JAME: The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship

An Examination of the Relationship Between Leadership Behavior and
Organizational Commitment at Steel Companies

Li-Yueh Chen, Nova Southeastern University

Executive Summary

Organizations are facing major challenges, many of them resulting in restructuring, reengineering and downsizing. Work environments have become more complex and sophisticated. The need for effective leadership and organizational commitment has become more critical. (Earle, 1996) Previous research studies have found that specific types of behavior, found in the transformational and transactional leadership models, are positively related to organizational commitment. Other research studies have found no such relationship. Yet, no studies have examined all the variables found in these two leadership models. Therefore, this study will be unique in that it will help to fill this gap.

Three steel companies, which have recently undergone reengineering, restructuring, and downsizing, are the focus of this study. Of the 471 questionnaires distributed, 308 were considered valid for the data analyses for this study. Results show both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors have a slightly positive relationship with organizational commitment. In particular, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, and individual consideration leadership behaviors were found to be more correlated with organizational commitment than other leadership behaviors in both models. Overall, the study found that transformational leadership behaviors are more slightly correlated with organizational commitment than transactional leadership behaviors.


Overview and Discussion

Organizations are facing major challenges, many of them resulting in restructuring, reengineering and downsizing. Work environments have become more complex and sophisticated. The need for leadership and personal commitments has become more critical. (Earle, 1996) Alan Deutschman (1993) suggests, "business in America has lost its way, adrift in a sea of managerial mediocrity, desperately needing leadership to face worldwide economic competition" (Deutschman, 1993, p. 99). Therefore, today's leaders are confronted with unpredictable challenges, which require a different degree of flexibility. For managers to lead their workers most effectively, they need a style of leadership behavior that is tailored specifically to the employees' level of commitment. (Niehouse, 1987) Unfortunately there has been a lack of research on this topic, until recently. Today many popular magazines are using terms like empowering, motivating, visioning, inspiring, rewarding, and committing. In summary, now appears to be an ideal time to study the impact of transformational and transactional leadership on organizational commitment, particularly in an international setting.

Purpose of the Study

As organizations face increasing challenges in a highly competitive environment, academic researchers and practitioners are focusing more on the importance of leadership style, behavior, and characteristics. Since the 1980's, both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors have been studied, and recently have become part of "the New Leadership" paradigm. (Bryman, 1992) According to Bass (1985), transformational and transactional leadership are distinct but not mutually exclusive processes.

Previous research has found that transactional leadership augments laissez faire leadership in enhancing sales representative job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and performance. Transformational leadership provides additional augmentation for organizational commitment. (Dubinsky, Yammario, & Spangler, 1995)

In an effort to clarify some of the consequences of these leadership styles and their impact on employee commitment, the purpose of this study will be threefold:

  1. To examine the relationship between transformational leadership behavior and organizational commitment;
  2. To examine the relationship between transactional leadership behavior and organizational commitment; and
  3. To compare the relationship among transformational leadership behavior, transactional leadership behavior, and organizational commitment.

Justification of the Study

The research of cultural dimensions that Geert Hofstede (1980) developed has helped us to understand how and why people from various cultures behave as they do. Taiwan is considered a country with high power distance and collectivism. (Hofstede, 1991) In continuing the research of Hofstede (1980 & 1991), Triandis and Gelfand (1998) have found that vertical collectivism emphasizes the "headman" style of leadership, both for organizational and political leaders. While the headman, or national political leader, has much greater authority, power, and prestige than others, he or she is also responsible for ensuring that cultural values are upheld and that members of the group are provided for. The leaders of Asian organizations more closely resemble leaders in organizations with vertical collectivism. When a culture emphasizes horizontal individualism, its members make decisions by themselves without worrying about group considerations. In many organizations in Asia, however, decisions are still centralized at headquarters. This present study will contribute to the literature by studying the relationship between leadership behaviors that empower managers and employees, and organizational commitment within the organization.

