A Quantitative Examination of The Relationship Between

A QUANTITATIVE EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT IN EMPLOYEES OF

FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

by

Kimberly Ann Maiocco

Doctoral Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

of Doctor of Business Administration

Liberty University

August 2017

brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

provided by Liberty University Digital Commons

https://core.ac.uk/display/132272667?utm_source=pdf&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=pdf-decoration-v1

Abstract

The objective of this research was to examine the relationship between leadership

practice and organizational commitment in employees in faith-based organizations. The

research utilized Bass and Avolio's Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Leader

Form and Meyer and Allen’s Three-Component Model (TCM) Employee Commitment

Survey. The purpose of the research was to determine whether there was a relationship

between leadership style and organizational commitment. Attributed idealized influence

(IIA), behavioral idealized influence (IIB), inspirational motivation (IM), and contingent

reward (CR) predicted affective commitment. Attributed idealized influence (IIA),

inspirational motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), individual consideration (IC),

active management-by-exception (MBEA), and transactional leadership predicted

continuance commitment. Intellectual stimulation (IS) and passive management-by-

exception (MBEP) predicted normative commitment. Transformational leadership

predicted all commitment types (affective, continuance, and normative). Although a

slight linear relationship was discovered, there was no statistical significance between the

variables of leadership style and organizational commitment of employees in faith-based

organizations.

Keywords: leadership, commitment, motivation, and faith-based

A QUANTITATIVE EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT IN EMPLOYEES OF

FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

by

Kimberly Ann Maiocco

Doctoral Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

of Doctor of Business Administration

Liberty University

August 2017

___________________________________________________ Date: __________

Dr. Eric Richardson, Chair

___________________________________________________ Date: __________

Dr. Kendrick W. Brunson, Committee Member

___________________________________________________ Date: __________

Dr. Gene Sullivan, DBA Program Director

__________________________________________________ Date: __________

Dr. Dave Calland, Dean, School of Business

Dedication

To my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ “who gave Himself for us, that He might

redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people,

zealous for good works.” Titus 2:16. Thank you for giving me purpose.

To my husband, Christopher, thank you for your redeeming love and

encouragement through the journey of our marriage. Special thanks for the many times

you drove to the beach while I worked toward this goal! Looking towards many more

years of walking the beach together.

To my four incredible children, Christian, Jonathan, Michael, and Chelsea, may

you “walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and

increasing in the knowledge of God.” Colossians 1:10. May you always value a Biblical

education and share that opportunity with your children. To my three grandchildren,

Caleb, Carly, and Katie Grace, and all future grandchildren, may you always “love the

Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.”

Deuteronomy 6:5. To my dad, Dr. Gene Webb, for inspiring me to pursue academic

excellence, through your encouragement and own pursuit of higher education, but mostly,

for praying for our family.

To my mom, Greta Joyce Cain Webb Murphy, you started this doctoral journey

with me, but went home to the Lord before it was completed. You are the most

incredible woman I have ever known, thank you for being my mom. This work is

dedicated to your memory. “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have

kept the faith” 2 Timothy 4:7.

Acknowledgments

The completion of this this research would not be possible without the incredible

support of Liberty University’s Doctoral of Business Administration Cohort 3, the most

incredible group of men and women I have had the privilege to work with in academic

endeavors. I am thankful for your encouragement and support over this journey.

I am thankful for Dr. Gene Sullivan and his guidance and wisdom of the DBA

program at Liberty. Your sincerity and desire for our success was most evident.

I am thankful for Dr. Eric Richardson, Dr. Val Candy, and Dr. Joseph Thomas for

their help, guidance, and patience through this process. Without your dedication, this

would have been an impossible task.

i

Table of Contents

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii

Section 1: Foundation of the Study ......................................................................................1

Background of the Problem ...........................................................................................2

Problem Statement .........................................................................................................4

Purpose Statement ..........................................................................................................5

Nature of the Study ........................................................................................................6

Research Question .........................................................................................................6

Hypotheses .....................................................................................................................7

Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................7

Definition of Terms......................................................................................................10

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ..............................................................12

Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 12

Limitations ............................................................................................................ 13

Delimitations ......................................................................................................... 14

Significance of the Study .............................................................................................15

Reduction of Gaps................................................................................................. 15

Implications for Biblical Integration ..................................................................... 15

Relationship to Field of Study .............................................................................. 17

A Review of the Professional and Academic Literature ..............................................18

Faith-Based Organization Employees ................................................................... 19

ii

Organizational Commitment ................................................................................. 21

Traditional Theories of Motivation ....................................................................... 24

Leadership Theory ................................................................................................ 30

Trait Theory of Leadership ................................................................................... 35

Behavioral Theories of Leadership ....................................................................... 38

Theories of Organizational Commitment ............................................................. 56

The Multidimensional Nature of Organizational Commitment ............................ 62

Contemporary Studies Linking Leadership and Commitment ............................. 63

Research Variables ................................................................................................ 66

Transition and Summary ..............................................................................................66

Section 2: The Project ........................................................................................................68

Purpose Statement ........................................................................................................68

Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................69

Participants ...................................................................................................................71

Research Method and Design ......................................................................................72

Research Method .................................................................................................. 72

Research Design .................................................................................................... 75

Population and Sampling .............................................................................................78

Data Collection ............................................................................................................81

Instruments ............................................................................................................ 81

Data Collection Technique ................................................................................... 84

Data Organization Techniques .............................................................................. 86

iii

Data Analysis Technique .............................................................................................87

Reliability and Validity ................................................................................................87

Reliability .............................................................................................................. 87

Validity ................................................................................................................. 88

Transition and Summary ..............................................................................................92

Section 3: Application to Professional Practice and Implications for Change ..................93

Overview of Study .......................................................................................................93

Presentation of the Findings.........................................................................................93

Applications to Professional Practice ........................................................................134

Recommendations for Action ....................................................................................137

Recommendations for Further Study .........................................................................137

Reflections .................................................................................................................139

Summary and Study Conclusions ..............................................................................141

References ........................................................................................................................143

Appendix A: Sample of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Questions .....................184

Appendix B: Permission to Use MLQ .............................................................................185

Appendix C: Questionnaire of Workplace Commitment .................................................186

Appendix D: Permission to Use Questionnaire of Workplace Commitment .................188

Appendix E: Instruments and Variables ..........................................................................189

Appendix F: IRB Exemption 2782.030117 .....................................................................190

Appendix G: Demographic Data Frequencies and Percentages for Demographic

Categorical Variables (N=102) ............................................................................191

iv

Appendix H: Terms of Service ........................................................................................192

v

List of Tables

Table 1. Survey Response Values/Options ........................................................................85

Table 2. Null Hypotheses, Survey Questions, and Statistical Tests ..................................89

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Employee Leadership Style Self-Rating .....................95

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Employee Organizational Commitment Self-Rating ..96

Table 5. Correlations between Leadership Style and Employee Commitment .................99

Table 6. Summary of Simple Regression of Leadership Style and Affective

Commitment ........................................................................................................100

Table 7. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis and Collinearity Statistics of

Leadership Style and Affective Commitment ......................................................102

Table 8. ANOVA of Idealized Influence (Attributed) on Affective Commitment .........104

Table 9. ANOVA of Idealized Influence (Behavioral) on Affective Commitment .......105

Table 10. ANOVA of Inspirational Motivation on Affective Commitment ..................106

Table 11. ANOVA of Intellectual Stimulation on Affective Commitment ....................106

Table 12. ANOVA of Individual Consideration on Affective Commitment..................107

Table 13. ANOVA of Contingent Reward on Affective Commitment ..........................108

Table 14. ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Active) on Affective

Commitment ........................................................................................................108

Table 15. ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Passive) on Affective

Commitment ........................................................................................................109

Table 16. Summary ANOVA of Laissez-Faire Leadership on Affective Commitment .110

vi

Table 17. Summary ANOVA of Transformational Leadership on Affective

Commitment ........................................................................................................110

Table 18. Summary ANOVA of Transactional Leadership on Affective Commitment .111

Table 19. Summary of Simple Regression of Leadership Style and Continuance

Commitment ........................................................................................................112


Leadership Style and Continuance Commitment ................................................113

Table 21. ANOVA of Idealized Influence (Attributed) on Continuance Commitment .116

Table 22. ANOVA of Idealized Influence (Behavioral) on Continuance Commitment 116

Table 23. ANOVA of Inspirational Motivation on Continuance Commitment .............117

Table 24. ANOVA of Intellectual Stimulation on Continuance Commitment ...............118

Table 25. ANOVA of Individual Consideration on Continuance Commitment ............118

Table 26. ANOVA of Contingent Reward on Continuance Commitment .....................119

Table 27. ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Active) on Continuance

Commitment ........................................................................................................120

Table 28. ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Passive) on Continuance

Commitment ........................................................................................................120

Table 29. Summary ANOVA of Laissez-Faire Leadership on Continuance

Commitment ........................................................................................................121

Table 30. Summary ANOVA of Transformational Leadership on Continuance

Commitment ........................................................................................................122

vii

Table 31. Summary ANOVA of Transactional Leadership on Continuance

Commitment ........................................................................................................122

Table 32. Summary of Simple Regression of Leadership Style and Normative

Commitment ........................................................................................................123


Leadership Style and Normative Commitment ....................................................125

Table 34. ANOVA of Idealized Influence (Attributed) on Normative Commitment .....127

Table 35. ANOVA of Idealized Influence (Behavioral) on Normative Commitment ...127

Table 36. ANOVA of Inspirational Motivation on Normative Commitment ................128

Table 37. ANOVA of Intellectual Stimulation on Normative Commitment ..................129

Table 38. ANOVA of Individual Consideration on Normative Commitment ................129

Table 39. ANOVA of Contingent Reward on Normative Commitment ........................130

Table 40. ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Active) on Normative

Commitment ........................................................................................................131

Table 41. ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Passive) on Normative

Commitment ........................................................................................................131

Table 42. Summary ANOVA of Laissez-Faire Leadership on Normative

Commitment ........................................................................................................132

Table 43. Summary ANOVA of Transformational Leadership on Normative

Commitment ........................................................................................................133

Table 44. Summary ANOVA of Transactional Leadership on Affective Commitment .133

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ..............8

Figure 2. Leadership and Organizational Commitment Concept Map ..............................10

Figure 3. G*Power 3.1.9.2 Sample Size Equation .............................................................81

1

Section 1: Foundation of the Study

Leadership can be conceptualized as activities or behaviors that leaders in top

management positions practice to maximize organizational performance (Grandy, 2013).

Leaders shape workplace performance and significantly influence an organization’s

culture (Hage & Posner, 2015). Leadership is a crucial issue in a world of global

competition. Leaders have a strong influence on follower behavior when they engage in

differing styles or practices (Keskes, 2014). Leadership theories include The Great Man,

Personality or Trait, Behavioral, Contingency, and Relational Leadership, which can be

characterized into three main styles: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire

(Dartey-Baah, 2015). Within these core theories, there are subsets of leadership practice

as follows: Authoritarian, Authentic, Autocratic, Charismatic, Democratic, Ethical,

Entrepreneurial, Participative, People-Oriented, Performance-Oriented Style, Servant,

and Situational Leadership (Garg & Jain, 2013; Giltinane, 2013; Grasmick, Davies, &

Harbour, 2012; Kempster & Parry, 2014a; Kenney, 2012; Nyberg & Sveningsson, 2014;

Pyngavil, 2015; Renko, El Tarabishy, Carsrud, & Brännback, 2015; Thompson & Glasø,

2015; Yu-Chi & Ping Ju, 2012; Zander, Mockaitis, & Butler, 2012).

Employee commitment, or an employee’s organizational commitment, has long

been a topic of interest to organizational researchers (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer &

Allen, 1991, 1984; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). One

of the main reasons for its popularity is that organizations have continued to find and

sustain competitive advantage through teams of committed employees (Leow, 2011;

2

Mitchell, 2015). Workplace engagement determines loyalty, the level of commitment

toward the organization, and increases productivity (Seifert, Brockner, Bianchi, & Moon,

2016). Organizational commitment is a multidimensional concept that can be classified

into the following subcomponents: affective commitment, continuance commitment, and

normative commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997). There are many research studies

available on personal leadership styles and practices and their effects on an employee’s

organizational commitment; however, there is a lack of data related to the faith-based

sector. To ensure the longevity of faith-based organizations, it is important to understand

the relationship between leadership practices and organizational commitment.

Background of the Problem

Global environments are complex and uncertain, and effect organizational

commitment (Kriger & Zhovtobryukh, 2013). Leadership practice balances multiple

generational dynamics, goals, numerous decision-making processes, role differentiation,

and personality dynamics of leadership teams, which also impact organizational

commitment (Kriger & Zhovtobryukh, 2013). Additionally, Garg and Ramjee (2013)

argue that leadership style has not been adequately addressed, and that there is a need to

gain understanding about the effects on organizational commitment. The results of

earlier research investigating the relationship between leadership and organizational

commitment have been inconclusive (Garg & Ramjee, 2013).

Lisbon (2010) posited that there is a problem in effective leadership practice in a

multigenerational workplace and that meaningful work is a key to an employee’s

organizational commitment and retention. Research findings reveal that transformational

3

and transactional leadership effects employee organizational commitment (Clinebell,

Škudienė, Trijonyte, & Reardon, 2013). In a dissertation on leadership behaviors and

organizational commitment, Mitchell (2015) suggested further research on the

transformational leadership style would be useful in the future.

Ronquillo (2011) postulated that leadership theory applies to profit and to

nonprofit organizations. General nonprofits and faith-based organizations have many

things in common (Francis, Townes, & Firesheets, 2012). Nonprofits, and specifically

faith-based organizations, may only survive and grow through a better recognition of

effective leadership practice (Ronquillo, 2011). Faith-based organizations are a critical

part of a community’s infrastructure and have a unique advantage in facilitating change

as compared to secular organizations (Francis, Townes, & Firesheets, 2012). However,

there is a lack of research on leadership studies in faith-based organizations (Longman &

Lafreniere, 2012). Although churches are considered the ‘longest-living organizations in

the world,’ in a global individualist society, full of rapid fluctuations in culture, it is

impossible to predict changes that will occur over the next decade (Ershova &

Hermelink, 2012). Research of leadership styles and organizational cultures is both

specific and significant within organizations with a faith purpose (Bassous, 2015).

Furthermore, there is a need for more research on leadership practice in the non-profit

sector (McMurray, Islam, Sarros, & Pirola‐Merlo, 2012).

Bassous’ (2015) research found a statistically significant association between

leadership practice and various age groups working for faith-based nonprofit

organizations. Soane, Butler, and Stanton (2015) theorize that a follower’s personality

4

has influence on perceptions of leadership style and this relationship affects follower

commitment. Moreover, understanding how leadership influences employees will assist

organizations in recruitment, development, retention, and improved leadership practice

(Ruth, 2015). Mowday, Steer, and Porter (1979) indicated that further study related to

organizational commitment and predictors, such as age demographics, should be

examined. This research sought to provide additional research on the effect of leadership

practices on organizational commitment in faith-based organizations.

Problem Statement

Organizations represent multiple industries, products, and services, and typically

exhibit more differences than similarities (“Putting people first”, 2011). One

commonality of organizations is the dependency on employee knowledge, experience,

and skills (“Putting people first”, 2011). Future growth and longevity of faith-based

nonprofits will require strong leadership and employee commitment to impact the world

(Grandy, 2013). Pyngavil (2015) found that leadership style may negatively impact

organizational health measured by the demonstrated organizational commitment of

employees. Research in the field of faith-based organizations is underdeveloped, and

although employees of faith-based organizations typically remain passionate and

committed for many years to their organization, employee organizational commitment

cannot be taken for grant or ignored (Fischer, 2004; Francis, Townes, & Firesheets,

2012). In general, there is limited research on the theme of leadership in the nonprofit

sector (Phipps & Burbach, 2010).

5

Organizational commitment is a multifaceted complex construct that has been

defined in various ways over the years rendering it difficult to synthesize the accumulated

research results (Meyer et al., 1993). Although multiple research studies on leadership

and organizational commitment exist, there was no literature available about the

relationship between personal leadership style and organization commitment within faith-

based organizations. The problem to be addressed was the lack of research on the impact

of broad leadership types as measured through organizational commitment in faith-based

organizations. The focus of the research was to examine the relationship between

personal leadership styles and organizational commitment in employees of faith-based

organizations.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this quantitative correlational research was to test Bass and

Avolio’s (1992) broad leadership theory types and Meyer and Allen’s (1993) theory of

organizational commitment in employees of a faith-based organization (FBO). The study

may provide a greater understanding about the relationship between leadership and

organizational commitment in employees of FBOs. The independent variable was

defined as perceived personal leadership style as measured by the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. The dependent variable was self-perceived levels of personal

organizational commitment as measured by the Three-Component Model (TCM) of

Employee Commitment (Meyer et al., 1993).

6

Nature of the Study

Researchers have a responsibility to clearly define an appropriate research method

and design. Additionally, the method and design chosen provide explanation of the

research problem. Selecting an applicable method and design simplified the process of

gathering data and assisted with data analysis. The method and design were selected

based upon the data needed to consider the relationship between personal perceived

leadership style and organizational commitment in employees of faith-based

organizations

Research Question

The research was designed to answer one research question: Is there a relationship

between personal perceived leadership style and organizational commitment in

employees of faith-based organizations? The research examined personal perceived

leadership and personal workplace commitment in employees of faith-based

organizations. Faith-based organizations have a significant role nationally (Moyer,

Sinclair, & Diduck, 2014). FBO sustainability requires adaptability and learning (Moyer,

Sinclair, & Diduck, 2014). Market competition creates an environment where

organizational expectations of employees exceed basic job descriptions (Morin,

Vandenberghe, Turmel, Madore, & Maïano, 2013). Faith-based organizational

employees need essential attributes of good leadership (Shaw, Cartwright, Sankaran,

Kelly, Dick, Davies, & Craig, 2013). The various attitudes of organizational

commitment were antecedents related to role performance (Morin, et al., 2013). Bassous

(2015) conducted similar research investigating the factors that influenced the motivation

7

of workers in FBOs. Data from the study revealed a positive and significant correlation

between factors such as motivation and leadership (Bassous, 2015).

Hypotheses

The corresponding null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses were:

H01: There is no statistically significant relationship between personal perceived


organizations.

HA1: There is a statistically significant relationship between personal perceived


organizations.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for the research was based on Bass and Avolio’s

(2004) broad leadership theory and Meyer and Allen’s (1991, 1997) theory of employee

commitment. Bass and Avolio’s (1992) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

measures leadership types ranging from passive leadership to transformational leadership.

The MLQ is a validated research instrument that measures human behavior and

personality. It related to the research by providing a framework for measurement of

broad range leadership types and to identify leadership characteristics (Figure 1).

8

Figure 1. Framework for measurement of broad range leadership types and characteristics. Note. From the MLQ Manual by B. Bass and B. Avolio, 2004, p. 22. Copyright © 1995, 2000, 2004. All rights reserved in all media. Reprinted with permission from the publisher.

The MLQ identifies transformational leadership characteristics. Decades of research

have been dedicated to the positive effects of transformational leadership on

organizational outcomes (Afshari & Gibson, 2016; Bass & Avolio, 1992; Breevaart,

Bakker, Hetland, Demerouti, Olsen, & Espevik, 2014; Judge & Bono, 2000; Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996). An example of the positive effects of transformational

leadership on commitment was demonstrated in high levels of employees' satisfaction,

effort, and overall performance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996). Studies on

transformational leadership have demonstrated promise in understanding the relationship

between leadership style and positive outcomes on variables such as commitment

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996). The following are components of

9

transformational leadership: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized

consideration, and intellectual stimulation.

Transactional leadership theory includes contingent reward and management-by-

exception and assesses outcomes of extra effort, leader effectiveness, and employee

satisfaction (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016). Afshari and Gibson

(2016) suggest that transactional leadership may not positively contribute to the

development of organizational commitment. However, another study demonstrated a

positive correlation between transactional leadership and organizational commitment

(Fasola, Adeyemi, & Olowe, 2013).

Meyer and Allen’s (1991, 1997) theory of employee commitment is based on the

construct that organizational commitment is a psychological state consisting of three

components that effect how employees feel about their organization. The TCM

Employee Commitment Survey defines organizational commitment using three

components: affective, continuance, and normative. Meyer and Allen (1991) utilized the

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire’s three-dimensional organization

commitment scale, which indicated a relationship between behavior and the

organizational commitment of employees, contributing to the body of literature on

organizational commitment.

10

Figure 2. Leadership and organizational commitment concept map

Studies indicated a relationship between leadership style and organizational

commitment (Gatling, Kang, & Kim, 2016; Sabir, Sohail, & Asif Khan, 2011). The

purpose of this quantitative research was to test for a relationship between the theories of

personal perceived leadership style using Bass and Avolio’s (1992) Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and organizational commitment using Meyer and

Allen’s (1991, 1997) TCM Employee Commitment Survey and served as the theoretical

framework for this research.

Definition of Terms

Baby Boomers: For the purposes of this research, a Baby Boomer was defined as

individuals born between 1946 and 1964 (Kapoor & Solomon, 2011; Parker & Chusmir,

1990; Smola & Sutton, 2002; Strauss & Howe, 1991).

Employee (Organizational) Commitment: Organizational commitment was

defined as commitment measured by affective attachment, commitment viewed through

the lens of the cost affiliated with leaving the organization, and the employee’s sense of

11

commitment related to a perceived obligation to stay at the organization (Meyer et al.,

1993).

Faith-Based Organization: Organizations that have a faith-based purpose, are

registered as a 501©(3) Public Charity, and have annual gross receipts exceeding

$25,000.

Generation X (Gen X): For the purposes of this research, Generation X

represented those born between 1965 and 1980 (Kapoor & Solomon, 2011; Strauss &

Howe, 1991).

Generation Y (Gen Y, Millennials): For the purposes of this study, Generation Y

(also known as Millennials) represented those born between 1981 and 1999 (Strauss &

Howe, 1991).

Leadership: The process of influencing others (Jost, 2013).

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: The Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ) provided a measure of leadership types developed by Bass and

Avolio (1992). It is the most extensively utilized and comprehensive survey instrument

on the theory of leadership and includes a wide range of leadership styles (Kanste,

Miettunen, & Kyngäs, 2007).

TCM Employee Commitment Survey: The Three-Component Model (TCM)

Employee Commitment Survey links a validated instrument developed to measure

employee organizational commitment as desired-based (affective commitment),

obligation-based (normative commitment), and cost-based (continuance commitment)

(Meyer & Allen, 1997).

12

Traditionalist: For the purposes of this research, Traditionalist represented those

born between 1925 and 1945 (Strauss & Howe, 1991).

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

Assumptions

The following items were assumed to be true. The Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ) is an self-assessment tool. The TCM Employee Commitment

Survey contains questions of self-analysis relative to the current working environment;

including queries related to a sense of belonging and obligation, potential longevity, and

feelings of emotional attachment. Both instruments measure personal self-perception,

therefore, research participants included both leaders and followers from job functions

within a faith-based organization. The MLQ and TCM survey instruments were

combined but not modified as specified by the copyright. Additionally, the MLQ and

TCM survey instruments were investigated in academic and professional literature to

substantiate the use of these tools for the purposes of this research.

