In the international literature, several studies corroborate the connection between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996; Organ et al., 2006). Nevertheless, the reputed influence of transformational leaders on citizenship behaviors of followers remains to be verified in many parts of the world (Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). Some studies have highlighted that commitment to one’s supervisor should strongly predict OCBs in developing countries, which tend to fare somewhat higher on cultural aspects such as collectivism and power distance (Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002; Cheng, Jiang, & Riley, 2003). Walumbwa and Lawler (2003) also observed that the effects of transformational leaders on individual attitudes and behaviors tend to be stronger in collectivist countries. On the other hand, more recently, Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen and Lowe (2009) have reported only small differences in a causal chain linking transformational leadership to OCBs when comparing workers from the US and China.Because formal performance and contextual performance depend on different factors, we propose that transformational leadership will encourage task performance and helping behaviors through distinct processes. Drawing from Social Cognitive Theory (Wood & Bandura, 1989) and Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), in this article we focus on two psychosocial processes through which these performance outcomes are respectively enabled: self-efficacy and leader-follower identification processes. A few studies have explored these processes separately in the international literature. Their results have shown considerable variations in findings regarding both the mediating roles of self-efficacy (e.g. Walumbwa et al., 2008), and identification with the leader (e.g. Kark et al., 2003). We further emphasize their implications in the next sections.