Setting for the Study

Recently, Yieh United Group a Taiwanese conglomerate has rescinded its centralized management style (vertical collectivism). (Wu & Lio, 2001) At the beginning of 2001, Yieh United Group announced an organizational reengineering to empower its professional managers by decentralizing group headquarters. Before this announcement, decisions for each company within the Yieh United Group were mostly made at executive meetings held at the company headquarters. Normally, the general managers from each company were required to attend monthly executive meetings with the president of the group to discuss and make key decisions. By decentralizing the group headquarters, each company in Yieh United Group now is really led by the professional manager who makes decisions individually. (Wu & Lio, 2001)

Yieh United Steel Corp. (YUSCO), Yieh Loong Enterprise Company (YLCO), and Yieh Hsing Enterprise Company (YHCO), which have been the most important companies in the Yieh United Group, will be the focus of this study. YUSCO is the largest integrated stainless steel mill in Southeast Asia. The company engages in the production, hot rolling and cold rolling of stainless steel. Since Mainland China has become the most important market for YUSCO, YUSCO has established an office in Shanghai. (Human Resource Office, 2001)

Rather than build individually, YLCO found a partner, China Steel Corporation (CSC) and built a strategic alliance. CSC is currently the only integrated steel manufacturer in Taiwan. It is the largest steel manufacturer in Taiwan, and actually one of the largest steel manufacturers in the world. In order to launch a strategic alliance, CSC bought stocks from YLCO to become the largest stockholder in YLCO. Its organizational reengineering involved sending some of its professional managers to work at YLCO in key positions, including that of general manager. (Ma, 1999, Yan, 1999)

Due to worldwide economic recession, Taiwan steel industry sales have declined. From January 2001 to June 2001, sales declined 31% over this time last year. As a result, YHCO has temporarily closed the production lines that do not have economic value (no profit). Almost 140 employees have been dismissed with severance payment. ("Organization reengineering at YH," 2001)

Relevant Literature Review

Historical Overview of Leadership

Leadership has been studied in different ways, depending on the researchers' methodological preferences and definition of leadership. Much of the leadership research covers leader traits, behavior, power, influence, and situational approaches. (Mcclelland, 1985; Mcclelland & Burnham, 1976; Miner, 1986; Bray, Compball, & Grant, 1974; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991; Mahoney, Jerdee, & Carroll, 1965; Page & Tornow, 1987; Mintzberg, 1973; Hemphill & Coons, 1957; & Likert, 1961; 1967) In recent years, academic researchers have attempted to streamline and integrate these approaches, and many studies are focusing on identifying the characteristics and value of transformational and transactional leadership styles. (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, Fetter, 1990; Yammarino, Spangler, Bass, 1993; Dubinsky, Yammarino, Jolson, Spangler, 1995; Ross, Offermann, 1997; Bass, 1997; Hult, Ferrell, Hurley, Giunipero, 2000)

Transformational and Transactional Leadership Behavior

According to Burns (1978), the leadership process can occur in one of two ways, either transformational or transactional. The transformational leadership concept was originally proposed by Burns (1978) and House (1977), and then expanded by Bass (1985 & 1990). Transformational leadership is defined in terms of the leader's effect on followers: they feel trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect toward the leader, and they are motivated to do more than they originally expected to do. (Yukl, 1997) The characteristics of transformational leadership are:

  1. Charisma: Charismatic leaders provide vision and a sense of mission, instill pride, and gain respect and trust. (Bass, 1990)
  2. Idealized Influence: leaders behave as role models for their followers; they become admired, respected, and trusted. The leader's behavior is consistent rather than arbitrary, and the leader shares in any risks taken. The leader demonstrates high standards of ethical and moral conduct and avoids using power for personal gain. (Bass & Avolio, 1994)
  3. Inspiration Motivation: Transformational leaders are inspiring and motivating in the eyes of their subordinates by providing meaning and challenge to their followers' work. They are able to energize employees' responses. (Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993; Bass & Avolio, 1994) They communicate high expectations, use symbols to focus efforts, and express important purposes in simple ways. (Bass, 1990)
  4. Intellectual Stimulation: An intellectually stimulating leader arouses in subordinates an awareness of problems, recognition of their own beliefs and values, and an awareness of their own thoughts and imagination. (Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993) They promote intelligence, rationality, and careful problem solving. (Bass, 1990) The result is that followers are encouraged to try new approaches; their ideas are not criticized when they differ from the leader's ideas. (Bass & Avolio, 1994)
  5. Individualized Consideration: The leader with individualized consideration will give personal attention, treat each employee individually, and coach and advise him or her. (Bass, 1990) Such leaders provide continuous follow-up and feedback, and, perhaps more importantly, link an individual's current needs to the organization's mission, and elevate those needs when it is appropriate to do so. (Bass, 1985, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1989)

