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
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.
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
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
Due to worldwide economic recession,
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
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
(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 |
100.0% |
|
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 |
100.0% |
|
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 |
100.0% |
|
Gender |
||
|
Male |
289 |
93.8% |
|
Female |
19 |
6.2% |
|
Total Valid Responses |
308 |
100.0% |
|
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 |
100.0% |
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 |
2.3182 |
0.6627 |
6 |
|
Intellectual Stimulation |
2.3912 |
0.6544 |
3 |
|
Individual Consideration |
2.2752 |
0.7657 |
7 |
|
Transactional Leadership |
|||
|
Contingent Reward |
2.3377 |
0.6278 |
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 |
-10.848 |
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 |
0.000 |
Reject the Null Hypothesis |
|
Idealized Influence (Behavior) |
0.395 |
0.156 |
0.000 |
Reject the Null Hypothesis |
|
Inspirational Motivation |
0.378 |
0.143 |
0.000 |
Reject the Null Hypothesis |
|
Intellectual Stimulation |
0.338 |
0.114 |
0.000 |
Reject the Null Hypothesis |
|
Individual Consideration |
0.377 |
0.142 |
0.000 |
Reject the Null Hypothesis |
|
Transactional Leadership |
0.461 |
0.213 |
0.000 |
Reject the Null Hypothesis |
|
Contingent Reward |
0.355 |
0.126 |
0.000 |
Reject the Null Hypothesis |
|
Management by Exception (Active) |
0.296 |
0.088 |
0.000 |
Reject the Null Hypothesis |
|
Management by Exception (Passive) |
0.284 |
0.080 |
0.000 |
Reject the Null Hypothesis |
|
Laissez-faire |
0.354 |
0.126 |
0.000 |
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.
--------
1985, Leadership and performance beyond expectations.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). The Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire – 5X SHORT FORM.
--------
1994, Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through
Transformational Leadership.
--------
1989, The Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire.
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.
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.
Borycki, C.,
Thorn, R. G., & LeMaster, J. (1998). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment: A comparison of
Bray, D.
W., Campbell, R. J., & Grant, D. L.
(1974). Formative
years in business: A long term AT&T study of managerial lives.
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.
Burns, J.
M. (1978). Leadership.
Deutschman, A. (1993, February). Steve Jobs’ next big
gamble. Fortune,
99.
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.).
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.
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.
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.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind.
--------,
1980, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values.
House, R.
J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic
leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L.L.
Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge.
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?
Kraut, A. I. (1970). The
Predication of Employee Turnover by Employee Attitudes. American Psychological
Association,
Likert, R. (1967). The Human Organization: Its Management
and Value.
--------
1961, New Patterns of Management.
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.).
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.
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.
Miner, J.
B. (1986). Managerial role motivation
training. Journal of Management
Psychology, 1, 25-30.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial
work.
Morris,
J., & Sherman, J. D. (1981). Generalizability
of an organizational commitment model.
Mott, P.
E. (1972). The
characteristics of effective organizations.
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.
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).
Organization reengineering at YH. To decide temporally close
part of production lines. (2001,
July 9).
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,
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.
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.).
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