| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Editorial Office |  
Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management > Volume 46(3); 2018 > Article
군대 조직에서 진성리더십이 직무만족과 조직시민행동에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구



The study is aimed to understand the influence of the authentic leadership in the military organization on the collective and personal level of effectiveness and to examine the impact of authentic leadership on job satisfaction and the organizational citizenship behavior in the military.


The empirical test are based on an effective survey with 337 respondents who are military officers in order to verify the hypothesis of the research.


The results of this study found that the authentic leadership has partial positive impact on the job satisfaction. The job satisfaction has positive impact on organizational citizenship behavior.


According to the results of this study, leaders must be educated through personal education in order to express themselves honestly. Education should be carried out so that they ca develop qualities that can truly reward mental rewards for good work and praise. The self-examination should be done with the self-examination.

1. Introduction

The main subject of the research in the organization is the analysis of members being members of the organization. The relationship between the leader and the organization leaders in research draws attention as a permanent topic of the research. The purpose of this study focus on examining organizational groups, their members and their leaders, and pay particular attention to the impact of leadership. Leaders should be able to demonstrate what efforts are made by members of the organization to achieve common goals in the organization. Leaders are those people who motivate and encourage members to their roles and tasks. This is a guide that leaders use to direct their members(Burns, 1978; Olaniyan and Hystad, 2016).
The purpose of this study focus on understanding the impact of authentic leadership on job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior, taking into consideration the need for a new development of leadership suitable for organizational characteristics. First, we consider the impact of authentic leadership on job satisfaction. Secondly, we want to test the influence of authentic leadership on the behavior of organizational citizenship. Thirdly, we consider the impact of job satisfaction on the organization's behavior in citizenship.
In a situation where Korea is in a tense phase, the military becomes more important not only for national security, but also for protecting people's lives and property. Armed forces leadership is a requirement for leaders to decide whether to win or lose a war. In particular, army soldiers must understand their leadership and strengthen their ability to command. Although they receive a basic education in leadership in the education of soldiers, practical problems arise with commanding. In recent years, the management of soldiers has a problem due to the increase in the number of accidents with soldiers. Consequently, it becomes the main battle strategy for the soldiers who know the characteristics of soldiers in general and who are in command of soldiers managing and supporting them. The influence of management on the effectiveness of the organization is developing. Armed forces leadership is seen as the first key factor in the formation of combat forces(Yoo, 2012; Kim, 2013;; Yang, Kim and Kim, 2017).
Successful leadership in an organization is the management and functioning of its members to achieve the organization's goal. Armed forces leadership directly affects the soldiers’ morale. It can protect the lives of members in crisis and military situations and determines the victory and defeat of a war. To lead the battle for victory, the leader must give vision and value to the members. They must demonstrate leadership in understanding psychological changes in the structures of consciousness of soldiers and military situations and devote them to their duties(Kim, 2012; Cho, Cho and Hong, 2017).
In the last few years, authentic leadership has become a new concept of leadership theory and organizational theory. Own leadership is a leadership, which motivates constructs through the authentic identity of the leader and the corresponding actions, rather than specific skills or strategies. Direct leadership, being a concept related to positive psychology, very effectively affects the behavior and attitude of members, increasing positive feelings of trust, hopes and emotions of members. Authentic leadership influences on changes in the behavior and attitude of members. These influences are mediated by positive emotions, such as hope and trust. Sincerity means having a mission with its own mission, participating in it with sincerity and influencing people through commitment. Authentic leadership is to bring your members through a committed mission, which is not a simple skill or strategy(Avail, 2004; .Yoon, 2012). Authentic leadership gives a positive value to the current situation, which provides strength for members and improves the members performance. In addition, the results of this study can be summarized as follows: positive attitude is needed to develop positive leadership(Gardner, Avolio and Walumbwa, 2005; Zubair and Kamal, 2017).
Research based on the role of leaders in the research on leadership theories and on the behavior that influences leaders is conducted actively. At present, the number of studies on the direct or indirect influence of leadership on relationships, psychology and behavior is growing. It focuses on the research of factors that strengthen or weaken the influence of leadership directly and indirectly. Transformational leadership and servant leadership as the leading factors were studied with different types of leadership. In this study, there are no studies on authentic leadership(Burus, 1978). Studies are needed to find the importance of authentic leadership in the military service and to determine the effectiveness of authentic leadership. I would like to conduct a study that shows how authentic leadership in the army influences the organizational behavior of soldiers(Lim and Jung, 2015).
In the army, soldiers must have a high morale and organizational citizenship as members of the organization. Organizational citizenship behavior influences on the morale of soldiers and their cohesion. The development and maintenance of combat scammers in organizations is one of the important tasks(Choi, 2004). A group with a high morale is created to be able to obey the command of the leader, is proud and proud of his unit and confident enough to carry out the task given in combat situations. Organizational citizenship behavior is not formally prescribed, but is an action required by the organization(Organ, 1990). Although this is not a combat scam or an official task that is necessary to win the battle, it is the organizational citizenship behavior for voluntary job search. Therefore, the organizational citizenship behavior is very important for improving the effectiveness of the organization(Kim and Shim, 2012; Choi and Cho, 2013). This study explores the impact of authentic leadership on job satisfaction and the organizational citizenship behavior(Kim and Kim, 2017).
Section2 reviews the previous research as literature review and hypotheses development necessary to carry out this study, and presents the basics of empirical analysis by summarizing the concepts of authentic leadership, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Section 3 considers research models and hypotheses based on the theoretical background, and we want to confirm operational definition of variables, questionnaire organization, statistics and analysis methods. Section 4 shows the data analysis and results of the study, and we want to analyze the demographic factors of the sample, reliability and validity of the measurement tools, and the hypothesis was verified by regression analysis. Section 5 considers contributions to theory and practice. Finally, we summarized the results of the study and found theoretical implications, practical implications, and limitations of the study.