According to Bass (1985; 1990), transactional leadership is characterized by two factors of contingent reward, management-by-exception, and laissez-faire. Transactional leadership motivates followers by appealing to their self-interest, whether it be subsidies, lucrative government contracts, campaign contributions, bonuses, or status. However, Howell and Avolio (1993) suggest both leader and follower reach an agreement concerning what the follower will receive for achieving the negotiated level of performance. Bass summarizes several different types of behavior inherent in transactional leadership (Bass, 1990, 1985; Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993):

  1. Contingent Reward: These rewards are for good effort, good performance, and to recognize accomplishments.
  2. Management by Exception (active): This behavior involves monitoring subordinates and correcting action, when necessary, to ensure that the work is carried out effectively. In other words, leaders watch and search for deviations from rules and standards.
  3. Management by Exception (passive): This involves intervening only if standards are not met. The leader uses contingent punishments and other corrective action to respond to obvious deviations from acceptable performance standards.
  4. Laissez-Faire: This behavior entails avoiding decision-making, and abdicating responsibilities.

Overview of Organizational Commitment

In the last 30 years, numerous academic researchers and practitioners have contributed to the studies of organizational commitment. Organizational commitment, together with job satisfaction and job involvement, are three of the most widely studied employee attitudes. The foundation has thus been laid for studies such as this current one.

Becker (1960) who was the earliest researcher of organizational commitment proposed that commitment is primarily a function of individual behavior; individuals become committed to the organization through their actions and choices over time. (Becker, 1960) Kanter (1968), another often cited researcher, defined commitment as "the willingness of social actors to give their energy and loyalty to social systems, the attachment of personality systems to social relationship, which are seen as self-expressive" (Kanter, 1968, p. 499). Another contributor to organizational commitment is Etzioni (1961). He suggested that organizational commitment focuses on employee compliance with organizational objectives. When employees have higher levels of commitment to organizational objectives, the organization will have more authority or power over these same employees.

Antecedents of organizational commitment have also been topics of study. Generally, antecedents of organizational commitment consist of:

  1. Personal characteristics. A wide range of personal characteristics has been linked to organizational commitment. The most frequently studied are gender, age and tenure, and education. (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Randall, 1993)
  2. Situational factors. Generally, these factors are divided into: (a) job characteristics (including job scope, role conflict, and role ambiguity), (b) organizational characteristics (that focus on efficiency and adaptation, as they relate to organizational effectiveness), and (c) work experience (including organizational dependability, personal importance to the organization, leadership style, social involvement, and work relationship). (Hall & Schneider, 1972; Porter & Steers, 1973; Steers & Spencer, 1977; Mott, 1972; Brief & Aldaq, 1980; Morris & Sherman, 1981; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1982; Meyer & Allen, 1984; Still, 1983; Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Glisson & Durick, 1988; Johnston, Parasuraman, Futrell, & Black, 1990; & Gregersen & Black, 1992)

The organizational commitment studies also have addressed employee attitudes. The attitudinal approach views organizational commitment as an attitude, which reflects the nature and quality of the linkage between an employee and an organization. (Porter, Steers, & Mowday, & Boulian 1974; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979; Oilver, 1990) According to, Mowday, Steers, & Porters (1979), organizational commitment entails three factors: (1) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values, (2) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and (3) a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization.

The Relationship between Leadership Behavior and Organizational Commitment

As organizations continue to face complex challenges from their internal and external environments, academic researchers and practitioners are now turning their attentions to the relationship between leadership behavior and organizational commitment both domestically and internationally. Several major studies have found a positive relationship between these two variables. (Kraut, 1970; Newman, 1974; Alley & Gould, 1975; Porter, Campon, & Smith, 1976; Gilsson & Durick, 1988; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Zeffane, 1994; & Wilson, 1995) Others studies, although small in number, have been unable to demonstrate a relationship between leadership behavior and organizational commitment. (O'Reilly & Roberts, 1978; Hampton & Dubinsky, & Skinner, 1986; & Savery, 1991) Therefore, more research is needed.

