ISA) de Soane et al. Rev. Psicol. Trab. Organ. 2016, 32, 87–93. [Google Scholar]
  38. Allen, N.J.; Meyer, J.P. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. J. Occup. Psychol. 1990, 63, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Moos, R.H.; Insel, P.M. Work Environment Scale; Consulting Psychologist Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wright, T.A.; Doherty, E.M. Organizational behavior ‘rediscovers’ the role of emotional well-being. J. Organ. Behav. 1998, 19, 481–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chiang, M.; Valenzuela, L.; Lagos, M. Modelo de regresión entre compromiso organizacional y empoderamiento psicológico en pequeñas y medianas empresas en Chile. Multidiscip. Bus. Rev. 2014, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bayona, C.; Legaz, S.G.; Madorrán, C. Compromiso Organizacional: Implicaciones para la Gestión Estratégica de los Recursos Humanos; Universidad Pública de Navarra, Departamento de Gestión de Empresas: Navarre, Spain, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mathieu, J.E.; Farr, J.L. Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 1991, 76, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Salgado, J.F.; Remeserio, C.; Iglesias, M. Clima organizacional y satisfacción laboral en una PYME. Psicothema 1996, 8, 329–335. [Google Scholar]
  45. Schaufeli, W.; Salanova, M.; Gonzales, R.; Bakker, A. The measurement of burnout and engagement: A confirmatory analysis. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Carrasco González, A.M.; de la Corte, C.; Rubio, L.; María, J. Engagement: Un Recurso para Optimizar la Salud Psicosocial en las Organizaciones y Prevenir el Burnout y Estrés Laboral. Revista Digital de Prevención. Available online: (accessed on 13 June 2020).
  47. Jackson, C.L.; Colquitt, J.A.; Wesson, M.J.; Zapata-Phelan, C.P. Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 884–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Kahn, W.A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. 1990, 33, 692–724. [Google Scholar]
  49. Shuck, B.; Wollard, K. Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2009, 9, 89–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Swanson, R.A. Human resource development and its underlying theory. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2001, 4, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Salanova, M.; Agut, S.; Peiró, J.M. Linking Organizational Resources and Work Engagement to Employee Performance and Customer Loyalty: The Mediation of Service Climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 1217–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Macey, W.H.; Schneider, B. The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2008, 1, 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Soane, E.; Truss, C.; Alfes, K.; Shantz, A.D.; Rees, C.; Gatenby, M. Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement: The ISA Engagement Scale. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2012, 15, 529–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Fredrickson, B.L. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am. Psychol. 2001, 56, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. May, D.R.; Gilson, R.L.; Harter, L.M. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2004, 77, 11–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Saks, A.M. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 2006, 21, 600–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Krauss, S.I.; Frese, M.; Friedrich, C.; Unger, J.M. Entrepreneurial orientation: A psychological model of success among southern African small business owners. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2005, 14, 315–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. EIU Economist Intelligence Unit. What’s Next: Future Global Trends Affecting Your Organization. Evolution of Work and the Worker; EIU/SHRM: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kwon, B.; Farndale, E.; Park, J.G. Employee voice and work engagement: Macro, meso, and micro-level drivers of convergence? Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2016, 26, 327–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Totin, E.; Roncoli, C.; Traoré, P.C.S.; Somda, J.; Zougmoré, R. How does institutional embeddedness shape innovation platforms? A diagnostic study of three districts in the Upper West Region of Ghana. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2018, 84, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jena, L.K.; Pradhan, S.; Panigrahy, N.P. Pursuit of organisational trust: Role of employee engagement, psychological well-being and transformational leadership. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2018, 23, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pradhan, S.; Pradhan, R.K. Transformational Leadership and Job Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Meaningful Work. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2016, 17, 173S–185S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Buil, I.; Martínez, E.; Matute, J. From internal brand management to organizational citizenship behaviours: Evidence from frontline employees in the hotel industry. Tour. Manag. 2016, 57, 256–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yukl, G.; O’Donnell, M.; Taber, T. Influence of leader behaviors on the leader-member exchange relationship. J. Manag. Psychol. 2009, 24, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ding, X.; Li, Q.; Zhang, H.; Sheng, Z.; Wang, Z. Linking transformational leadership and work outcomes in temporary organizations: A social identity approach. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 543–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Amah, O. Employee engagement in Nigeria: The role of leaders and boundary variables. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2018, 44, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. De Clercq, D.; Rius, I.B. Organizational Commitment in Mexican Small and Medium-Sized Firms: The Role of Work Status, Organizational Climate, and Entrepreneurial Orientation. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2007, 45, 467–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gözükara, I.; Simsek, O.F. Linking Transformational Leadership to Work Engagement and the Mediator Effect of Job Autonomy: A Study in a Turkish Private Non-Profit University. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 195, 963–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Gyensare, M.A.; Kumedzro, L.E.; Sanda, A.; Boso, N. Linking transformational leadership to turnover intention in the public sector. The influences of engagement, affective commitment and psychological climate. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Stud. 2017, 8, 314–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Eldor, L.; Harpaz, I. A process model of employee engagement: The learning climate and its relationship with extra-role performance behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 2015, 37, 213–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Powell, S.M.; Davies, M.A.; Norton, D. Impact of organizational climate on ethical empowerment and engagement with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). J. Brand Manag. 2013, 20, 815–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ford, L.R.; Seers, A. Relational leadership and team climates: Pitting differentiation versus agreement. Leadersh. Q. 2006, 17, 258–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wu, T.-C.; Chang, S.-H.; Shu, C.-M.; Chen, C.-T.; Wang, C.-P. Safety leadership and safety performance in petrochemical industries: The mediating role of safety climate. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 2011, 24, 716–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Dahl, Ø.; Olsen, E. Safety compliance on offshore platforms: A multi-sample survey on the role of perceived leadership involvement and work climate. Saf. Sci. 2013, 54, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Avolio, B.; Bass, B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Third Edition Manual and Sampler Set; Mind Garden: Redwood City, CA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  76. Fox, J. Teacher’s Corner: Structural Equation Modeling With the sem Package in R. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 2006, 13, 465–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Martín, F.A.; Fernández, M.P. “Path” análisis, modelos de ecuaciones estructurales y variables no observadas. Rev. Española Investig. Sociológicas 1978, 31, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Portillo, M.T.E.; Gómez, J.A.H.; Ortega, V.E.; Moreno, G.M. Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales: Características, fases, construcción, aplicación y resultados. Cienc. Trab. 2016, 18, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Kozlowski, S.W.; Doherty, M.L. Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. J. Appl. Psychol. 1989, 74, 546–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Payne, R.; Pugh, D.S. Organizational structure and climate. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Dunnette, M.D., Ed.; Rand McNally: Chicago, IL, USA, 1976; pp. 1125–1173. [Google Scholar]
  82. Kopelman, R.E.; Brief, A.P.; Guzzo, R.A. The role of climate and culture in productivity. In Organizational Climate and Culture; Schneider, B., Ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1990; pp. 282–318. [Google Scholar]
  83. Yen, H.R.; Li, E.Y.; Niehoff, B.P. Do organizational citizenship behaviors lead to information system success? Testing the mediation effects of integration climate and project management. Inf. Manag. 2008, 45, 394–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ngo, H.-Y.; Foley, S.; Loi, R. Family friendly work practices, organizational climate, and firm performance: A study of multinational corporations in Hong Kong. J. Organ. Behav. 2009, 30, 665–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Messersmith, J.G.; Patel, P.C.; Lepak, D.P.; Gould-Williams, J.S. Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between high-performance work systems and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 1105–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Yasir, M.; Imran, R.; Irshad, M.K. Mediating role of organizational climate in the relationship between transformational leadership, its facets and organizational performance. Aктуальні Nрoблеми Екoнoміки 2013, 7, 559–569. [Google Scholar]
  87. Nelson, K.; Boudrias, J.-S.; Brunet, L.; Morin, D.; De Civita, M.; Savoie, A.; Alderson, M. Authentic leadership and psychological well-being at work of nurses: The mediating role of work climate at the individual level of analysis. Burn. Res. 2014, 1, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Conway, J.M.; Lance, C.E. What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010, 25, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Relationship between transformational leadership, organizational climate and organizational commitment.
Figure 1. Relationship between transformational leadership, organizational climate and organizational commitment.
Sustainability 12 06659 g001
Figure 2. Resulting model according to the relationship between transformational leadership factors, climate, and organizational commitment. Leadership: 1. Idealized Influence (II), 2. Intellectual Stimulation (IS), 3. Individualized Consideration (IC), 4. Inspiring Motivation (IM). Climate: 1. Support (SP), 2. Innovation (IN), 3. Objectives (OB), 4. Rules (RU). Commitment: 1. Affective Commitment (AC), 2. Social Commitment (SC), 3. Intellectual Commitment (INC). M (Mean), SE (Standard Deviation). CHI-SQUARE = 51.86; df = 35; p-value = 0.008405; RMSEA = 0.038.