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

2.1 Authentic leadership

The proactive meaning of leadership is to present directions in any process. Leadership is the process of influencing the activities of members to achieve a group's goal in any situation(Hersey and Blanchard, 1984; Kang and An, 2001; Cho, 2017). Leadership is the first process where members of a group interact with members to structure or re-structure expectations and perceptions(Bass, 1990; Kim and Yoon, 2004). Leadership is the step of transforming an organization into a new organizational form that has greater potential, inducing voluntary commitment of members through vision presentation and revitalizing the organization by energizing its members.
Authentic leadership is to do exactly what it is, not creating a desired image like a false figure based on multidimensional and fundamental recognition. In fact, it is the leadership that encourages and motivates members through authentic character and behavior(George, 2003; Luthans, 2002). In addition, positive leadership of hope and trust in the planning of changes in attitudes and behaviors of the members plays a mediating role(Sato et al., 2004). Authentic leadership makes members feel satisfied with their job. Authentic leadership makes members devoted to the organization and meaningful to their responsibilities. Therefore, it increases the immersion of the members in the job and changes the attitude(Gardner et al., 2005; George, 2003; Ilies, Morgeson and Nahrgang, 2005). Authentic leadership leads to effective job performance, leads to additional work in the job, and reduces turnover intention(Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, 2002).
Authentic leadership places great emphasis on moral values. In this study, we examine the effects of morality on the morality of a person with a high level of morality(Gardner et al., 2005; Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Luthans, 2002). Authentic leadership is associated with positive psychological capital and positive leadership. Authentic leadership is based on perseverance, confidence, hope, and positive mindset that are emphasized in positive psychological capital. The positive psychological capital covered in positive psychology includes such parts as authentic leadership. Positive psychological capital places emphasis on individual strength, physical health, mental health, and happiness. Positive psychological capital is the basis of positive organizational theory and positive organizational behavior(Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Luthans 2002; Seligman and Csikzentmihalyi, 2000).
Leaders with authentic leadership know their strengths and understand their limitations. We continually think about ways to enhance our strengths and complement our weaknesses. It internalizes the values, beliefs, world view and mission of one's self and affects other members positively. Leaders constantly try to understand the impact they have on other members. Leaders will always strive for free and comfortable communication and will communicate about achievements, accomplishments, mistakes, errors, and shortcomings without concealing or deceiving. Leaders with authentic leadership can have positive effects on self-confidence and morality, positive attitudes, and resilience(Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al., 2004; Walum, 2008).
First, the approach of authentic leadership is focused on the internal aspect of the leader (Shamir and Eilam, 2005). Second, it is an approach from an interpersonal point of view that occurs between leaders and members(Ilies, Morgeson and Nahrgang, 2005). Third, it is a development perspective that is developed through experience and effort in life (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing and Peterson, 2008; Northouse, 2010).
The characteristics of leaders with authentic leadership that are common in different perspectives are as follows. Leaders with authentic leadership have a deep understanding of their strengths, capabilities, competencies, disadvantages, limitations, and points to be supplemented. Repeat the process of understanding the true self, seeking the core values, beliefs, desires, and goals of the leader. These leaders constantly show the process of constantly asking who they are and looking for answers. Authentic leadership is the process of aligning goals and values with leaders' behaviors, so that leaders behave consistently without being disturbed by the pressure of others, external expectations. When leaders show values, missions, beliefs, and consistent behaviors, members perceive that their behaviors, thoughts, and actions are consistent and authentic about their leaders(Luthans, 2002; Gardner et al., 2005).
The study of constitutive factors of authentic leadership has been active since early 2000s. The approach to authentic leadership has been divided into three perspectives; human internal perspective, relational perspective, and developmental perspective(Northouse, 2010). The first approach is an approach from an internal humanistic point of view that focuses on the reader's inner side. The role of a leader with authentic leadership is a key element of self-concept and has a clear picture of it. Leadership with authentic leadership has a goal consistent with self and self-expressional behavior(Shamir and Eilam, 2005). The second approach is a relationship approach from the point of view of a series of human relations between the leader and the members. Authentic leadership is defined as authentic behavior, balanced information processing, self-awareness, and true relationship-oriented leadership(Ilies, Morgeson and Nahrgang, 2005). The third approach is a developmental approach in which the leader is raised by a significant event that he or she is experiencing. Leaders with authentic leadership use and promote positive psychological competence and an ethical atmosphere together. This is a type of behavior that encourages positive self-development through the reader's high level of self-awareness, transparency of relationship, moral point of view, and balanced information processing(Hong and Choi, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008).
Authentic leadership is a true leader possessing self-regulation and self-awareness. Self-awareness is the process of finding out who the leader is and finding out what the identity of the leader is in the organization. Self-regulation is the process of self-discipline by constantly looking back at words and actions based on self-awareness(Gardner et al., 2005; Luthans, 2002). Leadership with authentic leadership seeks identity in the organization through self-awareness and constantly strives to reduce the gap between the current self and the ideal self through self-regulation(Yoon, 2012; Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). The components of authentic leadership are transparency of relationship, self-awareness, balanced information processing, and moral point of view(Walumbwa et al, 2008). From the development perspective, we used four components that were proven to be valid and reliable. In this paper, we propose a methodology for constructing a positive emotional competence for a group of employees(Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2010).
The following are the factors of authentic leadership. Self-awareness based on knowing oneself, weaknesses and strengths clearly. Self-awareness is the process of perceiving and constantly understanding the ideal self of the future based on values, goals, and beliefs(Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005; Luthans, 2002). Transparency of relationship is to show the leader a true self to others and try to minimize the expression of inappropriate emotions. Transparency of relationship promotes trust through information sharing, emotional expression, and true thinking(Walumbwa et al., 2008). Object of transparency of relationship is motivation, goal, values, identity, and emotion. Relationship transparency enhances collaboration and teamwork through trust (Jones and George, 1998). Morality behavior corresponds to moral standards and values, rather than based on external pressures such as leaders, peers, organizations, and social pressures. To show moral behavior, we make transparent decisions by developing and utilizing internalized efficacy, ethical competence, resilience, and courage(Mayo et al., 2003; Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Leaders, during making decisions, objectively analyze all the data and interpret the process related to the behavior of asking for opinions from organizational members who challenge the position as balanced information processing(Gardner et al., 2005).

2.2 Job satisfaction

A study of job satisfaction began with the study of the fact that the psychological and emotional effects of the worker were influenced by the industrial psychologist from 1940 on productivity improvement psychologist(Hong and Yang, 2010). Job satisfaction is a variable that can measure positive satisfaction of the members. It is an alternative to raising job performance to meet the job satisfaction and improve the efficiency of official members. Job satisfaction is a concept of emphasizing non-material factors. It is a variable of emotions that can measure the degree of satisfaction that a member feels about their job and how satisfied they are with respect to their work environment. It is important for members to have a positive attitude to their job in order to improve organizational performance. This suggests that organizations positively refer to the outside world if they have positive emotions in their jobs. So that other members have an affinity for the organization and the purpose and legitimacy of the organizational activity is enhanced. A person who is satisfied with his or her job maintains a good relationship between the outside and the inside. Increased satisfaction with the organization significantly reduces absenteeism and turnover and contributes to maintaining the organization. Job satisfaction has a significant impact on organizational performance and has an impact on organizational effectiveness(Kim, 2008).
It is important to understand that the organization is responsible for the job satisfaction of the members among the importance of job satisfaction. First, job satisfaction is important in terms of value. Members spend most of their time awake in the organization. Everyone hopes that the part of life is more pleasantly satisfying, and the job in them is not only a place where income for the means of livelihood occurs but also a place of life satisfaction. Therefore, if the workplace does not meet these demands, it cannot be tasted. Second, job satisfaction is important in terms of mental health. Those who feel dissatisfied with their work experience feel dissatisfaction with their leisure, home life, and even life itself. Third, job satisfaction affects the physical and mental health of the members. There is a study that job dissatisfaction such as boredom and stress is related to stroke. Members who feel that their job is useful have a low turnover rate(Kim, 2008).
The determinants of job satisfaction vary widely. Jobs are understood in the complex interrelationship of responsibilities, tasks, interactions, roles, and rewards. Job satisfaction is generally expressed as the satisfaction of the factors that make up the job(Shin. 2006). Job Satisfaction Variables have been studied as the variables of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Satisfaction is measured by job, responsibility, and promotion. It was measured by organizational policy, working conditions, salary, supervision and management as factors constituting dissatisfaction. Job satisfaction studies are divided into internal factors and external factors as factors that constitute job satisfaction(Herzberg, 1968).
Trust to the leader leads to positive organizational performance. The effect of trust towards leaders is very diverse, ranging from employee attitudes, behavioral performance, satisfaction, and job performance(Colquitt et al., 2007; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). The trust towards the leader presupposes a positive expectation of the members. Therefore, it will increase the satisfaction of the organization and raise a positive attitude. Although there was a theoretical suggestion that the commitment of the members to the job would be generated by the authentic leadership of the leader, empirical verification was insufficient(Avolio and Luthans, 2006). This study confirms that authentic leadership is an independent variable that has a significant effect on job satisfaction and job commitment. Therefore, the effect of authentic leadership is greater when trust is formed through authenticity than by the leader approaching the members in a sincere way(Moon, Seo, Bae and An, 2015).