Some previous research has been conducted using parts of transformational and transactional leadership theories. For example, some studies have found that transactional leadership augments laissez faire leadership in enhancing sales representative job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and performance. Others have found that transformational leadership helps to augment organizational commitment. (Dubinsky, Yammario, & Spangler, 1995) Perhaps most noteworthy are studies focusing on the consequences of charismatic leadership, especially the high level of commitment on the part of the leader and the followers to a common vision, mission, or transcendent goal. (Bennis & Nannus, 1985; House, Spangler, & Woyke, 1991; Savery, 1991) Researchers have found that the charismatic leader behaves in such a manner as to create an appealing ideological goal to which subordinates become committed through their trust and respect for the leader. (Bass, 1985; House, 1977)

Methodology

This study's research question is threefold: (1) Do subordinates display commitment to their company? (2) Do subordinates' perception of their managers' leadership behavior have an effect on their level of commitment to the company? (3) Which leadership behavior, transformational or transactional, has a more positive influence on organizational commitment?

Research Hypotheses

The three research questions stated above lead us to the following hypotheses.

H10: Transformational leadership is negatively correlated or not correlated with organizational commitment.
H11: Transformational leadership is positively correlated with organizational commitment.
  H11a: Charismatic leadership is positively correlated with organizational commitment.
  H11b: Idealized influence leadership is positively correlated with organizational commitment.
  H11c: Inspirational motivation leadership is positively correlated with organizational commitment.
  H11d: Intellectual stimulation leadership is positively correlated with organizational commitment.
  H11e: Individualized consideration leadership is positively correlated with organizational commitment.
H20: Transactional leadership is negatively correlated or not correlated with organizational commitment.
H21: Transactional leadership is positively correlated with organizational commitment.
  H21a: Contingent reward is positively correlated with organizational commitment.
  H21b: Active management by exception is positively correlated with organizational commitment.
  H21c: Passive management by exception is positively correlated with organizational commitment.
  H21d: Laissez-faire leadership is positively correlated with organizational commitment.
H30: Transformational leadership will not have a stronger positive correlation than transactional leadership on organizational commitment.
H31: Transformational leadership will have a stronger positive correlation than transactional leadership on organizational commitment.

Instrument

To answer the research question, two instruments – the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X SHORT FORM) (Bass & Avolio, 1995) – and Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) were applied. Note that this study integrates these questionnaires by combining part I of MLQ and part II of OCQ together with the demographic questions required for data collection. Since the survey respondents are citizens of Republic of China, the integrated questionnaire has been translated into Chinese.

Research Model

Figure 1:  The Research Model

Pilot Test & Sampling

The population for this study is the employees of Yieh United Steel Corporation (YUSCO), Yieh Loong Enterprise Company (YLCO), and Yieh Hsing Enterprise Company (YHCO). The Chinese language version of the integrated questionnaire was modified following a pilot study. The modifications were the outcome of the meetings held with the general managers and senior employees with ten or more years of service with the companies. Chronbach's alpha was applied to measure the reliability of this revised questionnaire. Chronbach's alpha is used to measure internal consistency. Scores range from 0 to 1, with values of 0.60 to 0.70 considered to be a low level of acceptability. For this pilot study, 60 items and 20 cases were measured, resulting in an alpha of 0.8821. This 0.8821 alpha denotes a good level of reliability.

The statistical method of stratified percentage random sampling was utilized for this study. With stratified random sampling, the population will first be divided into subgroups, called strata, and a sample will be selected from each stratum randomly. (Mason & Lind, 1993) In this study each company is denoted as a stratum. Therefore, the stratum for this study will consist of three companies, which are YUSCO, YLCO, and YHCO. Surveys were distributed to 417 employees, 365 were returned, and 308 were found to be valid for a useable response rate of 73.86%. In using the stratified random sampling method, the departments of each company were denoted as the substratum for data collection purposes. Employees of each department were randomly selected to serve as respondents to the questionnaires.

The breakdown of the sample size was as follows:

Table 1: Sampling Plan – Stratified Percentage Random Sampling in the Companies

Company Name YUSCO YLCO YHCO TOTAL
Company's Population 1,482 925 480 2,887
Proportion 51.33% 32.04% 16.63% 100%
Sample Size 214 134 69 417

Analysis & Presentation of Findings

Data collection involved a series of meetings, over a two-months period. Invalid responses were defined as those questionnaires with questions left unanswered or those with identical responses to every question. Of the 417 returned questionnaires, 308 were found to be valid. Statistical analyses were performed on the data using SPSS and Excel software. Again Chronbach's alpha reliability was applied to measure the of the survey questionnaire items. For this study, 60 items and 308 cases were measured, resulting in an alpha of 0.8773. This 0.8773 alpha denotes a good level of reliability.

