Abstract
This study, drawing from social information processing and attribution theory, investigates how employees’ perceptions of organizational intent behind Human Resource (HR) practices are shaped by their social environment and personal value orientations. It specifically examines the differential effects of transformational and transactional leadership behaviours on two types of employee attributions: HR commitment and HR control. The study also explores the moderating role of allocentrism in these relationships. Data were collected in two phases from a sample of 380 university employees and analysed using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM). Findings indicate that transformational leadership is positively related to HR commitment attributions and negatively related with HR control attributions, with both effects being amplified by allocentrism. Transactional leadership is positively related to HR control attributions and negatively related to HR commitment attributions, with allocentrism strengthening these relationships. The study findings extend HR attribution theory by showing that leadership behaviours serve as critical social cues shaping employees’ interpretations of HR systems, contingent on cultural values. Practically, they highlight the importance of developing transformational and culturally attuned leadership to reinforce commitment-based HR attributions.
Keywords
1. Introduction
Why do employees sometimes see the same HR practice through entirely different lenses—one viewing it as supportive and empowering, another as controlling or punitive? For example, a new performance management system might be interpreted by some as an investment in development, while others may see it as a tool for micromanagement. These divergent views reflect how employees assign meaning to HR practices—a process known as HR attributions, which are judgements about whether HR systems aim to support employee well-being (commitment-focused) or maximize performance through control (control-focused) (Hewett et al., 2018; Kelley and Michela, 1980).
Employees do not passively absorb HR practices; they actively interpret them to understand their intent (Nishii et al., 2008). This interpretive process forms HR attributions, which serve as cognitive mechanisms linking HR systems to outcomes such as trust, engagement, performance, and retention (Nishii et al., 2008).
While research has explored the outcomes of HR attributions, far less attention has been given to their antecedents (Hewett et al., 2018). This is a critical gap. Scholars have emphasized the need to understand how employees arrive at attributional interpretations in the first place (Beijer et al., 2019; Hewett et al., 2019; Shantz et al., 2018). This study responds to that call, adopting the view that HR attribution formation is socially and contextually shaped. As Guest (2011) notes, for Human Resource Management (HRM) to have lasting impact, organizations must grasp not only how employees respond to HR systems but also how they construct meaning from them in different contexts. Without insight into this sense-making process, even well-designed HR practices risk being misunderstood. Thus, exploring the antecedents of HR attributions is both theoretically and practically significant.
This article examines leadership behaviour—specifically transformational and transactional leadership—as a critical social cue in shaping HR attributions. Leaders play a central role in how employees experience HR practices (Hauff et al., 2022; Yoo and Wang, 2009). Their actions can either reinforce or contradict HR messages, influencing employee interpretations (Gilbert et al., 2015; Ostroff and Bowen, 2016). While prior studies (e.g. Fan et al., 2020) have shown that leadership influences HR attributions, this study goes further by comparing the relative effects of transformational and transactional leadership styles and by identifying the behavioural signals through which each shapes employee interpretations.
This research also brings a granular, employee-level lens, which remains underdeveloped in the literature (Braun et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2020). Since leaders interact differently with individual employees—and employees filter HR information through personalized lenses (Nishii et al., 2008)—the study theorizes attribution formation as a leader–subordinate sense-making process, contributing new insights to HRM and leadership research.
Drawing on social information processing (SIP) theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978), this study examines how employees use cues from their social environment—especially from salient figures like line managers—to form judgements. As key agents in enacting HR practices, leaders shape how employees perceive the intent behind those practices (Bos-Nehles and Bondarouk, 2017; Gilbert et al., 2015). Yet little is known about how specific leadership styles signal HR intent and influence attribution formation.
While leaders provide social cues, employees are not passive. Their interpretations depend on individual characteristics. To explore this, the study integrates allocentrism, a value orientation emphasizing collectivism, harmony, and belonging (Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis, 1990). Allocentric individuals may be more receptive to prosocial leadership behaviours (e.g. transformational leadership), while less allocentric employees might perceive these cues differently. Incorporating allocentrism highlights how personal values moderate the influence of leadership on HR attributions.
By exploring the interaction between leadership styles and individual values, this study contributes in three key ways. First, it addresses a theoretical gap by identifying leadership behaviour as an antecedent to HR attributions. Second, it extends SIP theory by showing that attribution formation is a co-constructed process, shaped by both the social context (leadership) and individual cognitive filters (allocentrism). Third, it offers practical insights: organizations must align HR communication and leadership development not only with strategic goals but also with employees’ value orientations. These contributions are particularly timely given the growing emphasis on employee experience and the need for HR systems to be seen as credible, fair, and trustworthy.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Transactional and transformational leadership behaviours and HR commitment and control attributions
While prior studies have linked leadership to HR attributions, most have examined macro-level effects or treated leadership as a control variable rather than a core theoretical mechanism. For example, Fan et al. (2020) found leadership styles influence employee interpretations of HR practices but did not explore attributional processes through SIP theory or distinguish between transformational and transactional styles in depth. Similarly, Beijer et al. (2021) and Marescaux et al. (2022) acknowledged line managers’ influence on HR attributions but focused more on implementation fidelity than on the psychological signalling embedded in leadership behaviour. Cai et al. (2023) addressed transactional leadership’s role but limited their scope to high-power distance contexts, overlooking employee-level variation.
This study extends SIP theory by offering an individual-level analysis of how transformational and transactional leadership styles serve as interpretive cues that shape employees’ HR attributions. It repositions leadership from a static context variable to a dynamic, socially constructed signal, thus contributing to the theoretical integration of leadership and HRM perception literatures (Hewett et al., 2018).
SIP theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978) suggests individuals form attitudes and behaviours based on social cues. Cognitive schemas, shaped by experiences with salient others—particularly leaders—inform how employees interpret HR practices. Leadership behaviour thus becomes a key source of social information, influencing whether employees attribute HR practices to commitment-oriented or control-focused intentions (Hewett et al., 2019).