2.3 Organizational citizenship behavior

Research on organizational citizenship behavior reveals that research on private companies and social welfare institutions has a relatively large share in comparison with other sectors. In recent years, research on public institutions and public organizations has been increasing. Organizational citizenship behavior cannot guarantee the development or survival of an organization in terms of the structural aspects such as the distribution of appropriate powers and roles among its members in order to effectively carry out its functions(Cho, Lee and Seo, 2009) Thus, the interest in the autonomous cooperation activities of the members who are not limited to the structural role and authority was increased. Katz(1964) is the scholar who has summarized these problems. Katz(1964) identifies the four essential behaviors of an organization member as follows. First, members should be able to participate in organizational activities and to be able to do continuous activities. Second, the members should believe and carry out specific roles. Third, the members must perform the prescribed roles in a way that they can be trusted. Fourth, members must participate in creative and voluntary actions in the prescribed roles.
Organizational citizenship behavior is being studied in prosocial behavior theory as concepts that deal with spontaneous behavior to promote organizational effectiveness as well as organization spontaneity. Brief and Motowidlo(1986) present three characteristics of pro-social organizational behavior. First, organizational behavior is the subject of an action. Second, organizational behavior plays a role of members in the organization and targets the organization. Third, organizational behavior is aimed at the enhancement of the organization 's welfare. The concept of organizational spontaneity began with the work of Katz(1964). The specific actions of organization spontaneity are as follows: protecting the organization from accidents, helping peers, developing the self, promoting the organization's excellence, and making constructive suggestions. These behaviors have been classified as voluntary actions to achieve organizational goals(Jeong, 2002).
Organizational citizenship behavior is spontaneity of the organization, and the members of the organization actively demonstrate their abilities to the maximum and have a positive influence on the organization. Sometimes these actions can force members to sacrifice for the organization. Organizational citizenship behavior is a concept that includes both active and passive activities in which volunteers voluntarily participate to promote organizational effectiveness. Therefore, recent research trends pay much attention to organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational citizenship behavior includes time-honored and assisting co-workers and suggesting creative ideas for the development of departments other than the roles given. Moreover, behaviors that voluntarily perform tasks, do not waste time, and avoid enemies, arguments, and complaints are also included in organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational citizenship behavior, which means voluntary and committed behavior for organizational development, does not appear in organizations. The result is a decrease in organizational performance and strong individualism tendency of members. In the end, it leads to a decline in competitiveness among organizations(Yoo, 2007).
After Organ and Bateman first used the term civic action, a number of scholars conducted research on organizational citizenship behavior. The researchers included in the behaviors of the members in behaviors to comply with the leader's instructions, to help their colleagues, to observe the time strictly, to suggest improvement of work methods. Graham(1995) suggested loyalty, citizenship, helping others, and pursuing superiority. George and Brief(1992) included actions to protect an organization, to help peers, to self-develop, to offer constructive suggestions, and to convey favor to the organization. Organizational citizenship behavior included courtesy, altruism, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and civic spirit. Organizational citizenship behavior has been studied including citizenship, conscience, altruism, justice, and sportsmanship(Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman and Fetter, 1990). Based on the research of Organ(1990), Podsakoff et. al.(1990), Bateman and Organ(1993) Konovsky and Pugh(1994), it is found that altruism, conscientious behavior, participating behavior, polite behavior, justice behavior and are constitutive elements of organizational citizenship behavior.
The organizational citizenship behaviors are as follows. Altruism is the act of assisting a member in a specific face-to-face relationship with an organization-related task and refers to direct and intentional voluntary acts. Conscientious behavior refers to behavior that a member performs at the minimum level required by an organization. This conscientious behavior is the behavior that appears in the context of the conflicts that members face. Participatory behavior is an act of participating in and actively participating in the activities of the organization. Graham(1991) categorized the first distinction as follows: reading newspapers, having personal time, and attending meetings to discuss all matters. Polite behavior is a fundamental act of careful consideration to the members of the organization that are affected by decisions. Polite behavior involves decisions that are made by the organization and actions that share information among members affected by organizational behavior. It refers to actions that points to the work affecting other members. Fair actions are actions that address grievances and minor problems within an organization. It does not complain or complain about the organization's problems.
Job satisfaction is an indicator of organizational effectiveness and has been one of the most studied variables related to organizational citizenship behavior(Bateman and Organ, 1983). There is a growing number of researches showing that productivity is high if members are satisfied. The results of previous research suggest that it helps to understand the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior(Hwang and Choi, 2003). A study of organizational citizenship behavior was initiated to clarify the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Recently, research has been continuing to find other important determinants of job satisfaction. There are many determinants that affect organizational citizenship behavior. In a study of mediating role of job satisfaction, job satisfaction is related to individual characteristics, job characteristics, and organizational characteristics, and representative variables are job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The mediating role of job satisfaction influenced the relationship between situational factors and various components of organizational citizenship behavior. It was confirmed that the job attitude according to the job satisfaction of the members affects the organizational citizenship behavior. The results of this study suggest that there is a significant relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior(Han, 2005).

3. Method

3.1 Research model and hypothesis

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of authentic leadership on job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior in order to empirically analyze the relationship between authentic leadership, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior based on previous studies(Azanza, Moriano and Molero, 2013; Wong and Laschinger, 2013; Kim, 2016). The research model of this study is as shown in <Figure 1>.