Demographics of Participating Organizations

Table 2 in Appendix reveals the number of valid responses. Included are respondents' job level, department, tenure, gender, and educational level. Demographic classifications were identified as follows:

  1. Job level in organization: Overall, 70.8% of respondents were entry level; 21.1% were middle level; 5.8% were middle upper level; and 2.3% were upper level.
  2. Service department: The majority of the workers in the steel companies studied are from production department, such as steelmaking, rolling, hot rolling, or cold rolling. Therefore, it was no surprise that most questionnaire respondents are from these departments.
  3. Tenure: Overall, 45.5% of respondents have worked at their companies between 6 and 10 years.
  4. Gender: Most steel workers are male. Overall, the majority of respondents for this study were male, accounting for 93.8% of respondents.
  5. Educational level: Overall, the distribution of total respondents was as follows: 15.6% high school diploma, 36.1% associate degree, 45.1% bachelor degree, and 3.2% graduate degree (Master's or Doctorate).

The Descriptive Statistics Analysis

As discussed in previous section, the survey instruments utilized are the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire that was developed by Bass and Avolio (1995), and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire that was developed by Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire has been divided into nine categories to better define the type of leadership behaviors being perceived by subordinates. The five-point Likert scale ranged from "not at all" valued as a "0" to "frequently if not always" valued as a "4". Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) has contained 15 items with a seven-point Likert scale. The seven-point Likert scale ranged from "strongly disagree" valued as a "1" to "strongly agree" valued as a "7". For scoring purposes, it should be noted that six statements in this part (number 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 15) are negatively phased items. Thus, reverse scoring is needed for these six items.

Overall, respondents' perception of their managers' leadership behavior tended to be one of the following: (1) charismatic, (2) idealized influence, or (3) intellectual stimulation (See Table 3 in Appendix). Generally, employees were willing to put in a great deal of effort, beyond that normally expected, to help their company be successful. They appear to care about the future of their companies (See Table 4 in Appendix). However, respondents displayed slightly low commitments to their organizations (See Table 5 in Appendix).

Hypothesis Testing

Multiple correlation analysis was conducted, with a 0.05 significance level, to test the hypotheses. Table 6 in Appendix shows the results of the hypotheses testing. The first hypothesis measures whether transformational leadership is positively correlated with organizational commitment. Five dimensions of transformational leadership were included, which were charismatic, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration leadership within the first hypothesis. Results show these behaviors to be slightly positively correlated with the organizational commitment. The idealized influence leadership behavior was correlated most strongly with employee organizational commitment.

The second hypothesis measured whether transactional leadership was positively correlated with organizational commitment. Four dimensions were included: (1) contingent reward, (2) active management by exception, (3) passive management by exception, and (4) laissez-faire leadership. However, a very weak positive correlation to organizational commitment was found with active management by exception and passive management by exception. Contingent reward and laissez-faire leadership behaviors were found to be slightly positively correlated with the organizational commitment.

Table 6 in Appendix shows the results of multiple regression analysis performed on the data. Both transformational or transactional leadership behaviors were found to have weak positive correlation with organizational commitment. However transformational leadership behavior was more positively correlated.

Conclusion

Implications of this Study

The three companies, who participated in this study, were companies who had recently undergone organizational reengineering. The results of this study primarily are useful to these three companies but may also be generalizable to other Asian companies. However, three problems arise which may have influenced the research results.

The first problem is allocation of workforces. Some employees recently have shifted from one company to another, as part of the organizational reengineering. As operations were decentralized, some employees working at group headquarters were moved to other companies within the Yieh United Group. Therefore, three questions arise: (1) Were employees' areas of expertise considered in the move so that tasks could be assigned appropriately? (2) Have some transferred employees become idle human resources? and (3) Do employees understand the importance of the organizational reengineering, and do they feel empowered by it?

The second problem is uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of the new management team established by the strategic alliance between Yieh Loong Enterprise Company and China Steel Corporation. The third and last problem concerns the possible affects on employees of the lay-off caused by economic recession.