Since transformational and transactional leaders differ in how they communicate and share information, they differentially shape employees’ perceptions of HR intent. Leadership, therefore, plays a crucial role in how employees make sense of and respond to HR practices (Beijer et al., 2019).
2.2. Transformational leadership and HR commitment attributions
Transformational leadership encompasses key dimensions, including idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation (Bass, 1985). We argue that these leadership behaviours serve as cues that communicate an organization’s commitment to employee growth and well-being, thereby reinforcing HR commitment attributions. Leaders who exhibit idealized influence instil a sense of identification, vision, and confidence in employees, inspiring them to pursue long-term organizational objectives rather than adhere to conventional or widely accepted procedures (Malloch, 2014). By aligning employees’ personal goals with the broader organizational vision, leaders send strong signals that the organization values service quality (Boehm et al., 2015). These leader behaviours communicate authenticity, credibility, and trust, which encourage employees to perceive HR systems as fairness oriented and supportive of personal growth (Levitats et al., 2021). This aligns with recent work by Shin et al. (2022), who demonstrated that transformational leadership enhances voice and empowerment, fostering perceptions that HRM practices prioritize development over control.
Inspirational motivation further fosters a positive and encouraging organizational climate, bolstering employees’ enthusiasm while assuring them that their personal aspirations are acknowledged and their rights safeguarded (Bass, 1985; Malloch, 2014). Through individualized consideration, transformational leaders demonstrate concern for employees’ unique needs and engage with them on an emotional level (Yukl et al., 2002). This leadership approach conveys a sense of genuine care and compassion from the organization, reassuring employees that their well-being is prioritized (Rafferty and Griffin, 2004). Intellectual stimulation, another core dimension of transformational leadership, empowers employees by granting them autonomy in decision-making related to their work. This non-controlling environment fosters a sense of value and recognition for their contributions, thereby strengthening perceptions of growth and development opportunities, which further reinforces HR commitment attributions (Boehm et al., 2015; Elkins and Keller, 2003).
Recent research by Levitats et al. (2021) further supports this notion, indicating that transformational leaders foster positive psychological climates that are tightly linked to employees’ interpretations of HR practices as supportive and developmental. Similarly, studies such as Shin et al. (2022) demonstrate that employees are more likely to perceive HR systems as fair and growth oriented under transformational leadership due to enhanced feelings of voice, empowerment, and organizational trust.
In essence, transformational leadership behaviours contribute to the development of a supportive social environment that signals an organizational commitment to employee well-being and service quality (Avolio and Bass, 1995). Based on this theoretical framework, the study proposes the following hypothesis:
H1: Transformational leadership behaviour is positively associated with the formation of commitment-based HR attributions and negatively associated with control-based HR attributions.
2.3. Transactional leadership and control-based HR attributions
In contrast, transactional leadership is structured around three primary dimensions: contingent reward, management by exception (active), and management by exception (passive) (Bass and Avolio, 1994). These dimensions emphasize economic exchange and adherence to organizational rules, signalling control-oriented motives. These leader behaviours prioritize output monitoring, rule enforcement, and conditional rewards, which together promote a mechanistic view of HRM (Mendonca and Kanungo, 1994). Through contingent reward, transactional leaders reinforce the notion that HR practices primarily prioritize compliance over employee well-being, as rewards are strictly contingent on task completion (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Cai et al., 2023). When employing management by exception (active), transactional leaders closely monitor employee performance and intervene with corrective actions when deviations occur, thereby reinforcing the importance of efficiency and adherence to organizational protocols (Cai et al., 2023; Fields and Herold, 1997; Kark and Van Dijk, 2007). In addition, reactive intervention from leaders serves as a signal of the organization’s limited investment in employee development, further strengthening perceptions of control-oriented HR practices (Lowe et al., 1996).
The fundamental focus of transactional leadership lies in rule enforcement and goal attainment, often at the expense of employee well-being (Kark and Van Dijk, 2007). These leadership behaviours prompt employees to view HR practices as mechanisms designed to maximize productivity and efficiency rather than to foster personal and professional growth (Mendonca and Kanungo, 1994). For instance, transactional leaders’ emphasis on procedural adherence may cause employees to perceive performance management systems as purely administrative and control focused. Conversely, transformational leaders frame such systems as developmental platforms that facilitate employee growth.
Furthermore, our research complements findings by Marescaux et al. (2022), who noted that employees under directive leadership often interpret HRM as rule-enforcing, by showing that transactional leadership systematically shifts attribution patterns towards control—especially when employee discretion is low.
Research on leadership frequently examines collective perceptions by aggregating subordinate ratings (Braun et al., 2013; Wang and Howell, 2012). However, given that leaders exhibit idiosyncratic behaviours towards different employees (Kim et al., 2020), perceptions of leadership behaviours can vary significantly among employees. Similarly, HR attributions are shaped by individual employee judgements, personal experiences, and cognitive processing, making them inherently idiosyncratic. Consequently, leadership behaviours must be measured at the individual level to accurately capture variations in employee perceptions.
H2: Transactional leadership behaviour is linked positively to the formation of employees’ control-based HR attributions and negatively related to commitment-based HR attributions.
2.4. Moderating role of allocentrism in the leadership behaviours and HR attributions relationship
Implicit leadership theory posits that leadership is a socially constructed phenomenon, perceived through the subjective lens of the observer (Fiske and Taylor, 1984). Given this perspective, employees’ perceptions of desirable leadership behaviours vary based on differences in their beliefs, prototypes, schemas, knowledge structures, and mental models (Fiske and Taylor, 1984). These cognitive frameworks shape employees’ mental representations of an ideal leader, which may or may not align with the actual behaviours of their leaders. Leadership behaviours that are consistent with employees’ values are perceived as more acceptable and effective, whereas behaviours that contradict personal values can lead to negative outcomes (Fiske and Taylor, 1984). Building on this perspective, the present study examines the role of employees’ personal value orientations and argues that leaders who align more closely with the personal prototypes of their subordinates are more likely to elicit positive evaluations of the HR practices they implement. Recognizing the diversity in employees’ personal cultural value orientations, we propose that their interpretations and evaluations of leadership behaviours are contingent on their level of allocentrism. A focus on allocentrism enables an appreciation of individual differences in employees’ intrinsic, private values, rather than merely considering collectivistic cultural dimensions that operate externally at the societal level (Geertz, 1973).
Employees develop expectations regarding leadership behaviours based on their cultural values. For individuals high in allocentrism, security, harmonious social relationships, and empathy take precedence over financial gains and cost-cutting objectives (Triandis, 1990). The ideal leader for allocentric employees is one who is selfless, incorruptible, and honest, driven by ethical considerations rather than personal connections, monetary rewards, or power (Triandis, 1990). Transformational leaders align well with these values, as they foster connections with employees, adapt their behaviour to subordinates’ needs, and emphasize commitment, compassion, and communal values such as kindness and forgiveness. In contrast to idiocentric employees, who prioritize transactional and economic exchanges, allocentric employees value relational and normative exchanges (Sullivan et al., 2003). They are more focused on collective achievements rather than the objectives of a single stakeholder (Walumbwa et al., 2007).
In this context, transformational leaders, who inspire employees to work towards both organizational and personal goals, represent an ideal leadership prototype for allocentric individuals (Jung and Avolio, 2000). Allocentric employees are likely to feel more secure and comfortable with transformational leaders due to their integrity, care, consideration, and compassion—qualities that transactional leaders may lack (Mayer and Gavin, 1995). The interaction between allocentrism and transformational leadership fosters positive interpretations of HR initiatives, allowing employees to perceive management’s HR policies in a favourable light (Furst and Cable, 2008). Therefore, transformational leaders who not only pursue organizational goals but also prioritize the needs, well-being, and job security of employees reinforce the ideal leader prototype for allocentric individuals, leading to stronger HR commitment attributions (Mayer and Gavin, 1995).
Conversely, allocentric employees may struggle to identify with transactional leaders due to a lack of value alignment. Transactional leadership places less emphasis on personal relationships and individual well-being, making it less congruent with the values and expectations of allocentric employees (Walumbwa et al., 2007). As a result, perceptions of transactional leadership behaviours are likely to cause psychological discomfort, as they do not align with allocentric employees’ mental prototypes of ideal leadership. This misalignment increases the likelihood of perceived imbalances, which in turn trigger attributional processes focused on control. When leadership behaviours conflict with employees’ cultural value orientations, it disrupts their cognitive expectations of an effective leader, leading them to interpret HR practices in a more control-oriented manner. Based on this theoretical framework, we propose the following hypotheses:
H3: Allocentrism strengthens the positive relationship between transformational leadership and HR commitment attributions while also strengthening the negative relationship between transformational leadership and HR control attributions.
H4: Allocentrism strengthens the positive relationship between transactional leadership and HR control attributions while also strengthening the negative relationship between transactional leadership and HR commitment attributions.
3. Methods
3.1. Data and sample
Data for this study were gathered through a paper-based questionnaire distributed to all academic staff members (lecturers and above) at a large university in the capital territory of Pakistan in July 2022. The HR department, on behalf of the researcher, circulated an email inviting participation in the survey (N = 520). Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the principal author’s affiliated institution. All participants provided written informed consent prior to participation. The data were collected directly and independently by the principal researcher, and participants were informed via the participation information sheet that their responses would remain completely anonymous and confidential. Given these measures, the possibility of coercion can be reasonably ruled out. Only the principal researcher had exclusive access to the securely stored survey data. All participants provided written informed consent. No incentives were offered, and participants could complete the survey during paid working hours. The survey was administered in English, the official language of Pakistan, and all participants were proficient in English.
Participation information sheet outlined the survey’s purpose, scope, objectives, and potential benefits. Participation was explicitly voluntary, and confidentiality was assured. To be eligible, employees had to have worked under the supervision of their line manager (Head of School) for at least 6 months to ensure sufficient experience to assess leadership behaviours. None of the sampled employees held a managerial position.
Data collection occurred in two phases, 6 months apart (T1 and T2), to reduce common method bias. Respondents’ names were initially recorded on the T1 surveys for matching at T2. Once matched, identifying information was removed, and only coded data were retained to ensure confidentiality. During T1, participants completed measures of the independent variables (transactional and transformational leadership behaviours) and the moderator (allocentrism). Six months later, at T2, participants reported HR commitment and control attributions. A total of 380 participants completed both T1 and T2 surveys, resulting in a final matched sample of 380 and a longitudinal response rate of approximately 73%. This indicates a dropout rate of 27% between waves, which is within an acceptable range for two-wave survey designs (Menard, 2002).
To ensure the sample size was adequate for detecting hypothesized effects, an a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009) for multiple regression analyses with up to six predictors (including main effects and interaction terms). Assuming a medium effect size (f2 = 0.15), an alpha level of 0.05, and a desired power of 0.80, the minimum required sample size was estimated at 98 participants. Medium effects are commonly observed in organizational behaviour and leadership studies (Walumbwa et al., 2007). The actual sample of 380 thus provides sufficient statistical power to detect medium to small effect sizes, increasing confidence in the robustness and generalizability of the findings.
The sample consisted of 71% male respondents, reflecting the gender distribution in the Pakistani academic labour market. Age distribution was 15% younger than 30 years, 51% between 30 and 40 years, and 34% above 40 years. In addition, 71% were married. Regarding tenure, 22% had worked in the organization for less than 5 years, 50% between 5 and 10 years, and the remainder more than 10 years.
To assess potential non-response bias, we adopted the method proposed by Armstrong and Overton (1977), comparing early and late respondents using independent samples t-tests. The sample was divided into quartiles, with the first 25% categorized as early respondents and the last 25% as late respondents. The analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups on key study variables: transformational leadership (t = 0.84, p = 0.29), transactional leadership (t = 0.60, p = 0.59), HR commitment attributions (t = 0.16, p = 0.78), HR control attributions (t = 0.33, p = 0.74), and allocentricism (t = 1.42, p = 0.18). These findings suggest that non-response bias is unlikely to be a concern in this study.
The study was conducted at the individual level, focusing on how employees’ perceptions of leadership influence their HR attributions, rather than aggregating leadership perceptions at the department level. Nevertheless, we evaluated the appropriateness of this analytic level by assessing the potential for a multilevel data structure. Specifically, data were collected from employees working across four distinct academic departments within a large educational institution, with each department led by its own Head of School. This departmental structure allowed us to examine whether shared perceptions of leadership might justify aggregating data to the group level. To assess within-group agreement and between-group variance, we computed Rwg (j) values to evaluate consensus (LeBreton and Senter, 2007), along with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) (1) and ICC (2) values to assess the proportion of variance attributable to group membership and the reliability of group means (Bliese, 2000). The Rwg(j) values ranged from 0.21 to 0.41, ICC (1) from 0.01 to 0.03, and ICC (2) from 0.16 to 0.38. These values fall well below commonly accepted thresholds (e.g. Rwg (j) > 0.70, ICC (1) > 0.10, ICC (2) > 0.50), indicating low within-department agreement and poor reliability of department-level leadership scores. This suggests that employees within the same department held heterogeneous perceptions of their leaders’ behaviours and did not share a sufficiently uniform understanding to support data aggregation.
Therefore, these findings provided empirical justification for conducting the analysis at the individual level. This approach also aligns with the theoretical premise that both leadership behaviours and HR attributions are often perceived subjectively and idiosyncratically, shaped by personal experiences and individual-level cognitive processing.
3.2. Measures
All study measures were adopted from validated, established scales and utilized a 5-point Likert-type response format. Participants indicated their level of agreement with each statement on a scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). This response format was consistently applied across all variables.
3.2.1. Transformational and transactional leadership
Transformational leadership was measured using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X (Bass and Avolio, 1994), comprising four key dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation, each measured with four items. The attributed charisma subscale was excluded, consistent with prior research (Yukl et al., 2002), as it reflects leadership outcomes rather than behavioural components.
To validate the measurement model, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS version 26, comparing two models. The first model specified a four-factor structure with each dimension as a separate latent construct. It yielded χ2 = 215.32 (df = 98), goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.89, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.91, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = 0.88, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.04. The second model, specifying a second-order single-factor structure, showed improved fit: χ2 = 174.88 (df = 100), GFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.95, AGFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.02. High intercorrelations among the subdimensions (r = 0.72–0.85) further supported a higher-order construct. This aligns with the theoretical rationale and prior studies favouring unidimensional representations in applied settings (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). A sample item was: “My boss has a clear understanding of where we are going.” Cronbach’s alpha was 0.82.
Transactional leadership was assessed using a 12-item MLQ scale (Bass and Avolio, 1994) with three subdimensions: contingent reward, management-by-exception active, and passive. CFA compared two models. The first model, treating each as a separate latent factor, yielded χ2 = 148.65 (df = 51), GFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.06, and SRMR = 0.04. The second-order model, with all items loading onto a single higher-order construct, showed superior fit: χ2 = 122.43 (df = 50), GFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.95, AGFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.04, and SRMR = 0.02. High intercorrelations (r = 0.68–0.81) supported this model, in line with research modelling transactional leadership as a unified construct (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). A sample item was: “My leader provides assistance in exchange for my effort.” Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87.
Following Podsakoff et al. (1996), transformational and transactional leadership subdimensions were analysed separately. CFA confirmed this two-factor structure as superior, with fit indices: GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.03, and SRMR = 0.02, consistent with prior findings (Bycio et al., 1995; Walumbwa et al., 2007).
3.2.2. Allocentrism
Allocentrism was measured using an 8-item scale (Triandis and Gelfand, 1998). A sample item was: “I feel good when I cooperate with others.” Cronbach’s alpha was 0.78.
3.2.3. HR attributions
Commitment-focused HR attributions were measured using a 10-item scale (Nishii et al., 2008), assessing work quality and employee well-being. CFA supported treating commitment-focused HR attributions as a single construct (GFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.95, AGFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.03, St. RMR = 0.02). A sample item was: “Our university provides training so that employees feel valued and respected.” Cronbach’s alpha was 0.73.
Control-focused HR attributions were assessed using a 10-item scale (Nishii et al., 2008), measuring cost reduction and employee exploitation. CFA confirmed that treating control-focused HR attributions as a single construct was preferable (GFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.02, St. RMR = 0.02). A sample item was: “Our university provides training to maximize employee output.” Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85.
3.2.4. Controls
We controlled for gender, age, marital status, and tenure to account for their potential influence on employees’ perceptions of leadership, HR attributions, and allocentrism. Research shows that gender affects responses to leadership styles, with women often more responsive to transformational leadership and more likely to attribute HR practices to commitment motives (Eagly et al., 2003; Nishii et al., 2008). Age influences leadership preferences and cultural values, with older employees tending towards stronger allocentrism and different attributional styles (Ng and Feldman, 2010). Marital status, reflecting social roles and life stage, is linked to higher allocentrism and preference for communal goals, potentially affecting HR attribution patterns (Putnam, 2000). Finally, tenure relates to familiarity with organizational leadership and HR systems, shaping attribution development over time (Guest, 2011). Including these controls helps clarify the unique effects of leadership and allocentrism on HR commitment and control attributions. Variables were coded as follows: gender (1 = male, 2 = female), age (<30 = 1, 30–40 = 2, >40 = 3), marital status (0 = single, 1 = married), and tenure (<5 years = 1, 5–10 years = 2, >10 years = 3).
