Explaining organizational commitment and job satisfaction: the role of leadership and seniority

The study examines whether perceived congruence between leaders’ conceptual cycle (what leaders say they value and intend to do) and practical cycle (what leaders actually do) predicts leadership efficacy, operationalized as employees’ organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Grounded in the Leadership Efficacy Model (Gomes, 2014, 2020), the authors posit that greater congruence enhances leadership efficacy and that antecedent factors—specifically member characteristics such as organizational seniority—may moderate this relationship. The authors formulate three hypotheses: H1, that perceived leadership cycle congruence positively predicts organizational commitment; H2, that perceived leadership cycle congruence positively predicts job satisfaction; and H3, that seniority moderates these relationships, with lower seniority expected to amplify the positive effects on organizational commitment (H3a) and job satisfaction (H3b). The study’s purpose is to provide empirical evidence for the model in organizational settings (beyond prior sport contexts) and to clarify how member seniority shapes leadership effects on key work attitudes.

Leadership is widely recognized as critical to organizational success and is defined as influencing employees to achieve goals. Prior research links leadership to improved organizational commitment and job satisfaction. The Leadership Efficacy Model integrates trait, behavioral, and contingency perspectives, emphasizing dynamic congruence between leaders’ conceptual and practical cycles across philosophy, practice, and criteria domains. Earlier empirical tests (mostly in sport) show leadership cycle congruence predicts leadership efficacy and satisfaction with leader. Literature further indicates leaders’ behaviors (e.g., attentiveness, involvement in decision-making) relate to higher organizational commitment and job satisfaction, while excessive supervision can diminish commitment. Employees’ expectations and psychological contracts evolve with tenure; lower-tenure employees often value reciprocity and have higher initial expectations, while expectations adjust downward over time. Tenure relates to affective commitment and job satisfaction in prior studies, but its moderating role between leadership congruence and efficacy is underexplored, motivating H3.

Design: Cross-sectional correlational study testing a path model with leadership congruency predicting organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and seniority as a moderator. Ethics approval was obtained (University of Minho CEICSH 128/2020). Data collection: Online questionnaire via Qualtrics distributed Feb–Apr 2021 through social media (LinkedIn, Facebook; 38%) and six partner organizations (public administration 25%, technology 18%, automotive 9%, catering 5%, healthcare 5%). Inclusion required directly reporting to a leader. Informed consent obtained; item and measure order randomized. Participants: N=318 employees (55% male), age 21–72 (M=35.78, SD=10.54). Education: bachelor’s 38%, master’s+ 30%, high school 27%. Sectors varied (e.g., services 22%, health/social care 17%, public administration/defense 17%, manufacturing 8%). Employment: 97% full-time; 60% permanent contracts. Seniority: 1 month to 42 years (M=8 years, SD=9.5 years). Measures: - Leadership congruency: Leadership Efficacy Questionnaire (LEQ; Gomes et al., 2022) assessing three domains at conceptual and practical cycles—leadership philosophy (5 items; αconceptual=0.87, αpractical=0.91), practice (5 items; αconceptual=0.89, αpractical=0.92), criteria (5 items; αconceptual=0.89, αpractical=0.93). Responses on 1 (never) to 5 (always). Leadership Cycles Congruence Index (LCCI) computed as practical minus conceptual per item, mirrored so negatives become positive; values closer to 0 indicate higher congruency; averaged to an overall index. - Organizational commitment: 9-item Organizational Commitment Scale (Portuguese version) on 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree); α=0.91. - Job satisfaction: 23-item Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (Portuguese version) on 1 (not satisfied at all) to 7 (extremely satisfied); α=0.96. Data analysis: A-priori sample size for medium effect 0.20, power 0.80, α=0.05 suggested N≥223; achieved N=318. Assumptions: Normality per Kline criteria met (skew −0.65 to 1.39; kurtosis 0.26 to 1.30). Multicollinearity acceptable (all |r|<0.80; VIF 1.02–1.99). Path analysis (AMOS): Predictors were standardized z-scores of leadership congruency, seniority, and their interaction (leadership congruency × seniority). Outcomes: organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Model fit assessed via χ², RMSEA, SRMR, GFI, CFI. Moderation probing: Split by seniority using 60 months (5 years) cut-off into high (≥60 months; n=150) vs low (<60 months; n=168) for separate regressions on organizational commitment.

