An Examination of the relationship between Leadership Behavior

International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences
© 2015 Available online at www.irjabs.com
ISSN 2251-838X / Vol, 9 (3): 621-629
Science Explorer Publications
An Examination of the relationship between
Leadership Behavior and organization commitment
case study of Mashhad of Iran
Reza Dihim
Department of Accounting, Sabzevar Branch, Islamic Azad University,Sabzevar,Iran
Corresponding Author: Reza Dihim
Abstract: Organizations are facing major challenges, many of them resulting in
restructuring, reengineering and downsizing.Work environments have become ore 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 232 questionnaires distributed, 182
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.
Keywords: Examination, Relationship, Leadership Behavior, Organization Commitment.
INTRODUCTION
It is not unreasonable to suppose that the strength and nature of the commitment someone
experiences in a personal relationship informs the manner in which that same person commits to an
organization or work group. If an organization were to request that employees direct their efforts toward
long-term goals, the message may be better understood by workers who have been engaged in strongly
committed relationships over a long period of time. Additionally, if it is learned that the situational variables
organizational commitment and relationship commitment are associated with a disposition such as attachment
style (Bowlby,1969/1982) or locus of control (Rotter, 1966), researchers and organizations alike should gain a
deeper understanding of the factors that are associated with each style of commitment. Since important
extra-role work behaviors such as organizational citizenship are believed to be associated with organizational
commitment (Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 1993), it seems logical that an organization with a committed force
of workers may be better positioned than its competitors to meet the challenges posed by a dynamic
marketplace. Thus, the pursuit of a more global understanding of the means by which organizational
commitment develops is critical and warrants an investigation into the relationships among locus of control, on
attachment
style,
relationship
commitment
and
organizational
commitment. Be loyal to the
company, and the company will be loyal to you, a credo emblematic of bygone era (Mowday, Porter, &
Steers, 1982), obviously understates the complexity involved in a personís attitude toward and behavior within
his or her employing organization. Organizational commitment has been defined as a psychological state that
binds an employee to an organization, thereby reducing the incidence of turnover (Allen & Meyer, 1990), and
as a mindset that takes different forms and binds an individual to a course of action that is of relevance to a
particular target (Meyer &Herscovitch, 2001). Mowday, Porter & Steers (1982) outlined the distinction
between attitudinal commitment, a mindset in which individuals consider the congruency of their goals and
values with those of their employing organizations, and behavioral commitment, the process by which
individuals past behavior in an organization binds them to the organization. The complementarity of attitudinal
and behavioral commitment was integral in Meyer and Allenís (1991) conceptualization of a multidimensional
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 9 (3), 621-629, 2015
model of organizational commitment. Affective commitment of the dimensions of the Three-Component Model
(TCM) of organizational commitment, affective commitment has been most strongly linked to positive workrelated behaviors (e.g., attendance,
organizational
citizenship
behavior)
(Meyer,
Stanley,
Herscovitch &Topolnytsky, 2002), and as a result much of the TCM research has centered on affective
commitment. Meyer et al. (2002) recently highlighted, through meta-analysis, the primary antecedents,
correlates and consequences of organizational commitment; in this analysis affective commitment
correlated with organizational support (ρ = .63), interactional justice (ρ= .50) and transformation AL leadership
(ρ = .46). Among North American workers, role ambiguity was negatively correlated with affective commitment
(ρ = ñ.39), and though job satisfaction has been shown to be a different construct than organizational
commitment (Meyer &Herscovtich, 2001), overall job satisfaction was a significant correlate of affective
commitment (ρ= .65). Job involvement (ρ = .53) and occupational (or job) commitment (ρ =.50) also were
positively associated with affective commitment.
Continuance commitment is said to occur when an employee remains with an organization largely out
of need, whether due to lack of alternatives or costs associated with leaving, such as lost income, seniority or
retirement benefits. Perhaps unsurprisingly, perceived lack of alternatives or an inability to transfer skills and
education to another organization is the primary antecedents of continuance commitment (Meyer et al., 2002).