Figure 2. Resulting model according to the relationship between transformational leadership factors, climate, and organizational commitment. Leadership: 1. Idealized Influence (II), 2. Intellectual Stimulation (IS), 3. Individualized Consideration (IC), 4. Inspiring Motivation (IM). Climate: 1. Support (SP), 2. Innovation (IN), 3. Objectives (OB), 4. Rules (RU). Commitment: 1. Affective Commitment (AC), 2. Social Commitment (SC), 3. Intellectual Commitment (INC). M (Mean), SE (Standard Deviation). CHI-SQUARE = 51.86; df = 35; p-value = 0.008405; RMSEA = 0.038.
Sustainability 12 06659 g002
Table 1. Pearson correlations between the variables and subscales of transformational leadership, organizational climate, and commitment.
Table 1. Pearson correlations between the variables and subscales of transformational leadership, organizational climate, and commitment.
IS0.702 **1
IC0.618 **0.685 **1
IM0.634 **0.628 **0.739 **1
LEADERSHIP0.868 **0.866 **0.868 **0.862 **1
SP0.404 **0.359 **0.443 **0.437 **0.474 **1
IN0.477 **0.500 **0.537 **0.555 **0.595 **0.539 **1
OB0.598 **0.562 **0.571 **0.573 **0.666 **0.483 **0.597 **1
RU0.405 **0.382 **0.364 **0.406 **0.451 **0.426 **0.523 **0.607 **1
CLIMATE0.586 **0.561 **0.598 **0.614 **0.681 **0.772 **0.829 **0.834 **0.781 **1
INC0.139 *0.118 *0.0690.0470.110 *0.187 **0.195 **0.197 **0.252 **0.256 **1
SC0.178 **0.126*0.151 **0.127*0.170 **0.276 **0.245 **0.209 **0.266 **0.310 **0.385 **1
AC0.280 **0.250 **0.223 **0.178 **0.271 **0.247 **0.376 **0.362 **0.351 **0.414 **0.754 **0.408 **1
COMMITMENT0.255 **0.210 **0.194 **0.160**0.239 **0.294 **0.347 **0.326 **0.363 **0.412 **0.829 **0.749 **0.882 **1
Note: Leadership: 1. Idealized Influence (II), 2. Intellectual Stimulation (IS), 3. Individualized Consideration (IC), 4. Inspiring Motivation (IM). Climate: 1. Support (SP), 2. Innovation (IN), 3. Objectives (OB), 4. Rules (RU). Commitment: 1. Affective Commitment (AC), 2. Social Commitment (SC), 3. Intellectual Commitment (INC). M (Mean), SE (Standard Deviation). The correlation is significant * p < 0.05 (bilateral). The correlation is significant ** p < 0.01 (bilateral).
Table 2. Adjustment indices of the proposed model based on the variables of transformational leadership, organizational climate, and commitment.
Table 2. Adjustment indices of the proposed model based on the variables of transformational leadership, organizational climate, and commitment.
Proposed model120.47 **422.870.950.930.900.940.07
Note: ** p > 0.000.
Table 3. Total (T), direct (D) and indirect (I) effects of the variables included in the model.
Table 3. Total (T), direct (D) and indirect (I) effects of the variables included in the model.
ClimateT = 0.461
D = 0.802
I = 0.000
CommitmentT = 0.008T = 0.018
D = 0.000D = 0.441
I = 0.353I = 0.000

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mañas-Rodríguez, M.A.; Enciso-Forero, E.; Salvador-Ferrer, C.M.; Trigueros, R.; Aguilar-Parra, J.M. Empirical Research in Colombian Services Sector: Relation between Transformational Leadership, Climate and Commitment. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6659.

AMA Style

Mañas-Rodríguez MA, Enciso-Forero E, Salvador-Ferrer CM, Trigueros R, Aguilar-Parra JM. Empirical Research in Colombian Services Sector: Relation between Transformational Leadership, Climate and Commitment. Sustainability. 2020; 12(16):6659.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mañas-Rodríguez, Miguel A., Eleonora Enciso-Forero, Carmen M. Salvador-Ferrer, Rubén Trigueros, and José M. Aguilar-Parra. 2020. "Empirical Research in Colombian Services Sector: Relation between Transformational Leadership, Climate and Commitment" Sustainability 12, no. 16: 6659.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop