Jee Young Seong
Inju Yang2
Doo-Seung Hong- 1College of Business and Economics, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea
- 2RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- 3Department of Sociology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Introduction: This study examines charismatic leadership (CL) and its boundary conditions, focusing on their impact on task performance and providing new insights into a phenomenon that has been largely neglected in leadership literature. It examines how person-group (PG) fit moderates the relationship between CL and task performance through followers’ organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
Methods: Data was collected using survey methodology from two different sources (136 employees and their supervisors) at two points in time in a public-sector firm in Korea. Hypotheses were tested using hierarchical linear modeling.
Results and discussion: Results showed that CL did not affect task performance via OCB when the employees had a high PG value fit. In contrast, employees’ task performance via OCB was positively related to CL when the employees had a high PG demands-abilities (DA) fit. Departing from the dominant conception of leadership and person-environment (PE) fit, we identify the mediating processes between CL and task performance. Thus, we can advance our understanding of CL’s effects on task performance by observing the mediating role of OCB. This study also explores the boundary conditions (PG value and DA fit) in the relationship between CL and task performance through OCB. By examining the two-way interaction between CL and PG fit, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of CL and its boundary conditions that influence task performance.
Highlights
• CL does not affect task performance via OCB when employees have a high value fit.
• CL affects task performance via OCB when employees have a high DA fit.
• Mediating processes exist between CL and task performance.
• CL and its boundary conditions lead to task performance.
Introduction
Numerous studies have demonstrated the positive impact of charismatic leadership (CL) on subordinates (e.g., Bass and Riggio, 2006; Den Hartog et al., 2007). Particularly, CL could be a principal mechanism within a group to result in value congruence (Jung and Avolio, 2000; Klein and House, 1995) and shared identity (Cicero and Pierro, 2007; House et al., 2001).
Although the impact of CL on employees has been discussed in various ways, understanding how CL interacts with other organizational contingencies and consequent outcomes is lagged (Bass and Riggio, 2006; Li et al., 2013). Therefore, our paper aims to consider follower characteristics (e.g., person-group or PG fit) as necessary contingencies for CL (Riggio et al., 2008; Siangchokyoo et al., 2020). Given the importance of leadership contexts, including work dynamics (e.g., Ehrnrooth et al., 2023), explicitly incorporating contingencies would help illustrate the relationships between CL and follower outcomes. This would further help us better understand the reality of organizational leadership by answering questions such as when and how much CL would be adequate.
Various individual characteristics would influence how much and which subordinates a leader affects (Klein and House, 1995). We consider fit or congruency between individual members and group characteristics. We explore how CL affects organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and, further, task performance in a team when there is a high level of person-group (PG) fit (e.g., value fit and demands-abilities (DA) fit). We are interested in OCB and task performance as outcomes of CL because they are directly related to a team’s productivity, either as extra-role or in-role elements of organizational behaviors (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997). We expect CL’s influence on these subordinates’ behaviors is moderated by PG fit.
Although Research indicates a positive effect of CL on follower behaviors, including OCB and task performance (Banks et al., 2017), the degree to which this occurs depends on various contingencies. We propose that a high PG value fit weakens the relationship between CL and leadership effectiveness, whereas a high PG DA fit strengthens it. By introducing new contingencies (i.e., PG fit) and specifying their underlying logic (Kerr and Jermier, 1978), we may widen the current theoretical spectrum in both CL and substitutes for leadership contexts (e.g., Ma et al., 2020).
The current study adopted an interactionist approach (George and Zhou, 2001; Gilmore et al., 2013; Rose, 1962) to further explore the relationships between CL and OCB as well as task performance. The interactionist approach indicates that the influence of CL on follower behaviors is most accurately understood by examining how CL interacts with follower characteristics as a contextual factor. More specifically, this paper is concerned with the moderating role of explicit situational variables that can substitute, neutralize, or enhance CL’s impact on follower outcomes. By drawing on the substitutes for leadership framework (Kerr and Jermier, 1978), this study broadens the applicability of existing knowledge offered by leadership theory. By doing so, we contribute to the applicability of existing knowledge offered by leadership theory. Our exploration sheds light on the conditions under which CL can be successful, thereby contributing to the literature on contingency leadership or the substitutes for leadership framework (Fiedler, 1966; Kerr and Jermier, 1978). Our investigation into how employees’ PG fit moderates the effect of CL on their outcomes highlights the role of followers in CL, which has yet to be understood (Van Dijk et al., 2021).
Theory and hypotheses development
Charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors
Charismatic leadership (CL) is defined as the relationship between a leader and their followers based on the perception of the leader’s exemplary character (Waldman et al., 2001). Charisma is derived from a leader’s exceptional referent power (Bass, 1985). According to the prior research (e.g., Bass, 1985; Choi, 2006; Conger and Kanungo, 1998), charismatic leadership predicts individual outcomes including job attitudes, OCB and task performance. Upon recognizing a charismatic leader’s outstanding qualities, followers are likely to exhibit complete personal devotion to the leader and their articulated vision (Waldman et al., 2001). A leader’s charisma inspires followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes through joint efforts by cultivating collective missions and values (Bass and Riggio, 2006; Shamir et al., 1993; Waldman et al., 2001).
A charismatic leader influences followers to prioritize their collective interests over self-interest and elevate their collective identity (Cicero and Pierro, 2007; House et al., 2001). Important mechanisms that charismatic leaders use to influence their followers could be to put their collective interests above self-interests and enhance their collective identity (Cicero and Pierro, 2007; Conger et al., 2000; House et al., 2001; Shamir et al., 1993). Group-level value congruence induces an escalated sense of homogeneity among followers (Klein and House, 1995). Identification with a group causes followers to adopt their group’s interests as their own (Brewer and Gardner, 1996). Such collective and shared identity strengthened by CL leads followers to engage in more collaborative and altruistic behaviors, such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
The OCB refers to discretionary, extra-role behavior that underpins the social environment in which task performance occurs. Research indicates that the salience of shared identity could increase OCB (Organ et al., 2006). As discussed above, CL would lead to followers’ adaptation to a collective orientation, which generates enthusiasm for altruistic behaviors toward others within an organization, i.e., OCB (e.g., Bass, 1985; Den Hartog et al., 2007). Therefore, our first hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 1: Charismatic leadership is positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors.
Followers’ PG value fit as a contingency factor: “we are the same”
We suggest that followers’ PG fit could modify the influence of CL on OCB. Since follower-related aspects could be essential contingencies limiting leader influence (Kerr and Jermier, 1978), we build an organizing framework for these relationships based on substitutes for leadership theory and research on follower characteristics (Kelley, 1992; Kerr and Jermier, 1978). From an interactionist perspective, individual behaviors are assumed to be determined by the interaction of person and situational factors (Gilmore et al., 2013; Meyer et al., 2010).
Person-group, or PG, fit is the compatibility between an individual and his/her immediate workgroup (Werbel and Gilliland, 1999). It is based on the idea that many employment positions require interpersonal interactions with group members (Werbel and Johnson, 2001). PG fit is likely to increase this motivational component by improving collegial relationships (Werbel and Johnson, 2001). It has been shown to have a positive link to the quality of work relationships, as well as both in-role and extra-role performance (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). A group context contains various unique characteristics (e.g., values, goals, and skills; Werbel and Gilliland, 1999) that determine how an individual fits in, and the combination of social and task elements is particularly salient in workgroups (Crawford and LePine, 2013; DeRue and Morgeson, 2007).
As for PG fit, Muchinsky and Monahan (1987) presented two distinct types of fit: supplementary and complementary. Supplementary fit refers to the similarity between a person and the characteristics of their workgroup. Perceived PG fit by followers, i.e., value fit and DA fit, captures complementary and supplementary interaction with CL. In particular, PG value fit in the form of supplementary fit corresponds to the value congruence or similarity-attraction paradigm within a group (Ostroff and Judge, 2007). Since values play a vital role in-group identity (Feldman, 1984), value congruence is the most suitable predictor of important outcomes, including OCB (e.g., Chiang and Hsieh, 2012; Wat and Shaffer, 2005).
High value fit as a contingency factor attenuates CL’s influence on followers’ OCB. Substitutes for leadership theory explains that when employees belong to tight-knit groups with high group cohesiveness, the power of leadership is likely diminished (Kerr and Jermier, 1978). This is because positive relationships within a workgroup allow group members to commit to, and identify with, their group (Van der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005). Value congruence could be a contingency for CL since leaders have less influence on the mutual commitment and transformational qualities of followers in groups where followers hold values and identities congruent with each other (Bass and Riggio, 2006; Li et al., 2013; Shamir et al., 1993). High PG value fit, or value congruence, likely leads to a strong sense of social identity, one of CL’s main mechanisms. That is, while identities are inherently social (Mead, 1934), a follower’s high PG value fit would increase collective identity orientation with a group, which makes CL’s impact on the collective identity of a broader social entity less effective or redundant (Howell and Shamir, 2005).
While a certain amount of incongruence between individuals and the organization may be motivating (Argyris, 1964), excessive value fit or conformity in values could promote not simply harmony but also sticking to the status quo or social loafing, both of which negatively affect creativity (Runco, 2004). Following this logic, we propose that PG value fit acts as a substitute for CL and, thus, attenuates the relationship between CL and subordinate OCB. Therefore, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 2a: The follower’s PG value fit moderates the relationship between charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors such that the association is weaker when the PG value fit is high than when it is low.
Followers’ PG demands-abilities (DA) fit as a contingency factor: “the group needs my ability”
As one of the components of person-job (PJ) fit, DA fit refers to the degree to which a person’s knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) align with the job’s requirements (Cable and DeRue, 2002). This is a complementary fit, as DA fit is achieved when an individual’s characteristics fill gaps that others cannot address (Muchinsky and Monahan, 1987). Traditional job analysis serves as the basis for assessing this fit (Werbel and Johnson, 2001), and this fit can provide salient cues used in developing job-related attitudes and informing work-related decisions (Boon and Biron, 2016). Regarding followers’ PG DA fit as a contingency factor, we expect that high demand abilities (DA) fit further strengthens the positive influence of CL on followers’ OCB.
Individuals who perceive their abilities as closely matching their environment (i.e., high DA fit) focus less on their deficiencies and feel a high level of self-efficacy (Greguras and Diefendorff, 2009). The scarcity of attributes in a group also promotes the activation of independence or unique characteristics (cf. Luria et al., 2019). Similarly, Research shows that employees who work independently are less inclined to share mental models with coworkers (DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010) and are less drawn to the collective (Hoffman et al., 2011).
Research suggests CL stimulates group identification by emphasizing shared values in a highly diverse group. In a group with more fragile team identification, team leaders’ devotion to a group identity will significantly affect followers’ attitudes and behaviors, including OCB (Li et al., 2013). While DA fit has little effect on employee attitude (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), CL can be an intense situation (Mischel, 1977), which provides a clue as to desired specific behaviors. Accordingly, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 2b: The follower’s PG demands-abilities fit moderates the relationship between charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors such that the association is stronger when the PG demands-abilities fit is high than when it is low.
Task performance via OCB in consideration of PG fit
We expect that CL enhances task performance via OCB. Individual task performance, as reflected in organizational reward systems, is directly related to the organizational and technical core (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997). An individual’s performance at work consists of task performance, and empirical findings indicate a strong positive correlation between OCB and task performance (e.g., Williams and Anderson, 1991). This is because citizenship behaviors underline the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance (Organ et al., 2006).
Some scholars, however, argue that when time is controlled, the relationship between OCB and task performance becomes zero-sum or even a negative correlation, as found in both lab and field studies (Allen and Rush, 1998). Since OCB involves an individual’s active engagement and extra effort (Gilmore et al., 2013), a trade-off between OCB and task performance is expected. Engaging in OCB could harm individual outcomes (Bergeron, 2007). A resource allocation perspective supports this line of argument, as multiple demands must compete for resources between OCB and task performance. Engaging in OCB can be highly strenuous when task demands stretch group members to their limits, requiring adequate attentional resources (Kanfer and Ackerman, 1989).
On the other hand, CL is suggested to be immensely successful in enhancing followers’ performance in situations that followers perceive as demanding (e.g., Bass, 1985; Waldman et al., 2001). CL’s Warmth and trust make followers feel optimistic about acting in the group’s best interest, even in stressful situations (e.g., Tepper et al., 2018). Similarly, a study indicates that CL reduces follower’s strain levels, further facilitating OCB (Boerner et al., 2008). Additionally, since CL is positively related to workgroup identification, followers are more likely to exert extra effort, resulting in higher job involvement and improved group task performance (Cicero and Pierro, 2007; Le Blanc et al., 2021). Therefore, we propose as follows:
Hypothesis 3: Organizational citizenship behaviors mediate the relationship between charismatic leadership and task performance.
Furthermore, when considering PG value fit as a contingency factor, CL would be less effective on task performance via OCB when the value fit is high compared to when the value fit is low. The results of the meta-analysis suggest that task cohesion is more closely associated with performance than social cohesion (Beal et al., 2003). A high PG value fit is likely to generate high social cohesion. Employees with similar mental models may be prevented from thinking divergently and acting creatively (Seong and Choi, 2019, 2023), further hindering task performance. Since a high PG value fit attenuates CL’s influence on OCB, as discussed earlier, we propose:
Hypothesis 4a: The relationship between charismatic leadership and task performance is moderated by PG value fit through OCB’s mediating effects, so the positive relationship is weaker when PG value fit is high.
It has been addressed that PG DA fit significantly impacts task performance (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Seong and Kristof-Brown, 2012). In considering PG DA fit as a contingency factor, CL would positively relate to task performance via OCB when the fit is high rather than low. Our final hypothesis is the following:
Hypothesis 4b: The relationship between charismatic leadership and task performance is moderated by PG DA fit through OCB’s mediating effects, such that the positive relationship is stronger when PG DA fit is high.
Methods
Data and sample
Data for this Research was gathered from a Korean firm in the public sector. The survey was conducted online in a two-stage process. In Stage 1, team members responded to the questionnaires. In Stage 2, one month after the Stage 1 survey of team members was completed, the team leaders filled out two types of questionnaires: First, to assess the team under their supervision and then, each team member’s performance. By this, we collected the questionnaires from 301 team members. However, among these, only 136 cases were selected because of the non-responses from some leaders to the OCB and the performance of their team members. The team members’ mean age was 41.6 years (SD = 8.2).
Charismatic leadership
We developed a four-item scale to assess charismatic leadership, drawing on the work of Waldman et al. (2001). The following are examples: “Our team leaders have our complete confidence in them” and “Our team leader generates respect.” Responses were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (α = 0.98).
Person-group value fit and person-group demands-abilities fit
Adopting the items used by Cable and DeRue (2002), we constructed a three-item measure (α = 0.98) to assess the perceived degree of congruence between individuals and their team members. The items used to measure value fit include, “The value of my life is very similar to the value of my team members.” Person-group demands-abilities fit was also measured using three items from Cable and DeRue (2002). A sample item includes, “I feel important to this company because my skills and abilities differ from those that my coworkers possess.” The two variables were also measured on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (α = 0.93).
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
Ratings of OCB were assessed from team leaders’ responses using Williams and Anderson’s (1991) scales. A sample item is, “Our team members help each other out if someone falls behind in his/her work.” The scales range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (ɑ = 0.93).
Task performance
Team leaders measured task performance using three items adapted from Williams and Anderson (1991). Team leaders responded to items such as “This team achieves its goals” (ɑ = 0.78).
Control variables
We controlled several variables that are presumed to predict OCB and task performance. Age and gender were used as control variables in the analyses because they influence the relationship between PG fit and individual-level outcomes (Seong and Choi, 2019). The controls used include age (in years) and gender (male = 1, female = 2). Age distribution by gender is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Age distribution by gender unit: % (N).
Results
We first performed confirmatory factor analyses to examine the distinctiveness of our scales for CL, PG value fit, PG DA fit, OCB, and task performance using AMOS 23.0. We compared this five-factor model with plausible alternative models. Overall, these results demonstrate that the expected five-factor model provides a substantially improved fit over the relevant alternative models [χ2 (df = 109) = 203.91, p < 0.001; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.97, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.072, SRMR = 0.048]. Convergent validity was assessed using composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE), in accordance with the criteria proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The CR values for all constructs exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70, and the AVE values were all above the cut-off value of 0.50, indicating satisfactory convergent validity.
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables.
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variablesa.
Key study variables were measured from different sources (i.e., CL, PG value fit, and DA fit by team members, and OCB and task performance by team leaders) to remove the leaders’ effect, and we used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002) version 6.06 with a restricted maximum likelihood estimation method to test hypotheses. Following a procedure for analyzing conditional indirect effects, we obtained bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals using Hayes (2012) PROCESS program. The PROCESS program allowed us to test our moderated mediation by evaluating the indirect impact of charismatic leadership, PG values, and DA fit on task performance, as mediated through OCB. We tested the hypothesized conditional process modeling (moderated indirect effect, H3) and bootstrapped with 5,000 iterations to construct bias-corrected confidence intervals for the significance tests of the indirect effects. Table 3 summarizes the HLM results for testing all the hypotheses simultaneously.
Table 3. Hierarchical linear models: individual-level relationships between charismatic leadership, PG DA fit, OCB, and task performance.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that CL would be related to OCB. In Step 2 of Model 1, we found that CL is positively related to OCB, controlling for age and gender (γ = 0.09, p < 0.05). The results from our HLM analysis provide initial support for H1.
Hypothesis 2a forecasted a significant interaction between CL and PG value fit in predicting OCB. In testing Hypothesis 2a, as shown in Step 3 of Model 1, controlling for age and gender, CL and PG value fit interacted with each other (γ = −0.07, p < 0.05). Following Aiken and West’s (1991) recommendations, we graphed the interaction effect in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Interaction between charismatic leadership and PG value fit in predicting OCB.
This plot shows the simple effects of charismatic leadership on OCB at high and low levels (±1 SD) of PG value fit. The results of a simple slopes test (Dawson and Richter, 2006) suggested that both at low and high levels of PG value fit, the effect of CL on OCB was statistically insignificant (slope = 0.03, t = 1.05; p = n.s; slope = −0.04, t = −1.28; p = n.s. respectively). However, the significant two-way interaction reflects that the slopes of the two lines are substantially different. Thus, PG value fit moderates CL on OCB but in a weak cross-over interaction.
Hypothesis 2b predicted an interactive effect between CL and PG DA fit that would affect OCB. This interactive effect is also shown in Step 3 of Model 1 (Table 3). Consistent with this hypothesis, there is a significant interactive effect between CL and PG DA fit on OCB (γ = 0.06, p < 0.05). Therefore, again, using Aiken and West’s (1991) method, we graphed the interaction effect in Figure 2. This plot shows the simple effects of CL on OCB at high and low levels (±1 SD) of PG DA fit. Simple slope tests showed that the positive slope of CL and OCB was significantly different from zero when PG DA fit was high (slope = 0.09, t = 2.03; p < 0.05), but at low PG DA fit levels, CL and OCB slope were not statistically different from zero (slope = 0.03, t = 1.05; p = n.s.). The significant two-way interaction indicates that the slopes of the two lines are substantially different. These results support Hypothesis 2b.
Figure 2. Interaction between charismatic leadership and PG DA fit in predicting OCB.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that OCB mediates the relationship between CL and task performance. We followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach to test our hypothesis. Their method of mediation test requires some conditions. The test result for Hypothesis 3 satisfied the first condition of mediation in which the independent variable should be significantly related to the dependent variable (γ = 0.08, p < 0.05 in Step 2 of Model 2). The second condition is that the independent variable has a significant relationship with the mediator. The test result for the significant relationship between CL and OCB satisfied the second condition (γ = 0.09, p < 0.05 in Step 2 of Model 1). Finally, the mediator should affect the dependent variable while considering the independent variable simultaneously (Baron and Kenny, 1986). To test the third criterion, we regressed the dependent variable on the mediating variable, controlling CL. As shown in Step 4 of Model 2, OCB was significant (γ = 0.21, p < 0.05), reducing the coefficient of the effect of CL on task performance (γ = −0.00, p = n.s. in Step 4 of Model 2). Therefore, the mediation analysis results suggest that OCB fully mediates the effect of CL on task performance.
We then tested the conditional indirect effects of CL on task performance through OCB at different levels of PG value fit and DA fit (Hypotheses 4a and 4b). We employed a bootstrapping procedure to investigate the indirect effect at various levels of moderator variables, including PG value and DA fit. We set a high level of PG fit by adding one standard deviation (SD) to the mean score of PG value fit and a low level by subtracting one SD from the mean (Preacher et al., 2007). However, the indirect effect was not significant. Thus, Hypothesis 4a was not supported.
We expected that the indirect effect of CL on task performance through OCB would become more strongly positive as the degree of PG DA fit moved from a lower to a higher value. We also tested this indirect effect at PG DA fit values equal to the mean plus and minus one standard deviation (Table 4). As expected, the indirect effect of CL on task performance through OCB was conditional upon the level of PG DA fit. The indirect effect was significant and more substantial at a high level of PG DA fit (b = 0.0898, bias-corrected bootstrap 95% CI [0.0384, 0.1528], excluding zero). At the same time, it was also significant but weaker at a low level of PG DA fit (b = 0.0464, bias-corrected bootstrap 95% CI [0.0151, 0.0841], excluding zero). Thus, Hypothesis 4b was supported.
Table 4. Conditional indirect effect(s) of charismatic leadership on task performance at values of PG DA fit.
Discussion
Our results revealed that CL does not positively affect employees’ task performance via OCB when the employees have a high PG value fit. On the other hand, task performance via OCB is positively related to CL when the employees have a high PG DA fit. We identified the mediating processes between CL and task performance through OCB by examining PG value and DA fit as boundary conditions. This study illustrates that the interactional effects of CL and PG fit may only sometimes further strengthen their positivity together (Sung et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2025). Specific context could reduce a leader’s influence (Klein and House, 1995), and our paper shows that followers’ PG value fit substitutes and attenuates CL’s effect.
Theoretical implications
By adopting an interactionist approach and explaining the contingencies of CL, our study extends the boundary conditions for CL (cf. van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg, 2005). Our investigation contributes to the growing body of empirical studies examining the contextual variables that enhance or reduce CL (Ehrnrooth et al., 2023; Kim and Vandenberghe, 2018; Le Blanc et al., 2021; Waldman et al., 2001). Our study is one of the first to investigate how followers’ PG fit impacts the relationship between CL and OCB, and how this relationship, in turn, influences task performance. By considering PG fit as new contingencies, this Research expands our understanding of leadership boundaries (cf. Kerr and Jermier, 1978).
Enhancing either CL or PG fit increases work effectiveness when considered separately. However, a different pattern emerges when we believe their joint factors since increasing both can lead to suboptimal results due to their non-additive configuration. The interactionist approach (Amabile, 1996; Oldham and Cummings, 1996) argues that the leadership process should be examined in terms of how leadership interacts with followers’ characteristics (cf. Gilmore et al., 2013). Our study contributes to Research on followership by investigating followers’ characteristics closely (e.g., Howell and Shamir, 2005; Kelley, 1992; Kim and Vandenberghe, 2018; Klein and House, 1995; Tepper et al., 2018; Van Dijk et al., 2021), beyond the view that a leader is to be the single source of leadership. This study also demonstrates the theoretical and practical value of investigating leader and follower aspects together, rather than in isolation.
Finally, our study contributes to the discussion on PG fit as a contextual variable. Most Research so far has explored fit as either a dependent or independent variable (cf. Vogel and Feldman, 2009). Although modern organizations have widely adopted the application of work systems, relatively little Research has been conducted on person-group (PG) fit, compared to the extensive Research on person-organization (PO) fit (Oh et al., 2014; Seong et al., 2015). Moreover, even those studies regarding PG fit have investigated supplementary fit (in terms of values and goals, e.g., Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) to predict satisfaction with team members, feelings of cohesion, strain, and individual performance. By examining complementary fit (in terms of DA fit), our Research expands our understanding of the dynamics between PE fit and leadership. Simultaneous consideration of the different kinds of fit within a single study would provide a more holistic understanding of an organization and a group (Seong et al., 2015).
Practical implications
Our findings are particularly pertinent to team-based organizational structures where the role of followers becomes more critical (Li et al., 2013). In such work environments, managers are advised to maximize their OCB and task performance by providing proper CL (Cicero and Pierro, 2007; Conger et al., 2000) and selecting followers with high PG fit (Seong et al., 2015). However, we should note that leadership and followership do not always reinforce one another. Since corporate success is not only a result of leadership per se but also due to effective followers (cf. Kelley, 1992), we must examine how the PG fit of followers interacts with CL of the leaders to influence followers’ receptiveness to leadership.
The results of this paper suggest that charismatic leaders need to recognize that their charisma could be redundant and offer virtually no effect on OCB and task performance in a highly congruent team based on the team members’ values (Kim and Vandenberghe, 2018). The results also suggest that leaders take the pulse of their teams and keep the PG value fit of their followers high. As indicated by our simple slope tests, CL has non-significant or even negative relationships with OCB and task performance when PG value fit is high, particularly in the case of excessive CL.
However, leaders are at an advantage if they exercise CL in situations with high PG DA fit. PG DA fit will help screen out people based on attraction and selection for providing a competitive advantage (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). In many organizations where job design emphasizes high PG DA fit with clearly designated job responsibilities (Jansen and Kristof-Brown, 2006), CL’s role remains essential for OCB and task performance. A conventional job analysis rigidifying job responsibilities by exclusively focusing on DA fit would help ascertain individual ability to perform the job’s technical aspects. However, since industry moves increasingly toward a more complex and dynamic work environment, a team-oriented work environment requires more flexibility with job responsibilities (Werbel and Johnson, 2001). The presence of leadership becomes vital in fostering team-oriented environments.
Our study supports the argument that influential leaders intervene in subordinates’ affairs to complement and compensate for the latter’s existing abilities and deficiencies (House, 1996). Along with increased diversity in skills and demographic characteristics, CL could benefit the team or the organization in very tangible ways, such as by motivating employees by developing their value congruence and identity. Employees who exhibit a high level of DA fit and job performance are likely to decide to remain in the team or the organization when they feel a greater sense of community and value congruence with the group (Vogel and Feldman, 2009).
Limitations and future research
From a broader leadership perspective, contingencies may operate in other types of leadership and organizational CL (Grant et al., 2011). Therefore, we suggest that more studies investigate the extent to which different leadership types present either positive (e.g., empowering; Howell and Shamir, 2005) or negative (e.g., abusive or narcissistic) valence in consideration of contingencies (Li et al., 2013; Siangchokyoo et al., 2020).
Given that different types of fit (e.g., person-job, person-group, or person-organization fit) show unique relationships with attitudes and behaviors (Cable and DeRue, 2002), further investigation examining their interactive effects with CL on followers is warranted. Moreover, the supplementary and complementary fit may influence each other over time. For example, individuals who experience a higher value fit are more likely to understand norms and job-specific rules. With less role ambiguity (e.g., Edwards and Cable, 2009), they may invest more effort in acquiring relevant competencies. Over time, they are more likely to be positively reinforced for performing specific tasks (Kristof-Brown et al., 2002).
High leader-member exchange provides employees with better access to the resources necessary to fulfill their job demands (Boon and Biron, 2016). Leadership strengthens the relationship between PG value fit and DA fit perceptions. In addition to Research examining how PG value fit and DA fit affect each other over time (e.g., Boon and Biron, 2016; Shipp and Jansen, 2011), future studies could investigate how they interact with different leadership styles. Longitudinal, experimental, or quasi-experimental designs may help clarify this issue by capturing leaders’ actions across each workgroup’s history (e.g., Meslec et al., 2020; Tepper et al., 2018).
Finally, using the present Korean sample does not necessarily preclude the application of our findings to other cultures. Although the theoretical frameworks and arguments addressed in this article are generalizable across cultures (Den Hartog et al., 1999), certain cultural factors prevalent in Korean culture (e.g., collectivism) may influence the mean scores of specific variables. Relatedly, a meta-analysis of PE fit and work outcomes shows that PG fit has stronger relationships with outcomes in East Asia than in Europe and North America (Oh et al., 2014).
Conclusion
This study has examined charismatic leadership (CL) and its boundary conditions leading to task performance. It offers new insights into a phenomenon that has been often neglected in leadership literature. It examines how person-group (PG) fit moderates the relationship between CL and task performance through followers’ organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Departing from the dominant conception of leadership and person-environment (PE) fit, we identified the mediating processes between CL and task performance. Thus, we can advance our understanding of CL’s effects on task performance by observing the mediating role of OCB. This study also explored the boundary conditions (PG value and DA fit) in the relationship between CL and task performance through OCB. Although a significant amount of Research on collective fit has been conducted, a complete account of that mechanism has yet to be given. Additional Research in this area is not only warranted but also critical to advancing our understanding of CL.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the [patients/participants OR patients/participants legal guardian/next of kin] was not required to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.
Author contributions
JS: Methodology, Supervision, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Project administration, Funding acquisition. IY: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. D-SH: Resources, Formal analysis, Visualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research was supported by National University Development Project at Jeonbuk National University in 2023.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Aiken, L. S., and West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen, T. D., and Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: a field study and a laboratory experiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 83, 247–260. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.247
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. New York: Routledge.
Banks, G. C., Engemann, K. N., Williams, C. E., Gooty, J., McCauley, K. D., and Medaugh, M. R. (2017). A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership. Leadersh. Q. 28, 508–529. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.12.003
Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bass, B. M., and Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. 2nd Edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., and McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 989–1004. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989
Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behaviour: good citizens at what cost? Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 1078–1095. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.26585791
Boerner, S., Dütschke, E., and Wied, S. (2008). Charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour: examining the role of stressors and strain. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 11, 507–521. doi: 10.1080/13678860802417643
Boon, C., and Biron, M. (2016). Temporal issues in person–organization fit, person–job fit and turnover: the role of leader–member exchange. Hum. Relat. 69, 2177–2200. doi: 10.1177/0018726716636945
Borman, W. C., and Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research. Hum. Perform. 10, 99–109. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3
Brewer, M. B., and Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we?” Levels of collective identity and self representations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71, 83–93. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83
Cable, D. M., and DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 875–884. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875
Chiang, C.-F., and Hsieh, T.-S. (2012). The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment on job performance: the mediating effects of organizational citizenship behaviour. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 31, 180–190. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.04.011
Choi, J. (2006). A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: envisioning, empathy, and empowerment. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 13, 24–43. doi: 10.1177/10717919070130010501
Cicero, L., and Pierro, A. (2007). Charismatic leadership and organizational outcomes: the mediating role of employees’ workgroup identification. Int. J. Psychol. 42, 297–306. doi: 10.1080/00207590701248495
Conger, J. A., and Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., and Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. J. Organ. Behav. 21, 747–767. doi: 10.1002/1099-1379(200011)21:7<>3.0.CO;2-J
Crawford, E. R., and Lepine, J. A. (2013). A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Acad. Manage. Rev. 38, 32–48. doi: 10.5465/amr.2011.0206
Dawson, J. F., and Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: development and application of a slope difference test. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 917–926. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.917
DeChurch, L. A., and Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 32–53. doi: 10.1037/a0017328
Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A. H. B., and Keegan, A. E. (2007). The interactive effects of belongingness and charisma on helping and compliance. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 1131–1139. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1131
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., and Hanges, P. J. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadersh. Q. 10, 219–256.
DeRue, D. S., and Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Stability and change in person-team and person-role fit over time: the effects of growth satisfaction, performance, general self-efficacy. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 1242–1253. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1242
Edwards, J. R., and Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 654–677. doi: 10.1037/a0014891
Ehrnrooth, M., Koveshnikov, A., Balabanova, E., and Wechtler, H. (2023). High-performance work system and transformational leadership for employee constructive voice: unique and relative importance in a high-power distance context. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 34, 3893–3932. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2022.2163418
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Acad. Manage. Rev. 9, 47–53. doi: 10.5465/amr.1984.4277934
Fiedler, F. E. (1966). The effect of leadership and cultural heterogeneity on group performance: a test of the contingency model. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2, 237–264. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(66)90082-5
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 18, 382–388. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800313
George, J. M., and Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behaviour: an interactional approach. J. Appl. Psychol. 86, 513–524. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.513
Gilmore, P. L., Hu, X., Wei, F., Tetrick, L. E., and Zaccaro, S. J. (2013). Positive affectivity neutralizes transformational leadership's influence on creative performance and organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 34, 1061–1075. doi: 10.1002/job.1833
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., and Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: the role of employee proactivity. Acad. Manag. J. 54, 528–550. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.61968043
Greguras, G. J., and Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 465–477. doi: 10.1037/a0014068
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: a versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White Paper]. Available at: http://www.afhayes.com (Accessed 1 June, 2024).
Hoffman, B., Bynum, B. H., Piccolo, R. F., and Sutton, R. F. (2011). Person-organization value congruence: how transformational leaders influence work group effectiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 54, 779–796. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.64870139
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadersh. Q. 7, 323–352. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7
House, R., Javidan, M., and Dorfman, P. (2001). Project GLOBE: an introduction. Appl. Psychol. 50, 489–505. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00070
Howell, J. M., and Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: relationships and their consequences. Acad. Manag. Rev. 30, 96–112. doi: 10.5465/amr.2005.15281435
Jansen, K. J., and Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a multidimensional theory of person-environment fit. J. Manag. Issues 18, 193–212. Available at: www.jstor.org/stable/40604534
Jung, D. I., and Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: an experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. J. Organ. Behav. 21, 949–964. doi: 10.1002/1099-1379(200012)21:8<>3.0.CO;2-F
Kanfer, R., and Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: an integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 657–690. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.657
Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow, and followers who lead themselves. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Kerr, S., and Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 22, 375–403. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5
Kim, S., and Vandenberghe, C. (2018). The moderating roles of perceived task interdependence and team size in transformational leadership's relation to team identification: a dimensional analysis. J. Bus. Psychol. 33, 509–527. doi: 10.1007/s10869-017-9507-8
Klein, K. J., and House, R. J. (1995). On fire: charismatic leadership and levels of analysis. Leadersh. Q. 6, 183–198. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90034-9
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Jansen, K. J., and Colbert, A. E. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 985–993. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.985
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., and Johnson, E. (2005). Consequences of individual's fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Pers. Psychol. 58, 281–342. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
Le Blanc, P., González-Romá, V., and Wang, H. (2021). Charismatic leadership and work team innovative behavior. J. Bus. Psychol. 36, 333–346. doi: 10.1007/s10869-019-09663-6
Li, N., Chiaburu, D. S., Kirkman, B. L., and Xie, Z. (2013). Spotlight on the followers: an examination of moderators of relationships between transformational leadership and subordinates' citizenship and taking charge. Pers. Psychol. 66, 225–260. doi: 10.1111/peps.12014
Luria, G., Kahana, A., Goldenberg, J., and Noam, Y. (2019). Contextual moderators for leadership potential based on trait activation theory. J. Organ. Behav. 40, 899–911. doi: 10.1002/job.2373
Ma, X., Jiang, W., Wang, L., and Xiang, J. (2020). A curvilinear relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity. Manag. Decis. 58, 1355–1373. doi: 10.1108/MD-07-2017-0653
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Meslec, N., Curseu, P., Fodor, O., and Kenda, R. (2020). Effects of charismatic leadership and rewards on individual performance. Leadersh. Q. 31, 101–423. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101423
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., and Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. J. Manage. 36, 121–140. doi: 10.1177/0149206309349309
Mischel, W. (1977). “The interaction of person and situation” in Personality at the crossroads: current issues in interactional psychology. eds. D. Magnusson and N. S. Endler (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
Muchinsky, P. M., and Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. J. Vocat. Behav. 31, 268–277. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(87)90043-1
Oh, I. S., Guay, R. P., Kim, K., Harold, C. M., Lee, J. H., Heo, C. G., et al. (2014). Fit happens globally: a meta-analytic comparison of the relationships of person–environment fit dimensions with work attitudes and performance across East Asia, Europe, and North America. Pers. Psychol. 67, 99–152. doi: 10.1111/peps.12026
Oldham, G. R., and Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Acad. Manag. J. 39, 607–634. doi: 10.2307/256657
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., and MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ostroff, C., and Judge, T. A. (2007). Perspectives on organizational fit. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., and Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypothesis: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivar. Behav. Res. 42, 185–227. doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316
Raudenbush, S. W., and Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., and Lipman-Blumen, J. (2008). “The Warren Bennis signature series” in The art of followership: how great followers create great leaders and organizations. Eds. R. Chaleff, and L. Blumen (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
Rose, A. M. (1962) in Human behavior and social processes: an interactionist approach. ed. A. M. Rose (Boston: Houghton Mifflin).
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 657–687. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502
Seong, J. Y., and Choi, J. (2023). Multilevel homology and discontinuity of person–group fit on individual and team creativity. J. Soc. Psychol. 163, 269–286. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2021.1967844
Seong, J. Y., and Choi, J. N. (2019). Is person-organization fit beneficial for employee creativity? Moderating roles of leader-member and team-member exchange quality. Hum. Perform. 32, 129–144. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2019.1639711
Seong, J. Y., and Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2012). Testing multidimensional models of person-group fit. J. Manag. Psychol. 27, 536–556. doi: 10.1108/02683941211252419
Seong, J. Y., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Park, W. W., Hong, D. S., and Shin, Y. (2015). Person-group fit: diversity antecedents, proximal outcomes, and performance at the group level. J. Manage. 41, 1184–1213. doi: 10.1177/0149206312453738
Shamir, B., House, R. J., and Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory. Organ. Sci. 4, 577–594. doi: 10.1287/orsc.4.4.577
Shipp, A. J., and Jansen, K. J. (2011). Reinterpreting time in fit theory: crafting and recrafting narratives of fit in medias res. Acad. Manag. Rev. 36, 76–101. doi: 10.5465/amr.2009.0077
Siangchokyoo, N., Klinger, R., and Campion, E. (2020). Follower transformation as the linchpin of transformational leadership theory: a systematic review and future research agenda. Leadersh. Q. 31, 101–341. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101341
Sung, S. H., Seong, J. Y., Hong, D. S., and Zhang, L. (2023). Do pro-diversity beliefs enhance OCB? The joint effects of gender diversity and diversity beliefs on group organizational citizenship behavior through collective personality fit. J. Manag. Psychol. 38, 611–623. doi: 10.1108/JMP-03-2022-0155
Tepper, B., Dimotakis, N., Lambert, L., Koopman, J., Matta, F., Park, H., et al. (2018). Examining follower responses to transformational leadership from a dynamic, person–environment fit perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 61, 1343–1368. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0163
Van der Vegt, G. S., and Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: the importance of collective team identification. Acad. Manag. J. 48, 532–547. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.17407918
Van Dijk, D., Kark, R., Matta, F., and Johnson, R. (2021). Collective aspirations: collective regulatory focus as a mediator between transformational and transactional leadership and team creativity. J. Bus. Psychol. 36, 633–658. doi: 10.1007/s10869-020-09699-z
van Knippenberg, B., and van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: the moderating role of leader prototypicality. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 25–37. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.25
Vogel, R. M., and Feldman, D. (2009). Integrating the levels of person-environment fit: the roles of vocational fit and group fit. J. Vocat. Behav. 75, 68–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.03.007
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., and Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 134–143. doi: 10.2307/3069341
Wat, D., and Shaffer, M. A. (2005). “Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment”, Pers. Rev. 34, 406–422. doi: 10.1108/00483480510599752
Werbel, J. D., and Gilliland, S. W. (1999). “Person–environment fit in the selection process” in Research in human resources management. ed. G. R. Ferris, vol. 17 (New York, NY: Elsevier Science/JAI Press), 209–243.
Werbel, J., and Johnson, D. (2001). The use of person–group fit for employment selection: a missing link in person–environment fit. Hum. Resour. Manag. 40, 227–240. doi: 10.1002/hrm.1013
Williams, L. J., and Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviours. J. Manage. 17, 601–617. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700305
Keywords: charismatic leadership, person-group fit, organizational citizen behavior, task performance, value fit, demands-abilities (DA) fit
Citation: Seong JY, Yang I and Hong D-S (2025) The end of leadership? Person-group fit as a moderator in the relationship between charismatic leadership and individual outcomes. Front. Psychol. 16:1615936. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1615936
Edited by:
Abdul Sami, University of Jhang, PakistanReviewed by:
Carolina Sánchez García, Universidad Isabel I de Castilla, SpainEthem Topcuoglu, Giresun University, Türkiye
Copyright © 2025 Seong, Yang and Hong. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jee Young Seong, c2p5bHlrQGpibnUuYWMua3I=