It is logical to assume that once an employee experiences this restriction of options the perceived need to
remain with his or her organization may increase. However, one study in which the commitment levels of
temporary workers to their agencies were assessed, affective commitment was found to be higher than
continuance commitment (Van Breugel, Van Olffen, & Ollie, 2005) perhaps suggesting that a person in need of
a job (e.g., a temporary worker) may experience higher affective
commitment
than
continuance
commitment
in
certain
situations. Employees with high levels of continuance commitment also have
increased levels of role conflict and role ambiguity, as well as low withdrawal cognitions (Meyer et al.,
2002). In such a scenario, which must be regarded as lose-lose for employee and organization alike, the
continually committed employee remains in an uncomfortable position out of need or lack of alternatives. Since
the employee continues to work in a position only out of need, he or she may potentially contaminate the work
group. Such potential consequences support the proposition advanced by Meyer and Allen (1991) that the
effectiveness of an organization depends on much more than just a stable workforce.
Normative commitment
The final component of the TCM is normative commitment, which involves a person maintaining
membership in an organization out of a sense of obligation. This feeling that one ought to work for an
organization has many of the same associations and consequences as affective commitment, though often to a
lesser degree. The research that forms the basis of normative commitment in the TCM centers on a personís
own moral compass and sense of responsibility to the organization (e.g., Marsh &Mannari, 1977). Thirty years
ago, Marsh and Mannari (1977) researched a personísìlifetimecommitmentî to an organization, concluding
that people who remain for such extended periods of time do so in part because they believe it to be
morally correct. Such an obligation to an organization results from a personís internalized normative
pressures, and a committed person may behave in a way in which they do not immediately consider personal
benefits but because they believe that course of action to be the morally right behavior (Wiener, 1982). It
should be noted, however, that many changes in the nature of work have transpired since the notion of a longterm obligation to an organization gained prominence.
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:
To examine the relationship between transformational leadership behavior and organizational
commitment;
To examine the relationship between transactional leadership behavior and organizational
commitment; and
To compare the relationship among transformational leadership behavior, transactional leadership
behavior, and organizational commitment.
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
622
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 9 (3), 621-629, 2015
high power distance and collectivism. (Hofstede, 1991) In continuing the research of Hofstede (1980 & 1991),
Triandis and Gelfand (1998) has 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.
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).
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).
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?
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.
Pilot Test & Sampling
The population for this study is the employees of cooperative Education and training. 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 organization. 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 0.70 to 0.80 considered to be a low level of acceptability. For this pilot study, 55 items and
20 cases were measured, resulting in an alpha of 0.8721. This 0.8721 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 Ariyana, Dutism, and
mehershad. Surveys were distributed to 232 employees, 182 were returned, and 168 were found to be
valid for a useable response rate of 78.86%. 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
Ariyana
Dutism
mehershad
TOTAL
Company's Population
843
654
341
2,887
Proportion
51.33%
32.04%
16.63%
100%
Sample Size
114
84
34
232
623
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 9 (3), 621-629, 2015
Analysis & Presentation of Findings
Data collection involved a series of meetings, over a two-month period. Invalid responses were
defined as those questionnaires with questions left unanswered or those with identical responses to every
question. Of the 232 returned questionnaires, 168 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 168 cases were measured,
resulting in an alpha of 0.8663. This
0.8663 alpha denotes a good level of reliability.
Table 2. Demographics of All Valid Participating Organizations
Organizations tems
Respondents
Percentage
Mehershad
Dutism Co.
Ariyana Co.
114
84
34
63.3%
20.5%
16.2%
Total Valid Responses
232
100%
Job Level in Organization Entry Level
123
70.8%
Middle Level
Middle Upper Level
75
30
21.1%
5.8%
Upper Level
4
2.3%
Total Valid Responses
232
100%
Tenure in Years
0 ~ 5 Years
6 ~ 10 Years
98
100
33.4%
45.5%
11 ~ 15 Years
19
14.6%
16 ~ 20 Years
13
6.2%
21 Years Upper
2
0.3%
Total Valid Responses
232
100%
Gender
Male
189
93.8%
Female
43
6.2%
Total Valid Responses
232
100%
Education Level
High School Diploma
34
15.6%
Associate
83
36.1%
Bachelor
109
45.1%
Master or Doctor
7
3.2%
Total Valid Responses
100%
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:
Job level in organization: Overall, 71.8% of respondents were entry level; 20.1% were middle level; 6.8% were
middle upper level; and 2.3% were upper level.
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.
Tenure: Overall, 46.5% of respondents have worked at their companies between 6 and 10 years.