3.3. Preliminary analyses
3.3.1. Common method bias
Given that all study variables were measured using a self-report method, the potential for common method bias influencing the relationships among variables in this research could not be overlooked. To mitigate this risk, we implemented both procedural and statistical remedies as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (1996). One such measure involved collecting data for the dependent and independent variables separately in two distinct surveys, with a 6-month interval between them. This time gap was intended to reduce consistency biases and minimize the likelihood of common method variance, as suggested by Schaubroeck et al. (2012).
To further examine the possible influence of common method variance, we conducted a one-factor test following the approach of Podsakoff and Organ (1986). Principal factor analysis using varimax rotation revealed that the largest factor did not account for most of the variance, capturing only 23.21%. In addition, there was no single general factor explaining most of the covariance among study variables, suggesting that common method variance was unlikely to be a significant issue. To assess multicollinearity among the independent variables, we calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF), which resulted in a value of 2.08—well below the commonly accepted cut-off of five, as per Neter et al. (1990). This finding reinforced our confidence that multicollinearity would not pose a problem in subsequent analyses.
In addition, we conducted CFAs to establish the discriminant validity of the self-reported measures, following the recommendations of Jakobsen and Jensen (2015). The hypothesized measurement model was compared against several alternative nested models to evaluate model fit. As presented in Table 1, the fit indices demonstrated that the proposed five-factor measurement model provided a significantly better fit than all other competing models, thereby supporting the discriminant validity of the study measures.
Results of confirmatory factor analyses (N = 380) model.
p < 0.01. **p < 0.05.
The factor loading results demonstrated that all items loaded significantly onto their respective latent factors, with standardized loadings ranging from 0.64 to 0.90 (p < 0.001). In addition, no cross-loadings were detected. Composite reliability values were assessed and found to be 0.80 or higher, aligning with the threshold recommended by Nunnally (1978). Furthermore, the average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded 0.50, providing strong support for construct validity, as suggested by Henseler et al. (2009).
3.3.2. Hypotheses testing
Descriptive statistics, including means, intercorrelations, and standard deviations of the study variables, are presented in Table 2. Participants demonstrated stronger HRM control attributions (M = 4.23, SD = 0.62) compared to HRM commitment attributions (M = 3.58, SD = 0.71; t = 13.1, p < 0.01). Transformational leadership exhibited a positive correlation with commitment attributions (r = 0.34, p < 0.01) and a negative correlation with control attributions (r = −0.27, p < 0.05). Conversely, transactional leadership was negatively correlated with commitment attributions (r = −0.26, p < 0.05) and positively correlated with control attributions (r = 0.35, p < 0.01). Allocentrism showed a positive association with HR commitment attributions (r = 0.18, p < 0.01) while being negatively related to HR control attributions (r = −0.12, p < 0.01). Furthermore, allocentrism exhibited a weak positive correlation with transactional leadership (r = −0.03, p < 0.05) but a strong positive correlation with transformational leadership (r = 0.31, p < 0.01). Small negative correlation was observed between transformational and transactional leadership behaviours (r = −0.10, p < 0.05), which is somewhat contrary to some prior findings that report a positive or non-significant relationship (e.g. Antonakis and House, 2014; Judge and Piccolo, 2004) This may be because of our decision to assess leadership at the individual level rather than aggregating across departments could also contribute to the negative correlation. Employees may perceive their leaders primarily through one dominant lens, which shapes their interpretation of leadership style in a contrastive manner. That is, if a leader is seen as highly transactional—closely monitoring work and focusing on compliance—employees may underreport transformational behaviours, even if such behaviours occasionally occur, and vice versa. This perceptual contrast may have accentuated the negative association at the individual level. Finally, the correlation results indicated that none of the study control variables were significantly correlated with the primary study variables.
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among the variables (N = 380).
Note. Male = 1, females = 2; age < 30 = 1, between 30 and 40 = 2, and over 40 = 3, single employees = 0 and married = 1, Experience < 5 years = 1, between 5 and 10 years = 2 and >10 years = 3.
TFL: transformational leadership; TSL: transactional leadership; HRMCOMM: HRM commitment attributions; HRCCONT: HRM control attributions.
p < 0.01. *p < 0.05.
Given the number of statistical comparisons conducted in our correlation and regression analyses, we applied a Bonferroni correction to adjust for the risk of Type I error. All core findings that were originally significant at the p < 0.01 level remained statistically significant under this more stringent threshold, thus increasing our confidence in the robustness of the results.
The study hypotheses were tested at the individual level using regression analyses, as presented in Table 3. The moderation hypotheses were assessed using moderated regression analyses via the PASW macro developed by Preacher et al. (2007). This macro enables the simultaneous examination of product terms alongside the main effects rather than testing them hierarchically, as suggested by Edwards (2009). Prior to conducting the analyses, all variables involved in interaction terms were mean-centred to reduce multicollinearity. The results indicated that none of the study controls had a significant impact on the study outcomes. The findings provided robust support for the positive effect of transformational leadership on HR commitment attributions (β = 0.32, t = 1.21, p < 0.01). In addition, transformational leadership was found to be negatively associated with HR control attributions (β = −0.30, t = −0.10, p < 0.01), thereby confirming Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 posited that transactional leadership would be positively related to HR control attributions and negatively related to HR commitment attributions. The results substantiated this hypothesis, revealing a significant positive effect of transactional leadership on HR control attributions (β = 0.46, t = 0.13, p < 0.01) while demonstrating a negative relationship between transactional leadership and HR commitment attributions (β = −0.25, t = −1.01, p < 0.01), thereby confirming Hypothesis 2 as well.
Regression results for simple moderation (N = 380).
Note. Transformational = transformational leadership; Transactional = transactional leadership.
p < 0.01. *p < 0.05.
The interaction between transformational leadership and allocentrism was positively associated with employees’ HR commitment attributions (β = 0.41, t = 2.62, p < 0.01). The results indicated an increase in the R2 value by 0.06, with an F-value of 9.02, p < 0.01. Moreover, the interaction between transformational leadership and allocentrism weakened the negative relationship between transformational leadership and HR control attributions (β = −0.26, t = −0.09, p < 0.01), leading to an increase in the R2 value by 0.04, with an F-value of 8.12, p < 0.01. These findings suggest that allocentric employees are more likely to develop HR commitment attributions when they perceive their leader as transformational, while their perception of transformational leadership reduces HR control attributions.
Similarly, the interaction between transactional leadership and allocentrism was positively associated with employees’ HR control attributions (β = 0.50, t = 0.14, p < 0.01), resulting in an increase in the R2 value by 0.08, with an F-value of 7.32, p < 0.01. In addition, the interaction between transactional leadership and allocentrism reinforced the negative relationship between transactional leadership and HR commitment attributions (β = −0.28, t = −1.92, p < 0.01), leading to an increase in the R2 value by 0.05, with an F-value of 8.02, p < 0.01. These findings indicate that allocentric employees are more likely to form HR control attributions when they perceive their leader as transactional, whereas their perception of transactional leadership reduces HR commitment attributions.
As shown in Table 4, to further explore the moderating effects, we estimated the conditional effects (simple slopes) of transformational leadership on employees’ HR commitment and HR control attributions at varying levels of allocentrism, using the sample mean ± 1 standard deviation to represent moderate, high, and low levels, as recommended by Preacher et al. (2006). For HR commitment attributions, the results showed that the positive effect of transformational leadership was strongest at high levels of allocentrism (b = 0.51, t = 3.45, p < 0.001), followed by moderate levels (b = 0.42, t = 3.11, p = 0.002), and remained statistically significant at low levels (b = 0.35, t = 2.18, p = 0.031). This pattern indicates that employees higher in allocentrism were more likely to interpret transformational leadership behaviours as signals of HR commitment.
Conditional effects of transformational leadership on HR commitment and HRF control attributions at the values of allocentrism.
Note. Bootstrap sample size = 1000. Transformational = transformational leadership; Transactional = transactional leadership.
p < 0.01.
Similarly, for HR control attributions, transformational leadership showed a significantly negative relationship at all levels of allocentrism, with the strongest negative effect observed at high allocentrism (b = −0.43, t = −3.28, p = 0.001), followed by moderate (b = −0.38, t = −2.97, p = 0.004), and low levels (b = −0.34, t = −2.23, p = 0.027) as shown in Table 5. These findings suggest that transformational leadership reduces perceptions of control-focused HR motives more strongly among employees high in allocentrism.
Conditional effects of transactional leadership on HR commitment and HR control attributions at the values of allocentrism.
Note. Bootstrap sample size = 1000. Transformational = transformational leadership; Transactional = transactional leadership.
p < 0.01.
We also examined the conditional effects of transactional leadership on both types of HR attributions. For HR commitment attributions, transactional leadership had a significantly negative effect across all levels of allocentrism (b = −0.36, t = −2.77, p = 0.006) at high, b = −0.31 (t = −2.31, p = 0.022) at moderate, and b = −0.28 (t = −1.98, p = 0.049) at low levels of allocentrism. In contrast, the positive relationship between transactional leadership and HR control attributions was statistically significant across all levels of allocentrism, with the effect being strongest at high allocentrism (b = 0.56, t = 3.72, p < 0.001), followed by moderate (b = 0.47, t = 3.09, p = 0.002), and still evident at low levels (b = 0.41, t = 2.61, p = 0.010). Together, these simple slope analyses support the presence of significant interaction effects and demonstrate that the strength and direction of the leadership-attribution relationships differ depending on employees’ levels of allocentrism, providing deeper insight into the conditional nature of these associations.
To further illustrate these interaction effects, the results were visualized using Aiken and West’s (1991) approach, computing slopes one SD above and below the mean of allocentrism, as depicted in Figures 1–4.
Allocentrism strengthening the negative transformational leadership and HR control attributions relationship.
Allocentrism strengthening the positive transformational leadership and HR commitment attributions relationship.
Allocentrism strengthening the negative transactional leadership and HR commitment attributions relationship.
Allocentrism strengthening the positive transactional leadership and HR control attributions relationship.
4. Discussion
This study empirically examined how leadership behaviours influence employees’ attributions about the motives underlying HR practices and how these relationships are shaped by employees’ allocentric value orientations. Grounded in attribution theory and SIP theory, we theorized that transformational and transactional leadership serve as distinct social information cues that guide attributional reasoning. All hypotheses were supported, providing robust evidence for our conceptual model.
Our data supported H1, demonstrating that transformational leadership is positively associated with commitment-based HR attributions and negatively associated with control-based attributions. This aligns with prior research suggesting that transformational leaders foster climates of trust, development, and psychological safety (Boehm et al., 2015; Levitats et al., 2021; Shin et al., 2022). Specifically, transformational leaders—through idealized influence and inspirational motivation—communicate authenticity, vision, and organizational concern for employees’ long-term growth. These behaviours serve as credible social signals that employees interpret as indicative of a developmental HR philosophy. Our findings confirm that employees perceive HR practices as supportive, fair, and growth-oriented when they experience individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation from leaders—consistent with the findings of Rafferty and Griffin (2004) and Elkins and Keller (2003).
This supports and extends prior attribution research (e.g. Fan et al., 2020; Nishii et al., 2008) by clarifying the mechanism: transformational leadership does not just correlate with positive HR perceptions but actively shapes attributional processes that define whether HR systems are viewed as commitment- or control-oriented. Our findings provide empirical support for the theoretical integration of SIP theory and Attribution Theory in HRM contexts.