The results of this study show that all three companies have been facing rather low levels of organizational commitment. One significant finding for managers is that employees are finding it difficult to agree with their company's policies on matters relating to them. This may mean that employees do not fully understand the rationale for the decisions being made and/or the importance of these decisions. For example, the need for survival in a highly competitive environment is something that may not have been addressed. Therefore, managers should consider practicing transformational leadership behaviors that enable employees to support the decisions being made by management. Employees should feel trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect toward the leader. Employees, then, will be motivated to do more than they originally expected to do. (Yukl, 1997)

As mentioned earlier, employees expressed a willingness to exert more effort than normally expected of them in order to help their company be successful. Nevertheless, this study finds a weak positive correlation between organizational commitment, and transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. As shown in Table 3, managers in the three companies apparently are practicing more transformational leadership behaviors than their employees perceive. Yet, with regard to organizational commitment, employees only moderately agree on the issue of putting in extra effort in order to help their company be successful. Furthermore, employees only slightly agree that it is difficult to identify with this organization's policies on important matters relating to them. This difference in correlation between the independent variables and dependent variable is the reason for the lack of a strong positive correlation. Furthermore, the more transformational leadership behaviors being practiced, the higher would be the coefficient of multiple correlation. These research findings are similar to the findings of other studies conducted on organizations that have recently undergone organizational reengineering.

Conclusion

Previous studies have found that elements of transformational and transactional leadership have a positive impact on organizational commitment, while other studies have found no such relationship. Yet, no research has examined all the variables found in these two leadership models. Therefore, this study will be useful in helping to fill this gap.

Four hundred and seventy- one questionnaires were sent for the purpose of this study. A total of 308 valid returned surveys data were analyzed in this study. The findings show that both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors have a slightly positive relationship to organizational commitment. Idealized influence, inspirational motivation, and individual consideration leadership behaviors have slightly more correlation with organizational commitment than other transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. Furthermore, the transformational leadership behaviors were slightly more correlated with organizational commitment than transactional leadership behaviors.

Recommendations for Future Research

Four recommendations for future research are as follows:

  1. It might be useful to study the same three companies after the organizational reengineering has been in place for a few years. That way, any changes in organizational commitment could be determined.
  2. Studying the relationship between leadership behavior and organizational commitment in other geographic areas might be valuable. It would be interesting to learn whether managers from Taiwan and China display more or less of these transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. Such a study would be especially interesting, since many Taiwanese owned companies have been moving to Mainland China due to better market conditions. Comparing the types of leadership behaviors inherent in Taiwanese and Chinese leaders might be useful for companies in these areas.
  3. Future research should expand this study into the service industry, so that service-oriented companies could benefit from the findings as well.
  4. Organizational commitment could be studied as a moderating variable in future research. Studies that investigate the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction or performance, such as those conducted by Earl, 1993; Martin & Benneit, 1996; Borycki, Thron, LeMaster, 1998; and Yousef, 2000, would be useful. It would important to study whether organizational commitment influences the relationship between leadership behaviors and job satisfaction and performance.

Appendix

Table 2: Demographics of All Valid Participating Organizations

Organizations
Items Respondents Percentage
Yieh United Steel Corp. 195 63.3%
Yieh Loong Enterprise Co. 63 20.5%
Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co. 50 16.2%
Total Valid Responses 308 100%
Job Level in Organization
Entry Level 218 70.8%
Middle Level 65 21.1%
Middle Upper Level 18 5.8%
Upper Level 7 2.3%
Total Valid Responses 308 100%
Tenure in Years
0 ~ 5 Years 103 33.4%
6 ~ 10 Years 140 45.5%
11 ~ 15 Years 45 14.6%
16 ~ 20 Years 19 6.2%
21 Years Upper 1 0.3%
Total Valid Responses 308 100%
Gender
Male 289 93.8%
Female 19 6.2%
Total Valid Responses 308 100%
Education Level
High School Diploma 48 15.6%
Associate 111 36.1%
Bachelor 139 45.1%
Master or Doctor 10 3.2%
Total Valid Responses 308 100%

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Leadership Behavior for All Valid Participating Organizations

Items Mean Standard Deviation Rank
Transformational Leadership
Charisma (Attributed) 2.4683 0.6498 1
Idealized Influence (Behavior) 2.4075 0.6668 2
Inspirational Motivation 2.3812 0.6627 6
Intellectual Stimulation 2.3912 0.6544 3
Individual Consideration 2.2752 0.7657 7
Transactional Leadership
Contingent Reward 2.3377 0.6287 4
Management by Exception (Active) 2.3198 0.5972 5
Management by Exception (Passive) 1.3571 0.6836 9
Laissez-faire 1.5593 0.4452 8

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Organizational Commitment for All Valid Participating Organizations