Since both survey instruments have been proven reliable, it was expected that

Bass and Avolio’s (1992) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and Meyer and Allen’s

(1997) TCM Employee Commitment Survey would provide consistent results,

demonstrate any linear relationships, and offer valid data related to leadership and

employee organizational commitment. It was assumed that participants would

understand and answer survey questions honestly. There were higher risks associated

with these assumptions. If the survey instruments were misunderstood, the results could

become skewed. To mitigate the risk of misunderstanding the questions, the survey

13

instrument required a forced response and participants selected ‘Unsure’ if an item was

irrelevant, or they do not know the answer (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Limitations

Creswell (2013) defined limitations as influences outside of the researcher’s

control. The research design was limited to generalizability as the sample was restricted

to faith-based organizations and may not be valid to other industries. The term ‘faith-

based organization’ was broadly applied, and this ambiguity made it difficult to fully

grasp the breath of services, which included religious congregations, and faith-based

social services that operated under different standards (Terry et al., 2015). This analysis

only described an association without controlling for other extraneous, mediating or

moderating variables that may have influenced (directly or indirectly) the results.

Additionally, the instrument was not designed to answer open ended questions for deeper

contextual insights. Data was not available to provide clarity of causality as correlation

cannot confirm cause and effect.

Although Bass and Avolio’s Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire measured a

broad spectrum of leadership types, in a study of virtual learning instructors, researchers

found a low internal consistency specifically with active management-by-exception

leadership style (Bogler, Caspi, & Roccas, 2013). Avolio and Bass (2004) also indicate

there are limitations with leadership surveys; however, they have worked for more than

20 years to provide validated evidence for the MLQ Form 5X, which has demonstrated

consistency across multiple industries, regions, raters, and cultures. Moreover, Allen and

Meyer’s Three-Component Model only considered variables of employee types and

14

organizational commitment specifically related to affective, continuance, and normative

commitment.

Both leaders and followers were surveyed and there were no demographic

questions to determine the effects of the employee’s position on the responses. Likewise,

the research was conducted on a voluntary basis, was self-administered, and it was

possible that participants may not have understood all questions as presented in the

survey. The research was limited by the participant responses and whether they were

voluntary and confidential. The research was limited by the participant responses and

whether they provided a candid and accurate self-reflection. Finally, the research was

limited because it captured perceptions at a fixed moment in time and it is probable that

employee commitment may change over time.

Delimitations

The research was limited to followers in faith-based organizations. Participants

were required to have worked in a FBO, and have cumulative tenure of at least one year,

regardless of when. The tenure criterion was selected to ensure the sample represented

employees with experience. The scope of the research was related solely to leadership

and organizational commitment. Outside the scope of the research was the follower’s

current leadership situation and opinion of the current leadership or leadership-follower

experience. The research focused on personal perceived leadership style and personal

level of organizational commitment. The research did not consider measures related to

optimal leadership.

15

Significance of the Study

Reduction of Gaps

The research should contribute to the body of knowledge of business management

in faith-based organizations, leadership, and organizational commitment. For more than

four decades, organizational commitment has been a topic of study in the public, private,

and non-profit sector (Khan, Naseem, & Masood, 2016). Although the literature

provided information related to organizational commitment and leadership, there was

limited research related to faith-based institutions. Additionally, employee turnover costs

make it imperative for faith-based organizations to understand organizational

commitment and the effects of leadership (Yucel, McMillan, & Richard, 2014). Garg

and Ramjee (2013) indicated that there is a need for a better grasp of the connection

between leadership and organizational commitment. The research was conducted to

benefit leadership in faith-based organizations and to provide data on relationships

between the constructs.

Implications for Biblical Integration

There are multiple biblical examples of leaders and leadership qualities; however,

Moses is the only biblical leader that knew the great I AM face to face (Deuteronomy

34:10). Moses was an accidental leader, whose leadership journey spanned decades and

his personal leadership style and level of commitment developed over time (Ben-Hur &

Jonsen, 2012). He was shaped by culture and multiple influences, and argued with God

about his inadequacies in leadership (Ben-Hur & Jonsen, 2012; Exodus 4:10). In many

cases, leadership can be a pursuit of the ambitious, in Moses’ case, humility promoted

16

him to this responsibility (Numbers 12:3). Compare this to Pharaoh, a transactional

leader, who sent taskmasters and afflicted the Israelites (Exodus 1:11). Moses

experienced leaders and followers with various personal leadership styles and levels of

commitment.

Moses suffered the effects of the Israelite followers as they complained, even

after all that God has done (Numbers 11:1, 10). They floundered in their commitment

towards God and operated in continuance commitment, constantly considering the

supposed cost of leaving Egypt (Gatling et al., 2016). At one point, Moses asked God

why he was afflicted with these followers (Numbers 11:11). Over six hundred thousand

men, who had various personal leadership styles and levels of commitment were on this

wilderness journey (Numbers 11:21). Proverbs 16:3 instructs, “Commit your works to

the Lord, and your thoughts will be established.” “Commit your way to the Lord, trust

also in Him…” (Psalms 37:5). Humanity will always have a conditional approach to the

idea of commitment, only God makes commitments unconditionally.

The purpose of the research was to understand if there was a relationship between

personal leadership style and personal organizational commitment. The population for

the research was employees of faith-based organization. Although a faith-based

organization’s mission differs from a for-profit business, faith-based organizations still

operate using business practice. Therefore, it is important that organizational leaders

understand the impact of leadership practice and its influence on organizational

commitment (Kleine & Weißenberger, 2014).

17

Believers serve a God that values people. Moreover, God states, “I am the God of

your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exodus 3:6,

NKJV). These descendants are His people in which He states, “And I will establish My

covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an

everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you” (Genesis 17:7,

NKJV). God’s everlasting covenant is representative of commitment. He demonstrated

His commitment through an unbreakable covenant relationship with His followers and as

the leader of His people, God represents a connection between leadership and

commitment.

Developing a leadership perspective is vital for the kingdom to reach and disciple

others for the sake of Christ. Continuing God’s work through faith-based organizations

will be imperative in the future and leadership impacts organizational commitment.

Furthermore, Paul writes that he became a servant to all and adopted a fluid

representation of the faith to become all things to all people so that he “might win those

who are without law” (1 Corinthians 9:19 – 23). As more leaders and followers in faith-

based businesses are aware of the impact of leadership practice, they will become better

leaders who can more effectively serve the kingdom, which in turn impacts


Relationship to Field of Study

Leadership enables individual and team collaboration and is a crucial influencer

on employees and organizations (Gyensare, Anku-Tsede, Sanda, & Okpoti, 2016). This

research was directly related to leadership as the literature review evaluated and

18

considered various leadership traits, behaviors, theories and the influence on

organizational commitment and employee motivation. In the body of literature,

leadership is a complex term that can be defined as ideas of personality, characteristics,

behaviors, or style, position, responsibility, or influence, and as an instrument for goal

achievement (Limsila & Ogunlana, 2007). Garg and Ramjee (2013) link organizational

commitment to numerous variables such as leadership style. Additionally, leadership

style can create a positive organizational culture, which leads to an increase in

commitment (Gulluce, Kaygin, Kafadar, & Atay, 2016). Foti, Bray, Thompson, and

Allgood (2012) suggest that future research should include actual leadership evaluations.

A Review of the Professional and Academic Literature

Organizations are defined by their purpose and the idea of profit is a

distinguishing factor. The National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) divides non-

profit organizations into three distinct categories, and within the non-profit sector are

organizations defined as faith-based (NCCS, 2016). The term faith-based organizations

encompass a variety of industries (Bielefeld & Cleveland, 2013). Additionally, faith-

based organizations differ in purpose and doctrine, and employees tend to embrace these

ideals (Benefiel, Fry, & Geiflat; Cochrane, 2013). The faith-based workplace is an

emerging topic in scholarly literature (Benefiel, Fry, & Geigle, 2014).

Academic and professional literature presented multiple leadership practice,

perceptions, and theories. The details below provide evidence of a plethora of leadership

styles, behaviors, and practices. Transactional, transformational, and ethical leadership

are among the broad leadership theories (Kenney, 2012). Transformational leadership

19

considers ideas such as influence and motivation, and constructs such as rewards and

management-by-exception (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). A review of the literature

revealed a strong emphasis on the idea of transformational leadership. Avolio and Bass’

(2004) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) also appeared throughout the

literature as a viable tool in assessing broad leadership behavior.

Literature also suggested a connection between leadership and organizational

commitment. Attitude and behavior are strong contributors to organizational

commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Sabir et al., 2011). The most widely accepted theory

of organizational commitment in the literature is Allen and Meyer’s (1990) (Gulluce et

al., 2016). Organizational commitment is comprised of three components: affective,

continuance, and normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990).

As the topic of faith-based organizations further develops, it is important to

understand the relationship and impact of leadership and organizational commitment.

The theories of leadership and organizational commitment are complex constructs of

positively related outcomes that impact organizational loyalty (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

More purposely considered is the awareness of positive transformational leaders, their

impact on affective commitment, and influences on organizational commitment (Gulluce

et al., 2016).

Faith-Based Organization Employees

In developing a definition for faith-based organizations, Bielefeld and Cleveland

(2013) reviewed 889 books and peer-reviewed journals written over a period of 100 years

and suggested that it is defined by the organizational mission, maintains a religious

20

identity from its founding, and attracts and motivates its employees and volunteers. The

industry is further distinguished by differences that exist between the environments of the

public and private sectors in terms of goals, organizational structure, and the influence of

leadership style on follower perceptions (Garg & Jain, 2013). The economy is moving

constantly, a subject to ongoing processes of change, and organizations in the private

sector face ever-changing environments that require adaptation (Hauser, 2014; Oreg &

Berson, 2011). Organizations must keep pace with changing market economies to remain

competitive (Hauser, 2014). Scholars who ignore faith-based organizational culture and

structures miss opportunities to understand important aspects of support systems, such as

geographic communities and networks of people (Schneider, 2012). Benefiel, Fry, and

Geigle (2014) indicate that the role of religion and spirituality in the workplace is a

somewhat new topic of inquiry emerging from scholarly disciplines.

Faith-based organizations are faith communities, and their members and

employees work to reach the community in areas such as justice and charity, supporting

the organization's faith purpose (Schneider, 2012). Faith-based organizations may or

may not have explicit religious doctrines, and vary in religious affiliation (Cochrane,

2013). FBO employees work in various fields, including education, child services, and

national and international support (Bielefeld & Cleveland, 2013). Schneider (2012)

wrote that ideas of theology, culture, and financial support of the religious community are

a part of defining the faith-based organization and its employees who are stewards of the

organization.

21

Faith-based organizations attract and retain key talent because of the sense of

purpose and deep meaning associated with the organization (Deaton et al., 2013). Berger

(2003) wrote that employees in faith-based companies identify with the organizational

mission, support one or more religious or spiritual teachings or traditions, and work to

encourage ideals toward the collective good. Employees in faith-based organizations

have a social connection through a vocational calling that interweaves cultural and

personal values (Benefiel, Fry, & Geigle, 2014).

Employees are involved in a wide range of services in both communicates and in

research (Terry et al., 2015). These employees either work in areas of organizational

control (funding resources and decision-making authority), with the purpose of

expressing religion (self-identity, religiosity, and measuring outcomes), or in program

implementation (services provided) (Bielefeld & Cleveland, 2013). Workers align with

the organization to support a reduction in suffering, to increase wellness (spiritual or

physical), and to provide for the needs of others (Terry et al., 2015). The non-profit

sector will need more than 78,000 senior managers, and the literature indicated that non-

profit organizations inadequately develop internal talent (Deaton et al., 2013). A sector

of the non-profit marketplace includes faith-based organizations. With a record number

of senior leaders expected to retire during the next decade, these companies will face a

leadership crisis (Deaton, et al., 2013).

Organizational Commitment

Research on employee organizational commitment is rooted in the seminal work

of Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982), and followed by authors Mathieu and Zajac

22

(1990), Meyer and Allen, (1991, 1984), and Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993) (Mercurio,

2015; Sabella, El-Far, & Eid, 2016). However, Becker (1960) conducted earlier studies

and believed commitment to be a construct that provides an explanation for the various

behaviors of individuals within an organization. Etzioni (1961) is attributed with

developing the first typology of organizational commitment (Bogler et al., 2013).

Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) have the most generally recognized definition of

organizational commitment (Gulluce et al., 2016). Organizational commitment is the

employee’s relational tie to the organization, and is further defined as self-identification

with and attention to the organization (Mowday et al., 1979).

Research on organizational commitment has focused on antecedents,

consequences, and components of organizational attitude (Bull Schaefer, Green, Saxena,

Weiss, & MacDermid Wadsworth, 2013). Commitment is viewed as a static cause and

effect relationship (Solinger, Hofmans, & van Olffen, 2015). Moreover, research into the

importance of organizational commitment has been conducted in a multitude of contexts,

with various people at different positions, and across diverse labor forces (Devece,

Palacios-Marqués, & Pilar Alguacil, 2016). There are commonalities to the various

definitions of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997). It should also be noted

that the definition of organizational commitment varied in the academic literature and

every day terms such as attachment, allegiance, and loyalty were used as well (Meyer &

Allen, 1997). Organizational commitment is a psychological state that (a) characterizes

the employee’s relationship with the organization, and (b) has implications for the

decision to continue membership in the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). However,

23

Meyer and Allen (1997) indicated that the construct must be defined and supports a

narrowed definition as proposed in the TCM: affective, normative, and continuance.

Contemporary researchers believe that there are two different perspectives of

organizational commitment: attitudinal and behavioral (McGee & Ford, 1987). These

views have been labeled affective and continuance commitment, and have been

acknowledged as important approaches (Meyer & Allen, 2004). Commitment can be

considered as either affective or attitudinal, whereby the individual self-identifies with

the organization and commits to maintain membership (McGee & Ford, 1987). A

different position is the idea of commitment being behavioral in nature, and is a binding

of the employee and the organization through unconnected interests (such as employee

benefits), rather than affection towards the organization (McGee & Ford, 1987). Allen

and Meyer (1990) believe that researchers can better examine organizational commitment

by analyzing three areas of commitment simultaneously: affective, continuance, and

normative commitment. Meyer and Allen (1991) published the Three-Component Model

(TMC) of Employee Commitment, which explains the psychological state of an

employee’s organizational commitment using the three distinct components. Over the

past decades, researchers (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994)

validate that each facet of the Three-Component Model (affective, continuance, and

normative commitment) should be considered when evaluating employee loyalty,

measured by normative commitment.

Globalization and technological advances have created an environment where

organizations need to improve efficiencies and add value to product offerings (Leow,

24

2011). Committed employees are enthusiastic about their membership and organizational

commitment is a means for companies to garner a competitive advantage (Leow, 2011).

An employee’s organizational commitment will be impacted by personal interests, goals,

and needs, which should dovetail with those of the organization to provide the best

possible partnership (Chiu & Ng, 2015).

It is critical for organizations to determine affective commitment and how to

improve employee morale and productivity (Leow, 2011). Okinyi (2015) indicated that

managers in faith-based organizations should seek out options for improving employee

loyalty through reward practices. However, few studies have been conducted on

employee devotion in faith-based organizations (Okinyi, 2015). McMurray, Pirola-

Merlo, Sarros, and Islam (2010) concur citing that very few studies have been conducted

on the relationship between employee commitment and leadership in nonprofit

organizations. Meyer and Allen (1997) stated that an employee’s commitment to its

organization is characterized by the relationship between the employee and the

organization; a psychological state that creates a desire to maintain a connection. Keskes

(2014) wrote that research literature defines organizational steadfastness as a follower’s

self-identification to the organization’s mission, goals, and vision.

Traditional Theories of Motivation

Theories of motivation must plainly describe the purpose of motives (Wright,

2016). Motivation can refer to a wide dispensation of affinities and include a desire

towards recurrent patterns and repetitive behavioral tendencies (Baumeister, 2016).

Motivation leads to a self-realization by the employee, and is a way to optimally develop

25

and achieve personal fulfillment (Hauser, 2014). Motivation comes in two forms, either

through forces acting on or from within a person that inspires them to act in a focused

and driven manner (Honore, 2009). Motivation has been defined by Vroom (1964) as the

inner energy an individual requires for self-encouragement towards accomplishment.

Workplace motivation is impacted by employees' individuality, needs, interests, attitudes,

and values, and is different for everyone (Honore, 2009). There have been many

advances in the research of motivation (Baumeister, 2016). Moreover, there are multiple

theories of motivation; however, seven are considered major contributions to the modern

understanding of the construct: Maslow’s (1954) Hierarchy of Needs, Herzberg’s (1959)

Two-Factor Theory, Alderfer’s (1969) ERG Theory, McClelland’s (1975) Acquired

Needs Theory, Ryan and Deci’s (2000) Cognitive Evaluation Theory, Adams’ (1963)

Equity Theory, and Tolman’s (1930) Expectancy Theory.

Hierarchy of motivational needs. Maslow (1954) developed a classification of

motivation and categorized human basic needs into five groupings: physiological, safety

and security, belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization (Lester, 2013). Maslow

hypothesized that needs are sequential, developmental, and that the lower the need, the

more necessary it is to an individual’s psychological health (Lester, 2013). Therefore,

the lower-level needs must be satisfied prior to the next sequential need, to truly motivate

the employee (Honore, 2009). According to Maslow, when an individual worker needs

more money, based upon the hierarchy, they assume that harder work will lead to more

money, which in turn meets this need (Ugah & Arua, 2011). Maslow’s theory is based

on the idea that people work to realize their basic and individual needs and as each need

26

is met, the next level of needs becomes important (Honore, 2009). Maslow’s theory has

received criticism for its foundation in Western culture; however, other studies in Eastern

culture support the model, and that individuals within cultures have a generalizability

related to motivation (Taormina & Gao, 2013).

Two factor theory of motivation. Employee motivation leads to customer

satisfaction and improved productivity (Hyun & Oh, 2011). Herzberg (1959) proposed a

motivational theory related to job satisfaction and hygiene factors (Vijayakumar &

Saxena, 2015). Herzberg determined that some job factors create only job dissatisfaction

or a short-lasting motivation; however, there have been other determinants that can

involve a more lasting and positive feeling towards organizational commitment (Sell &

Cleal, 2011). Herzberg proposed that work environments could create avoidance

behavior (hygiene factors) or a greater job effort (motivators) (Khandekar, 2012).

Known as the two-factor theory, Herzberg postulated that motivators include factors such

as job recognition, personal achievement, growth opportunities, organizational

advancement, job responsibility, and the overall work itself, which promote greater job

effort (Khandekar, 2012; Vijayakumar & Saxena, 2015). Motivators, such as

achievement, advancement, and recognition are internal forces that drive human behavior

(Khandekar, 2012). Herzberg also concluded that hygiene factors related to working

conditions, job security, and items such as salary, work relationship, supervision, and

corporate policy also impact job satisfaction, and if these are lacking, it leads to job

dissatisfaction (Hyun & Oh, 2011; Vijayakumar & Saxena, 2015). To motivate

employees, organizations must attempt to increase job satisfaction or reduce job

27

dissatisfaction (Vijayakumar & Saxena, 2015). Motivators, over hygiene factors, are the

true stimuli for employees to work hard and enjoy their labors (Hyun & Oh, 2011).

ERG theory. Alderfer (1969) recognized the limitations of Maslow’s Hierarchy

of Needs and proposed the ERG Theory, which categorized human needs into three core

areas: Existence, Relatedness, and Growth. Maslow’s lower needs, Physiological and

Safety, are Alderfer’s category of Existence, which is the need for basic items, such as

food, salary, working conditions, and fringe benefits (Ko, Rhee, Walker, & Lee, 2014).

The ERG differs from Maslow’s hierarchy in that multiple needs may operate

simultaneously (Ko, Rhee, Walker, & Lee, 2014). Alderfer (1969) postulated that the

three core needs provide the essentials for motivation and many times, individuals

express their ‘wants’ in terms of goals, which may include a mixture of basic needs. The

ERG theory has seven major propositions that form the basic testable hypotheses and was

originally proposed to offer a solution to the issue of how need-satisfaction related to

need strength (Alderfer, 1969).

Achievement motivation theory. McClelland (1975), a seminal theorist,

recommended that organizations utilize competence over intelligence as a predictor of

job performance (Bouteiller & Gilbert, 2016). Later in 1975, McClelland developed the

Achievement Motivation Theory. McClelland categorized motivation into three basic

forms: affiliation, power, and achievement (Yi & Park, 2014). McClelland’s theory is

from the perspective of internal human needs, which are main motivators of human

behavior (Khandekar, 2012). Additionally, whereas Maslow and McClelland’s theories

28

are considered internal motivators, Herzberg’s theory focuses on external factors of

motivation (Khandekar, 2012).

Cognitive evaluation theory. Ryan and Deci (2000) developed the Cognitive

Evaluation Theory, which focuses on social and environmental influences that impact

intrinsic motivation (Riley, 2016). This differs from external factors which affect internal

motivation (Shi, Connelly, & Hokisson, 2016). The Cognitive Evaluation Theory

suggests that there are three physiological needs that foster self-motivation: competence,

autonomy, and relatedness (Riley, 2016). Competence is a key factor associated with

extrinsic goals and feelings of efficaciousness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autonomy, not to

be confused with independence, describes an employee’s experience related to the feeling

of choice, desire, and perceived freedoms (Stone, Deci, & Ryan, 2009). Moreover,

autonomy and competence highly influence an employee’s intrinsic motivation (Ryan &

Deci, 2000). Furthermore, relatedness is the idea of belonging, a feeling of connecting

with the organizational goal (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Equity theory. Adams’ (1963) Equity Theory examines worker motivation in

relation to perception, treatment, and fairness (Skiba & Rosenberg, 2011). Equity Theory

is rooted in the ideas of social actors, their exchanges, the outcomes from leader-follower

relationships, and the idea of a reciprocal return (Hayibor, 2012). It is a theory founded

in the idea of fairness connected to reward systems, and is considered an important part

of the twentieth-century workplace (Skiba & Rosenberg, 2011). The philosophy emerged

during a period of management job motivation models and built on Maslow (1954),

McClelland (1961), Vroom (1964), and Herzberg’s (1959) models (Skiba & Rosenberg,

29

2011). Equity is determined by the perception of either equality or inequality in the

relationship (Hayibor, 2012). In the case of employee motivation, this relationship is

between either the leader-follower or the employee-employer (Hayibor, 2012).

Expectancy theory. Tolman (1930) framed the Expectancy Theory which

proposes that expectation is a stronger motivator of human behavior than a response to

stimuli (Ugah & Arua, 2011). Vroom furthered the idea of Expectancy Theory, which

was founded in four assumptions: employees have requirements; conduct is deliberate;

employees have needs; and employees will make choices based on their personal needs

(Lazaroiu, 2015). The underlying thoughts behind the theory surfaced from studies on

how external pressures effect internal motivators, such as the desire to do right (Renko,

Kroeck, & Bullough, 2012).

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The idea of dualism and motives divides

humans into categories, such as intrinsic-extrinsic motivation (Reiss, 2012). Motivation

is rooted in the idea of being moved to take action or act in some way (Ryan & Deci,

2000). Intrinsic motivation is founded upon the idea of doing something because it is

interesting or for enjoyment, while extrinsic motivation produces an outcome (Ryan &

Deci, 2000). Okinyi (2015) researched both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards on employee

organizational commitment in a faith-based health organization and concluded that there

was a strong correlation between employee organizational commitment and reward

practices.