Descriptive and correlations (N=318): Seniority M=101.58 months (SD=114.79); leadership congruency (LCCI; higher=less congruent) M=0.73 (SD=0.72); organizational commitment M=3.82 (SD=0.75); job satisfaction M=5.11 (SD=1.09). Correlations included: seniority with leadership congruency r=0.14 (p<0.05), with job satisfaction r=−0.25 (p<0.001); leadership congruency with organizational commitment r=−0.28 (p<0.001) and with job satisfaction r=−0.45 (p<0.001); organizational commitment with job satisfaction r=0.62 (p<0.001). Model fit: χ²(1)=5.96, χ²/df=5.96, RMSEA=0.125 (95% CI [0.044, 0.230], PRMSEA=0.061), SRMR=0.039, GFI=0.993, CFI=0.980. Path coefficients (standardized β; unstandardized b; SE; p): - Organizational commitment outcome: leadership congruency β=−0.259 (b=−0.268, SE=0.056, p<0.001); seniority β=−0.050 (b<0.001, p=0.354; ns); interaction β=−0.133 (b=−0.096, SE=0.039, p=0.013). - Job satisfaction outcome: leadership congruency β=−0.430 (b=−0.644, SE=0.075, p<0.001); seniority β=−0.196 (b=−0.002, p<0.001); interaction β=0.008 (b=0.008, p=0.879; ns). Variance explained: R²=0.22 for job satisfaction; R²=0.10 for organizational commitment. Moderation probing (organizational commitment): - High seniority (≥60 months): leadership congruency significantly predicted organizational commitment, F(1,147)=30.85, p<0.001, R²=0.174, b=−0.42, β=−0.42, t=−5.55. - Low seniority (<60 months): effect not significant, F(1,167)=2.56, p=0.111. Hypotheses: H1 and H2 supported (greater leadership cycle congruence associated with higher organizational commitment and job satisfaction). H3a supported in direction opposite to expectation (effect stronger for higher seniority); H3b not supported (no moderation for job satisfaction). Additional finding: seniority directly associated with lower job satisfaction, but not with organizational commitment.

Findings support the Leadership Efficacy Model’s central premise: employee-perceived congruence between leaders’ conceptual and practical cycles relates to higher leadership efficacy, evidenced by greater organizational commitment and job satisfaction. This extends prior evidence from sports to organizational settings, underscoring the importance of leaders aligning stated values, practices, and evaluation criteria with daily behaviors in ways that match employees’ expectations and needs. Regarding moderation, seniority altered the effect of leadership congruence on organizational commitment, but in the opposite direction to the authors’ initial expectation: the congruency–commitment link was significant and stronger among more senior employees and non-significant among less senior employees, while no moderation emerged for job satisfaction. The authors suggest that as expectations adjust downward over tenure, congruent leadership may exceed seasoned employees’ reduced expectations, amplifying its positive impact on commitment. The pandemic context may also have heightened the value of stable, congruent leadership for longer-tenured staff. Overall, results indicate that the influence of leadership congruence on key attitudes varies with tenure, particularly for commitment, emphasizing the need for leaders to account for member characteristics.

This study provides empirical support for two key assumptions of the Leadership Efficacy Model in an organizational context: (1) greater congruence between leaders’ conceptual and practical cycles is associated with higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment; and (2) member characteristics—in this case, seniority—can moderate these effects. Practically, leaders should clearly articulate their leadership philosophy, practices, and criteria (conceptual cycle), and ensure daily actions align with these (practical cycle) while attending to team members’ needs. Given that longer-tenured employees showed a stronger congruency–commitment link, leaders should tailor communication and behaviors to tenure-related needs and expectations. Future research should examine these relationships longitudinally, include objective outcomes (e.g., turnover, absenteeism), and test other components of the model (leadership styles and additional antecedent factors across leader and context characteristics) to broaden understanding of leadership efficacy.

The study’s cross-sectional design limits causal inference and raises potential common method variance concerns, partially mitigated by randomized item and measure order. Data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic may affect generalizability; replication in post-pandemic conditions is recommended. The focus on self-reported attitudes, rather than objective outcomes, narrows the scope of leadership efficacy assessment. Additionally, while one antecedent factor (member seniority) was examined, other antecedent factors (leader and situational characteristics) and leadership styles proposed by the model were not included; longitudinal and multi-source designs using objective metrics are suggested for future work.