Items Mean Standard Deviation
1. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful. 5.2078 1.3730
2. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for. 4.4091 1.4216
3. I feel very little loyalty to this organization. (R) 3.0649 1.5637
4. I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization. 4.5942 1.4374
5. I find that my values and the organization's value are very similar. 4.9708 1.5783
6. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. 4.4773 1.4244
7. I could just as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of work was similar. (R) 4.0552 1.4371
8. This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance. 4.7597 1.2110
9. It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave this organization. (R) 3.5584 1.4188
10. I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined. 4.3149 1.3821
11. There is not too much to be gained by sticking with this organization indefinitely. (R) 3.8214 1.5026
12. Often, I find it difficult to agree with this organization's policies on important matters relating to its employees. (R) 4.5032 1.3614
13. I really care about the fate of this organization. 5.7500 1.1382
14. For me, this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work. 4.0487 1.4554
15. Deciding to work for this organization was a definite mistake on my part. (R) 3.2175 1.4008

Table 5: t Test for Three Participating Companies

Company N t Value df Sig.
YUSCO 195 -20.164 194 0.000
YLCO 63 -16.537 62 0.000
YHCO 50 -10.537 49 0.000

Table 6: Correlations Found between Leadership Behaviors & Organizational Commitment for All Valid Participating Organizations

Organizational Commitment R R Square Sig. Result for Hypotheses
(Alpha=0.05)
Transformational Leadership 0.472 0.223 0.000 Reject the Null Hypothesis
Charisma (Attributed) 0.359 0.129 0.00 Reject the Null Hypothesis
Idealized Influence (Behavior) 0.395 0.129 0.00 Reject the Null Hypothesis
Inspirational Motivation 0.378 0.143 0.00 Reject the Null Hypothesis
Intellectual Stimulation 0.338 0.114 0.00 Reject the Null Hypothesis
Individual Consideration 0.377 0.142 0.00 Reject the Null Hypothesis
Transactional Leadership 0.461 0.213 0.000 Reject the Null Hypothesis
Contingent Reward 0.355 0.126 0.00 Reject the Null Hypothesis
Management by Exception (Active) 0.296 0.088 0.00 Reject the Null Hypothesis
Management by Exception (Passive) 0.284 0.080 0.00 Reject the Null Hypothesis
Laissez-faire 0.354 0.126 0.00 Reject the Null Hypothesis

References

Alley, W., Gould, R. B. (1975). Feasibility of estimating personnel turnover from survey data: A longitudinal study. Air Force Human Resource Laboratory, Brooke Air Force Base, TX.

Bass, B.M. (1997). Does the Transactional / Transformational Leadership Paradigm Transcend Organizational and National Boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

-------- 1985, Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire – 5X SHORT FORM. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

-------- 1994, Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

-------- 1989, The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How prototypes, leniency, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of transformational and transactional leadership constructs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 509-527.

Bateman, T. S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 95-112.

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-40.

Bennis, W. G., & Nannus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

Borycki, C., Thorn, R. G., & LeMaster, J. (1998). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A comparison of United States and Mexico employees. International Journal of Commerce & Management, 8, 7-25.

Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., & Grant, D. L. (1974). Formative years in business: A long term AT&T study of managerial lives. New York: John Wiley.

Brief, A. P., & Aldaq, R. J. (1980). Antecedents of organizational commitment among hospital nurses. Sociology of Work and Occupation, 7, 210-221.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M., & Spangler, W. D. (1995, Spring). Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 6, 17-31.

Earle, V. (1996, November). Motivational leadership. Executive Excellence, 13, 16-17.

Earl, N. (1993, June). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment among expatriate managers. Group & Organization Management, 18, 153-187.

Etzioni, A. (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Gilsson, C., & Durick, M. (1988). Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in human service organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 61-81.

Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. (1992). Antecedents to commitment to a parent company and foreign operation. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 65-90.

Hall, D. T., & Schneider, B. (1972). Correlates of organizational identification as a function of career pattern and organizational type. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 340-350.

Hampton, R., Dubinsky, A. J., & Skinner, S. J. (1986). A model of sales supervisor leadership behavior and retail salespeople's job-related outcomes. Academy of Marketing Science, 14, 33-43.

Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Is description and measurement. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

--------, 1980, Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woyke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. Presidency: A psychological theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 36, 363-396.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support of innovation: key predictors of consolidated-business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-903.