Intrinsic motivation. Classically, intrinsic motivation is a pervasive construct and

reflects a human’s propensity to assimilate and learn (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It is the

30

involvement in an activity for satisfaction, fun, challenge, or participation (Ryan & Deci,

2000). Intrinsic motivation does not consider the consequence of involvement and

activity relative to prompts, forces, incentives or compensation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It

is rooted in the notion of doing something for something's sake (Reiss, 2012). Okinyi's

(2015) study on intrinsic rewards and employee organizational commitment concluded a

strong relationship between employee recognition and commitment. It also assumed a

weak relationship between responsibility and employee organizational commitment

(Okinyi, 2015). In addition, the results indicated a positive and solid relationship

between employee organizational commitment and recognition, career advancement, and

learning opportunities (Okinyi, 2015). Lastly, the feeling of satisfaction in doing a job

well is an intrinsic reward (Honore, 2009).

Extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation can reflect self-regulation or can

represent an external control (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It is frequently associated with the

pursuit of tangible objectives (Kenney, 2012). An extrinsic reward is received in

appreciation for accomplishment (Honore, 2009). Employees in faith-based

organizations show a strong correlation between employee organizational commitment

and changes in pay, bonuses, benefits, and promotions (Okinyi, 2015). Extrinsic

motivation differs from intrinsic motivation and is a construct rooted in instrumental

value related to activities accomplished to attain a desired outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Leadership Theory

Leadership is a constant evolution of new contexts, concepts, tools, and concerns

which are impacted by the demands of various situations on leaders (Kenney, 2012).

31

Leaders play multiple major roles and have numerous responsibilities that entail certain

skills, challenges, and obligations (Kenney, 2012). Furthermore, leadership involves

initiative, followers, resource allocation, behavior, and internal drive to achieve goals

(Dartey-Baah, 2015). Bhatti, Maitlo, Shaikh, Hashmi, and Shaikh (2012) state that

leadership is a process of social influence between leader and follower to reach

organization goals. Jost (2013) defined the phenomenon as an influential process

between leaders and followers that involves activities related to accomplishing tasks and

achievement.

Sethuraman and Suresh (2014) defined a leader as an individual who is

responsible for influencing one or more followers and who directs them to achieve a

specified objective. Bhatti et al. (2012) wrote that a leader recognizes needs, knows what

is needed to make things happen, and makes it happen. Leaders have various methods,

and some lead by example while others lead through strategic direction, inspiration,

motivation, confrontation, or even intimidation (Keith & Buckley, 2011). Organizational

culture is significantly influenced by leaders who shape employee performance (Hage &

Posner, 2015). Nicholas (2016) posited that directing follower actions towards a shared

goal is the responsibility of a leader.

Broad leadership theories include transactional, transformational, and ethical

leadership (Kenney, 2012). Dinh, Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden, and Hu (2014)

identified sixty-six various areas of leadership theory and methodological approaches.

Additionally, there are several established theories that continually capture the interest of

researchers, including trait theory and leader-follower exchange (Dinh et al., 2014).

32

Furthermore, there is a growing interest in emerging leadership theories containing

thematic ideas such as strategic leadership (Dinh et al., 2014). Leadership theory is

impacted by three emergent processes: global, compositional, and computational (Dinh et

al., 2014). However, there are other theories that are experiencing a decline in interest

including contingency and path-goal theory of leadership (Dinh et al., 2014). As more

and more research is added to the body of knowledge of leadership theory, a more refined

understanding has developed and some theories are losing support. A broader

understanding of leadership process helps to demonstrate theory limitations and allows

for a deeper understanding and application to relevant practice (Langley, Smallman,

Tsoukas, & Van de Ven, 2013).

Leadership practice. Why do some leaders impact followers more than other

leaders (Afshari & Gibson, 2016)? How are these leaders perceived more positively

(Afshari & Gibson, 2016)? Leadership style or practice is described by the degree to

which a leader delegates strict authority over a task and the amount in which the leader

acts in the interest of the follower (Jost, 2013). There are multiple leadership styles that

individuals can employ (Boykins, et al., 2013). The idea of leadership style is a highly-

debated management concept that has influenced a multitude of leaders and followers

(Gooraki, Noroozi, Marhamati, & Behzadi, 2013). As leaders pursue various goals, they

must utilize a wide variety of styles with followers (Kenney, 2012).

Theories of leadership focus on what leaders do, not on who they are, and have a

closer connection to the leader’s environment. Moreover, various situations call for

different leadership approaches (Boykins, Campbell, Moore, & Nayyar, 2013). The

33

theory of situational leadership was developed by Hersey and Blanchard, and highlights

four specific leadership styles ranging from directing to delegating (Thompson & Glasø,

2015). Leaders employing situational leadership adjust their style based upon the needs

of the follower (Thompson & Glasø, 2015). Through this process, leaders are continuous

learners, which enables followers to learn through reflection (Lynch, 2015).

Nanjundeswaraswamy and Swamy (2014) wrote that a leader’s style impacts

organizational and employee performance and productivity. Leadership impacts

outcomes such as productivity, motivation, morale, and retention, and effects follower

perception (Zamperion, Spanio, Bernardi, Milan, & Buja, 2013). Derecskei’s (2016)

research findings indicated that leadership was strongly correlated to organizational

creativity. Additionally, leadership impacts follower quality of work life

(Nanjundeswaraswamy & Swamy, 2014). Understanding leadership practice, and

specifically leadership style, is important to organizational success and outcomes

(Zamperion et al., 2013).

Sethuraman and Suresh (2014) challenge leaders to recognize that their personal

leadership style has a direct influence upon the performance of their followers.

Employee performance is strongly affected by leadership styles or practice (Mtimkulu,

Naranhee, & Karodia, 2014). Furthermore, a leader may be influenced by individual

beliefs, values, preferences, and by organizational culture (Almansour, 2012). Mtimkulu,

Naranhee, and Karodia (2014) contend that there is a relationship between leadership

style and employee performance. Finally, Cates, Cojanu, and Pettine’s (2013) research

indicated that among the generational cohorts, leadership styles differ based upon the

34

generational dynamics, which is significant relative to employee motivation and job

performance, both factors of organizational commitment. There were various leadership

styles presented in the literature (Yu & Miller, 2005). Lastly, there are many times where

leader effectiveness is conceptualized linearly indicating that certain styles are better than

others (Kaiser, LeBreton, & Hogan, 2015).

Leadership perceptions. Followers and leaders are vital to leadership, and there

is limited research regarding follower perception and their role during the leadership

process (Notgrass, 2014). Considering the relationship between follower perceptions and

leadership is important and can be used to measure leader success (Zancher, Rosing,

Henning, & Frese, 2011). Furthermore, research is needed in the areas of followership,

leadership, and the follower/leader relationship regarding followers' perception and

preferred leadership (Notgrass, 2014). It is important to understand the implications of

various leadership styles on followers (Schuh, Zhang, & Tian, 2013). However, it must

be understood that follower perceptions are subjective and prone to bias (Černe,

Dimovski, Marič, Penger, & Škerlavaj, 2014). In many cases, followers seek out signals,

hoping they may reveal a leader’s intentions (Schuh, Zhang, & Tian, 2013) or a better

understanding of desired leadership. Notgrass (2014) found a positive and significant

relationship between a follower’s perception and the leader’s style.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire Form 5X is based upon a six-factor model of transactional and

transformational leadership (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Hater and Bass (1988)

indicated that transformational and transactional leadership are related in that these styles

35

focus on goal achievement. In a study on leadership style and organizational

commitment, Sabir et al. (2011) concluded that leadership style is a compelling aspect of

organizational commitment, and is stronger when the employees' values are shared with

the organizational culture. Transformational leadership has the following components:

idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and

intellectual stimulation. Moreover, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

tests transactional leadership constructs as follows: contingent reward and management-

by-exception (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Additionally, the questionnaire assesses

three outcomes: extra effort; leader effectiveness; and employee satisfaction with their

leader (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016). The MLQ instrument includes nine factors (five

transformational, three transactional, and one passive avoidant) (Xu, Wubbena, &

Stewart, 2016).

Trait Theory of Leadership

Leadership trait theory dates to the 20th century and is considered the God-given

distinctive abilities of individuals (Smalley, Retallick, Metzger, & Greiman, 2016).

Multiple research studies have been conducted on leader traits and behavior (Derue,

Nnahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Trait theory emphasizes human

characteristics and assumes that leader traits are developable (Frazier, 2015). Trait theory

began with the work of Stogdill (1948), who defined leadership traits to include sociality,

intelligence, insight, responsibility, alertness, persistence, initiative, and self-confidence.

Later, Stogdill (1974) added traits such as risk-taking and drive. Leadership trait theory

36

focuses strictly on the leader and does not consider the follower (Smalley, Retallick,

Metzger, & Greiman, 2016).

The theory proposes that leaders are differentiated from other individuals by

certain traits (Colbert, Judge, Choi, & Wang, 2012). Moreover, leaders are identified and

selected based upon possession of certain traits (Khan, 2013). Leadership traits relative

to task competence include qualities such as intelligence, emotional stability, a

conscientiousness nature, and an openness to experience, which predict the leader’s

approach to risk taking, problem solving, challenging assumptions, and the structuring of

task work (Derue et al., 2011). Research indicated that leader traits evolve over time

(Xu, Fu, Xi, Zhang, Zhao, Cao, & Ge, 2014). Derue et al. (2011) wrote that leader traits

include demographic variables such as gender, intelligence, and natural personality.

Moreover, Stogdill (1948) contended that the possession of a combination of leadership

traits does not make a person a leader but rather a leader has characteristics, activities,

and overall objectives related to followers. Certain leadership traits may become stronger

or weaker over time (Xu et al., 2014). Furthermore, leader traits may be extrinsic, the

idea that one trait replaces another, or intrinsic, whereby a trait can change in intensity

(Xu et al., 2014).

Xu et al. (2014) studied trends in leadership trait research and discovered a

significant increase in longitudinal studies. However, Colbert, Judge, Choi, and Wang

(2012) maintain that research results on effective leader traits are inconsistent. Today,

the trait approach is almost never used in isolation, and is not a sole criterion for

assessing or exemplifying a candidate’s abilities (Khan, 2013). Additionally, the term

37

‘trait’ covers a wide spectrum of characteristics and researchers have been unable to

identify a consistent set of leadership traits (Frazier, 2015; Xu et al., 2014). Although the

trait approach has inherent weaknesses, it continues to maintain a presence in leadership

theory (Khan, 2013).

Leadership characteristics. Leadership characteristics can be defined as an

inspiring set of personal attributes that are perceived by followers and inspire them to

their full potential (Keith & Buckley, 2011). Leader characteristics are a component of

leadership theory and practice. Initially, leadership theory focused extensively on leader

characteristics (Gregory, 2011). Today, exploratory research provides contextual details

on the perceptions of leadership characteristics (Gregory, 2011). Leadership

characteristics transcend all industries including academics, business, social, and political

communities (Keith & Buckley, 2011). Understanding leadership characteristics may

help organizations identify behaviors needed to encourage effective new leader

integration with incumbent executives (Peterson, Galvin, & Lange, 2012).

Kouzes and Posner (2012) developed a list of ten most admired leadership

characteristics: ambition, caring, competence, determination, forward looking, and

leadership characteristics including honesty, imagination, inspiration, loyalty, and self-

control. Leadership research suggests that dominance and cooperation are the two most

important characteristics (Nichols, 2016). Additionally, as followers gain experience, the

characteristics desired change and trait preferences might be a predictor of experience

(Nichols, 2016).

38

Behavioral Theories of Leadership

Over the past 70 years, there have been significant efforts in the defining and

describing of organizational leadership behavior. In a literature review of leader

behavior, Fleishman, Mumford, Zaccaro, Levin, Korotkin, and Hein (1991) noted 65

distinct classes of leader behavior, which can be categorized as follows: task-oriented

behaviors, relational-oriented behaviors, change-oriented behaviors, and passive

leadership. However, there are major differences in the theoretical frameworks employed

by the various researchers in areas of methodology and classification (Fleishman et al.,

1991). Moreover, the differences in samples, organizational levels and settings, along

with various descriptions produce a variety of leadership behavior dimensions (Fleishman

et al., 1991).

According to Derue et al. (2011), a leader’s behavior has greater validity than

individual traits in the production of leader effectiveness, which affects employee

motivation. A leader’s behavioral tendencies are proximal to the actual act of leadership,

and are predictive of overall leader effectiveness (Derue et al., 2011). The following

styles, behaviors, or leadership practice were investigated in the literature: Authentic,

Authoritarian, Autocratic, Charismatic, Democratic, Ethical, Entrepreneurial, Laissez-

faire, Leader-Member Exchange, Participative, People-Oriented, Performance-Oriented

Style, Transactional, Transformational, Servant, and Situational Leadership.

Authentic leadership. A leader acting as their true self characterizes authentic

leadership (Nyberg & Sveningsson, 2014). It is an attractive ideal because it provides

reassurance of perceived traditional power held in a leader’s position (Nyberg &

39

Sveningsson, 2014). An authentic leader is driven by self-perception rather than forces

outside of self; however, Nyberg and Sveningsson (2014) question whether there is such

a concept as ‘true self'. Authentic leadership is leader-centric and leaders recognize their

personal values, motives, strengths, and weaknesses including self-knowledge, a

thoughtful self-perception, and an awareness of personal beliefs, desires, and feelings

(Černe, Dimovski, Marič, Penger, & Škerlavaj, 2014). Authentic leaders view employees

as assets and work to develop leader-follower relationships (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

The authentic leadership model gives more attention to the multifaceted leader-

follower consciousness in areas such as values, goals, identity, emotions, and the

relational outcomes of trust and sustainable performance (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). As

individuals know and accept their own strengths and weaknesses, they develop stability

and a freedom from bias demonstrating values, beliefs, and actions, consistent with

authentic leadership (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). It is a

leadership approach that is suitable for improving employee job satisfaction through

follower perception of leader-follower relationships as a leader’s “true self” is apparent

(Černe et al., 2014).

Authenticity is defined as involving the ideas of self-acceptance and awareness

(Walumbwa et al., 2008). It is a term that has become associated with a moral foundation

in leadership and throughout the fields of business and management (Lawler & Ashman,

2012). The literature on authenticity has several themes including trust, honesty, and

genuineness (Lawler & Ashman, 2012). Sparrow (2015) wrote it is not always easy to

achieve authenticity, especially when an environment is unsuited towards the natural

40

preferences of the individual. Moreover, authenticity is viewed as having a dependency

on individual values and is rooted in personal character (Lawler & Ashman, 2012).

Authentic leaders are unique and original individuals and they do not fake

leadership (Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Furthermore, they do not engage in leadership for

the sake of status, recognition, or individual gain and base their actions on their personal

moral compass (Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Alavi and Gill (2016) wrote that authentic

leaders are original and do not duplicate behaviors in their interactions with others, but

rather act based on their personal values. Additionally, authentic leaders are highly

aware of their personal bias and judgment, and this empowers the leader to control

opinion and feelings (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011).

Authentic leadership is rooted in the philosophies of Harter (2002), Heidegger

(1962), and Rogers (1959). Additionally, a definition of authentic leadership was

developed through the work of Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, and Walumbwa (2005)

which attempted to consolidate multiple classifications and viewpoints (Avolio &

Gardner, 2005). Authentic leadership in organizations is a construct that ties together

positive psychological competences and an advanced organizational framework, which

ensures a greater self-consciousness and positive self-control by the leaders and followers

which fosters an environment of growth (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). The notion of

authentic leadership is based upon high ethical standards and positive morals as a beacon

for decision-making and behavior (Gardner et al., 2005). A self-based model was

developed for follower growth, which focuses on self-awareness and regulation as

elements of authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2005).

41

Walumbwa et al. (2008) described authentic leadership as a behavioral pattern

that attracts and supports ethics and positive psychological abilities that nurture a greater

self-perception. Authentic leaders embrace a strong moral perspective, balance

knowledge, work to develop candidness with followers, and foster positive self-

improvement (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Rightly or wrongly, authentic leadership is

associated with a morality applied to organizational life (Lawler & Ashman, 2012).

Authoritarian leadership. Followers in a relationship with an authoritarian

leader tend to be reserved in expressing views and simply accept directives from the

leader with no comment (Yu-Chi & Ping Ju, 2012). This is because the authoritarian

leader’s behavior may degrade the follower’s self-appraisal of capability, impact the

employee through a restriction in job autonomy, and limit follower opportunities for task

contribution (Du & Choi, 2013). Authoritarian leaders tend to be self-focused, having no

consideration for the opinion or well-being of their subordinates (Yu-Chi & Ping Ju,

2012). Derecskei (2016) wrote that an authoritarian style is inhibiting. In contrast, for

environments where change is low, followers may willingly accept a leader’s strict

control and directive style (Du & Choi, 2013). Accordingly, followers accept an attitude

of passivity towards work engagement and performance, settling for the status quo versus

a pursuit towards excellence or a desire for change (Du & Choi, 2013).

Autocratic leadership. An autocratic leader centralizes all decision-making

power and focuses on the task over a relationship with the follower (Garg & Jain, 2013).

Leaders with this style provide very clear expectations on the ‘what, when, and how’, and

make decisions independent of the group (Garg & Jain, 2013). An autocratic leadership

42

style is a dominating leadership practice that leads to employee dissatisfaction, employee

turnover, and inefficient performance, and in turn creates ineffective working

environments (Pyngavil, 2015). Mtimkulu, Naranhee, and Karodia (2014) suggested that

autocratic and laissez-faire leadership styles were effective with previous generations but

are restrictive styles that may not inspire members of Generation X or Y.

Charismatic leadership. Kempster and Parry (2014a) wrote that charisma is a

mystical stigma and is an attribute bestowed by God, as a gift, and originates from a set

of characteristics. A Google search of ‘charismatic leadership’ yielded as many hits as

the popular ‘transformational leadership’ which clearly suggests a romantic mythology

even within the business context (Kempster & Parry, 2014b). The authors postulate that

the leader-follower relationship is stimulated through the follower’s voluntary giving of

trust, power, and authority, and the willingness to be the recipient of the outcome, placing

an emphasis on the follower’s perception (Kempster & Parry, 2014a). Charismatic

leaders demonstrate affection and compassion that is reciprocated with warmth and

respect from followers (Kempster & Parry, 2014a). Moreover, from the perspective of

the follower, the charismatic relationship produces emotions such as affection and

warmth (Kempster & Parry, 2014b). When compared to movie genres, it most resembles

emotions felt from a comedy and family movie, and it produces feelings of a positive

relationship (Kempster & Parry, 2014b). Charismatic leaders provide followers with an

energizing environment and clear purpose (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Leaders exhibiting

this style are role models that demonstrate ethical conduct that builds leader-follower

identification and a connection with the leader’s vision (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Although

43

leadership essentialists view the idea of charismatic leadership directly with the leader,

research from the perspective of lived experience indicates that the charismatic leader-

employee relationship is inconsistent and multifaceted (Kempster & Parry, 2014b).

Democratic leadership. A literature search on democratic leadership yielded

more resources written from a political perspective, however, democratic leadership in

and of itself is a leadership practice and moves beyond the mere rhetoric into areas such

as education and research (McKeown & Carey, 2015). Courage, motivation, awareness,

judgments, and a personal code of ethics, are the foundation for democratic leadership;

while at the heart are sacred values (Molina & Klinker, 2012). Derecskei (2016) wrote

that a democratic style is perceived to stimulate the follower’s work environment.

Democratic leaders elicit input from team members in the decision-making process,

which increases follower satisfaction (Bhatti et al., 2012). Boykins, Campbell, Moore,

and Nayyar (2013) state that a democratic style works to build team consensus and to

gain input for positive plan implementation. Giltinane (2013) indicated that democratic

leaders tend to be considerate and share responsibility with followers.

Ethical leadership. The idea of ethical leadership stems from an emphasis on a

social system and a set of leadership behavior standards that are perceived by followers

(Agezo, 2013). Ethical leadership is an independent leadership theory and is embedded

in the paradigm of charismatic and transformational leadership (Brown, Treviño, &

Harrison, 2005). In a research study on senior executives and follower perception related

to ethical leadership, three themes emerged: value alignment, governance, and

relationship-centeredness (Crews, 2015). Crews (2015) found that ethical leadership is

44

perceived through characteristics such as integrity, courage, and trustworthiness and more

importantly, ethical leaders are observed to demonstrate a strong alignment between what

they say and what they do. Additional studies concluded that organizational commitment

has a mediating function relative to ethical leadership and that ethical leadership, in turn,

have a positive relationship to organizational commitment (Çelik, Dedeoglu, & Inanir,

2015). Furthermore, an ethical leader is relationally-centric, and qualities of fairness and

altruism define the leader’s engagement with others (Crews, 2015). In situations of

governance, ethical leaders rely on a more formal system of accountability and engage

discernment in decision-making (Crews, 2015). Many of the attributes of ethical

leadership are embedded in other leadership behaviors (Crews, 2015).

Entrepreneurial leadership. An entrepreneurial leadership style is characterized

by innovation, the ability to adapt to a changing environment, and can preside in

organizations of various sizes, types, or longevity (Renko et al., 2015). Followers of

entrepreneurial leaders are positively influenced by the leader’s beliefs and the actions

needed to achieve the leader’s goals (Koryak, Mole, Lockett, Hayton, Ucbasaran, &

Hodgkinson, 2015). Entrepreneurial leaders are known for creativity, risk-taking, vision,

and resilience (Middlebrooks, 2015). Furthermore, these leaders demonstrate some

behaviors and attributes that characterize transformational leadership (Renko et al.,

2015). They display a distinctive knowledge and skill set, and an overall disposition that

tends to maximize innovative thinking (Middlebrooks, 2015). These leaders fuel

continuous energy throughout the organization and during improvement processes

(Middlebrooks, 2015). They also tend to see and pursue opportunities; however, taking

45

the lead as an entrepreneur should not be confused with entrepreneurial leadership

(Middlebrooks, 2015). Entrepreneurial leadership is a role, a leadership style, an unique

leadership ability, and is the overlapping of two concepts that create a distinctive theory

(Middlebrooks, 2015). Attributes of entrepreneurial leadership are also embedded in

other leadership behaviors (Renko et al., 2015).

Leader-member exchange theory. Relationships impact the organization, and

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory is based on a partnership between leaders and

followers to accomplish organizational goals. The theory was developed by Dansereau,

Graen, and Haga (1975). Gerstner and Day (1997) conducted a meta-analysis which

involved an influence on the follower. This follower does not require an authoritative

hierarchy based on employment contracts, but rather is influenced by contractual

obligations (Memili, Welsh, & Kaciak, 2014). LMX emphasizes leader-follower

relationships that drive affirming outlooks and actions (Burch & Guarana, 2014).

Positive LMX relationships create a reciprocity of continued exchanges, a higher level of

optimism, an increase in flexibility, efficiency, and optimism, which ultimately leads to

more innovative processes (Memili, Welsh, & Kaciak, 2014). The literature review

conducted by Gerstner and Day (1997) suggest that job performance, satisfaction,

organizational commitment, role conflict and clarity, competencies, and turnover

demonstrated significant relationships with LMX. Research supports that LMX theory

creates a favorable leader-follower collaboration which correlates with improved

individual performance (Joseph, 2016). Finally, LMX is consistent with transformational

leadership (Gerstner & Day, 1997)

46

Participative leadership. A large variety of scholars share the belief that

participative leadership is valuable in areas of organizational and team efficiency (Bell &

Mjoli, 2014). Research by Miao, Newman, and Huang (2014) demonstrates that

participative leadership has an important role in promoting positive work outcomes and

social exchanges between followers. In participative leadership, the follower’s

commitment is heightened because of the perception of ownership that is sensed (Bell &

Mjoli, 2014). It is a leadership style that is active, highly collaborative, and is a visionary

practice that builds environments for a wider participation (Grasmick, Davies, &

Harbour, 2012).