Consistent with H2, transactional leadership was positively related to control-based HR attributions and negatively related to commitment-based attributions. This finding supports earlier assertions that transactional leadership emphasizes performance monitoring, compliance, and conditional rewards (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Fields and Herold, 1997; Mendonca and Kanungo, 1994). Employees exposed to contingent reward and management-by-exception behaviours interpreted HR practices as mechanisms for productivity control rather than employee development. These results parallel the findings of Marescaux et al. (2022), who found that directive leadership is often associated with perceptions of rule enforcement rather than developmental support. Importantly, this study adds nuance by demonstrating that transactional leadership serves as a distinct social cue that frames HR messages in control-oriented terms—a process that has been underexplored in attributional HRM research. The negative relationship between transactional leadership and commitment attributions suggests that when leader behaviours are rigid and transactional, employees discount the developmental intentions of HR practices.
Our findings extend SIP theory by demonstrating that not all leadership is interpreted equally: transactional behaviours lack the relational cues necessary to foster commitment-based interpretations, especially in contexts where employees rely on leadership to decode ambiguous HR messages.
H3 was also supported as allocentrism strengthened the positive relationship between transformational leadership and HR commitment attributions, and the negative relationship with HR control attributions. These findings validate theoretical propositions from cross-cultural psychology that personal value orientations shape how individuals interpret social cues (Jung and Avolio, 2000; Triandis, 1990). For allocentric employees—who prioritize communal relationships, well-being, and ethical leadership—transformational leader behaviours such as compassion, individualized support, and value congruence resonated more strongly. These employees were especially likely to perceive HR practices as aligned with organizational care and development, consistent with their ideal leader prototype (Furst and Cable, 2008; Mayer and Gavin, 1995).
This finding meaningfully extends Attribution Theory by showing that cultural value orientations operate as cognitive filters in the attribution process. It also advances SIP theory by incorporating individual-level cultural moderators, moving beyond the traditional use of national culture proxies (Huandong et al., 2018; Taras et al., 2023).
Our last study hypotheses was also supported as allocentrism also amplified the positive relationship between transactional leadership and control-based attributions, and the negative relationship with commitment-based attributions. While prior research has focused primarily on idiocentric preferences for transactional exchanges (Sullivan et al., 2003), our findings suggest that allocentric employees are particularly sensitive to value incongruence when exposed to transactional leadership. These employees interpreted transactional leadership behaviours—such as contingent rewards and rigid performance monitoring—as misaligned with their expectations of relational leadership, leading to a stronger attribution of control motives behind HR practices. This mirrors theoretical assertions from Fiske and Taylor (1984) that leadership is filtered through subjective schemas and further supports the work of Walumbwa et al. (2007), who emphasized the importance of value congruence in leadership effectiveness.
4.1. Theoretical contributions
By explicitly integrating Attribution theory and SIP theory, this study advances prior research that has typically examined HR attributions and leadership effects in parallel rather than in concert. We theorize leadership behaviours as salient social information cues that employees actively interpret to form causal attributions regarding the underlying motives of HR initiatives. Although prior studies (e.g. Beijer et al., 2019; Fan et al., 2020) have established links between leadership styles and employee perceptions of HR practices, they have rarely unpacked the cognitive and social information mechanisms that explain these associations. Our study addresses this limitation by demonstrating that transformational and transactional leadership behaviours act as distinct informational cues, guiding employees’ attributional reasoning. Specifically, transformational leadership fosters interpretations of HR practices as commitment-oriented, while transactional leadership tends to reinforce control-oriented attributions. These findings contribute a more nuanced understanding of how leadership styles differentially shape employee interpretations of HR systems, deepening theoretical insights at the intersection of leadership, HRM, and organizational cognition.
A critical methodological and theoretical contribution of this research lies in its individual-level measurement of leadership perceptions and HR attributions. Whereas much leadership research aggregates subordinate ratings to form unit-level constructs (Braun et al., 2013), such aggregation risks masking individual differences in how employees uniquely interpret leadership behaviours and HR messages. Recent literature increasingly recognizes the importance of capturing idiosyncratic sense-making processes at the individual level (Kim et al., 2020; Niessen et al., 2017). Our findings underscore this, confirming that leadership’s influence operates through individualized social information exchange and personal cognitive schemas, consistent with SIP theory’s core premise that social cues are processed in personalized ways rather than uniformly across groups (Park et al., 2021). This research also contributes to the growing body of cross-cultural leadership studies by situating leadership-employee interactions within a collectivist, non-Western context. While foundational studies on HR attributions and leadership largely stem from Western samples (Nishii et al., 2008; Podsakoff et al., 1996), there is a clear scholarly imperative to explore these dynamics in diverse cultural settings to validate and extend theory (Oc et al., 2023). By conducting this study in Pakistan, we provide empirical evidence that employees in collectivist cultures discriminate clearly between commitment and control attributions in response to leadership cues and cultural values. This underscores the cross-contextual relevance of attributional and social information frameworks and highlights the necessity of incorporating culture as a multilevel moderator in leadership and HR research (Taras et al., 2023).
Importantly, although this study focuses on a Pakistani sample, the emphasis on allocentrism as an individual-level construct ensures broader theoretical applicability. Allocentrism reflects personal values and relational schemas developed through a range of socialization experiences, rather than being fixed solely by national culture (Huandong et al., 2018). Recent organizational behaviour research increasingly recognizes the value of unpacking cultural orientations at the individual cognitive level, moving beyond simplistic national culture proxies (Taras et al., 2023). Thus, our findings about how allocentrism shapes SIP and attribution formation contribute to a more nuanced, psychologically grounded understanding of culture’s role in leadership and HR.
4.2. Practical implications
The empirical results primarily demonstrate that transformational leadership behaviours are associated with stronger HR commitment attributions, fostering positive employee attitudes such as engagement, trust, and retention. This underscores the practical value for managers of adopting transformational leadership styles, which emphasize individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and empowerment, thereby signalling genuine organizational investment in employee well-being. Organizations would benefit from investing in leadership development programmes that cultivate these behaviours to reinforce commitment-focused interpretations of HR practices. Prior research has demonstrated the effectiveness of such programmes in enhancing transformational leadership capabilities and improving a range of organizational outcomes (Avolio et al., 2010).