Human Resource Office. (2001). The Company Profile. Yieh United Steel Corporation.

Hult, G. T., Ferrell, O. C. Hurley, R. F., & Giunipero, L. C. (2000). Leadership and relationship commitment. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 111-119.

Johnston, M. W., Parasuraman, A., Futrell, C. M., & Black, W. C. (1990). A longitudinal assessment of the impact of selected organizational influences on salespeople's organizational commitment during early employment. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 333-344.

Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in Utopian communities. American Sociological Review,, 33, 499-517.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991, May). Leadership: Do traits really matter? Academy of Management Executive, 48-60.

Kraut, A. I. (1970). The Predication of Employee Turnover by Employee Attitudes. American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

Likert, R. (1967). The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. New York: McGraw-Hill.

-------- 1961, New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ma, S. D. (1999, June 19). CSC and YLCO will practice the strategic alliance. Business Knowledge Post, pp. A25.

Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. H., & Carroll, S. J., Jr. (1965). The jobs of management. Industrial Relations, 4, 97-110.

Mason, R. D., Lind, D. A. (1993). Statistical Techniques in Business and Economics (8th ed.). Boston: Irwin.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

Martin, C. L., Bennett, N. (1996, March). The role of justice judgments in explaining the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Group & Organization Management, 21, 84-104.

McClelland, D.C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

McClelland, D.C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976, March-April). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, 100-110.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miner, J. B. (1986). Managerial role motivation training. Journal of Management Psychology, 1, 25-30.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.

Morris, J., & Sherman, J. D. (1981). Generalizability of an organizational commitment model. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 512-526.

Mott, P. E. (1972). The characteristics of effective organizations. New York: Harper & Row.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-227.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1982). Employee Organizational Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Newman, J. E. (1974). Predicating absenteeism and turnover: a field comparison of Fishbein's model and traditional job attitude measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 610-615.

Niehouse, O. (1987, August). Developing a leadership strategy. Management Solutions, 21-26.

Oliver, N. (1990). Rewards, investments, alternatives, and organizational commitment: Empirical evidence and theoretical development. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 19-31.

O'Reilly, C. A., & Roberts, K. H. (1978). Superior influence and subordinates' mobility aspiration as moderators of consideration and initiating structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 96-102.

Organization reengineering at YH. To decide temporally close part of production lines. (2001, July 9). China Post Electronic.

Page, R., & Tornow, W. W. (1987). Managerial job analysis: Are we father along? Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behavior and their effect on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors, Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational commitment and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151-176.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M. Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, B. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.

Porter, L. W., Crampon, W. J., & Smith, F. J. (1976). Organizational commitment and managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 87-88.

Randall, D. M. (1987). Commitment and organization: The organization man revisited. Academy of Management Review, 12, 460-471.

Ross, S. M., & Offerman, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: measurement of personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1078-1086.

Savery, L. K. (1991). Perceived and preferred styles of leadership influences on employee job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 6, 28-32.

Steers, R. M., & Spencer, D. G. (1977). The role of achievement motivation in job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 472-479.

Still, L. V. (1983). Part-time versus full –time salespeople: Individual attributes, organizational commitment, and work attitudes. Journal of Retailing, 59, 55-79.

Triandis, H., & Gelfand, M. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118-128.

Wilson, P. A. (1995). The effects of politics and power on the organizational commitment of federal executives. Journal of Management, 21, 101-118.

Wu, P. C., & Lio, H. H. (2001, January 10). Yieh United Group Decentralizing Group Headquarters. The Economic Daily, 8.

Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 81-102.

Yan, Z. T. (1999, August 20). The strategic alliance between CSC and YLCO. Business Knowledge Post, pp. A24.

Yousef, D. A. (2000). Organizational commitment: a mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 6-28.

Yukl, G. (1997). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Zeffane, R. (1994). Patterns of organizational commitment and perceived management style: A comparison of public and private sector employees. Human Relations, 47, 977-1010.

About the Author

Li-Yueh Chen is a doctoral candidate at Nova Southeastern University, Wayne Huizenga Graduate School of Business and Entrepreneurship. He is a lecturer and the Head of Department of Business Administration at Chungchou Institute of Technology, Taiwan. He teaches the courses of Marketing Management, Marketing Research, Management, and Statistics at undergraduate level. His research interests include the areas of Relationship Marketing, Employee Job Satisfaction, Leadership Behavior, and Organizational Development.