3.2 Hypothesis

Trust in members of leaders with authentic leadership leads to positive organizational performance. The organizational performance can vary from a soldier's attitude, satisfaction, job performance, and behavioral performance. Trust is a premise of positive expectations for members. Trust will increase satisfaction and positive attitudes(Colquitt et al., 2007; Driks and Ferrin, 2002). Gouldner(1960), by the norm of reciprocity, objects in a trust relationship contribute voluntarily to the other. Trust in the leader affects the attitude and behavior of the members in various ways. Leaders with authentic leadership have confidence in their members because they make ethical approaches to decision-making and strive for more balanced information processing than hasty decision-making(Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang and Avey, 2009).
A study of the relationship between authentic leadership and enthusiasm confirms that there are other variables that mediate two variables. We investigated whether authentic leadership affects organizational citizenship behavior and job enthusiasm through empowerment and identification with leader. The effects of authentic leadership on job tenure were positively and significantly influenced. (Wang, Wang, Schaubroeck, and Avolio, 2010). Bamford, Wang, and Laschinger(2012) studied the effects of authentic leadership on job tenure through their working environment. The results of this study are as follows. Therefore, this study inferred that authentic leadership would have a significant positive impact on job satisfaction. authentic leadership will affect job satisfaction through trust in the leader.
It is found that authentic leadership is a positive predictive variable in terms of organizational effectiveness and organizational effectiveness of organizational citizenship behavior, and that leadership effectiveness is also positively influenced by positive influence(Walumbwa, 2008). Kim (2012) showed that The effect of authentic leadership on the attitude toward leader and organizational effectiveness is positively associated with organizational citizenship behavior. Bateman and Organ(1983) stressed that job satisfaction is an influential factor in organizational citizenship behavior in Blau(1964) social exchange theory.
Oldham and Hackman(1975) presented five characteristics of identity, importance, autonomy, flow, and technological diversity as characteristics of work itself. emphasized that it is semantics, autonomy, and flow, suggesting personal control of work, and intrinsic motivation. In this study, Oldham and Hackman defined six factors of importance, autonomy, job satisfaction, satisfaction of growth need, value realization, and aptitude suitability, and defined satisfaction as intrinsic job satisfaction(Weiss et al. Hackman and Oldham, 1975; Gareld, 1986; Soeter, 1997).
The members will work smoothly when their duties match their aptitude, and the work efficiency of the members will increase. And the members do not feel conflicts about their job roles, they can work enthusiastically and demonstrate their creativity. Members do not waste their time, but they do their best to work well with other members for increased productivity, organizational performance, and new ideas. The following hypothesis can be set up based on these discussions.
Hypotheses 1. Authentic Leadership is positively associated with Job Satisfaction.
 H1-1. Self-Awareness is positively associated with Job Satisfaction.
 H1-2. Transparency of Relationship is positively associated with Job Satisfaction.
 H1-3. Moral Point of View is positively associated with Job Satisfaction.
 H1-4. Balanced Information Processing is positively associated with Job Satisfaction.
Hypotheses 2. Job Satisfaction is positively associated with organizational citizenship behavior.
 H2-1. Job Satisfaction is positively associated with Altruism.
 H2-2. Job Satisfaction is positively associated with Conscience Behavior.
 H2-3. Job Satisfaction is positively associated with Participating Behavior.
 H2-4. Job Satisfaction is positively associated with Polite Behavior.
 H2-5. Job Satisfaction is positively associated with Justice Behavior.

3.3 Data collection and measurement variable

This study was conducted using convenience sampling method. The self - filling questionnaires were distributed and retrieved for military personnel from September 23, 2015 to October 5, 2015. In this study, 375 questionnaires were collected but 337 questionnaires were used for empirical analysis. Statistical analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, correlation analysis and regression analysis were performed using SPSS 18.0.
In previous researches the components of authentic leadership were divided into four dimensions by of Walumbwa et al.(2008) and Kim et al.(2012). Job satisfaction came from MSQ(Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire) and JDI(Job Description Index). Organizational citizenship behavior was classified into five dimensions: altruism, conscientious behavior, participatory behavior, polite behavior, and justice behavior based on the research of Podsakoff, McKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter(1990).
Therefore, this study is divided into four dimensions of authentic leadership. Leadership has a positive impact on organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction if authentic leadership is performed. In this study, 16 survey questions were included in the authentic leadership questionnaire based on the research of Walumbwa et al.,(2008), Kim, et al.(2012), and Jin Young Ko(2013). Job satisfaction is the result of evaluation of job experience and job evaluation of members. Job satisfaction is the overall good and bad attitude of the emotional state. In this study, based on the MSQ and JDI(Job Descriptive Index), the job satisfaction questionnaire was composed of 9 survey questions. Organizational citizenship behaviors include Podsakoff, McKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter(1990); Based on the previous research, the organizational citizenship behavior questionnaire was composed of 25 survey questions.

4. Data analysis and results

4.1 Respondents' profiles

A total of 450 soldiers did so, yielding 375 completed surveys, representing a 83.3% response rate. Due to missing data, 38 of the 375 responses had to be removed; this adjustment results in 337 usable responses for data analysis. The demographic data for respondents showed that 100 percent of the respondents were male, 97.3 percent of the respondents were single. The largest group of respondents (55.8%) were between 20 and 22 years old, followed by a group that were between 23 and 25 years old(35.6%). The majority(51.0%) were university student, followed by a group that had graduating high school(38.3%). Most of respondents' service form were compulsory service. The largest group of respondents worked battle branch(36.5%), followed by a group that worked special branch(29.2%). The majority(38.0%) were corporal, followed by a group that were private first class(35.0%).

4.2 Data analysis and results

This study used IBM AMOS 23.0 to produce descriptive statistics and to conduct confirmatory factor analysis(CFA). Since many studies have tested CFA the approach is particularly appropriate for this study. The test of CFA includes a test of the overall model fit as well as performed to evaluate the concept validity. To identify the fit of the CFA, the overall fit indexes and supplementary goodness-of-fit indexes are used. For the overall fit of the models, researchers must interpret χ2 with caution. If the study sample size is over 200, Chi-square has a greater tendency to indicate significant effect(Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009). The Chi-square is nonsignificant (p<0.05) in rejecting the null hypothesis since the sample sizes 337 in this study. However, χ2/df is over 3.00(χ2/df=1.328), is significant. The supplementary fits of the model at least marginally meet the level, presenting that model showed good fit to the data: Goodness-of-fit index (GFI)=0.928; adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI)=0.893; tucker–Lewis index (TLI)=0.978; comparative fit index (CFI)=0.983; root mean squared error of approximation(RMSEA)=0.043; standardized root mean square(SRMR)=0.036. As a result, the ten variables, this model is acceptable as a measurement model for this paper.
The measurement for the model is undertaken to identify unidimensionality, demonstrating that each item reflects only one underlying construct validity and construct(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Modification indexes(MIs) are very useful to evaluate threats to unidimensionality; researcher stipulates a threshold of an MIs of 10(Byrne, 2001). Byrne's(2004) study shows that large MIs indicate that factor cross-loadings and error covariance are showed (i.e., a loading on more than one factor). The study researchers should delete cross-loaded items, both it is intended and it is unintended(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Hyun & O'Keefe, 2012; Kim, 2007; Kim & Hyun, 2016). Consequently, two items demonstrating a low factor loading(<0.50) were removed.
Validity is the extent to which the indicators properly measure what they are supposed to indicate(Hair, Black, Babin and Anderson, 2009). Validity is important since theoretical constructs are not measurable and researchers test the relationships among unmeasurable constructs indirectly through observed indicators. Composite Reliability(C.R.) and average variance extracted(AVE) are analysis indicators for convergent validity, which C.R. meet the desired levels of 0.70 and AVE meet the desired levels of 0.50, accounting for 50 percent or more of the variance of the measures(Sánchez-Franco & Roldán, 2005).
Table 4 demonstrates diagonal values that are AVE values for convergent validity. Off-diagonal values indicate correlation coefficients among variables. As Table 4 shows, the study shows convergent validity since composite α have ranged from 0.885 to 0.977 and AVE have ranged from 0.749 to 0.918. Due to the fact that squared correlation(R2) between two variables less than the AVE of each variable(Fornell & Larcker, 1981) or the square root of the AVE values exceeded the correlations between variables, the study result achieves discriminant validity(Yoo & Donthu, 2001). Discriminant validity is evident because the squared AVE values are greater than the correlation coefficients between any pairs of constructs. Moreover, multicollinearity harmfully affects the analysis results of study when monitoring any high correlations (R>0.80) among exogenous variables(Reisinger & Turner, 1999). It can be explained that the correlation coefficients of variables were lower than 0.80, no violation of multicollinearity showed. Based on these validity and reliability of variables, the researchers used this analysis to test the hypotheses.

4.3 Hypothesis testing

4.3.1 Hypothesis 1 testing

Table 5 shows the results of hypothesis testing and the β coefficient between authentic leadership and job satisfaction. In the hypothesis 1 testing, the relationship between self-awareness and job satisfaction(β=0.130, t=3.234, p<0.01), that between transparency and job satisfaction(β=0.224, t=5.252, p<0.01) and that balanced information processing and job satisfaction(β=0.326, t=6.721, p<0.01) were positive and significant. However moral point of view and job satisfaction(β=0.042, t=0.719, p=0.472) was nonsignificant. Thus H1-1, H1-2 and H1-4 are supported.

4.3.1 Hypothesis 2 testing

Table 6 shows the results of hypothesis testing and the β coefficient between job satisfaction and organization citizenship behavior. In the hypothesis 2 testing, the relationship between job satisfaction and altruism(β=0.496, t=8.835, p<0.01), that between job satisfaction and conscientious behavior(β=0.431, t=8.395, p<0.01), that between job satisfaction and participating behavior(β=0.451, t=8.106, p<0.01), that between job satisfaction and polite behavior(β=0.395, t=7.103, p<0.01), and that between job satisfaction and justice behaviors(β=0.403, t=7.449, p<0.01) were all positive and significant. Thus H2-1, H2-2, H2-3, H2-4 and H2-5 are supported.

5. Contributions to theory and practice

5.1 Summary and implication

The theoretical and practical implications based on these results are as follows. First, balanced processing of authentic leadership has the greatest positive effect on job satisfaction over other sub-variables. The results of this study show that if the leader in the army tries to listen to the opinions and thoughts of the members in order to maintain a good relationship with the members and provides various and wide information to the members, the satisfaction of the members becomes higher. Second, transparency of relationship among authentic leadership is positively associated with job satisfaction. The results of this study increase the satisfaction of the members by sharing the open information to the members and expressing the true thoughts and feelings of the leaders to the members. Third, self-awareness of authentic leadership is positively associated with job satisfaction. In an army, the leader of an organization will be more satisfied with the job of the members if they are able to clearly understand how members evaluate themselves and clearly communicate what they want to say to their members. Fourth, job satisfaction has a great positive impact on altruism. The results of this study show that the higher the job satisfaction of the members, the more they willing to help when there are difficult drivers around, and the more effort to help other members when the workload is high. Fifth, job satisfaction positively affects participating behavior. The results of this study show that the higher the job satisfaction of the members, the better effort is made to develop the unit. We also voluntarily participate in behaviors that can make a good impression on the unit even if it is not a business thing. Sixth, job satisfaction positively affects conscience behavior. The results of this study show that the higher the job satisfaction of the members, the more members try to keep the regulations or rules of the organization even if they do not look at them. In addition, the members strictly observe fixed working hours or breaks. Seventh, job satisfaction positively affects polite behavior. The results of this study show that the higher the job satisfaction of the members, the more members avoid gossiping about other members and will try to really help the leader. Eighth, job satisfaction positively affects justice behavior. The results of this study show that the higher the job satisfaction of the members, the more they do not complain about the minor problems that arise from the unit and do their best to complete the assigned training and tasks.
During performing leadership in order to train soldiers in the army, we ask for organizational problems and measures through education on mutual communication as the top priority. The best solution is not to speak well but to listen carefully. In order to provide different information to the members, the leader should be able to provide information to the members through insightful qualities based on various experiences and knowledge rather than being put in one place. Leaders must be educated through personal education in order to express themselves honestly. It is necessary to cultivate personality that can express sophisticated emotions, rather than putting anger or other things in mind or cheering for the members. When members do good work, education should be carried out so that they can develop qualities that can truly reward mental rewards for good work and praise. Leaders should also know exactly what they are thinking about themselves. In order to do this, the self-examination should be done with the self-examination. The leaders who are trained through the leadership education have an overall satisfaction with the organization. There is also a greater sense of cooperating to do the best for the development of the organization and to be willing to help others around. Members will be the best part of an organization to complete the training and tasks without neglecting the rules, regulations, and duties of the troops, even if the leader is not seen.

5.2 Limitations and future research directions

Limitations of this study and future research directions are as follows. First, it was concentrated in Daegu and Gyeongbuk areas due to time problems and financial problems, also there was a limit for the generalization of effective samples to 337 copies. In future studies, it is necessary to increase the number of samples and widen the area to carry out an empirical investigation. Second, in this study, we study leaders of military organization with authentic leadership. Future studies will be more valuable if they are compared with transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Third, the relationship between various organizational effectiveness variables and authentic leadership should be studied. Fourth, in this study, there was no comparative study between military and departmental. In future studies, we will provide meaningful research results by comparing by class and department.


Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103(3):411-423.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., and May, D. R. 2004. Unlocking the Mask: A Look at the Process by which Authentic Leaders Impact Follower Attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly 15: 801-823.
Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., and Walumbwa, F. O. 2004. Authentic Leadership: Theory Building for Veritable Sustained Performance. Working paper. Gallup Leadership Institute; University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Avolio, B. J., and Gardner, W. L. 2005. Authentic Leadership Development: Getting to The Root of Positive Forms of Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 16: 315-338.
Azanza, G., Moriano, J. A., and Molero, F. 2013. Authentic leadership and organizational culture as drivers of employees’ job satisfaction. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 29: 45-50.
Bamford, M., Wong, C., and Laschinger, H. 2012. The Influence of Authentic Leadership and Areas of Worklife on Work Engagement of Registered Nurses. Journal of Nursing Management 21(3):529-540.
crossref pmid
Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Cliffs. NJ. Rrentice-Hall.

Bass, B. M. 1990. From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision. Organizational Dynamics 18(3):19-31.
Bass, B. M., and Steidlmeier, P. 1999. Ethics, Character, and Authentic Transformational Leadership Behavior. The Leadership Quarterly 10: 181-217.
Bateman, T. S., and Organ, D. W. 1983. Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship between Affect and Employee Citizenship. The Academy of Management Journal 26(4):587-595.

Burns, J. M. 1978. Leardership. NY. Harper and Row Publishers.

Byrne, B. M. 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associations Inc.

Byrne, B. M. 2004. Testing for Multigroup Invariance Using AMOS Graphics: A Road Less Travelled. Structural Equation Model: A Multidisciplinary Journal 11(2):272-300.
Cho, J. H. 2017. An Empirical Study on Top Management's Leadership in Construction Quality Management Activities and Construction Quality Management Performance. Korea Society for Quality Management 45(3):403-426.

Cho, Y. H., Cho, S. Y., and Hong, G. H. 2017. Effects of Authentic Leadership and Team Empowerment on Team Commitment and Team-Level Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Coaching as a Moderator. The Korean Academic Association of Business Administration 30(4):657-688.
Cho, Y. H., Lee, H. S., and Seo, H. D. 2009. Effect of Managerial Ideologies on Service Quality and Organizational Effectiveness -Focused on the Moderating Effect of Job Emotionality. Korea Society for Quality Management 37(3):18-32.

Choi, K. H. 2004. Development of Measuring Instruments for Teachers' Morale in Secondary School. Defense Policy Studies 66: 81-98.

Choi, W. J., and Cho, Y. H. 2013. The Effects of Authentic Leadership on Psychological Well-Being and Adaptive Perforamnce: The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy. Human Organization Research 21(2):185-228.

Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., and Avey, J. B. 2009. Authentic Leadership and Positive Psychological Capital: The Mediating Role of Trust at the Group Level of Analysis. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 15: 227-240.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., and LePine, J. A. 2007. Trust, Trustworthiness, and Trust Propensity: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Unique Relationships with Risk Taking and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(4):909-927.
crossref pmid pdf
Dirks, K. T., and Ferrin, D. L. 2002. Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4):611-628.
crossref pmid pdf
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., and Walumbwa, F. O. 2005. Can You See Real Me? A Self-Based Model of Authentic Leader and Follower Development. The Leadership Quarterly 16(3):343-372.
George, J. M., and Brief, A. P. 1992. Feeling Good Doing Good: A Conceptual Analysis of the Mood at Work-Organizational Spontaneity Relationship. Psychological Bulletin 12: 310-329.
crossref pdf
George, W. 2003. "Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secret to Creating Lasting Value. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Gereld, B. 1986. "Correlation of Job Satisfaction among Human Service Workers. Administration of Social Worker 10(1):25-32.

Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review 24: 161-178.
Graham, J. W. 1991. Servent Leadership in Organizations: Inspirational and Moral. Leadership Quarterly 2(2):105-119.
Graham, J. W. 1995. Leadership, Moral Development, and Citizenship Behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly 5: 43-54.
Hackman, J. Richard, and Oldham, Greg R. 1975. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60(2):159-170.
Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. L. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey. Prentice-Hall International.

Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., and Anderson, R. E. 2009. Multivariate Data Analysis 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall.

Han, K. H. 2005. The Effect of Personal Tendency Characteristics on Organizational Citizen Behavior. Korea Journal of Business Administration 18(5):1903-1926.

Hersey, P., and Blanchard, K. H. 1984. Management of Organizational Behavior, Englewood Cliffs. N.J. Prentic-Hall.

Hong, W. S., and Yang, H. S. 2010. A Study on the Influence of Transformational leadership on the Job satisfaction, Organizational commitment and Innovational behavior. KDI Journal of Technology 11(10):3707-3720.

Hwang, H. Y., and Choi, Y. K. 2003. Focused on the Roles of Individualism-Collectivism The Effects of Organizational Justice on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Homan Resource Development 5(1):1-24.

Hyun, M. Y., and O'Keefe, R. M. 2012. Virtual Destination Image: Testing a Telepresence Model. Journal of Business Research 65: 29-35.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., and Nahrgang, J. D. 2005. Authentic Leadership and Eudaemonic Well-Being: Understanding Leader-Follower Outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 16: 373-394.
Jones, G. R., and George, J. M. 1998. The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork. The Academy of Management Review 16(3):373-394.

Kang, B. S., and An, M. X. 2001. The Causal Model of Quality Leadership and Business Performance by Quality System for Manufacturing Companies of the North - east China. Korea Society for Quality Management 29(1):140-159.

Katz, D. 1964. The Motivational Basis of Organizational Behavior. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 9(2):131-146.
Kim, C. H., and Shim, W. S. 2012. "A Study on the Impact of Leader's Authenticity on the Job Crafting of Employees and it's process. Organizational and Human Management Research 36(1):131-162.

Kim, G. H. 2012. A Study on the Moderating Effect of Sense of Humor in Structural Relationship between Different Types of Leadership of Military Organization and Organizational Effectiveness. Jungbu University; Doctor's Degree Thesis.

Kim, G. S. 2007. The Model Development of 6 Sigma and Understanding of Process Quality in the Service Industry: Using the Structural Equation Modeling. Korea Society for Quality Management 35(2):84-99.

Kim, G. S. 2008. Structural equation model analysis. Seoul. Han Na Rae.

Kim, H, C., and Hyun, M. Y. 2016. "Predicting the Use of Smartphone-Based Augmented Reality(AR): Does telepresence really help? Computers in Human Behavior 59: 28-38.
Kim, J. O., and Kim, S. Y. 2017. Person-Organization Value Congruence between Authentic Leadership of Head Nurses and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Clinical Nurses. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration 23(5):515-523.
Kim, M. H. 2016. A study of how a manager's authentic leadership of a food service enterprise affects the actions and effectiveness within an employee organization. Korea Tourism Research Association 30(12):239-254.

Kim, N. W. 2008. An Analysis of the Relationship between the Transformational and Traditional Leadership of the Training Center and the Job Satisfaction of School cadets. Korea University; Master's Degree Thesis.

Kim, S. H. 2012. "The Structural Relationship among Building the Learning Organization of a Sport Administrative Organization with Job Satisfaction and Subjective Well-b● Received 16 June 2018, 1st revised 9 July, accepted 10 July 2018.

Kim, Y. S., and Yoon, J. H. 2004. The Effect of the Organizational Leadership and Corporate Culture Types, ISO 9001:2000 System, the Quality Culture Formation on the Corporate Performance. Korea Society for Quality Management 32(2):37-58.

Lim, D. S., and Jung, H, I. 2015. Effects of Authentic Leadership on Turnover Intention and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Korean Academy of Human Resource Management 22(4):75-99.
Luthans, F. 2002. The Need for and Meaning of Positive Organizational Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23: 659-706.
May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., and Avolio, B. J. 2003. Developing the Moral Component of Authentic Leadership. Organizational Dynamics 32(3):247-260.
Moo, H. K., Seo, I. D., Bae, S. H., and Ahn, S. I. 2015. The Influence of Authentic Leadership on Subordinates' Attitudes and Behaviors and the Mediation Effect of Trust in Leader. Management Education Research 30(1):435-461.

Motowidlo, S. J. 2000. Some Basic Issues Related to Contextual Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Human Resource Management. Human Resource Management Review 10(1):115-126.
Northouse, P. G. 2010. Authentic Leadership. SAGE Publications.

Olaniyan, O. S., and Hystad, S. W. 2016. Employees’ Psychological Capital, Job Satisfaction, Insecurity, and Intentions to Quit: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Authentic Leadership. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 32(3):163-171.
Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It`s Construct Clean-Up Time. Human Performance 10(2):85-97.
Podsakoff, P. M., and Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. Journal of management 12(4):531-544.
Reisinger, Y., and Turner, L. 1999. Structural Equation Modeling with Lisrel: Application in Tourism. Tourism Management 20(1):71-88.
Sanchez-Franco, M. J., and Roldan, J. L. 2005. Web Acceptance and Usage Model: A Comparison between Goal-Directed and Experiential Web Users. Internet Research 15(1):21-48.
Seligman, M. E. P., and Csikszentmuhalyi, M. 2003. Positive Psychology. American Psychologist 55: 5-14.
crossref pdf
Shamir, B., and Eilam, G. 2005. What1s Your Story?: A Life-Stories Approach to Authentic to Authentic Leadership Development. Leadership Quarterly 16: 395-147.
Shin, C. H., Choi, B. S., and Lee, S. K. 2003. A Practical Study on The Relativity between Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction of the Hotel Employees, A Focus on Factor of Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction. Hotel Resort Research 12(1):19-34.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wemsing, T. S., and Peterson, J. S. 2008. Authentic Leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management 34(1):89-126.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., and Avolio, B. J. 2010. Psychological Processes Linking Authentic Leadership to Follower Behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly 21: 901-914.
Weiss, D. G., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., and Lofquist, L, H. 1967. Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis. Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota.

Wong, C. A., and Laschinger, H. K. S. 2013. Authentic leadership, performance, and job satisfaction: the mediating role of empowerment. Leading Global Nursing Research 69(4):947-959.

Yang, K. H., Kim, J. S., and Kim, J. S. 2017. Effects of Authentic Leadership on Organizational Commitment: A Case of Military Organization. Korean Academy of Human Resource Management 24(2):1-26.

Yoo, B., and Donthu, N. 2001. Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale. Journal of Business Research 52(1):1-14.
Yoo, H. Sik 2012. Elementary education system, the leadership and military counseling of the military commander in the study. Sutonomous Police 5(1):197-219.

Yoo, O. 2007. The Effect of Leader-Member Exchange on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Focusing an a Military Organization. Yudeok University; Doctor's Degree Thesis.

Zubair, A., and Kamal, A. 2017. Perceived Authentic Leadership, Psychological Capital, and Creative Work Behavior in Bank Employees. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research 32(1):35-53.

Figure 1.
Research Model
Table 1.
Survey Configuration
Classification Measurement Number Researcher
Self- Awareness 1. My boss knows how others judge him. 15 Walumbwa et al. (2008); Kim et al. (2012)
2. My boss is a man who considers himself again on important matters.
3. My boss tells me exactly what he wants to say.
Transparency of Relationship 4. My boss admits frankly when he makes a mistake.
5. My boss tends to let my subordinates express their honest opinions.
6. My boss is a man who can tell the hard truth.
7. My boss tends to express his feelings honestly.
Moral Point of View 8. My boss acts on his faith.
9. My boss makes decisions based on important values and beliefs.
10. My boss also emphasizes employees to follow their own thoughts and values.
11. My boss makes difficult decisions based on ethical standards.
Blanced Information Processing 12. My boss wants me to share many different opinions with him.
13. My boss makes a thorough investigation of relevant data before making a decision.
14. My boss listens to a variety of opinions before making a decision.
15. My boss seeks the opinions necessary to maintain a good relationship with members.
Job Satisfaction 1. I think the job I am carrying out is very valuable for the development of the troops. 9 MSQ JDI
2. I feel a sense of achievement when I complete the task assigned to me.
3. I am generally satisfied with my current duties.
4. I'm more active than others.
5. I can handle my duties and responsibilities.
6. My colleagues trust me.
7. I'm currently satisfied with my job conditions and environment.
8. I have an equal opportunity for self-development.
9. When I complete my assigned mission, I receive adequate compensation.
Altruism 1. If I have a fellow soldier who is physically ill and has difficulty in moving around me, I do his job instead. 25 Podsakoff, McKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990)
7. I'm willing to help out when there's a heavy workload around me.
9. I am willing to take the time to help my comrades in the face of work-related problems.
13. I help him to adapt if he is not in charge.
23. I return my reward for a comrades in need.
Conscience Behavior 2. I think it's very important to have a daily attitude at work.
4. I obey the rules and regulations of the unit without anyone seeing me.
10. I always keep my appointments well.
21.I meet at a set time and work on it.
25. I don't rest in the army because the time limit set by the regulations is exceeded.
Participating Behavior 5. I have tried to understand the contents of the unit
8. I try to keep up with the progress of the troops.
15. I actively participate in the unit's athletic meeting and social gatherings.
17. I volunteer to participate in the task of improving the image of the troops, if not in business.
18. I am happy to provide the information my comrades need.
20. I defend and counter outsiders when they criticize them.
Polite Behavior 12. I think about the effects of my own actions on other comrades.
14. I don't gossip about troops or other colleagues.
16. I have a good relationship with my fellow soldiers in the platoon and with other platoon comrades.
19. I'm willing to help my superiors in the army.
Justice Behavior 3. I try to complete my training and work.
6. I do not complain about the minor problems that arise within the unit.
11. I tend to talk about business problems as they are.
22. I use the specified amount of supplies.
24. All only talks to the unit about the problems that have occurred.
Table 2.
Profiles of respondents
Classification Frequency Percent
Gender Male 337 100.0
Female 0 0
Marriage Status Single 328 97.3
Married 8 2.4
etc. 1 0.3
Age Under 20 11 3.3
20-22 188 55.8
23-25 120 35.6
26-29 12 3.6
30-39 4 1.2
Over 50 2 0.6
Academic Background Under High School 8 2.4
Graduate High School 129 38.3
University Student 172 51.0
Graduate University 25 7.4
Graduate School Student 3 0.9
Service Form Compulsory Service 322 95.5
Short Term Service 5 1.5
Extension of Service 4 1.2
Long Term Service 6 1.8
Position Officer 2 3.3
Head of department 9 15.0
Class Private 33 9.8
Private First Class 118 35.0
Corporal 128 38.0
Sergeant 44 13.1
Noncommissioned officer 6 1.8
Officer 8 2.4
Service Period Under 6 Month 48 14.2
6 Month-1 year 110 32.6
1year-1year and 6Month 125 37.1
1year and 6Month- 2year 44 13.1
2year - 3year 2 0.6
4year - 5year 2 0.6
6year - 10year 1 0.3
Over 11year 5 1.5
Branch Battle Branch 123 36.5
Technical Branch 69 20.5
Administrative Branch 43 12.8
Special Branch 95 28.2
ect. 7 2.1
Table 3.
Result of CFA
Variable Factor Item Std. loadings SE t-value SMC
Authentic Leadership Self-Awareness (SA) SA1 1.000 - - 0.714
SA2 0.881 0.053 16.735 0.632
SA3 0.902 0.056 16.232 0.605
Transparency of Relationship (TR) TR1 0.867 0.062 14.061 0.509
TR2 0.920 0.061 15.077 0.568
TR3 0.971 0.062 15.646 0.601
TR4 1.000 - - 0.644
Moral Point of View (MP) MP1 Low loading (<0.5)
MP2 0.955 0.71 13.492 0.530
MP3 Low loading (<0.5)
MP4 1.000 - - 0.596
Balanced information Processing (BP) BP1 0.975 0.068 14.336 0.549
BP2 1.000 - - 0.617
BP3 0.999 0.061 16.349 0.680
BP4 0.898 0.058 15.492 0.623
Job Satisfaction (JS) JS1 0.883 0.078 11.381 0.425
JS2 0.858 0.078 11.337 0.422
JS3 0.915 0.079 11.578 0.440
JS4 0.899 0.073 12.253 0.493
JS5 0.915 0.074 12.306 0.497
JS6 1.000 - - 0.513
JS7 0.939 0.080 11.769 0.455
JS8 0.954 0.076 12.621 0.523
JS9 0.950 0.080 11.810 0.458
Organizational Citizenship Behavior Altruism (AL) AL1 1.000 - - 0.460
AL2 0.879 0.076 11.497 0.420
AL3 0.911 0.082 11.135 0.392
AL4 0.919 0.080 11.440 0.415
AL5 0.910 0.093 9.752 0.296
Conscience Behavior (CB) CB1 0.890 0.075 11.898 0.453
CB2 0.920 0.078 11.771 0.443
CB3 0.970 0.082 11.832 0.448
CB4 1.000 - - 0.468
CB5 0.975 0.087 11.226 0.400
Participating Behavior (PB) PB1 0.859 0.076 11.253 0.431
PB2 0.883 0.078 11.286 0.433
PB3 0.993 0.084 11.848 0.481
PB4 0.980 0.084 11.681 0.467
PB5 0.970 0.081 11.925 0.488
PB6 1.000 - - 0.464
Polite Behavior (PLB) PLB1 1.000 - - 0.424
PLB2 0.991 0.093 10.670 0.430
PLB3 0.963 0.092 10.443 0.409
PLB4 0.946 0.091 10.371 0.402
Justice Behavior (JB) JB1 0.974 0.085 11.413 0.457
JB2 0.959 0.090 10.714 0.397
JB3 0.650 0.111 5.872 0.111
JB4 1.000 - - 0.442
JB5 0.841 0.097 8.684 0.251

Notes. SE: standard error, SMC: Squared Multiple Correlations

GFI=0.928, AGFI=0.893, TLI=0.978, CFI=0.983, RMSEA=0.043, SRMR=0.036

Table 4.
Test for discriminant validity
Variable SA TR MP BP JS AL CB PB PLB JB M SD C.R. Cronbach α
SA .794 (.891) 3.856 .722 .885 .847
TR .759*** .846 (.919) 3.968 .666 .943 .862
MP .419*** .524*** .912 (.955) 3.879 .621 .912 .655
BP .698*** .736*** .540*** .918 (.958) 3.959 .696 .971 .863
JS .564*** .599*** .386*** .603*** .836 (.914) 3.960 .575 .976 .888
AL .593*** .590*** .418*** .607*** .658*** .818 (.904) 3.939 .581 .920 .762
CB .552*** .542*** .427*** .599*** .630*** .815*** .882 (.939) 4.008 .556 .967 .797
PB .589*** .600*** .456*** .608*** .652*** .800*** .796*** .880 (.938) 3.981 .589 .979 .836
PLB .533*** .543*** .431*** .528*** .575*** .748*** .709*** .782*** .934 (.966) 3.981 .594 .977 .740
JB .468*** .485*** .312*** .542*** .536*** .731*** .766*** .714*** .662*** .749 (.865) 3.913 .562 .921 .681

Notes. M: mean, SD: standard deviation, C.R.: Composite Reliability

Diagonal numbers are AVE (square root AVE).

* p<0.1,

** p<0.05,

*** p<0.01

Table 5.
Result of Hypothesis1 testing
Hypothesis Paths β coefficients t-value p-value Test result
H1-1 SA→JS 0.130 3.234*** 0.001 Accepted
H1-2 TR→JS 0.224 5.252*** 0.000 Accepted
H1-3 MP→JS 0.042 0.719 0.472 Rejected
H1-4 BP→JS 0.326 6.721*** 0.000 Accepted


* p<0.1,

** p<0.05,

*** p<0.01

Table 6.
Result of Hypothesis2 testing
Hypothesis Paths β coefficients t-value p-value Test result
H2-1 JS→AL 0.496 8.835*** 0.000 Accepted
H2-2 JS→CB 0.431 8.395*** 0.000 Accepted
H2-3 JS→PB 0.451 8.106*** 0.000 Accepted
H2-4 JS→ PLB 0.395 7.103*** 0.000 Accepted
H2-5 JS→JB 0.403 7.449*** 0.000 Accepted


* p<0.1,

** p<0.05,

*** p<0.01

Editorial Office
13F, 145, Gasan digital 1-ro, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul 08506, Korea
TEL: +82-2-2624-0357   FAX: +82-2-2624-0358   E-mail: ksqmeditor@ksqm.org
About |  Browse Articles |  Current Issue |  For Authors and Reviewers
Copyright © Korean Society for Quality Management.                 Developed in M2PI
Close layer
prev next