Gender: Most steel workers are male. Overall, the majority of respondents for this study were male,
accounting for 94.2% of respondents.
Educational level: Overall, the distribution of total respondents was as follows: 15.4% high school diploma,
36.3% associate degree, 45.2% bachelor degree, and 3.4% 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
624
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 9 (3), 621-629, 2015
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 4, 8, 10, 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).
Table 3.Descriptive Statistics of Leadership Behavior for All Valid Participating Organizations
Items
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Rank
Charisma (Attributed)
Idealized Influence (Behavior)
2.4683
2.4075
0.6498
0.6668
1
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
Management by Exception (Active)
Management by Exception (Passive)
2.3377
2.3198
1.3571
0.6287
0.5972
0.6836
4
5
9
Laissez-faire
1.5593
0.4452
8
Transformational Leadership
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of Organizational Commitment for All Valid Participating Organizations
Items
1.
I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that
Mean
Standard
5.2078
Deviation
1.3730
4.4091
1.4216
normally expected in order to help this organization be
successful.
2.
I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization
to work for.
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 this4.5942
organization.
I find that my values and the organization's value are very similar.
4.9708
1.4374
5.
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
4.7597
1.2110
9.
of job performance.
It would take very little change in my present circumstances to
3.5584
1.4188
10.
cause me to leave this organization. (R)
I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for
4.3149
1.3821
11.
12.
over others I was considering at the time I joined.
There is not too much to be gained by sticking with this organization indefinitely.3.8214
(R)
Often, I find it difficult to agree with this organization's
policies on important matters relating to its employees. (R)
1.5026
4.5032
1.3614
13.
14.
I really care about the fate of this organization.
For me, this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work.
5.7500
4.0487
1.1382
1.4554
15.
Deciding to work for this organization was a definite mistake on my part. (R)
3.2175
1.4008
625
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 9 (3), 621-629, 2015
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 and transactional leadership behaviors were found to have weak positive correlation with
organizational commitment. However transformational leadership behavior was more positively correlated.
Table 5. t Test for Three Participating Companies
Company
Ariyana
N
114
t Value
-20.164
df
194
Sig.
0.000
Dutism
Mehershad
84
34
-16.537
-10.537
62
49
0.000
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
Charisma (Attributed)
0.359
0.129
0.00
Reject
the
Null
Hypothesis
Idealized Influence (Behavior)
0.395
0.129
0.00
Reject
Hypothesis
the
Null
Inspirational Motivation
0.378
0.143
0.00
Reject
Hypothesis
the
Null
Intellectual Stimulation
0.338
0.114
0.00
Reject
Hypothesis
the
Null
Individual Consideration
0.377
0.142
0.00
Reject
the
Null
Transactional Leadership
0.461
0.213
0.000
Hypothesis
Reject
the
Null
Contingent Reward
0.355
0.126
0.00
Reject
Hypothesis
the
Null
Management
(Active)
by
Exception
0.296
0.088
0.00
Reject
Hypothesis
the
Null
Management
(Passive)
by
Exception
0.284
0.080
0.00
Null
0.126
0.00
Reject
Hypothesis
Reject
the
0.354
the
Null
Laissez-faire
Hypothesis
CONCLUSION
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. 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 Dutism. Therefore,
three questions arise: (1) were employees' areas of expertise considered in the move so that tasks could
626
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 9 (3), 621-629, 2015
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 Dutism Enterprise Company and MehershadCorporation. The third and last
problem concerns the possible effects 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 correlations. These research findings are similar to the findings of other studies conducted on
organizations that have recently undergone organizational reengineering.
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 168
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:
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.
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 display more or
less of these transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. Such a study would be especially
interesting, since many Dutism owned companies have been moving to Mehershaddue to better market
conditions. Comparing the types of leadership behaviors inherent in Taiwanese and leaders might be useful for
companies in these areas.
Future research should expand this study into the service industry, so that service- oriented companies
could benefit from the findings as well.
Organizational commitment could be studied as a moderating variable in future research. Studies that
investigate the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction and 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.
REFERENCES
Alley W, Gould RB.1975. Feasibility of estimating personnel turnover from survey data: A longitudinal study. Air Force Human
Resource Laboratory, Brooke Air Force Base, TX.
627
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 9 (3), 621-629, 2015
Bass
BM. 199). Does the Transactional / Transformational Leadership Paradigm Transcend Organizational and National
Boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139.