Regarding the role of cultural values, while the results show that allocentrism moderates the relationship between leadership behaviours and HR attributions, it is important to clarify that this moderation primarily indicates that employees with stronger collectivist orientations are more sensitive to the signals embedded in leadership behaviours. Rather than prescribing wholesale behavioural adjustments by leaders for every cultural variation, our findings suggest that leaders can enhance their impact by being aware of cultural value differences among employees and tailoring their communication and relational approaches accordingly. For example, allocentric employees—who prioritize group harmony and relational interdependence—may respond more favourably to leadership behaviours that emphasize collective goals and personalized support. Therefore, the practical implication is not simply to adjust leadership style universally, but to cultivate cultural awareness and adaptive interpersonal skills among managers, enabling them to recognize and leverage the cultural lenses through which employees interpret HR practices. Such cultural attunement may involve nuanced adjustments in messaging and relational cues from the leaders to reinforce commitment attributions effectively across diverse employee groups.
4.3. Limitations and future research directions
While this study offers several contributions to existing knowledge, certain limitations should be acknowledged. The research focused exclusively on the leadership behaviours of line managers. Future research could explore whether similar relationships exist between senior managers’ leadership styles and HR attributions. While senior managers are responsible for formulating HR strategies, they are not the direct implementers of these policies. Investigating whether leadership behaviours are consistent across different managerial levels—and how any inconsistencies impact employees’ HR attributions—would be an interesting avenue for further research.
In addition, as the study was conducted among professionals, it is possible that the findings reflect a bias specific to this sample. Prior research suggests that professionals tend to be more committed to their careers than their organizations (Yousaf et al., 2015). As a result, they may be more sensitive to developing HR control attributions when exposed to transactional leadership. Future studies could examine whether similar patterns hold among employees with different skill levels and degrees of professionalization. Collecting data from semi-skilled and lower-skilled workers may provide further insights into whether these groups interpret HR attributions in the same way.
Important to note, the decision to treat transformational and transactional leadership as unidimensional constructs in our analyses was guided by empirical considerations. Specifically, results from our CFA indicated that a unidimensional model provided a better fit for the data compared to a multidimensional model for both leadership styles. This empirical evidence justified the use of overall leadership styles in the primary analyses, ensuring parsimony and statistical robustness in the tested model. Nonetheless, collapsing the leadership dimensions into a single factor may obscure important differential effects that individual dimensions (e.g. idealized influence, contingent reward) could have on HR commitment or control attributions. Identifying which specific aspects of leadership are most influential would allow for more targeted interventions in leadership development initiatives. We encourage future studies to examine the unique linkages between each core dimension of transformational and transactional leadership and employees’ HR attributions. Such investigations could offer a more granular understanding of the leadership mechanisms that shape employees’ interpretations of HR practices, thereby contributing to more precise and effective leadership training and development efforts.
In addition to leadership styles, future studies could investigate potential mediators in the relationship between leadership behaviours and HR attributions. Variables such as leader-member exchange (LMX) and perceived organizational support may play a role in shaping employees’ HR attributions and should be tested in future research. Finally, replicating these findings across different organizational settings and cultural contexts would further advance the development of HR attribution theory, providing a more comprehensive understanding of how leadership influences employee perceptions of HR practices.
5. Conclusion
By integrating attribution theory and SIP theory, this research advances a more comprehensive understanding of how leadership functions as a conduit for employees’ sense-making of HR systems. The findings underscore the importance of considering individual-level cultural values—such as allocentrism—as critical moderators that influence how employees interpret and react to organizational signals. Furthermore, the use of individual-level data collection highlights the individualized nature of these interpretive processes, offering a methodological contribution to leadership and HR attribution research.
5.1. Key practical and research implications
Organizations can enhance positive employee interpretations of HR practices by developing transformational leadership behaviours among line managers. Behaviours emphasizing individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and empowerment signal genuine organizational commitment, fostering engagement, trust, and retention. Investment in leadership development programmes that cultivate these capabilities can reinforce commitment-focused HR attributions. In culturally diverse settings, organizations should also promote cultural awareness to ensure HR practices are interpreted consistently across employee groups.
Executives and line managers should recognize that their behaviours shape how employees interpret HR systems. Rather than universally altering leadership styles, managers should develop adaptive interpersonal and communication skills to account for cultural value differences. Employees with stronger collectivist orientations may respond more positively to leadership cues that emphasize collective goals and relational support. Culturally attuned leadership can therefore strengthen commitment-based HR attributions across diverse teams.
Industry bodies and professional associations can support the diffusion of evidence-based leadership development practices that integrate transformational behaviours and cultural awareness. Promoting such initiatives at the sectoral level may enhance the effectiveness of HR implementation across organizations.
Policy agencies concerned with workforce development may encourage managerial capability-building initiatives that strengthen leadership effectiveness and cultural responsiveness. Supporting leadership development as part of broader employment strategies may contribute to improved employee engagement and retention outcomes across industries.
Future research should extend this work in several directions. (1) Examine leadership effects across different managerial levels and employee groups to assess generalizability. (2) Investigate the distinct dimensions of transformational and transactional leadership to identify more precise effects on HR attributions. (3) Explore mediating mechanisms such as leader–member exchange and perceived organizational support to clarify underlying processes. (4) Replicate the model across diverse organizational and cultural contexts to strengthen the robustness and theoretical development of HR attribution research.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Not applicable
Final transcript accepted 14 March 2026 by Daniela Andrei (AE – Human Resource Management and Organisational Behaviour).
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the principal author’s affiliated institution.
Consent to participate
All participants provided written informed consent prior to participation.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability statement
Due to the sensitivity of the data and confidentiality agreements with participants, the data are not publicly available but may be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.