People-oriented leadership. A people-oriented leadership style is democratic,

servant authentic, ethical, and participative, focusing on human relations and teamwork,

which improves productivity and job satisfaction (Dorn, 2012; Mtimkulu, Naranhee, &

Karodia, 2014). People-oriented leadership includes other leadership styles such as

transformational and servant leadership (Zander, Mockaitis, & Butler, 2012). This

leadership practice differs from its traditional counterparts, which focus on directive and

authoritarian leadership responses (Zander, Mockaitis, & Butler, 2012). Moreover,

Zander et al., (2012) theorized that people-oriented leaders actually respond to

contemporary changes in follower work values and expectations, and support retaining

talent and skills organizations need in a harsh labor market faced with competition and

financial turbulence.

Performance-oriented leadership. The performance-oriented leadership style is

characterized by innovation and leader decisiveness (Cox, Hannif, & Rowley, 2014).

47

Leaders with this style establish high standards and place an emphasis on the core values

of an organization (Cox et al., 2014). Additionally, performance-oriented leaders inspire

followers through a shared vision or goal which creates a passion that motivates

followers to perform enthusiastically (Cox et al., 2014).

Servant leadership. Carter and Greer (2013) describe servant leaders as those

that place the needs of the follower and the importance of multiple stakeholders over self-

interest. Servant leaders exhibit relational-oriented leadership behavior (Derue,

Nnahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Van Dierendonck’s (2011) conceptual

model of servant leadership provides six key characteristics: empowerment, people

development, humility, authenticity, interpersonal acceptance, and a style that

demonstrates stewardship and provides a sense of direction. Rodriquez (2014) stated that

servant leaders gain more than they give from their service. Furthermore, servant leaders

recognize a multitude of responsibilities, including organizational goals, the personal

development of followers, and a wide range of stakeholders, which include the

consideration of community (Peterson, Galvin, & Lange, 2012). Finally, research

indicates that servant leadership is distinctive and relevant to work outcomes (Peterson,

Galvin, & Lange, 2012).

Hersey and Blanchard developed the theory of situational leadership, a grouping

of four leadership styles, which range from directing to delegating, to match a specific

leadership situation as needed (Thompson & Glasø, 2015). Thompson and Glasø (2015)

indicate that job performance is positively and significantly correlated to leader support,

job level, supervisory ratings, and follower self-rating. A situational leader partners with

48

the follower for improved performance, and requires flexibility in the leadership style

(Lynch, 2015). These leaders support a process of continued learning and enable the

follower to gain a greater understanding and deeper self-assessment through reflectivity

(Lynch, 2015).

Transformational leadership. Leaders who take notice of the needs of their

employees, encourage them on an intellectual level, establish high expectations, and

create a shared vision, demonstrate transformational leadership behavior (Gulluce et al.,

2016). Burns (1978) developed the theory of transformational leadership and is

attributed with the term. Bass (1990, 1999), Bass and Riggio (2006), Bass and

Steidlmeier (1999), and Bass and Avolio (1993) further develop the construct along with

Kouzes and Posner (1987) who advanced the theory as a model of leadership practice.

Transformational leadership style focuses on the leader’s ability to inspire and influence

followers through their goals, creativity, visions, and actions (Salahuddin, 2011).

Employees are encouraged to be more committed to their organization through

transformational leadership behavior (Saha, 2016). Needs of the individual and the

personal development of followers are the focus of transformational leadership (Yahaya

& Ebrahim, 2016). Many positive outcomes for individuals, groups, and organizations

have been experienced through transformational leadership, which impacts behaviors,

attitudes, and performance (Arnold & Loughlin, 2013). These leaders are amenable to

follower’s wants and needs (Khanin, 2007).

This model has had a significant influence on leadership success (Schuh, Zhang,

& Tian, 2013). Moreover, this leadership style provides an easier pathway to high

49

commitment and organizational success (Gulluce et al., 2016). In this case, leaders

inspire followers to go beyond expectation which increases overall organizational

commitment (Gulluce et al., 2016). Franke and Felfe (2011) challenge that

transformational leaders operate from a dark side when they abuse power and can

negatively impact organizational commitment. Leaders should be aware that expecting

employees to perform at high levels can create a decline in organizational commitment

due to overload and strain (Franke & Felfe, 2011).

Transformational leadership theory consists of four leader behaviors: idealized

influence (either attributed or behavioral), inspirational motivation, individualized

consideration, and intellectual stimulation (Bacha & Walker, 2012; Bass & Avolio,

1997). The degree that a leader attends to a follower’s needs, listens to concerns, and

acts as a coach or mentor is individualized consideration (Bacha & Walker, 2012).

Transformational leaders stimulate followers to challenge assumptions (Bacha & Walker,

2012). Followers are encouraged to take risks, and transformational leaders engage with

followers through soliciting ideas (Bacha & Walker, 2012). They stir emotions and

encourage the achievement of followers (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016). Transformational

leaders motivate followers to go beyond the status quo, to set challenging expectations,

and to have a higher performance (Leong & Fischer, 2011). Moreover, these leaders tend

to have followers who are more satisfied and deeply committed because the follower is

empowered, and the leader provides the attention and individualization needed (Leong &

Fischer, 2011).

50

Leaders exhibiting the style of transformational leadership adopt a democratic

approach, and work to improve potential through the enhancement of their follower’s

abilities and skills (Giltinane, 2013). Effective transformational leaders cultivate a trust

with followers (Giltinane, 2013). They are credited with encouraging development and

organizational change (Basham, 2012). Considered heroes, transformational leaders

support the organizational mission and possess a charismatic personality who influences

followers (Basham, 2012). Transformational leaders are also characterized as having

deeply held personal values (Basham, 2012). These leaders work to develop close

follower relationships by regarding employee needs as important and paying specific

attention to a follower’s individual needs (Gulluce et al., 2016). Finally, transformational

leaders encourage higher levels of innovation and creativity through intellectual

encouragement (Gulluce et al., 2016).

Idealized influence is a leadership characteristic that indicates whether the leader

maintains a follower’s trust, faith, and respect, while demonstrating dedication, appealing

to a follower’s hopes and dreams, and provides an appropriate role model (Bacha &

Walker, 2012; Bass, 1990, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993). Leaders who demonstrate

idealized influence will place followers needs above their own and will be prepared to

take risks and demonstrate devotion to established values (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).

Behavior that places the benefit of the group above those of the individual exhibit the

idea of idealized influence (Quintana, Park, & Cabrera, 2015). Idealized influence can be

further categorized as either attributed or behavioral. Attributed influence indicates

51

leadership charisma, and behavioral influence is actual, as leaders inspire followers to

follow the vision (Bogler et al., 2013).

Inspirational motivation measures a leader’s ability to create a shared vision and

the use of symbols and imagery to focus followers on work, which provides the employee

with a sense of significance (Bacha & Walker, 2012; Bass, 1990, 1999; Bass & Avolio,

1993). Some leaders have a visionary outlook of the future, which can energize followers

and stress ambitious goals (Bogler et al., 2013). Furthermore, inspirational motivation is

a process of stirring followers, and authentic leaders provide a sense of meaning,

challenge, and understanding in their work (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).

Subordinate consideration is an important part of the leader-follower interaction

and allows leaders to develop solid relationships with their followers (Yahaya &

Ebrahim, 2016). Individualized consideration indicates the degree to which the leader

shows interest in the wellbeing of others, creates opportunities for individuality, and

invests in followers who may be disengaged from the group (Bacha & Walker, 2012;

Bass, 1990, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993). This is a situation where the leader pays

personal attention to the follower and individuals are treated equitably but differently

(Bogler et al, 2013; Quintana et al., 2015). As leaders consider followers'

individualization, there is a focus on understanding follower needs and a dedication to

work on continuous development towards the goal of helping followers reach their full

potential (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Learning experiences are stimulated as the leader

delegates projects, provides teaching and coaching, and offers individualized leader-

follower experiences (Hater & Bass, 1988). When leaders engage in an attitude of

52

consideration relative to follower needs, and appreciate the work of their followers, they

demonstrate characteristics of coaching and development (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016).

Additionally, when they delegate responsibilities to followers with the prospect of

developing them, they further employ the idea of individualized consideration (Yahaya &

Ebrahim, 2016).

Intellectual stimulation demonstrates the degree that a leader encourages others to

be creative and innovative. Leaders demonstrating this characteristic provide a nurturing

environment geared to their follower’s values and beliefs, as aligned to the organization

(Bacha & Walker, 2012; Bass, 1990, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993). Intellectual

stimulation causes followers to question conventional problem-solving techniques and

encourages innovative deductive reasoning and methods for continuous improvement

(Avolio & Bass, 2004). It is the fourth facet of transformational leadership and provides

individual followers with challenges to identify and problem solve for themselves

(Quintana et al., 2015). Leaders engaged in intellectual stimulation with followers are

motivated to think innovatively and to explore extraordinary ideas to solve problems

(Bogler et al., 2013). When engaging intellectual simulation, followers are aroused by

the leader and asked to think outside the box (Hater & Bass, 1988). Moreover,

intellectual stimulation includes concepts such as problem-solving skills, and followers

are encouraged to think before taking any form of action (Hater & Bass, 1988). Avolio

and Gardner (2005) indicate that scholarly stimulation provides an atmosphere that

encourages followers to challenge assumptions, rethink problems, and it also creates an

enthusiasm towards innovative thinking.

53

Transactional leadership. Transactional leadership is about the relationship

between managers and followers in areas such as economic exchange, politics, and

psychological values (Dai, Dai, Kuan-Yang, & Hui-Chun, 2013). It is a leadership style

that focuses on daily follower-leader relationships (Kenney, 2012). Transactional

leadership can be defined as a relationship exchange between followers and their leader

when the leader is expected to maintain the status quo to fulfill the self-interest and needs

of the follower (Bogler et al., 2013). However, transactional leadership is restrictive in

relation to employee development, innovation, and creativity, and can hinder

organizational and follower growth (Dai et al., 2013). Transactional leadership is viewed

as a leadership behavior that is less considerate than transformational leadership, and it

does not contribute to the development of organizational commitment (Afshari & Gibson,

2016). Transactional leaders are more task-oriented and focus on outcomes and results

instead of follower perceptions and needs (Dartey-Baah, 2015). In a transactional

culture, relationships are contractual and everything is focused on implicit and explicit

relationships (Bass & Avolio, 1993). These associations have been meaningful and

contribute to the organization's leadership, and research indicated it can provide a

supportive relationship relative to employee perception and behavior (Dai et al., 2013).

Moreover, recent research indicated that transactional leadership may have a positive

influence on employee behavior (Afshari & Gibson, 2016).

Contingent reward is measured in terms of a leader’s recognition of a follower’s

achievements and is a system of rewards and expectations. Leaders provide followers

rewards when performance meets contracted expectations or as followers expend effort

54

(Hater & Bass, 1988). The idea of contingent reward is based on the exchange between

leaders and followers (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016). It provides clarification on follower

expectations and clearly defines the rewards a follower will receive when performance

levels are achieved (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Management-by-exception is a position of status quo where leaders are content

with a standard follower’s performance and is a dimension of transactional leadership

(Quintana et al., 2015). Leadership behavior related to management-by-exception is task-

oriented and is considered a passive leadership behavior (Derue et al., 2011). As a leader

avoids providing direction and working conditions stay the same, followers maintain

status quo, if performance expectations are met (Hater & Bass, 1988). Hater and Bass

(1988) divided the practice of management-by-exception into sub categories of active and

passive leadership.

The active monitoring of follower task execution for mistakes, inaccuracies, or

reacting to complaints is active management-by-exception leadership (Bass, &

Steidlmeier, 1999). It also includes providing ongoing criticism for the purposes of

correction, negative reinforcement, and supervision (Bass, & Steidlmeier, 1999).

Individuals engaging in this leadership style monitor performance and initiate corrective

action when the follower deviates from the prescribed standards (Quintana et al., 2015).

With this style, there is a focus on monitoring the execution of tasks for problems, and it

attempts to correct areas of concern while maintaining performance levels (Avolio &

Bass, 2004). In an active management-by-exception scenario, as problems or mistakes

occur, leaders systematically assess and intervene based upon the follower’s performance

55

and the perceived need of the leader to be actively involved to coach and correct (Yahaya

& Ebrahim, 2016).

Passive management-by-exception is a situation when there is no systematic

reaction related to problem solving (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016). In fact, leaders with this

style tend to avoid decision making and abdicate responsibility (Westerlaken & Woods,

2013). Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999) believe that passive management-by-exception

aligns with laissez-faire leadership practice. It has also been termed as passive avoidant

leadership behavior through which a leader avoids making decisions and only reacts after

problems have escalated (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Such leaders take an attitude of waiting

to see what happens and only become involved when mistakes have been made or

problems occur (Avolio et al., 1999).

A laissez-faire leadership style is considered a non-interference type of leader

who provides followers complete freedom and no specific guidance in goal attainment

(Bhatti et al., 2012). Laissez-faire leadership does not impact follower perception of

organizational creativity (Derecskei, 2016). Laissez-faire leaders ignore differences such

as generational dynamics (Bell & Mjoli, 2014). The idea of laissez-faire leadership relies

on a leader’s ability to be tolerant and self-controlled when faced with conflicting

situations (Bell & Mjoli, 2014). Laissez-faire is a perspective where leaders require little

of followers, allow for autonomy, and exhibit a hands-off leadership style (Yahaya &

Ebrahim, 2016). Absent from laissez-faire leadership are extrinsic and intrinsic

incentives such as feedback, rewards, and a leader’s involvement (Yahaya & Ebrahim,

2016). Yahaya and Ebrahim (2016) argue that this leadership is a lack of leadership.

56

Theories of Organizational Commitment

Suma and Lesha (2013) claimed that over the past three or four decades,

organizational commitment has become a fashionable variable. As with any other

psychological construct, it has no universal definition (Suma & Lesha, 2013). Porter,

Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974) believe that organizational commitment includes the

consideration of employee strengths and level of involvement. It can be characterized by

a minimum of three factors: a trust in and agreement on the organization's goals and

values, a spirit of cooperation and an exertion of considerable effort on behalf of the

organization, and a distinct desire to maintain membership within the organization (Porter

et al., 1974). Individuals who are committed to an organization work harder, exhibit a

higher work attendance, possess higher job satisfaction, demonstrate increased

productivity, and have less inclination of leaving employment (Patiar & Wang, 2016).

Conversely, those that exhibit less organizational commitment demonstrate absenteeism,

poorer work performance, have high turnover, and are overall costlier to the organization

(Patiar & Wang, 2016).

Organizational commitment can be divided into two parts, attitude and behavior

(Sabir et al., 2011). Meyer and Allen’s (1997) theory of organizational commitment

suggests that understanding commitment and its impact of a follower’s attitude and

behavior, supports an organization’s sustainability. Moreover, a more developed

awareness of the theory will increase sustainability by helping to predict the impact of

change within the organization and provide ways to manage it more successfully (Meyer

& Allen, 1997). Aydin, Sarier, and Uysal (2011) defined organizational commitment as a

57

positive desire to continue membership in the organization for purposes of self-

identification and loyalty. Additionally, the employee hopes for organizational success

and demonstrates a willingness to expend extra effort to benefit the organization (Aydin

et al., 2011). Gulluce et al. (2016) wrote that Meyer and Allen's classification of

organizational commitment is the most widely accepted in literature.

Allen and Meyer’s (1990) theory identifies three types of commitment: affective,

continuance, and normative. Affective and continuance commitment can be distinguished

from each other in that affective commitment describes organizational attachment

through emotion, identification, and involvement while continuance commitment

considers the supposed cost of leaving the organization (Gatling et al., 2016). These

differ from normative commitment which suggest a responsibility to stay with the

organization (Gatling et al., 2016)

As stated, organizational commitment occurs across three dimensions, one of

which is Meyer and Allen’s (1997) proposed affective commitment. Employees who

maintain a strong affective commitment stay at their organizations because they want to,

they need to, or the feel they should (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Meyer and Allen (1991)

define affective commitment as a position of attitude whereby individuals reflect on their

organizational relationship in terms of personal values, and the alignment of these beliefs

with the overall organizational goals. Employees who accept organizational goals are

motivated to work toward the betterment of the organization (Yucel et al., 2014).

Moreover, authentic leadership is an important stimulus of employee affective

organizational commitment (Gatling et al., 2016). Clinebell et al. (2013) concur with

58

this assessment and state that continued employment is a product of the employee’s

motivation. Employees who have good transformational leaders have a high affective

commitment and are more satisfied, which leads to better work performance and a more

successful organization (Gulluce et al., 2016). Additionally, authentic leadership style

has both a positive and significant relationship to affective commitment (Gatling et al.,

2016).

Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2002) conducted a meta-analysis

and found that affective commitment was highly correlated with job satisfaction and

commitment. Stazyk, Pandey, and Wright (2011) indicate that affective commitment

correlates with employee attitudes. Affective commitment can be divided into distinctive

groups including: personal characteristics, job characteristics, work experiences, and

structural characteristics (Dunham, Grube, & Castañeda, 1994; Mowday, Steers, &

Porter, 1992; Yousef, 1998). Moreover, a study by Steers (1977) concurs indicating

organizational commitment significantly is influenced by an employee’s personal

characteristics, the job characteristics, and personal work experiences.

Monday, Steers, and Porter (1992) examined the role of personal characteristics

and found that the attributes a person brings to a work environment can predict

organizational commitment. In a study on personal characteristics (gender, age,

education, salary, and work experience) and organizational commitment, Ogunjinmi,

Onadeko, Ladebo, and Ogunjinmi (2014) utilized the Pearson correlation and multiple

linear regression analysis and found a significance influence between personal

characteristics and employee organizational commitment. Other personal characteristics

59

include marital status, organizational tenure, and job status (Olukayode, 2013). Abreua,

Cunhab, and Rebouças (2013) examined the long-term influence of five specific personal

characteristics (employment type, job level, gender, education level, and tenure) on

affective, normative and continuance commitment. Findings indicate the employee’s type

of work or position had the strongest influence on affective and normative commitment

(Abreua et al., 2013). Furthermore, time of service and the level of education were the

stronger indicators of continuance commitment (Abreua et al., 2013). Lastly, an

employee’s gender and job level had negligible effect on commitment (Abreua et al.,

2013).

Job characteristic influence active commitment, including mediators such as

feedback from job, task variety, task autonomy, and decision-making autonomy (Dunham

et al., 1994; Gillet & Vandenberghe, 2014). Organizational commitment can be impacted

by factors, including task identity, task significance, skill variety, autonomy, and

feedback (Bakri & Ali, 2015). In a study of job characteristics, transformational

leadership, and organizational commitment, Gillet and Vandenberghe (2014) found

support for previous findings and a positive correlation between transformational

leadership, organizational commitment, and the purposeful characteristics of work.

Follower perception of job characteristics is an important psychological factor that is

linked to active organizational commitment (Gillet & Vandenberghe, 2014).

Steers (1977) defined the measure of work experience to include an employee’s

attitude towards the company. Work experience is also measured by the extent that the

employee’s expectations mirror reality (Steers, 1977). Employee self-perception of

60

importance is compared to the organization actions over time, and the perceived

dependability of the organization relative to implied commitments (Steers, 1977). Work

experience is directly proportional to an employee’s commitment, and it is found to be

closely related to organizational commitment, even over personal or job characteristics

(Steers, 1977).

The impact of structural determinants on employee turnover and job satisfaction

is a valuable exploration for organizational sustainability and follower leadership

(Arekar, Jain, Desphande, & Sherin, 2016). Structural characteristics deal with the place

of work and work setting (Arekar et al., 2016). It includes factors such as the

employment sector, occupation, job level, or geographical location (Zatzick, Deery, &

Iverson, 2015). It can contain characteristics such as sector, industry, and organizational

size (Gerber, 2012). Structural features of a job can also be comprised of distributive

justice, autonomy, opportunity for promotion, and perceived social support (Arekar et al.,

2016). Abreua at al. (2013) discovered that structural reform produced long-term and

positive effects on the level of employee organizational commitment. Issues with

structural characteristics and the work environment are more easily identified and

adjustable (Arekar et al., 2016). Structural variables such as job routinization and job

stress have a negative effect on employee organizational commitment as measured by job

satisfaction (Arekar et al., 2016).

Relationships between employees and their organizations are important for

success and sustainability (Khan, Naseem, & Masood, 2016). An employee’s level of job

satisfaction impacts organizational commitment, which is correlated to employee

61

continuance commitment (Khan et al., 2016). The notion of continuance commitment is

founded on an employee’s need to remain in the current organization and can stem from

the perceived lack of options or a fear of losing benefits (Clinebell et al., 2013; Khan, et

al., 2016). In this case, an employee is at a disadvantage when faced with leaving the

organization (Aydin et al., 2011). Continuance commitment may also be impacted by

antecedents such as the employee’s age or tenure, level of career satisfaction, and intent

to leave the organization (Dunham et al., 1994).

McGee and Ford’s (1987) research indicated there are two subcomponents of

continuance commitment. First is the notion of ‘low alternatives’, which is when an

employee’s commitment is based on a seeming shortage of employment options (McGee

& Ford, 1987). The second is ‘high personal sacrifice’, and is based upon a perceived

loss if the employee leaves the organization (McGee & Ford, 1987). The side-bet theory

reflects the belief that continuance commitment increases when side bets are accumulated

(Becker, 1960; Meyer & Allen, 1984). The term side-bet is used to explain the

phenomena of an employee’s maintained membership within the organization through the

idea of consistent lines of activity (Becker, 1960; Meyer & Allen, 1984). If the employee

discontinues the activity (i.e. employment), there is a risk of losing the side bet or

extraneous benefits (Becker, 1960; Meyer & Allen, 1984).

The degree an organizational member commits to the organization’s values and

norms is normative commitment (Winston, Cerff, & Kirui, 2012). It is a sense of

obligation, for moral or ethical reasons, to remain (Paramanandam, 2013). This theory

presumes the more the member commits to the organization's principles and standards,

62

the more they will be motivated (Winston et al., 2012). Employees with high levels of

normative commitment simply feel a need to remain employed out of an obligation

towards the organization (Clinebell et al., 2013). This obligatory view results from

experiences or observations of role models, or intrinsic or extrinsic motivations that add

to the employee’s socialization experiences and triggers normative commitment (Yucel et

al., 2014).

The Multidimensional Nature of Organizational Commitment

Multidimensional constructs are used extensively to characterize multiple unique

dimensions as a single hypothetical idea (Edwards, 2001). Organizational commitment

can be defined as a psychological connection between the follower and the organization

that reduces the likelihood of voluntary organizational separation (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

Organizational commitment can take on multiple directions due to the influence of

attitudes and behaviors of both leaders and followers (McGee & Ford, 1987). The

multidimensionality of commitment can be considered in both form and focus (Meyer &

Allen, 1997). A focus on commitment implies that the employee is committed to the

organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

A multidimensional psychological attachment between employees and their

organizations is an outcome of organizational commitment and is multifaceted in nature

(Aladwan, Bhanugopan, & Fish, 2013; Meyer & Allen, 1997). Furthermore,

organizational commitment is complex because it consists of affective and normative

commitment, two constructs of positively related outcomes (Afshari & Gibson, 2016).

Additionally, the degree of employee attachment with the organization will vary from

63

person to person (Sabir et al., 2011). Organizational commitment is multidimensional

and encompasses worker loyalty, a willing spirit to employ more effort for the

organization, a loyalty to organization’s values, and a dedication to a relationship with

the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Factors such as religion, gender, and education

influence workplace behavior (Hage & Posner, 2015). Moreover, managerial strategies

that identify the multidimensional nature and related variables are necessary to elevate

levels of employee organizational commitment (Rodriquez, Franco, & Santos, 2006).

Contemporary Studies Linking Leadership and Commitment

Various studies indicate that leadership style is as antecedent of organizational

commitment (Sabir et al., 2011). Leadership style is a major influencing factor of

organizational commitment (Saha, 2016). There is strong relationship between

leadership style and organizational commitment (Gatling et al, 2016). However,

researchers seem to pay more attention to transactional and transformational leadership

when considering the construct (Sabir et al., 2011). Shim, Jo, and Hoover (2015)

explored the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational

commitment within the police force culture. The research results indicated that culture

was the mediator linking commitment and transformational leadership (Shim et al.,

2015). Rego, Lopes, and Nascimento (2016) conducted a quantitative study on authentic

leadership and organizational commitment and outcomes demonstrated positive

psychological capital as an intermediary between the constructs. In a non-profit study of

secondary education, researchers found a positive correlation between transformational

leadership and organizational commitment (Feizi, Ebrahimi, & Beheshti, 2014).

64

Moreover, idealized influence demonstrated the greatest impact on the dedication of

educators (Feizi et al., 2014).

Research on transformational leadership and organizational commitment

indicated a relationship between the constructs and suggested that affective commitment

was the most impactful variable (Gulluce et al., 2016). Results from a study of school

teachers indicated a positive and significant correlation existed between transformational

leadership and organizational commitment (Feizi et al., 2014). Moreover, in this study,

idealized influence had a greater impact on organizational commitment (Feizi et al.,

2014). Another study found a positive relationship between organizational commitment

and transformational leadership behaviors (Garg & Jain, 2013). Small and medium-sized

businesses in the manufacturing and service industry were surveyed using Bass and

Avolio's Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (1996) and Porter's organizational

commitment questionnaire (1974), and the results indicated that transformational

leadership had a positive impact on organizational commitment (Mesu, Sanders, & van

Riemsdijk, 2015). Mesu et al. (2015) recommended that small and medium organizations

in the service industry should encourage their leaders to employ transformational

leadership styles, while those in the manufacturing sector should engage in various types

of leadership to promote employee organizational commitment.

Khasawneh, Omari, and Abu-Tineh (2012) conducted a research study on the

relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment in

vocational education. The findings provided a strong, significant, and positive statistical

relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment

65

(Khasawneh et al., 2012). Moreover, Mclaggan, Bezuidenhout, and Botha (2013) found

that transformational leadership inspired employees in the Mpumalanga mining to be

more committed to their organization and the research strongly linked leadership style

and organizational commitment.

Zehir, Sehitoglu, and Erdogan (2012) conducted research in Turkey and

concluded that there was a significantly positive relationship between transformational

leadership and commitment. In a research study on the relationship between

transformational and transactional leadership, and organizational commitment, the

authors discovered a positive correlation, and results showed that transactional leadership

style was more effective in enhancing levels of organizational commitment in Nigerian

bank employees (Fasola et al., 2013). Susanj and Jakopec (2012) explored the

relationship between leadership styles and organizational commitment and found a

positive link to leadership style and organizational commitment. Lastly, in a cross-

sectional survey on the relationship between leadership style and organizational

commitment in full-time employees working various helpdesks in a Malaysian contact

center, Aghashahi, Davarpanah, Omar, and Sarli (2013) concluded that transformational

leadership predicts affective and normative commitment.

Research Variables

The independent variable for this research was personal perceived leadership style

measured using the broad leadership questionnaire, which considers transformational

leadership, transactional leadership, and passive-avoidant leadership (Avolio & Bass,

2004). More specifically, transformation leadership was divided into four distinct areas:

66

idealized influence (attributed and behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation, and individualized consideration (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Transactional

leadership was measured based upon contingent reward and management-by-exception,

active or passive (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Lastly, passive-avoidant leadership was

assessed considering the laissez-faire leadership style (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

The dependent variable was personal perceived organizational commitment

measured by Meyer and Allen’s TCM Employee Commitment Survey. Understanding

commitment and its impact on attitude and behavior is important for organizational

longevity (Meyer & Allen, 1997). The TCM Employee Commitment Survey identifies

three types of commitment: affective, continuance, and normative (Meyer & Allen,

1997). Multiple research studies suggested a relationship between the variables of

leadership style and organizational commitment (Aghashahi et al., 2013; Fasola et al,

2013; Feizi et al., 2014; Garg & Jain, 2013; Gatling et al., 2016; Gulluce et al., 2016;

Khasawneh et al., 2012; Mclaggan et al., 2013; Mesu et al., 2015; Rego et al., 2016; Sabir

et al., 2011; Saha, 2016; Shim et al., 2015; Susanj & Jakopec, 2012; Zehir et al., 2012).

This research utilized correlational analysis to examine associations between leadership

and organizational commitment.

Transition and Summary

Academic literature provided insight on faith-based organizations, and for this

research was defined as a 501©(3) organization with a faith purpose and gross receipts

exceeding $25,000 annually. Research in faith-based organizations was limited in the

academic literature; nevertheless, the work of these organizations is important.

67

Investigation of the literature provided understanding of the construct of motivation and

seven major theories contribute to the modern understanding. Organizational

commitment is a construct that considers employee behaviors. Theories of organizational

commitment emphasize employee strengths, attitude, and behavior, as well as level of

involvement.

Leadership theory encompasses social influence and goal achievement and there

are more than sixty-six theories that have shaped the idea and includes concepts such as

leadership practice and perception. There are multiple trait theories of leadership which

emphasize human characteristics. Behavioral theories of leadership highlights concepts

such as tasks, relationships, change, and passive leadership. There is extensive research

on both leadership behavior and organizational commitment and both topics are

important to business. Studies suggest that in general, leadership style influences

organizational commitment and may even pose a significant and positive relationship

(Garg & Jain, 2013; Gatling et al., 2016; Khasawneh et al., 2012; Saha, 2016). Finally,

organizational commitment is a multidimensional construct of singular ideas including

emotional attachment, identification, loyalty, effort, and responsibility. The subsequent

section addresses the research project.

68

Section 2: The Project

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was developed to test a

comprehensive collection of broad-range leadership styles (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The

questionnaire examines individual leadership behaviors ranging from avoidant to

transformational (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Although the questionnaire can be used with

multiple audiences and a broader range of leadership behaviors, it is suitable for all levels

within an organization and across various industries (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The MLQ

has been utilized in numerous research studies and doctoral dissertations (Avolio & Bass,

2004).

The concept of leadership is examined given work-related relevance and the

broader context of an individual’s life space (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Leadership research

has created a higher order of change in accelerating individual effort and improving

group performance (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Leadership can also radically shift

viewpoints of individuals and their definition of meaningful work (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

This section provides a summary of the research methodology and design, population and

sample data collection approaches, survey instruments, and information on reliability and

validity.

Purpose Statement



organizational commitment in employees of a faith-based organization. The research

provides a greater understanding about the relationship between leadership and

69

organizational commitment in faith-based organizations. The independent variable was

defined as perceived personal leadership style as measured by the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. The dependent variable was perceived personal organizational

commitment as measured by the Three-Component Model (TCM) of Employee

Commitment (Meyer et al., 1993).

Role of the Researcher

Quantitative research requires a devotion to the research method and design; the

development of research questions and hypotheses. Furthermore, the researcher must

investigate and implement sound approaches to the research study (Chin, Junglas, &

Roldán, 2012). The process was a learning experience for the researcher as new

understanding was gained through the empirical investigation (Chin et al., 2012). Stake

(2010) concurred indicating that researchers are responsible for topic selection, study

development, and the presentation of research outcomes. Overall, the researcher was

responsible for the entire process.

The researcher has volunteered or worked in a faith-based organization for the

past 20 years, in a variety of capacities. Additionally, the researcher was familiar with

several faith-based organizational types, and had noted the importance of leadership and

business practice. However, there was limited research conducted in faith-based

organizations on the constructs of leadership and commitment. The researcher

investigated a variety of leadership and commitment survey instruments and selected two

notable, valid, and reliable tools that had been used extensively in scholarly research.

70

The researcher investigated options for the use of these instruments and worked

with Mind Garden, Inc. to develop a combined instrument to test a relationship between

broad leadership styles and organizational commitment. The researcher selected several

demographic questions that were also included in the electronic survey. The researcher

was responsible for the review and testing of the survey process prior to distribution.

The researcher’s role during the survey development process was to identify

several faith-based organizations for the selective sample and obtain permission for the

research from the organizations. Creswell (2014) indicated that it is important for the

researcher to respect the research site and cause as little disruption as possible.

Therefore, the researcher contacted a leader with authority within the faith-based

organization to centralize the process of communicating information regarding the survey

process.

Mind Garden, Inc. provided the researcher with special links for survey

distribution and the researcher emailed the survey information as prearranged with the

organizational leader. In some cases, the survey was distributed to all email address

provided to the researcher, in other cases the organizational leader distributed the link to

the organization to ensure clarification regarding participation (i.e., that the researcher

had permission for the research). During the data collection process, Mind Garden, Inc.

electronically collected and stored the data results, and at the completion of the survey

period, provided the raw data to the researcher. The researcher focused on data analysis

and organization. Using the quantitative method allowed for the researcher to approach

the analysis with impartiality, since the data was objectively obtained from the

71

participant’s personal perceived leadership style and level of organizational commitment.

The researcher used regression analysis to explore for a relationship between leadership

and commitment, to generate new insight, and to dig deeper into the topics (Chin et al.,

2012).

Participants

The research was conducted in seven faith-based organizations and included a

cross representation of organizational type, employee job function, tenure, and level of

responsibility. Participants were from two large mega-churches, a K-12 Christian school,

a Christian University, two small ministries, and a national Christian certification agency.

These organizations had a faith-based purpose, were registered as a 501©(3) Public

Charity, and had annual gross receipts exceeding $25,000. The researcher may have had

a working relationship or personal connection with employees in the organizations;

however, any employee who worked directly for the researcher was excluded. In all

cases, the participants were contacted via e-mail and invited to participate.

Research conducted with human subjects is under federal protection through the

Department of Health and Human Services. An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a

committee of faculty who reviews research requests to ensure the participants’ rights,

welfare, and concerns such as privacy ethics, are reviewed and approved. Additionally,

the IRB process requires informed consent and confidentiality for the protection of the

participants. Approval from Liberty University’s IRB was necessary prior to the

collection of data (Appendix F). Ethical protection of participants was enforced, and a

third-party research organization was used for the data collection process. An email

72

received by potential participants described the purpose of the research, the data

collection process, survey directions, and how the findings would be shared. Personal

identifiers were excluded.

Research Method and Design

The research utilized a quantitative, non-experimental, regression model to test

the relationship between the independent variable, personal perceived leadership style,

and the dependent variable, organizational commitment. Through the research of a

sample drawn from the population, options, trends, and attitudes can be described

through a survey methodology (Creswell, 2014). The instruments used in the research

was Bass and Avolio’s (1992) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and Meyer

and Allen’s (1991, 1997) TCM Employee Commitment Survey, and provided values for

the examination of casual social science variables; leadership behavior, and


Research Method

Scholarly research is conducted using three research methods: qualitative,

quantitative, or a combination of the two known as mixed-methods. Typically,

qualitative data is open-ended while quantitative research is used to test a theory

(Creswell, 2014). Additionally, quantitative and qualitative research may contain some

aspects of the other to better explain the collected data or observations (Creswell, 2014).

Exploring each method helped determine the method selected. The following outlines

each method and provides an explanation, supported by literature.

73

Qualitative method. Keegan (2009) states that qualitative research places an

emphasis on validity, reliability, and methodology, and certain types of research are more

aligned towards qualitative studies including exploratory and market or brand specific

research. Stake (2010) suggests that qualitative research is a focus on personal

experience, human perception, understanding, intuition, and skepticism to refine theories

and experiments; moreover, qualitative inquiry can be interpretive, experimental,

situational, and based on individual personality. Creswell (2013) proposes that

qualitative research is used when problems or issues need to be studied. Qualitative

researchers gather data that can be utilized to obtain results relative to trends or themes

based on words and not statistics (Patten, 2009). Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach,

and Richardson (2005) write that the qualitative research method is a systematic approach

used to further understand the essential nature or qualities of an occurrence or change

relative to an actual framework.

Quantitative method. Quantitative methods use statistical data, systematically

investigating social phenomena (Watson, 2015). Quantitative approaches assume

studying, measuring, and analyzing data relationships (Watson, 2015). Research

procedures and plans for the research approach span all aspects of the data collection

method, data collection and analysis, and data interpretation (Creswell, 2014). Patten

(2009) writes that a distinctive feature of quantitative research is in the methods that

researchers use to gather data, which are quantifiable and allow for statistical analysis.

Quantitative methods rely on linear characteristics, dimensions, and statistical analysis

(Starke, 2010).

74

Mixed method. Mixed-methodology research employs both qualitative and

quantitative methodologies and should be used when either method in isolation may fail

to provide insight on the research problem than either method would supply individually

(Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2010). During the data collection process, both methods are used to

provide a broader interpretation of the problem (Creswell, 2014). Deciding to choose

mixed-method research hinges on multiple items include the research question and

purpose of the study (Venkatesh, Brown, & Bala, 2013).

The method selected in this research was quantitative correlation using standard

simple and multiple regression to test for a relationship between the theories. Quantitative

research was selected because the specific purpose was to test a theory and the nature of

the research question. Additionally, a regression model uses correlational statistics to

measure the relationship of variables (Creswell, 2014). Mixed and qualitative methods

were not selected as the research method because, in most cases, qualitative data is open-

ended and the specific focus is on the use of validated survey tools (Creswell, 2014).

Thompson and Panacek (2007) suggest using, whenever possible, validated

instruments rather than developing a new survey due to the potential of

misunderstandings and for increased validity. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

is an 18-item assessment, typically utilized as a 360-degree feedback instrument and for

this research, the participant answered questions based upon personal perceived

leadership style (Bass & Avolio, 2004).

Alternative leadership surveys exist, such as the Servant Leadership Survey

(SLS); however, its underlying premise is to test servant leadership theory while the

75

MLQ considers broad leadership types (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). The

Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) developed by Kouzes and Posner (2012) measures

five key leadership traits through self-reporting along with a 360-degree feedback

process, and although the instrument is popular, it was not an affordable option for

research purposes. Another leadership survey example is the Authentic Leadership

Questionnaire (ALQ) developed to assess four leadership characteristics; however, the

questionnaire is narrow in scope, focusing only on authentic leadership behaviors

(Walumbwa et al., 2008). With the goal to evaluate broad leadership behaviors, the MLQ

was determined to be the most appropriate instrument and provided a cost-effective and

flexible option. Additionally, there is over 20 years of published research based on

studies that utilized the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.

Generally, it is recognized that organizational commitment is a multidimensional

construct (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Meyer and Allen (1997) developed and defined the

Three-Component Model (TCM), which served as the framework to develop the initial

survey. The measures were further developed, revised, and published, and Meyer and

Allen’s (1991, 1997) Employee Commitment Survey has more than 20 years of published

research, and both the MLQ and TCM are validated and reliable.

Research Design

Creswell (2014) suggests that the quantitative approach tests theories through the

examination of variable relationships. The quantitative method has two broad categories:

experimental and descriptive (Watson, 2015). Two additional designs are correlational

76

and quasi-experimental. The choice of design will be based on the research methodology

and the problem to be addressed through the research (Creswell, 2014).

Experimental. Experimental research seeks to find a cause and effect

relationship (Abdul Talib & Mat Saat, 2017). Unique to experimental research is the

ability to control the environment (Charness, Gneezy, & Kuhn, 2012). Experimental

studies manipulate experiences to observe the effect of the dependent variable on the

independent variable and will impact how the data is collected, analyzed, and construed

(Watson, 2015).

Descriptive. In a descriptive study, researchers observe relationships between the

variables (Botti & Endacott, 2005). The variables are measured and data can be analyzed

using statistics (Creswell, 2014). Descriptive research involves naturalistic data, where

research settings occur without manipulating the variables (Nassaji, 2015). Descriptive

research is used to describe phenomenon (Nassaji, 2015). This research focus is more on

the ‘what’ of the findings than ‘how or why’ (Nassaji, 2015). Typically survey

instruments and observations are the methods used to gather data for a descriptive study

(Gall et al., 2010).

Correlational. Within qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods are research

design approaches that provide specific guidance for inquiry methods (Creswell, 2013).

The nature of this research was correlational and the purpose was to test for a relationship

between leadership and workplace commitment. The quantitative design utilized a

combination of survey instruments: Bass and Avolio’s (1992) Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ) and Meyer and Allen’s (1991, 1997) TCM Employee Commitment

77

Survey to address the research question. Research on the relationship between personal

perceived leadership style and personal perceived organizational commitment addresses a

gap within the literature of faith-based organizations. The research question inquired into

the relationship between personal perceived leadership style and organizational

commitment of employees in faith-based organizations. The selective sample was from

the population of faith-based employees.

Typically, the MLQ is utilized as a 360-degree feedback instrument, however, for

research purposes, the MLQ can be used to examine individual leadership profiles

(Avolio & Bass, 2004). Depending on the research choice, it is appropriate to have a

leader complete a self-rating and, in this case, the MLQ provided a suitable assessment of

perceived personal leadership behavior (Mind Garden FAQ, 2016). The MLQ was

administered from the perspective of self-rating, and participants expressed their personal

perceived leadership style. The independent variable was defined as the perceived

personal leadership style as measured through the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.

Meyer and Allen’s TCM Employee Commitment Survey utilizes a

multidimensional construct that measures affective, continuance, and normative

commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997). The dependent variable was used to gather data on

participants’ personal perceived organizational commitment. The TCM was developed to

provide further understanding of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

Personal perceived leadership style and employee organizational commitment are

two vital components relative to the employee. The reason the research question was

chosen was to examine whether there was truly a relationship between personal perceived

78

leadership style and organizational commitment, and if there was any statistically

significant relationship between personal perceived leadership style and organizational

commitment of employees in faith-based organizations. Persistence in a course of action

implies commitment, and committed employees work harder to achieve organizational

goals (Meyer & Allen, 2004). Moreover, Meyer and Allen (1991) suggest that

commitment might influence behavior and that the relationship between any of the

commitment types may provide outcomes of interest. The literature suggested that there

were limited studies within faith-based organizations and on the relationship between

leadership practice and organizational commitment (Okinyi, 2015).

Population and Sampling

Data regarding leadership and organizational commitment was collected through

the combined survey instruments: Bass and Avolio’s (1992) Multifactor Leadership


Survey. To test for a relationship between personal perceived leadership style and

organizational commitment of employees in faith-based organizations, the population

was defined as follows. The National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) provided a

definitional structure on nonprofit organizations, which included a subset of faith-based

organizations.

Non-profit organizations are divided into three categories: 501©(3) Public

Charities, 501©(3) Private Foundations, and Other Exempt Organizations (NCCS, 2016).

Additionally, NCCS further divides 501©(3) Public Charities into two categories:

Registered with the IRS and Unregistered (NCCS, 2016). The NCCS’ most recent data

79

from 2013 indicated more than 1,108,652 501©(3) Public Charities exist within the

United States, and of those organizations, 271,311 are reported under the National

Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) classification of ‘religious’ or faith-based (NCCS

501©(3) Public Charities Core File).

The United States Department of Labor Statistics provides research data on the

nonprofit sector focusing on 501©(3) organizations. The most recent data from the

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) was from 2012 and indicated a potential of 769,882

employees within the NAICS Sector number 813 (religious, grant making, civic, and

professional organizations) (National NAICS 2-digit, 2012). However, the actual number

of employees within the subset of faith-based organizations was undetermined because

there is not a central registry capturing this information.

The population for this research was employees who work for faith-based

organizations that had a faith-based purpose; were registered as a 501©(3) Public Charity

in the United States (determined by the Internal Revenue Service); and had annual gross

receipts exceeding $25,000. Additionally, participants were both full or part-time

employees at any level within their organization (they did not need to hold a leadership

position), and were 18 years of age or older, and the research excluded individuals who

solely volunteer their services. Participants were required to have worked in a faith-

based organization, and have cumulative tenure of at least one year regardless of when.

The tenure criterion of one year was selected to ensure the sample represented employees

with experience.

80

When designing survey research, it is important to determine the minimum

sample size to obtain data that represents significant variances in populations (Nisen &

Schwertman, 2008). The researcher used a non-probability sample and respondents were

selected based upon convenience and availability (Creswell, 2014). Convenience

sampling was the most logical selection rationale since the population was undetermined,

which made it difficult to select a random sample or a systematic sample (Creswell,

2014). The researcher first identified several faith-based organizations within the

population and secured permission to conduct research at these organizations (Creswell,

2014).

The selection sample for this research was ±500 employees from across seven

faith-based organizations. The sample was drawn from the seven faith-based

organizations and included two congregations, a certification organization, a Christian

university, a Christian school, and two small ministries. The sample size formula utilized

in this research is provided in Figure 3.

81

Figure 3. G*Power 3.1.9.2 sample size equation

The sample size was calculated using an a-priori analysis for multiple regression

with a 5% margin of error, a 95% level of confidence (Charan & Biswas, 2013). Based

on the G*Power sample size calculation, 56 completed responses were required (Faul,

Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). The average response rate for an online survey is

20% (Laguilles, Williams, & Saunders, 2011). Given the expected response rate and the

sample size, a minimum of 280 invitations were distributed.

Data Collection

Instruments

The MLQ (5X-Short) questionnaire is a 45-item organizational survey that has

been validated through research (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The three leadership styles

82

(transformational, transaction, and passive/avoidant) are measured by 36 questions and

nine questions measure leader effectiveness (Sudha, Shahnawaz, & Farhat, 2016). The

purpose of the questionnaire was to identify and measure key leadership behaviors, which

have been linked to individual and organizational success (Avolio & Bass, 2004). On

average, the 45 question MLQ requires 15 minutes to complete (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Participants were asked to read each question and indicate their response using a five-

point Likert-type rating scale (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Avolio and Bass (2004) state that 14 samples were used to validate and cross-

validate the MLQ Form 5X. Cronbach’s coefficients of reliability for the MLQ Form 5X

range from 0.74 to 0.94 (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Through Avolio and Bass’ (2004)

research, more than 3,700 respondents provided self-ratings on leadership style. Fit

indices were reviewed in 1995 based on the initial validation results (Avolio & Bass,

2004). The 1999 data set was tested, and the six-factor model of the MLQ demonstrated

fit indices that exceeded the minimum cut-offs and demonstrated a best absolute fit

(Avolio & Bass, 2004). The MLQ has been tested against other conceptual models from

literature, and the six-factor model demonstrates the best-fit indices with low discriminate

validity while results provide strong support of the six-factor model (Avolio & Bass,

2004). Moreover, further testing of the nine-factor model demonstrated best fit, and

findings indicated concluding outcomes that examined broad range leadership (Avolio &

Bass, 2004). The third edition, which was the most recent manual available for the MLQ,

provided support for research use of the nine-factor model (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

83

Finally, with the purchase of the MLQ Form 5X, a letter of permission was granted

through Mind Garden, Inc. along with a copyright statement to use (Appendix A).

The Three-Component Model (TCM) Employee Commitment Survey was

developed and validated by Meyer and Allen (2004). Meyer and Allen’s (2004) TCM

survey reliability is supported by results from empirical studies. The three components of

organizational commitment (affective, continuance, and normative) provide evidence of

reliability (Meyer & Allen, 2004). A coefficient alpha has been used to estimate internal

consistency of the three scales and median reliabilities were .85, .79, and .73 for

affective, continuance, and normative commitment, respectively (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

The survey instrument contained questions related to the employee perception

(Meyer & Allen, 2004). Meyer and Allen (1997) view commitment as a psychological

state impacted by the employee-company relationship, and commitment (or a lack of

commitment) will be the major predictor of an employee continuance. As participants

read each question, they were asked to indicate their selection using a 5-point Likert scale

(Meyer & Allen, 2004). Meyer and Allen (2004) recommend that for survey

administration purposes, questions pertaining to the three scales (affective, continuance,

and normative) are not asked sequentially, but in a consistent though random order

(Meyer & Allen, 2004). Additionally, best results are received when the survey is

completed anonymously (Meyer & Allen, 2004). Meyer and Allen (2004) recommend

that either correlation or regression be used as the data analytic (Meyer & Allen, 2004).

Meyer and Allen (2004) indicated that the response scale on the Three-

Component Model (TCM) Employee Commitment Survey may be altered from the 7-

84

point Likert to a 5-point scale. It is also recommended when combining instruments that

statements are mixed (if a common scale is used) (Meyer & Allen, 2004). Therefore, for

this research, a standard 5-point Likert-type scale was used. According to the authors, a

coefficient alpha was used to estimate the internal consistency of the TCM (Meyer &

Allen, 1997). Additionally, the findings matched the hypothesis and provided further

evidence for construct validity (Meyer & Allen, 2004). Permission to use and publish the

Three-Component Model Employee Commitment Survey was granted by the authors.

(Letter of approval is found in Appendix D).

Data Collection Technique

The research survey was distributed through the Mind Garden Transform System,

and invitations were sent via email from [email protected]. Potential participants

received an email explaining the confidentiality of the survey and the survey's purpose

along with information on voluntary participation. The survey was self-administered and

participants read and acknowledged the statement of informed consent, which preceded

the survey. Survey participants completed the questionnaire from a personal perspective

of how frequently they observed their engagement in the specific leadership behaviors

and attributes (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Lastly, participants were notified that the research

outcomes would be published, and no personal information related to participants will be

included in the published results.

The survey instructions asked participants to answer with the most accurate

response using a five-point Likert-type rating scale (Table 1), and the survey instrument

was designed to be completed within 20 to 30 minutes.

85

Table 1

Survey Response Values/Options

Mind Garden Likert-Type Rating Scale ________________________________________________________________________ Blank = Unsure 0 = Not at all 1 = Once in a while 2 = Sometimes 3 = Fairly Often 4 = Frequently, if not always ________________________________________________________________________

Although Likert-type scales are considered ordinal, the measurement of data

variables for leadership style and organizational commitment were transformed into

interval levels of measurement for parametric testing (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Participants

were required to answer all items (forced response) and were instructed to select a

response of ‘Unsure’ if an item was irrelevant, or they do not know the answer (Avolio &

Bass, 2004). According to Mind Garden, Inc., when a participant selected ‘Unsure’, the

data was treated as if the participant skipped the question (Avolio & Bass, 2004). It was

not within the scope of this research to understand the reason for missing values, and

there were multiple options available for dealing with missing data (Avolio & Bass,

2004). For this research, incomplete survey responses (where the participants closed the

survey without finishing) were excluded from analysis (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The

scoring for each of the MLQ scales was an average of all item responses for the given

scale divided by the number of items in the scale (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Missing data

86

(when a participant selected the response ‘Unsure’) were not considered as responses and

were excluded; however, the sum of the responses for each subscale was divided for a

mean score by Mind Garden and provided in the data output (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Data Collection Plan. All attempts for survey completion were through an

electronic survey link created through the Mind Garden Transform System, and emailed

to potential participants. Survey participants were asked to complete the electronic

survey within 14 days. A reminder email was sent on the thirteenth day to all participants

who had not completed the survey. After the 21-day period, if the required response rate

was not met, the researcher sent a final email to non-respondents providing 7 additional

days and requesting that they complete the survey within that time. Another reminder

was sent out one week following the email reminder to those participants who had not

completed the survey.

Data Organization Techniques

The initial survey data was collected, assembled, and secured through Mind

Garden, Inc. A final data file was provided to the researcher in electronic form.

Confidentiality of the data was maintained by the researcher, the data was stored

electronically, and the file was password protected. Furthermore, a backup copy of the

data was stored at the current residence of the researcher in a fireproof safe, and access

was restricted and password protected. The researcher will maintain the data over a

period of 3 years. Additionally, Mind Garden, Inc. has a data retention policy addressed

in the Terms of Service, Section 4 (f) Data Retention Limitation (see Appendix H).

87

Data Analysis Technique

The research was correlational using a survey instrument to gather data to

examine relationships between the variables of personal perceived leadership and

organizational commitment. Regression and correlation analysis were used to determine

the relationship between the variables and to evaluate the null hypothesis (Creswell,

2014). Data output was provided through Mind Garden, Inc., and IBM’s SPSS was used

to analyze the data. Data was tested by residual analysis and found to be normally

distributed. The findings did not uncover any evidence of statistical errors.

Reliability and Validity

Reliability and validity were incorporated in the design as were necessary

components of scholarly research. Reliability is the quality and consistency of a measure

and is relevant because it indicates the accuracy and consistently of the research

instrument results (Heale & Twycross, 2015). In quantitative studies, validity is

considered the extent in which concepts are accurately measured (Heale & Twycross,

2015). There are three forms of validity: content, criterion, and construct (Creswell,

2014). The following sections discuss the reliability and validity of the research.

Reliability

Although an exact calculation of reliability is impossible, reliability can be

estimated through different measures (Heale & Twycross, 2015). Creswell (2104)

indicates that it is important to determine when using surveys, whether scores from

previous results demonstrate reliability. For example, in a test of employee motivation, a

participant should have approximately the same response on each test completion (Heale

88

& Twycross, 2015). In the case of this research, reliability was obtained through the data

collection procedure. Data collection incorporated seven faith-based organizations;

however, data collection methods were consistent across all organizations. This ensured

a quality and consistency of the measures (Heale & Twycross, 2015).

Initially, the researcher secured documents indicating agreement for participation

from an individual with authority at each of the seven faith-based organization. All

agreements have been retained by the researchers. The combined survey instrument was

reviewed multiple times by the researcher and three live test surveys were completed by

volunteers to ensure there were no issues with the process. Finally, a secured link was

created by Mind Garden, Inc., and provided to the researcher. Documentation via email

was retained indicating exact days of distribution to the lead representative in each

organization. Further discussion on the reliability of the research instruments is in the

Instrument section above.

Validity

Accuracy in the measurement used in quantitative studies is the concept of

research validity (Heale & Twycross, 2015). Creswell (2014) indicates that there are

three traditional forms of validity: content reporting (content validity), predictive criteria

(criterion validity), and construct validity. Content validity is the degree to which the

research instrument provides an accurate measure in all areas on the theory (Heale &

Twycross, 2015). Face validity is a subset of content validity and considers whether a

research instrument truly measures the concept for which it was intended (Heale &

Twycross, 2015).

89

Construct validity occurs when inadequate measure and definitions of variables

are used (Creswell, 2014). Construct validity is the degree to which a research tool

provides a measure for the intended theory (Heale & Twycross, 2015). Criterion validity

is the degree to which the instrument relates to other instruments (Heale & Twycross,

2015).

The MLQ has been validated through research (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Heale &

Twycross, 2015). Content validity of Bass and Avolio’s (1992) Multifactor Leadership


Survey was established previously and the MLQ Form 5X has been validated and cross-

validated which demonstrates these instruments accurately measure all aspects of the

constructs (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Heale & Twycross, 2015). As indicated above, internal

consistency of the TCM has been estimated using a coefficient alpha (Meyer & Allen,

1997). Furthermore, empirical findings provide evidence of construct validity, are

consistent with predictions, and add to the confidence of the validity of the construct

measures (Meyer & Allen, 1997, 2004). Meyer and Allen (2004) indicate that research

findings provide evidence of validity of affective, continuance, and normative

commitment.

Table 2

Null Hypothesis, Survey Questions, and Statistical Tests ______________________________________________________________ Null Hypothesis Survey Questions Statistical Tests

________________________________________________________________________

H01. There is no significant IV: Transformational IV: Sum of the means

90

relationship between personal (2, 6, 8, 9 10, 13, 14, 18,

leadership style (IV) and 21, 23, 25, 26, 30, 32,

organizational commitment (DV) 35 & 36)

Transactional (1, 4, 11, 16,

22, 24, 27 & 35)

Passive/Avoidant (3, 5, 6, 12,

17, 20, 28 & 33)

DV: Affective Commitment DV: Sum of the means

(46-53) Regression Analysis

Normative Commitment

(54-61)

Continuance Commitment

(62-69)

________________________________________________________________________

Table 2 illustrates the null hypothesis, specific survey questions as they relate to the

independent and dependent variables, and proposed statistical tests. The MLQ contains

nine questions (37-45) that do not measure leadership styles but rather the outcomes of

leadership behavior and will be excluded in the data interpretation.

There are two forms of threats to research validity: internal and external. Internal

validity considers the design of the research, the collection of the data, whether the

participants can make confident judgements, without bias, about the variables being

tested, and whether the researcher’s analysis supports the research findings (Wilson,

91

2016). Internal validity can be compromised and can impact the researcher’s ability to

make inferences about the population from the data (Creswell, 2014). Internal validity

can also occur when surveys are conducted inconsistently, therefore, to counter threats to

internal validity, the researcher used a consistent survey instrument and method for data

collection across all organizations. Internal validity can also be threatened by statistical

regression and subject selection. To reduce this threat, the research was conducted across

several faith-based organizations of various size and purpose, and participation was open

to all employees over the age of 18 with at least one year of work experience in an FBO.

Additionally, instrumentation measurements and data analysis were treated consistently

across all participants. The research design was correlational and data was analyzed

using multiple regression, which addressed threats to internal validity.

External validity considers the correctness of ethical judgements on whether the

research experiment can be generalized across a variety of contexts (Wilson, 2016). It is

more difficult to ensuring external validity (Wilson, 2016). External threats to validity

can occur when incorrect inferences are drawn from the sample data (Creswell, 2014).

External validity of the research is evidenced in the multiple studies available in scholarly

and professional literature that have used both instruments. Leadership style is as

antecedent as well as major influencing factor of organizational commitment (Sabir et al.,

2011; Saha, 2016). Research indicated a statistically significant relationship between

leadership style and organizational commitment (Gatling et al., 2016). Studies have been

conducted in multiple industries including emergency services, governmental agencies,

call centers, education, banking, mining, manufacturing and service industries (Fasola et

92

al., 2013; Feiziet al., 2014; Khasawneh et al., 2012; Mclaggan et al., 2013; Mesu et al.,

2015; Shim et al., 2015). To reduce the threat to external validity, the research was

conducted across several faith-based organizations. Also, the survey instruments have

been used globally across various organizational sizes and in a variety of cultures

demonstrating generalizability of the research (Fasola et al., 2013; Mclaggan et al., 2013;

Mesu et al., 2015; Zehir et al., 2012; Susanj & Jakopec, 2012).

Transition and Summary

This section provided details on the research purpose, role of the researcher,

population, sampling technique, and participants. Additionally, specifics on the research

method and design, survey instruments, data collection process, method of data

organization, and data analysis techniques were included. The section concludes with

information on reliability and validity. The research approach was deemed suitable for

testing leadership style and organizational commitment. A systematic method was used

to consider the research and

The following section presents an overview of research along with the results and

an interpretation of the findings. Additionally, details of the categorical variables,

descriptive statistics, and regression analysis are presented. The researcher provides

details on the contribution to academic and professional literature and recommendations

based on the results obtained.

93

Section 3: Application to Professional Practice and Implications for Change

An overview of the application to professional practice and research implications

are presented below. The researcher provides an overview of the study and a

presentation of the findings. Data results include frequencies and descriptive statistics.

This section provides details on the conclusions made from the research, and

recommendations for action as well as future studies. Lastly, the researcher's experience

of the process is detailed along with a reflection on biblical integration.

Overview of Study

Leadership and employee commitment are important concepts in business;

however, in the industry of faith-based organizations, the current body of research

provided little data. The purpose of this research was to test Bass and Avolio’s (1992)

broad leadership theory types and Meyer and Allen’s (1993) theory of organizational

commitment. A combined survey instrument was developed and distributed to

employees in seven faith-based organizations. The research was designed to answer one

research question: Is there a relationship between personal perceived leadership style and

organizational commitment in employees of faith-based organizations? Detail on the

research findings are presented in the sections below.

Presentation of the Findings

The research was conducted using a survey distributed electronically to seven

faith-based organizations representing five organizational types (K-12 education,

ministry, church, higher education, and accreditation/certification). Organizations varied

94

in demographics and faith-based purpose. Participants varied in their employment status

(full or part time), in addition to other demographic factors (age and gender).

Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics

Data results were analyzed using frequencies and percentages. A total of 102

faith-based employees completed the survey and the responses were analyzed for this

research. Appendix G provides data on the moderating variables. Males accounted for

55% of the participants and 44% were females, one participant chose to withhold their

gender. The respondents were predominately Caucasian and accounted for 93.1. Baby

Boomers and Generation X were the largest groups equally representing 33.3%.

Millennials were represented at 31.4% and Traditionalist were the smallest group at 2%.

Over 82.4% of the respondents were employed full time and 17.6% were employed part

time. Of the faith-based organization types, participants most frequently worked for

churches and represented 38.2% of the responses. Over 27% of the respondents work in

ministry, and 23.5% work in higher education. The smallest group of respondents were

employees in K-12 Education, which accounted for 7.8%, and Christian

accreditation/certification, which accounted for 2.9%.

Table 3 represents the descriptive statistics for employee leadership style

measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The highest mean score of FBO

employee’s self-rated leadership style was individual consideration (IC), and was

consistent with the MLQ 5X 2004 normative data. Leaders with individual consideration

(IC) pay special attention to the needs, achievement, and growth of followers through

coaching and mentorship (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Overall, the self-rating mean scores of

95

FBO employees were higher than the normative data in the following areas: acting with

integrity (IIB), encouraging others (IM), innovative thinking (IS), individualized

consideration (IC), and active management-by-exception (MBEA). However, the lowest

mean score in both samples (FBO’s and MLQ normative data) was the laissez-faire (LF)

leadership style. The research indicated that collectively, transformational leadership had

the highest mean scores of the three broad leadership types.

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Employee Leadership Style Self-Rating N Mean SD Range* Transformational Leadership Idealized Influence

102 2.930 .5404 102 3.262 .5817

Inspirational Motivation (IM) 102 3.106 .6098 1.3-4 Intellectual Stimulation (IS) 102 2.996 .5556 1.3-4 Individual Consideration (IC) 102 3.283 .5263 1.5-4 Transactional Leadership Contingent Reward (CR)

102

2.894

.6.068

1-4

Management-by-Exception Active (MBEA) 102 2.015 .7559 0.3-3.5 Passive (MBEP) 102 1.030 .6937 0-2.8 Passive-Avoidant Leadership Laissez-Faire (LF)

102

.626

.5470

0-2

*Scale 0 – 4

Table 4 represents the descriptive statistics for employee commitment measured

by the Three-Component Model (TCM) of Employee Commitment. Affective

commitment is a desire-based commitment, while normative commitment implies the

employee feels a responsibility to stay with the organization (Gatling et al., 2016).

96

Continuance commitment considers the cost to the employee of separating from the

organization (Gatling et al., 2016). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment

create some form of attachment to the organization and help to decrease the prospect of

an employee leaving, but each has differing implications on employee workplace

behavior (Meyer, Stanley, & Parfyonova, 2012).

The results indicated that across the FBOs surveyed, affective commitment had

the highest mean score (3.894). Affective commitment involves employee engagement

with the organization on an emotional level. This was followed by normative

commitment with a mean score of 3.485, and implies that FBO employees feel an

obligation to their organization. Of the commitment types, normative commitment, the

consideration of the cost of leaving the organization, had the lowest mean score (2.787).

Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Employee Commitment Self-Rating N Mean SD Range* Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment

102 102 102

3.894 2.787 3.485

.8779

.8052

.8437

1.3-5 1-4.8 1-4.8

*Scale 1-5

The three commitment types should be viewed together as a commitment profile

indicating that in the case of FBOs, employees have a strong affective and normative

commitment profile (Meyer et al., 2012). When a strong affective commitment is

combined with normative commitment, it can be experienced as a commitment to ‘do the

right thing’ or as a strong sense of morality (Meyer et al., 2012).

97

Correlations

Data results were analyzed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The

significance level selected was α=.05, an industry standard, and signified the acceptable

amount of risk the researcher was willing to accept given the probability of rejecting the

null hypothesis, if in fact it was true (Hemsworth, Muterera, & Baregheh, 2013). The

corresponding null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses were:

H01: There is no statistically significant relationship between personal perceived


organizations.

HA1: There is a statistically significant relationship between personal perceived


organizations.

The null hypothesis was tested using the Pearson correlational analysis and is

presented in Table 5 below. While at best, correlations were very weak, comparatively,

inspirational motivation (IM) demonstrated the strongest correlation and was positively

correlated (r=.302) with affective commitment, and negatively correlated (r=-.326) with

continuance commitment. Affective commitment (emotion, identification, and

involvement) differs from continuance commitment, which considers a presumed

sacrifice of leaving the organization (Gatling et al., 2016). More specifically, affective

commitment is a desired-based commitment while continuance commitment is a cost-

based commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997). The positive correlation between

inspirational motivation (IM) and affective commitment demonstrated a weak attachment

98

through desire, emotion, personal identification, or involvement to the faith-based

organization. The negative correlation between inspirational motivation (IM) and

continuance commitment demonstrated that as a FBO employee’s motivation increased,

continuance commitment, or the feeling that there are limited employment options,

decreased.

Affective commitment was also correlated with attributed (IIA) and behavioral

(IIB) idealized influence. Idealized influence is leadership charisma and was positively

correlated to affective commitment (attributed, r=.259) and (behavioral, r=.268).

However, in both instances, this only demonstrated a weak association.

Intellectual stimulation (IS) is one of the four transformational leadership theory

behaviors (Bacha & Walker, 2012; Bass & Avolio, 1997). In testing the relationship

between leadership style and organizational commitment in faith-based organizations,

intellectual stimulation (IS) was negatively correlated to all commitment types, but more

significantly to continuance commitment (r=-.246). Intellectual stimulation (IS)

considers the degree to which leadership encourages creativity, innovation, and nurtures

the employee’s values and beliefs (Bacha & Walker, 2012; Bass, 1990, 1999; Bass &

Avolio, 1993). The negative correlation indicated that as intellectual stimulation (IS)

increased, normative commitment, and more specifically continuance commitment,

decreased. It can also be inferred that as the employee more self-identified with

intellectual stimulation (IS), commitment was driven by opportunities of innovation.

Overall, it is important to recognize that correlation does not imply causation and at best,

these correlations were very weak. There were several individual correlations found to

99

be significant at .01 and .05, and the research results demonstrated both positive and

negative correlations.

Considering the outcome of the correlation analysis of all components of

transformational leadership and affective commitment, the results indicated

transformational leadership (expect for individual consideration (IC) and intellectual

stimulation (IS)), accounted for the strongest linear relationships in affective commitment

(r=.436) (Table 6). Passive management-by-exception (MBEP) demonstrated a negative

and weak linear relationship in affective commitment (r=-.031) and represented the

highest correlation to continuance commitment (r=.197).

Table 5 Pearson Correlations between Leadership Style and Employee Commitment Affective

Commitment Continuance Commitment

Normative Commitment

Transformational Leadership Idealized Influence

.259** .268**

Inspirational Motivation (IM) .302** .031 Intellectual Stimulation (IS) -.068 -.175 Individual Consideration (IC) .052 -.210* -.137 Transactional Leadership Contingent Reward (CR)

.197*

-.153

.098

Management-by-Exception Active (MBEA) .080 .197* .179 Passive (MBEP) -.031 .174 .195* Passive-Avoidant Leadership Laissez-Faire (LF)

-.101

.192

.120

**Correlation at α=0.01 (2-tailed) *Correlation at α=0.05 (2-tailed)

100

Data results were analyzed using regression analysis and are presented in Tables

6-44. Table 6 provides a summary of the fit of leadership style to affective commitment.

Considering the three commitment types individually, there was an expectation that

affective commitment would influence positive effects on employee performance and

workplace commitment (Meyer et al., 2012). In analyzing the R value for the three broad

leadership styles (transformational, transaction, and laissez-faire), the regression model

demonstrated a weak relationship. Transformational leadership, which had a cumulative

R value of .436 demonstrated a positive and weak strength to affective commitment.

Furthermore, when R squared is equal to one, the model demonstrates perfect

predictability; however, if there is no predictability, then R squared is equal to zero. In

the case of affective commitment, the highest R2 value was transformational leadership

(.190) indicating little to no predictability.

Table 6 Summary of Simple Regression of Leadership Style and Affective Commitment Leadership Style R R2 SD Transformational Leadership Idealized Influence

.436

.190 .8105

Attributed Behavioral

.259

.268 .067 .072

.8522

.8501

Inspirational Motivation .302 .091 .8412 Intellectual Stimulation -.068 .005 .8803 Individual Consideration .052 .003 .8811 Transactional Leadership Contingent Reward

.199

.197 .040 .039

.8735

.8651

Management-by-Exception Active .080 .006 .8795 Passive -.031 .001 .8819

101

Passive-Avoidant Leadership Laissez-Faire

-.101

.010

.8778

Table 7 provides the results of a multiple regression analysis of each individual

leadership style and the relationship to affective commitment. The regression analysis

demonstrated that intellectual stimulation (IS) contributed the most to affective

commitment followed by behavioral idealized influence (IIB). Considering the outcomes

of all components of leadership and affective commitment, the results indicated (expect

for intellectual stimulation (IS), a component of transformational leadership), leadership

style does not account for variations in affective commitment.

A p-value less than or equal to .05 demonstrates that the null hypothesis should be

rejected, while a p-value greater than .05 would not provide enough evidence and

indicates the results occurred by chance. Intellectual stimulation (IS), the leadership idea

of encouraging innovative thinking, had a p-value of .028. This provided little evidence

that affective commitment was influenced by a component of transformational

leadership.

An analysis on collinearity was conducted and the variance information factor

(VIF) for all leadership styles and affective commitment indicated there was no

collinearity between the variables. The highest collinearity was individual consideration

(IC) which had a value of 2.453, and behavioral individualized influence (IIB) with a

value of 2.444; however, these values were not correlated and do not explain variability

in the data.

102

Table 7 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis and Collinearity Statistics of Leadership Style and Affective Commitment

Model Summaryb

Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .443a .196 .117 .8248236231

a. Predictors: (Constant), Avoids Involvement (LF), Rewards Achievement (CR), Monitors Deviations;

Mistakes (MBEA), Encourages Innovative Thinking (IS), Fights Fires (MBEP), Builds Trust (IIA), Acts with

Integrity (IIB), Coaches; Develops People (IC), Encourages Others (IM)

b. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Scale

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 15.266 9 1.696 2.493 .013b

Residual 62.591 92 .680

Total 77.856 101

a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Scale

b. Predictors: (Constant), Avoids Involvement (LF), Rewards Achievement (CR), Monitors Deviations; Mistakes

(MBEA), Encourages Innovative Thinking (IS), Fights Fires (MBEP), Builds Trust (IIA), Acts with Integrity (IIB),

Coaches; Develops People (IC), Encourages Others (IM)

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.

Collinearity Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

(Constant) 3.010 .717 4.199 .000

Builds Trust (IIA)

.200 .204 .123 .981 .329 .553 1.807

Acts with Integrity (IIB)

.387 .221 .256 1.753 .083 .409 2.444

Encourages Others (IM)

.315 .193 .219 1.630 .107 .485 2.064

103

Encourages Innovative Thinking (IS)

-.451 .202 -.285 -2.232 .028 .535 1.868

Coaches; Develops People (IC)

-.253 .244 -.152 -1.037 .303 .408 2.453

Rewards Achievement (CR)

.113 .183 .078 .618 .538 .545 1.833

Monitors Deviations; Mistakes (MBEA)

-.006 .121 -.005 -.052 .958 .801 1.249

Fights Fires (MBEP)

-.060 .149 -.047 -.402 .689 .634 1.578

Avoids Involvement (LF)

-.024 .190 -.015 -.128 .898 .626 1.598


Tables 8-16 provide a detailed illustration of the analysis of variance of each

individual leadership attribute as it related to the individual dependent variable affective

commitment. The p-value for each variable tested the null hypothesis. Table 8, 9, and 10

represent transformational leadership characteristics of attributed idealized influence

(IIA), behavioral idealized influence (IIB), and inspirational motivation (IM), and had p-

values significant at α=.05. The regression model for these individual transformational

attributes predicted affective commitment. Additionally, contingent reward (CR) (Table

13) had a significant p-value, and predicted affective commitment. The data analysis

indicated that the remainder of leadership styles, individual consideration (IC),

104

intellectual stimulation (IS), management-by-exception (MBEA and MBEP), and laissez-

faire (LF) did not predict affective commitment.

Table 8 demonstrates the analysis of variance of attributed idealized influence

(IIA) (transformational leadership) on affective commitment. The F statistic determined

whether the model predicted statistical significance, where F(1,101)= 7.199, and p<.05.

This indicated that there was less than a 0.9% chance that an F statistic this large would

occur if the null hypothesis was true, therefore, the regression model did predict affective

commitment and there was statistical significance between the variables. Although there

was predictability, the positive R value (.259) did not represent a strong linear

relationship between attributed idealized influence (IIA) and affective commitment.

Table 8 ANOVA of Idealized Influence (Attributed) on Affective Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 5.228 1 5.228 7.199 .009b

Residual 72.628 100 .726

Total 77.856 101

a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Builds Trust (IIA)

Table 9 illustrates the analysis of variance of behavioral idealized influence (IIB)

(transformational leadership) on affective commitment, where F(1,101)= 7.730, and

p<.05. This indicated that there was a 0.6% chance that an F-ratio this large would

happen if the null hypothesis was true; therefore, the regression model did predict

105

affective commitment and there was statistical significance between the variables.

Although there was predictability, the positive R value (.268) did not represent a strong

linear relationship between behavioral idealized influence (IIB) and affective

commitment.

Table 9 ANOVA of Idealized Influence (Behavioral) on Affective Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 5.586 1 5.586 7.730 .006b

Residual 72.270 100 .723

Total 77.856 101

a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity (IIB)

Table 10 illustrates the analysis of variance of inspirational motivation (IM)

(transformational leadership) on affective commitment where F(1,101)= 10.05, and

p<.05. This indicated that there was less than 0.2% chance that an F-ratio this large

would happen if the null hypothesis was true; therefore, the regression model did predict

affective commitment. There was predictability, and the positive R value (.302)

represented a weak linear relationship between inspirational motivation and affective

commitment. Even though it did not represent a strong linear relationship, inspirational

motivation (IM) had the strongest correlation to affective commitment.

106

Table 10 ANOVA of Inspirational Motivation on Affective Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 7.094 1 7.094 10.05 .002b

Residual 70.763 100 .708

Total 77.856 101

a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Encourages Others (IM)

Table 11 illustrates the analysis of variance of intellectual stimulation (IS)

(transformational leadership) on affective commitment, where F(1,101)= .468, and p>.05.

This indicated that there was less than a 49.6% chance that an F-ratio this small would

happen if the null hypothesis was false, therefore, the regression model did not predict

affective commitment.

Table 11

ANOVA of Intellectual Stimulation on Affective Commitment.


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression .363 1 .363 .468 .496b

Residual 77.494 100 .775

Total 77.856 101

a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Encourages Innovative Thinking (IS)

107

Table 12 illustrates the analysis of variance of individual consideration (IC)

(transformational leadership) on affective commitment, where F(1,101)= .274, and p>.05.

This indicated that there was less than 60.2% chance that an F-ratio this small would

happen if the null hypothesis was false; therefore, the regression model did not predict


Table 12 ANOVA of Individual Consideration on Affective Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression .213 1 .213 .274 .602b

Residual 77.644 100 .776

Total 77.856 101

a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Coaches; Develops People (IC)

Table 13 illustrates the analysis of variance of contingent reward (CR)

(transactional leadership) on affective commitment, where F(1,101)= 4.018, and p<.05.

This indicated that there was less than 4.8% chance that an F-ratio this large would

happen if the null hypothesis was true; therefore, the regression model did predict

affective commitment. Although contingent reward (CR) had a positive R value (.197)

this did not represent a strong linear relationship between the variables.

108

Table 13

ANOVA of Contingent Reward on Affective Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 3.007 1 3.007 4.018 .048b

Residual 74.849 100 .748

Total 77.856 101

a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Rewards Achievement (CR)

Table 14 illustrates the analysis of variance of active management-by-exception

(MBEA) (transactional leadership) on affective commitment, where F(1,101)= .641, and

p>.05. This indicated that there was less than 42.5% chance that an F-ratio this small

would happen if the null hypothesis was false; therefore, the regression model did not

predict affective commitment.

Table 14

ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Active) on Affective Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression .496 1 .496 .641 .425b

Residual 77.361 100 .774

Total 77.856 101

a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Monitors Deviations; Mistakes (MBEA)

109

Table 15 illustrates the analysis of variance of passive management-by-exception

(MBEP) (transactional leadership) on affective commitment, where F(1,101)= .099, and



predict affective commitment.

Table 15

ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Passive) on Affective Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression .077 1 .077 .099 .754b

Residual 77.78 100 .778

Total 77.856 101

a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Fights Fires (MBEP)

Tables 16-18 provide a summary of the analysis of variance of each leadership

style (transformational, transactional, laissez-faire) as it relates to the individual

dependent variable affective commitment. Table 16 illustrates the analysis of variance of

laissez-faire (LF) (passive-avoidant leadership) on affective commitment, where

F(1,101)= 1.029, and p>.05. This indicated that there was less than 31.3% chance that an

F-ratio this small would happen if the null hypothesis were false; therefore, the regression

model did not predict affective commitment.

110

Table 16 Summary ANOVA of Laissez-Faire Leadership on Affective Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression .793 1 .793 1.029 .313b

Residual 77.064 100 .771

Total 77.856 101

a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Avoids Involvement (LF)

Table 17 illustrates a summary of the analysis of variance for all transformational

leadership characteristics: idealized influence, attributed (IIA) and behavioral (IIB),

inspirational motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), and individual consideration

(IC) on affective commitment, where F(1,101)= 4.501, and p<.05. This indicated that

there was less than a .1% chance that an F-ratio this large would happen if the null

hypothesis was true; therefore, the summary transformational regression model did

predict affective commitment. Additionally, transformational leadership demonstrated

predictability and a weak strength (r= .436) (Table 6).

Table 17 Summary ANOVA of Transformational Leadership on Affective Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 14.787 5 2.957 4.501 .001b

Residual 63.070 96 .657

Total 77.856 101


111

b. Predictors: (Constant), Coaches; Develops People (IC), Builds Trust (IIA), Encourages Innovative Thinking (IS), Acts with Integrity (IIB), Encourages Others (IM)

Table 18 illustrates the analysis of variance for all transactional leadership

characteristics, contingent reward (CR), management-by-exception active (MBEA) and

passive (MBEP) on affective commitment, where F(1,101)= 1.346, and p>.05. This

indicated that there was less than 26.4% chance that an F-ratio this small would happen if

the null hypothesis were false; therefore, the regression model did not predict affective

commitment.

Table 18 Summary ANOVA of Transactional Leadership on Affective Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 3.080 3 1.027 1.346 .264b

Residual 74.776 98 .763

Total 77.856 101

a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Fights Fires (MBEP), Monitors Deviations; Mistakes (MBEA), Rewards Achievement (CR)

Table 19 provides a summary of the simple regression analysis of each leadership

style on continuance commitment. The results of the regression analysis indicated that

the highest variation was accounted for by inspirational motivation (IM), an independent

variable representing the transformational leadership style.

112

Table 19 also provides R values and the adjusted R2 values of the broad leadership

styles and the relationship to continuance commitment. In analyzing the R2 value the

three broad leadership styles (transformational, transaction, and laissez-faire), the

regression model showed a weak relationship. However, the most impactful relationship

between leadership and continuance commitment was transformational leadership, which

had a cumulative R2 value of .127, and was lower than the R2 for affective and normative

commitment. The individual leadership characteristics with the greatest R2 value of .106,

was inspirational motivation (IM). The least impactful relationship was contingent

reward (CR), which had a R2 value of .024, indicating there was low predictability.

Table 19 Summary of Simple Regression of Leadership Style and Continuance Commitment Leadership Style R R2 SD Transformational Leadership Idealized Influence

.357 .127 .7715

Attributed (IIA) Behavioral (IIB)

-.195 -.190

.038 .036

.7938

.7945

Inspirational Motivation (IM) -.326 .106 .7650 Intellectual Stimulation (IS) -.246 .060 .7844 Individual Consideration (IC) -.210 .044 .7911 Transactional Leadership Contingent Reward (CR)

.313 -.153

.098

.024 .7765 .7997

Management-by-Exception Active (MBEA) .197 .039 .7934 Passive (MBEP) .174 .030 .7969 Passive-Avoidant Leadership Laissez-Faire (LF)

.192

. 037

.7942

113

Table 20 provides a multiple regression analysis of each leadership style and the

relationship to continuance commitment. The results indicated that active management-

by-exception (MBEA), an independent variable representing the transactional leadership

style, contributed the most to continuance commitment. Unlike the correlations, the

regression results of all components of leadership and continuance commitment indicated

(expect for active management-by-exception (MBEA) and inspirational motivation (IM)),

leadership styles did not account for variations in continuance commitment.


(VIF) for all leadership styles and continuance commitment indicated there was no

collinearity between the variables. The highest collinearity was individualized

consideration (IC), which had a value of 2.453; however, this was low and did not

explain variability in the data.

Table 20 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis and Collinearity Statistics of Leadership Style and Continuance Commitment

Model Summaryb



1 .440a .194 .115 .7575980213

ANOVAa


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 12.690 9 1.410 2.457 .015b

114

Residual 52.804 92 .574

Total 65.493 101

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Avoids Involvement (LF), Rewards Achievement (CR), Monitors Deviations; Mistakes (MBEA), Encourages Innovative Thinking (IS), Fights Fires (MBEP), Builds Trust (IIA), Acts with Integrity (IIB), Coaches; Develops People (IC), Encourages Others (IM)

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.


B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF (Constant) 3.812 .659 5.789 .000 Builds Trust (IIA)

-.032 .188 -.021 -.168 .867 .553 1.807


-.071 .203 -.052 -.353 .725 .409 2.444


-.355 .178 -.269 -1.998 .049 .485 2.064


-.292 .185 -.201 -1.575 .119 .535 1.868


.179 .224 .117 .798 .427 .408 2.453


.014 .168 .011 .084 .933 .545 1.833


.267 .111 .251 2.400 .018 .801 1.249

Fights Fires (MBEP)

.049 .174 .064 .540 .591 .626 1.578


.094 .174 .064 .540 .591 .626 1.598

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Scale

115

The data in Tables 21-31 provide a detailed illustration of the analysis of variance

of each individual leadership attribute as it related to the individual dependent variable

continuance commitment. Tables 21-25 represent individual characteristics of

transformational leadership, attributed idealized influence (IIA) (p=.05), individual

motivation (IM) (p=.001), intellectual stimulation (IS) (p=.013), and individualized

consideration (IC) (p=.034), which all indicated a positive correlation to continuance

commitment. Table 27 represents the transactional leadership characteristic active

management-by-expectation (MBEA) (p=.047), which indicated a positive correlation to

continuance commitment. Table 30 represents transformational leadership, which had a

p-value of .021, and the regression model indicated a positive relationship to continuance

commitment. The data analysis also indicated that behavioral individualized influence

(IIB), contingent reward (CR), passive management-by-exception (MBEP), and laissez-

faire (LF) leadership did not demonstrate a relationship to continuance commitment.

Table 21 illustrates the analysis of variance of attributed idealized influence (IIA)

(transformational leadership) on continuance commitment, where F(1,101)= 3.934, and

p=.05. This indicated that there was a 5% chance that an F-ratio this large would happen

if the null hypothesis was true, therefore, the regression model did predict continuance

commitment. There was statistical significance between attributed idealized influence

(IIA) and continuance commitment. However, the R value was .195, the R² was .038, and

the adjusted R square was .028, which did not represent a strong correlation between the

variables.

116

Table 21

ANOVA of Idealized Influence (Attributed) on Continuous Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 2.479 1 2.479 3.934 .050b

Residual 63.015 100 .630

Total 65.493 101

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Builds Trust (IIA)



p>.05. This indicated that there was less than a 5% chance that an F-ratio this large would

happen if the null hypothesis were false. The null hypothesis was rejected, which

indicates the regression model did not predict continuance commitment.

Table 22

ANOVA of Idealized Influence (Behavioral) on Continuance Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 2.359 1 2.359 3.736 .056b

Residual 63.135 100 .631

Total 65.493 101

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity (IIB)

117



p<.05. This indicated that there was less than 0.1% chance that an F-ratio this large would

happen if the null hypothesis was true, therefore, the regression model did predict

continuance commitment. Additionally, the R value was .326 and the R² was .106, and

the correlation demonstrated a positive but weak strength between inspirational

motivation (IM) and continuance commitment.

Table 23 ANOVA of Inspirational Motivation on Continuance Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 6.970 1 6.970 11.910 .001b

Residual 58.523 100 .585

Total 65.493 101

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Encourages Others (IM)



p>.05. This indicated that there was less than 1.3% chance that an F-ratio this large would

happen if the null hypothesis was true therefore, the regression model did predict

continuance commitment. However, the R value was .246, the R² was .060, and the

adjusted R square was .051, and the correlation results indicate there was not a strong

linear relationship between the variables.

118

Table 24 ANOVA of Intellectual Stimulation on Continuance Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 3.955 1 3.955 6.428 .013b

Residual 61.538 100 .615

Total 65.493 101

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Encourages Innovative Thinking (IS)



p<.05. This indicated that there was less than 3.4% chance that an F-ratio this large would

happen if the null hypothesis was true, therefore, the regression model did predict

continuance commitment. However, the R value was .210, the R² was .044, and the

adjusted R square was .035, and the correlations results indicate there is not a strong

linear relationship between the variables.

Table 25 ANOVA of Individual Consideration on Continuance Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 2.896 1 2.896 4.626 .034b

Residual 65.598 100 .626

Total 65.493 101

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Coaches & Develops People (IC)

119


(transactional leadership) on continuance commitment, where F(1,101)= 2.407, and


would happen if the null hypothesis was false, therefore, the regression model did not

predict continuance commitment.

Table 26 ANOVA of Contingent Reward on Continuance Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 1.540 1 1.540 2.407 .124b

Residual 63.954 100 .640

Total 65.493 101

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Rewards Achievement (CR)


(MBEA) (transactional leadership) on continuance commitment, where F(1,101)= 4.030,

and p<.05. This indicated that there was less than 4.7% chance that an F-ratio this large


continuance commitment. Although there was predictability, the R value was .179, the R²

was .032, and the adjusted R square was .022, which did not represent a strong linear

relationship.

120

Table 27 ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Active) on Continuance Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 2.537 1 2.537 4.030 .047b

Residual 62.956 100 .630

Total 65.493 101

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Monitors Deviations; Mistakes (MBEA)


(MBEP) (transactional leadership) on continuance commitment, where F(1,101)= 3.110,

and p>.05. This indicated that there was less than 8.1% chance that an F-ratio this large


predict continuance commitment.

Table 28 ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Passive) on Continuance Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 1.975 1 1.975 3.110 .081b

Residual 63.518 100 .635

Total 65.493 101

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Fights Fires (MBEP)

121

Table 29 illustrates the analysis of variance of lassie-faire (LF) (passive-avoidant

leadership) on continuance commitment, where F(1,101)= .3.821, and p>.05. This

indicated that there was less than 5.3% chance that an F-ratio this large would happen if

the null hypothesis was false, therefore, the regression model did not predict continuance

commitment.

Table 29 Summary ANOVA of Laissez-Faire Leadership on Continuance Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 2.410 1 2.410 3.821 .053b

Residual 63.083 100 .631

Total 65.493 101

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Avoids Involvement (LF)

Table 30 illustrates the analysis of variance for all transformational leadership

characteristics (idealized influence (attributed (IIA) and behavioral (IIB)), inspirational

motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), and individual consideration (IC) on

continuance commitment, where F(1,101)= 2.806, and p<.05. This indicated that there

was less than 2.1% chance that a F statistics this small would happen if the null

hypothesis was true, therefore, the regression model did predict continuance

commitment. Additionally, the R value was .357, the R² was .127, and the adjusted R

square was .082. which represents a weak linear relationship.

122

Table 30 Summary ANOVA of Transformational Leadership on Continuance Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 8.350 5 1.670 2.806 .021b

Residual 57.143 96 .595

Total 65.493 101

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Coaches; Develops People (IC), Builds Trust (IIA), Encourages Innovative Thinking (IS), Acts with Integrity (IIB), Encourages Others (IM)

Table 31 illustrates the analysis of variance of all for transactional leadership

characteristics (contingent reward (CR), management-by-exception (active (MBEA) and

passive (MBEP)) on continuance commitment, where F(1,101)= 3.536, and p<.05. This

indicated that there was less than 1.8% chance that an F-ratio this large would happen if

the null hypothesis was true, therefore, the regression model did predict continuance

commitment. Additionally, the R value was .313, the R² was .098, and the adjusted R

square was .070, which represents a weak linear relationship.

Table 31 Summary ANOVA of Transactional Leadership on Continuance Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 6.398 3 2.133 3.536 .018b

Residual 59.096 98 .603

Total 65.493 101

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Scale

123

b. Predictors: (Constant), Fights Fires (MBEP), Monitors Deviations; Mistakes (MBEA), Rewards Achievement (CR)

Table 32 provides a summary of simple regression analysis of each leadership

style on normative commitment. The results indicated that the highest variation was

accounted for by passive management-by-exception (MBEP), (R2=.38), an independent

variable representing the transactional leadership style. Table 32 also provides R values

and adjusted R2 values of the broad leadership styles, and the relationship to normative

commitment. In analyzing the R2 value for each individual characteristic, and the three

broad leadership styles (transformational, transaction, and laissez-faire), the regression

model showed a weak relationship. However, the most impactful relationship between

leadership and normative commitment was transformational leadership. The cumulative

R2 value of .144, which was lower than the R2 for affective commitment, but higher than

the R2 for continuance commitment. The least impactful relationship was inspirational

motivation (IM), which had a R2 value of .001, indicating there is almost no predictability.

This was followed closely by attributed idealized influence (IIA) and contingent reward

(CR),

Table 32 Summary of Simple Regression of Leadership Style and Normative Commitment Leadership Style R R2 SD Transformational Leadership Idealized Influence

.380

.144

.8007

Attributed (IIA) Behavioral (IIB)

.072

.157 .005 .025

.8457

.8374

Inspirational Motivation (IM) .031 .001 .8475 Intellectual Stimulation (IS) -.175 .030 .8349

124

Individual Consideration (IC) -.137 .019 .8399 Transactional Leadership Contingent Reward (CR)

.255

.098 .065 .010

.8281

.8438

Management-by-Exception Active (MBEA) .179 .032 .8343 Passive (MBEP) .195 .038 .8316 Passive-Avoidant Leadership Laissez-Faire (LF)

.120

.014

.8418

Table 33 provides a multiple regression analysis of each leadership style and the

relationship to normative commitment. The results indicated that the highest variations

were accounted for by encourages innovative thinking (IS), an independent variable

representing the transformational leadership style. Intellectual stimulation (IS)

represented 2.5% of the variation relative to normative commitment. Considering the

outcome of the multiple regression analysis of all components of leadership and

normative commitment, the results indicated, expect for inspirational stimulation (IS) and

behavioral idealized influence (IIB), both characteristics of transformational leadership,

leadership styles did not account for variations in normative commitment. There was

little evidence that normative commitment was influenced by any leadership style.


(VIF) for all leadership styles and normative commitment indicated there was no

collinearity between the variables. The highest collinearity was inspirational motivation

(IM) which had a value of 2.453; however, this was low and did not explain variability in

the data. This was also consistent with the multiple regression results for affective and

continuance commitment.

125

Table 33 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis and Collinearity Statistics of Leadership Style and Normative Commitment

Model Summaryb



1 .411a .169 .088 .8058620225

ANOVAa


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 12.162 9 1.351 2.081 .039b

Residual 59.746 92 .649

Total 71.908 101

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Avoids Involvement (LF), Rewards Achievement (CR), Monitors Deviations; Mistakes (MBEA), Encourages Innovative Thinking (IS), Fights Fires (MBEP), Builds Trust (IIA), Acts with Integrity (IIB), Coaches; Develops People (IC), Encourages Others (IM)

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.


B Std.

Error Beta Tolerance VIF

(Constant) 3.209 .700 4.581 .000

Builds Trust (IIA)

.093 .199 .059 .465 .643 .553 1.807


.446 .215 .308 2.071 .041 .409 2.444


-.033 .189 -.024 -.177 .860 .485 2.064

126


-.449 .197 -.295 -2.275

.025 .535 1.868


-.232 .239 -.145 -.971 .334 .408 2.453


.153 .179 .110 .854 .396 .545 1.833


.082 .119 .074 .692 .491 .801 1.249

Fights Fires (MBEP)

.093 .145 .076 .638 .525 .634 1.578


.089 .185 .057 .479 .633 .626 .1598

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Scale

The data in Tables 34-42 provide a detailed illustration of the analysis of variance

of each individual leadership attribute as it relates to the dependent variable normative

commitment. Passive management-by-exception (MBEP), an individual leadership

attribute of transactional leadership, had p-values significant at an α=.05 and did predict

normative commitment. No other leadership attributed demonstrated predictability with

normative commitment.