Bass BM. 1990. Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
1985, Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass BM, Avolio BJ. 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 sychologists Press.
Bass BM, Avolio BJ.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 TS, 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 DW, Campbell RJ, Grant DL.1974. Formative years in business: A long term AT&T study of managerial lives. New York: John
Wiley.
Brief AP, Aldaq RJ. 1980.Antecedents of organizational commitment among hospital nurses.Sociology of Work and Occupation, 7, 210221.
Bryman A.1992. Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.
Burns JM.1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Dubinsky AJ, Yammarino FJ, Jolson M, Spangler WD.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 HB, Black JS. 1992.Antecedents to commitment to a parent company and foreign operation. Academy of Management Journal,
35, 65-90.
Hall DT, 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 AJ, Skinner SJ. 1986.A model of sales supervisor leadership behavior and retail salespeople's job-related
outcomes. Academy of Marketing Science, 14,
33-43.
Hemphill JK, Coons AE. 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.
House RJ.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 RJ, Spangler WD, Woyke J. 1991. Personality and charisma in the U.S. Presidency: A psychological theory of leadership
effectiveness. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 36, 363-396.
Howell JM, Avolio BJ. 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 GT, Ferrell OC, Hurley RF, Giunipero LC.2000.Leadership and relationship commitment.Industrial Marketing Management, 29,
111-119.
Johnston MW, Parasuraman A, Futrell CM, Black WC.1990.A longitudinal assessment of he impact of selected organizational
influences on salespeople's organizational commitment during early employment. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 333-344.
Kanter RM. 1968. Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment
mechanisms in Utopian communities. American Sociological Review,, 33, 499-517.
Kirkpatrick SA, Locke EA. 1991, May. Leadership: Do traits really matter? Academy of Management Executive, 48-60.
Kraut AI. 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 SD.1999, June 19. CSC and YLCO will practice the strategic alliance. Business Knowledge Post, pp. A25.
Mahoney TA, Jerdee TH, Carroll SJ, Jr. 1965.The jobs of management. Industrial Relations, 4, 97-110.
Mason RD, Lind DA. 1993. Statistical Techniques in Business and Economics (8th ed.). Boston: Irwin.
Mathieu JE, Zajac DM.1990.A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational
commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108,171-194.
Martin CL, 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 DC. 1985. Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
McClelland DC, Burnham DH. 1976, March-April. Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, 100-110.
Meyer JP, Allen NJ.1984.Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.
Meyer JP, Allen NJ.1997. Commitment in workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miner JB. 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 JD.1981.Generalizability of an organizational commitment model. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 512-526.
Mott PE. 1972. The characteristics of effective organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
Mowday RT, Steers RM, Porter LW.1979. The measurement of organizational ommitment.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-227.
628
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 9 (3), 621-629, 2015
Mowday RT, Steers RM, Porter LW. 1982. Employee Organizational Linkages:The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and
Turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Newman JE. 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
vidence and theoretical
development. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 19-31.
O'Reilly CA, Roberts KH.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 WW.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 PM, MacKenzie SB, Moorman RH, 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 LW, Steers RM.1973.Organizational commitment and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological
Bulletin, 80, 151-176.
Porter LW, Steers RM, Mowday RT, Boulian BV. 1974. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric
technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.
Porter LW, Crampon WJ, Smith FJ. 197). Organizational commitment and managerial
turnover:
A
longitudinal
study.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 87-88.
Randall DM.1987. Commitment and organization: The organization man revisited. Academy of Management Review, 12,
460-471.
Ross SM, Offerman LR. 1997. Transformational leaders: measurement of personality attributes and work group performance.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1078-1086.
Savery LK.1991.Perceived and preferred styles of leadership influences on employee job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
6, 28-32.
Steers RM, Spencer DG. 1977.The role of achievement motivation in job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 472-479.
Still LV.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 PA. 1995. The effects of politics and power on the organizational commitment of federal executives. Journal of Management, 21,
101-118.
Wu PC, Lio HH. 2001, January 10. Yieh United Group Decentralizing Group eadquarters. The Economic Daily, 8.
Yammarino FJ, Spangler WD, Bass BM.1993. Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership
Quarterly, 4, 81-102.
Yan ZT. 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 ehavior 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.
629