Table 34 illustrates the analysis of variance of attributed idealized influence (IIA)

(transformational leadership) on normative commitment, where F(1,101)= .527, and

p>.05. This indicated that there was less than a 46.9% chance that an F-ratio this small

127


predict normative commitment.

Table 34 ANOVA of Idealized Influence (Attributed) on Normative Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression .377 1 .377 .527 .469b

Residual 50.535 63 .802

Total 51.026 64

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Builds Trust (IIA)


(transformational leadership) on normative commitment, where F(1,101)= 2.541, and

p>.05. This indicated that there was less than an 11.4% chance that an F-ratio this small



Table 35

ANOVA of Idealized Influence (Behavioral) on Normative Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 1.782 1 1.782 2.541 .114b

Residual 70.126 100 .701

Total 71.908 101

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity (IIB)

128


(transformational leadership) on normative commitment, where F(1,101)= .097, and




Table 36

ANOVA of Inspirational Motivation on Normative Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression .070 1 .070 .097 .756b

Residual 71.838 100 .718

Total 71.908 101

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Encourages Others (IM)



p>.05. This indicated that there was less than 7.9% chance that an F-ratio this large would

happen if the null hypothesis was false; therefore, the regression model did not predict


129

Table 37 ANOVA of Intellectual Stimulation on Normative Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 2.191 1 2.191 3.143 .079b

Residual 47.209 63 .749

Total 51.026 64

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Encourages Innovative Thinking (IS)






Table 38 ANOVA of Individual Consideration on Normative Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 1.354 1 1.354 1.919 .169b

Residual 70.554 100 .706

Total 71.908 101

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Coaches & Develops People (IC)

130


(transactional leadership) on normative commitment, where F(1,101)= .979, and p>.05.

This indicated that there was less than 32.5% chance that an F-ratio this small would

happen if the null hypothesis was false, therefore, the regression model did not predict


Table 39 ANOVA of Contingent Reward on Normative Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression .697 1 .697 .979 .325b

Residual 71.211 100 .712

Total 71.908 101

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Rewards Achievement (CR)


(MBEA) (transactional leadership) on normative commitment, where F(1,101)= 3.300,

and p>.05. This indicated that there was less than 7.2% chance that an F-ratio this large



131

Table 40

ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Active) on Normative Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 2.297 1 2.297 3.300 .072b

Residual 69.611 100 .696

Total 71.908 101

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Monitors Deviations; Mistakes (MBEA)


(MBEP) (transactional leadership) on normative commitment, where F(1,101)= 3.964,

and p<.05. This indicated that there was less than 4.9% chance that an F-ratio this large


normative commitment. However, the R value was .195, the R² was .038, and the

adjusted R square was .029, and this did not represent a strong linear relationship.

Table 41

ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Passive) on Normative Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 2.742 1 2.742 3.964 .049b

Residual 49.179 63 .781

Total 51.026 64

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Fights Fires (MBEP)

132

Table 42 illustrates the analysis of variance of lassie-faire (LF) (passive-avoidant

leadership) on normative commitment, where F(1,101)= 1.464, and p>.05. This indicated

that there was less than 22.9% chance that an F-ratio this small would happen if the null

hypothesis was false; therefore, the regression model did not predict normative

commitment.

Table 42

ANOVA of Laissez-Faire Leadership on Normative Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 1.038 1 1.038 1.464 .229b

Residual 70.870 100 .709

Total 71.908 101

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Avoids Involvement (LF)

Table 43 illustrates the analysis of variance of all for transformational leadership

characteristics (idealized influence (attributed (IIA) and behavioral (IIB)), inspirational

motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), and individual consideration (IC) on

normative commitment, where F(1,101)= 3.231, and p<.05. This indicated that there was

less than 1% chance that an F-ratio this large would happen if the null hypothesis was

true; therefore, the regression model did predict normative commitment. This

represented a weak linear as the R value was .380, the R² was .144, and the adjusted R

square was .099.

133

Table 43 Summary ANOVA of Transformational Leadership on Normative Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 10.358 5 2.072 3.231 .010b

Residual 61.550 96 .641

Total 71.908 101

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Scale b. Predictors: (Constant), Coaches & Develops People (IC), Builds Trust (IIA), Encourages Innovative Thinking (IS), Acts with Integrity (IIB), Encourages Others (IM)

Table 44 illustrates the analysis of variance of all for transactional leadership

characteristics (contingent reward (CR), management-by-exception (active (MBEA) and

passive (MBEP)) on normative commitment, where F(1,101)= 2.279, and p>.05. This

indicated that there was less than 8.4% chance that an F-ratio this small would happen if

the null hypothesis was false; therefore, the regression model did not predict normative

commitment.

Table 44 Summary ANOVA of Transactional Leadership on Normative Commitment


Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 4.690 3 1.563 2.279 .084b

Residual 67.218 98 .686

Total 71.908 101

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Scale

134

b. Predictors: (Constant), Fights Fires (MBEP), Monitors Deviations & Mistakes (MBEA), Rewards Achievement (CR)

Three individual transformational characteristics, attributed idealized influence

(IIA) (Table 8), behavioral idealized influence (IIB) (Table 9), and inspirational

motivation (IM) (Table 10), demonstrated that the regression models did predict affective

commitment, however only inspirational motivation (IM) demonstrated a weak strength.

One individual transactional characteristic, contingent reward (CR) (Table 13)

demonstrated that the regression model predicted affective commitment. However, the

correlational results did not demonstrate a linear relationship. Moreover,

transformational leadership (Table 17) predicted affective commitment, and

demonstrated a weak association to affective commitment.

Four individual transformational characteristics, attributed idealized influence

(IIA) (Table 21), inspirational motivation (IM) (Table 23), intellectual stimulation (IS)

(Table 24), and individual consideration (IC) (Table 25), demonstrated that the regression

models did predict continuance commitment. One individual transactional characteristic,

active management-by-exception (MBEA) (Table 27), demonstrated that the regression

model did predict continuance commitment. However, there was no strength between the

variables. Moreover, transformational leadership (Table 30) and transactional leadership

(Table 31) predicted continuance commitment. There was also a weak association

between transformational leadership and continuance commitment. One individual

transactional leadership style passive management-by-exception (MBEP) (Table 41),

demonstrated that the regression model did predict normative commitment. However,

135

this did not represent a strong linear relationship. Moreover, transformational leadership

(Table 43) predicted normative commitment and demonstrated a weak strength.

In summary, the correlation analysis demonstrated a weak association between

inspirational motivation (IM) and affective and normative commitment. The regression

analysis demonstrated that transformational leadership predicted all commitment types

(affective, continuance, and normative). There were sub variables of leadership style

which demonstrated some predictability towards commitment. Few leadership styles

demonstrated statistical significance. Overall, the researcher failed to reject the null

hypothesis.

Applications to Professional Practice

Regardless of industry, leadership is important and impacts organizational

commitment (Suriyamurthi, Velavan, & Radhiga, 2013). The research related directly to

leadership and considered various leadership theories and the influence on organizational

commitment. Leadership is very complex term and considers a broad range of topics

(personality, individual characteristics, behavior, styles) as well as influences from and

individuals position, responsibility, or sphere of influence (Limsila & Ogunlana, 2007).

Leadership is influential in increasing efficiency, and commitment is an attitude that

influences employee behavior (Suriyamurthi, Velavan, & Radhiga, 2013). Committed

employees allocate effort within the organization (Suriyamurthi, Velavan, & Radhiga,

2013). Organizations, especially functional areas such as human resource, play a key role

in employee commitment (Suriyamurthi, Velavan, & Radhiga, 2013). Also, team

136

collaboration influences organizational commitment (Gyensare, Anku-Tsede, Sanda, &

Okpoti, 2016).

There is a gap in the literature in research conducted in faith-based organizations

and this research provided data on leadership style and organizational commitment across

several types of FBOs. The research indicated that there was no relationship between

personal perceived leadership style and organizational commitment. This information is

one part of understanding influences on organizational commitment of employees whose

organizations have a faith-based purpose, and contributions to the body of academic

literature on leadership style, organizational commitment, and employees of faith-based

organizations.

Faith-based organizations have a unique role in areas of organizational leadership

and the implications organizational commitment. Matthew 28:19-20a states, “Go

therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father

and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have

commanded you.” Advancing the gospel of Christ is an important part of the work of

faith-based organizations and emphasizes the importance of this research on professional

practice.

The concept of commitment is illustrated in the encounter between the rich young

ruler and Jesus. Although the ruler demonstrated commitment through keeping the law,

he was unwilling to sell all that he had to follow Christ (Mark 10:21). There is an

emotional attachment to Christ (affective), an understanding of the benefits to stay

committed (continuance), and the feelings of obligation to stay committed (normative).

137

Peter states, “See, we have left all and followed You” (Mark 10:38). Commitment is

influenced by emotion, motivation and circumstance. Application of the Three

Component Model (TCM) can assist organizations in developing positive affective

commitment and increase employee workplace motivation (Meyer et al., 2012). It is

possible to develop affective commitment and reduce the dependence on continuance and

normative commitment (Meyer et al., 2012). Meyer et al. (2012) state that employees

who have only normative or continuance commitment may experience boredom or a lack

of motivation. Additionally, employees that lack affective commitment can impact the

overall morale of the group (Meyer et al., 2012). This is detrimental to the cause of

Christ and FBOs must work to ensure their employees work to develop a stronger


Recommendations for Action

The objective of this research was to examine the relationship between personal

perceived leadership style and personal organizational commitment of employees in

faith-based organizations. Overall, ANOVA results indicated weak predictability

between personal leadership style and employee organizational commitment. There were

statistically significant relationships to individual leadership characteristics. Tables 8, 9,

10, 13, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 41, and 43 illustrate these results. There were

relationships between transformational leadership characteristics, such as attributed

idealized influence (IIA) (Table 8 and 21) and inspirational motivation (IM) (Table 10

and 23), and the regression model predicted affective and continuance commitment. The

summary ANOVA of transformational leadership on affective commitment (Table 17),

138

continuance commitment (Table 30), and normative commitment (Table 43) also

demonstrated a predictive relationship. However, overall, there was no statistical

significance discovered between the variables.

Commitment and job satisfaction toward an employing organization stimulates

employee creativity and leads to innovation (Overall, 2015). This research adds to the

understanding of employees of FBOs to better support the organizations faith-based

purpose. Although personal leadership style did not impact personal organizational

commitment, action should be taken to assess areas of leadership and leadership

influence related to organizational commitment within FBOs. Additionally,

transformational leadership impacted organizational commitment (affective, continuance,

and normative) and demonstrated weak predictability that cannot be ignored.

Recommendations for Further Study

The objective of this research was to examine the relationship between personal

perceived leadership style and personal perceived organization commitment. Academic

literature supports a relationship between leadership style and commitment. The current

body of literature has focused on organizational commitment as influenced by direct

leadership and that a relationship between leader and follower does demonstrate a

relationship relative to commitment. Literature also suggested a link between

organizational commitment and multiple variables such as leadership style (Garg &

Ramjee, 2013). The research suggested a weak predictability between commitment and

transformational leadership. It has also been reported that leadership promotes a positive

organizational culture and can influence commitment (Gulluce et al., 2016). The

139

research results indicated various relationships between several of the leadership styles

and organizational commitment types. The researcher recommends that further studies

be conducted in faith-based organizations on leader/follower relationships and effects on


Reflections

The researcher had experience in both the public and private business sector as

well as in the not-for-profit sector, specifically in three faith-based organizations. The

researcher worked alongside multiple faith-based organizations of diverse sizes and

purposes. In many faith-based organizations, especially smaller businesses, there tends to

be a lack of leadership development and awareness of leadership practice. Having

worked in and with several large faith-based organizations, the researcher was intrigued

to understand if there was any relationship between an individual’s personal leadership

style and levels of organizational commitment. Personal biased was eliminated due to the

use of established survey instruments and the limitation of participant responses.

During the process, the researcher experienced several circumstances that

influenced thoughts on organizational commitment. Although the researcher can be

described as a transformational leader, with strong affective commitment, recent

workplace circumstances (influenced by emotion, identification, and involvement), made

it apparent that from a personal perspective, leadership style did not influence the

researcher’s level of workplace commitment. Significant work-related challenges

experienced during this research provided further insight on the understanding that

personal perceived leadership had no significant relationship to organizational

140

commitment. However, transformational leadership weakly impacted organizational

commitment (affective, continuance, and normative) and this was a reminder that leaders

need to find opportunities to increase affective and normative commitment for

themselves as well as their followers.

There are multiple examples of leadership styles in the Bible. Transformational

leaders, such as Moses, Abraham, and David, demonstrate the ability to inspire and

influence followers and stirred emotions and achievement among followers (Bacha &

Walker, 2012; Salahuddin, 2011). These leaders stimulated their followers to take risks

and to achieve higher performance (Bacha & Walker, 2012; Leong & Rischer, 2011;

Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016). Each of these leaders cultivated a trust with their followers

(Giltinane, 2013). Each of these leaders demonstrated a strong affective and normative

commitment when it came to following God.

Transactional leaders, such as Saul, Pharaoh, and Potiphar used a system of

rewards and punishment to motivate their followers. Saul demonstrated such poor

leadership and disobedience that God said, “I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as

king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My

commandments” (1 Samuel 15:10). Pharaoh used punishment to motivate the Israelites

(Exodus 1:11). Joseph found favor in Potiphar sight and was promoted, and then was

placed in prison (Genesis 39:4, 20).

Laissez-faire leaders such as Belshazzar allow complete freedom and provide no

guidance (Daniel 5; Bhatti et al., 2012). Belshazzar required little of his followers and

exhibited a hands-off leadership (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016). Jonah also exhibited

141

laissez-faire leadership and he demonstrates an absence of leadership and wanted no

involvement with potential followers of Nineveh (Jonah 3). Jonah demonstrated a lack of

commitment to the cause of Christ. The Bible provides excellent examples of all broad

leadership styles and offers believers instances where individuals in positions of

leadership have succeeded in using God’s blessings and resources to honor Him.

Likewise, there are examples where leaders failed, for a variety of reasons, and God

provides examples of consequences when leaders abuse authority.

Summary and Study Conclusions



organizational commitment in employees of faith-based organizations. The research was

conducted in seven faith-based organizations and included a cross representation of

organizational type, employee job function, tenure, and level of responsibility.

Participants were from two large mega-churches, a K-12 Christian school, a Christian

University, two small ministries, and a national Christian certification agency. These

organizations had a faith-based purpose, were registered as a 501©(3) Public Charity, and

had annual gross receipts exceeding $25,000.

The researcher used Bass and Avolio’s (1992) Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ) which measures leadership types ranging from passive leadership

to transformational leadership and is a validated research instrument that measures

human behavior and personality. Additionally, the researcher used the TCM Employee

Commitment Survey, developed by Meyer and Allen (1997), which defines

142

organizational commitment using three associated factors: affective, continuance, and

normative and indicates a relationship between behavior and the organizational

commitment of employees.

Although academic literature is available on leadership styles and workplace

commitment, there is a lack of research in faith-based organizations (Longman &

Lafreniere, 2012). The research approach was to determine if there is a relationship

between personal perceived leadership style and personal organizational commitment.

The transformational characteristics did predict affective, continuance, and normative

commitment. Two transformational leadership characteristics did predict more than one

commitment type. Attributed (IIA) and inspirational motivation (IM) predicted affective

and continuance commitment. The research results indicated that there was no

statistically significant relationship between leadership style and organizational

commitment in employees of faith-based organizations. The researcher failed to reject

the null hypothesis.

143

References

Abdul Talib, Y. Y., & Mat Saat, R. (2017). Social proof in social media shopping: An

experimental design research. SHS Web of Conferences, 34, 2005. doi:

10.1051/shsconf/20173402005

Abreu, M. S., Cunha, M. C., & Rebouças, S. P. (2013). Effects of personal characteristics

on organizational commitment: Evidence from Brazil's oil and gas industry.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(20), 3831-3852. doi:

10.1080/09585192.2013.781527

Afshari, L., & Gibson, P. (2016). How to increase organizational commitment through

transactional leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

(37)4, 507-519. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-08-2014-0148

Agezo, C. K. (2013). Teachers' perceptions of the ethical leadership of male and female

headteachers in Ghanaian basic schools. Journal of School Leadership, 23(3),

562+. Retrieved from

http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA35194

5561&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=0db12

8990457f3452dabfb1cd516f6a0

Aghashahi, B., Davarpanah, A., Omar, R., & Sarli, M. (2013). The relationship between

leadership style and organizational commitment: A survey in a Malaysian contact

centre. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 2(11), 01- 07.

Retrieved from http://idjrb.com/?p=116

144

Aladwan, K., Bhanugopan, R., & Fish, A. (2013). To what extent the Arab workers

committed to their organizations? International Journal of Commerce &

Management, 23(4), 306-326. doi: 10.1108/IJCoMA-03-2012-0020

Alavi, S. B., & Gill, C. (2016). Leading change authentically: How authentic leaders

influence follower responses to complex change. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 1-15. doi: 10.1177/1548051816664681

Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2), 142-175. doi:

10.1016/0030-5073(69)90004-X

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,

continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x

Almansour, Y. M. (2012). The relationship between leadership styles and motivation of

managers conceptual framework. International Refereed Research Journal, 3(1),

161 – 166. Retrieved from http://www.researchersworld.com/vol3/Paper_17.pdf

Arekar, K., Jain, R., Desphande, B., & Sherin, P. (2016). Relationship between individual

and structural determinants on job satisfaction-analysis of employee turnover in the

Indian context. The Journal of Developing Areas, 50(6), 387-398. doi:

10.1353/jda.2016.0149

Arnold, K. A., & Loughlin, C. (2013). Integrating transformational and participative

versus directive leadership theories: Examining intellectual stimulation in male

145

and female leaders across three contexts. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 34(1), 67 – 84. doi: 10.1108/01437731311289974

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire™ 3rd

Edition. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of

transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership

questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4),

441-462. doi: 10.1348/096317999166789

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to

the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-

338. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001

Aydin, A., Sarier, Y., & Uysal, S. (2011). The effect of gender on organizational

commitment of teachers: A meta analytic analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory

& Practice, 11(2), 628-632. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/872044500?accountid=12085

Bacha, E., & Walker, S. (2012). The relationship between transformational leadership

and follower’s perceptions of fairness. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 667-

680. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1507-z

Bakri, N., & Ali, N. (2015). The impact of emotional intelligence on mental health of

pakistani nurses: The mediator role of organizational commitment. Asian Social

Science, 11(13) doi: 10.5539/ass.v11n13p151

146

Basham, L. M. (2012). Transformational leadership characteristics necessary for today's

leaders in higher education. Journal of International Education Research, 8(4),

343. doi: 10.19030/jier.v8i4.7280

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the

multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational

culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121. doi:

10.1017/S1833367200000705

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and

beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5), 21-27. doi:

10.1108/03090599010135122

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share

the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. doi: 10.1016/0090-

2616(90)90061-S

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational

leadership. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32.

doi: 10.1080/135943299398410

Bass, B., & Riggio, R., (2006). Transformational Leadership, 2nd ed. New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Publishers.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational

leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217. doi:

10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8

147

Bassous, M. (2015). What are the factors that affect worker motivation in faith-based

nonprofit organizations? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and

Nonprofit Organizations, 26(1), 335-381. doi: 10.1007/s11266-013-9420-3

Baumeister, R. F. (2016). Toward a general theory of motivation: Problems, challenges,

opportunities, and the big picture. Motivation and Emotion, 40(1), 1-10. doi:

10.1007/s11031-015-9521-y

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of

Sociology, 66(1), 32-42. doi: 10.1086/222820

Bell, C., & Mjoli, T. (2014). The effects of participative leadership on organizational

commitment: Comparing its effects on two gender groups among bank clerks.

African Journal of Business Management, 8(12), 451-459. doi:

10.5897/AJBM2013.7028

Benefiel, M., Fry, L. W., & Geigle, D. (2014). Spirituality and religion in the workplace:

History, theory, and research. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6(3), 175-

187. doi: 10.1037/a0036597

Ben-Hur, S., & Jonsen, K. (2012). Ethical leadership: Lessons from Moses. Journal of

Management Development, 31(9), 962-973. doi: 10.1108/02621711211259901

Berger, J. (2003). Religious nongovernmental organizations: An exploratory analysis.

Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14(1),

15–39. doi: 10.1023/A:1022988804887

148

Bhatti, N., Maitlo, G. M., Shaikh, N., Hashmi, M. A., & Shaikh, F. M. (2012). The

impact of autocratic and democratic leadership style on job satisfaction.

International Business Research, 5(2), 192-201. doi: 10.5539/ibr.v5n2p192

Bielefeld, W. & Cleveland, W. S. (2013). Defining faith-based organizations and

understanding them through research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,

42(3), 442-467. doi: 10.1177/0899764013484090

Bogler, R., Caspi, A., & Roccas, S. (2013). Transformational and passive leadership: An

initial investigation of university instructors as leaders in a virtual learning

environment. Educational management Administration & Leadership, 41(3),

372-392. doi: 10.1177/1741143212474805

Botti, M., & Endacott, R. (2005). Clinical research 5: Quantitative data collection and

analysis. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing, 21(3), 187-193. doi:

10.1016/j.iccn.2005.02.005

Bouteiller, D., & Gilbert, P. (2016). The dissemination of competency-based

management tools in North America since David C. McClelland. Industrial

Relations, 71(2), 224+. Retrieved from


8642&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w&asid=80ec67

198e508824f4c0b5c6c1393083 224+.

Boykins, C., Campbell, S., Moore, M., & Nayyar, S. (2013). An empirical study of

leadership styles. Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance,

and Marketing, 5(2), 1. Retrieved from

149

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1506446864?accountid=1

2085

Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005).

Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195+. doi:

10.1177/001440290507100205

Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R.

(2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee

engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1),

138-157. doi: 10.1111/joop.12041

Brown, M., Treviño, L., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning

perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002

Bull Schaefer, R. A., Green, S. G., Saxena, M., Weiss, H. M., & MacDermid Wadsworth,

S. M. (2013). Crossover of organizational commitment. Human Performance,

26(4), 261. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2013.814657

Burch, T. C., & Guarana, C. L. (2014). The comparative influences of transformational

leadership and leader-member exchange on follower engagement. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 9(3), 6-25. doi: 10.1002/jls.21334

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

Carter, S. M., & Greer, C. R. (2013). Strategic leadership: Values, styles, and

organizational performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,

20(4), 375-393. doi: 10.1177/1548051812471724

150

Cates, S. V., Cojanu, K. A., & Pettine, S. (2013). Can you lead effectively? An analysis

of the leadership styles of four generations of American employees. International

Review of Management and Business Research, 2(4), 1025-1041. Retrieved from


Çelik, S., Dedeoglu, B. B., & Inanir, A. (2015). Relationship between ethical leadership,

organizational commitment and job satisfaction at hotel organizations. Ege

Akademik Bakis, 15(1), 53. Retrieved from

http://www.academia.edu/11428438/Relationship_Between_Ethical_Leadership_

Organizational_Commitment_and_Job_Satisfaction_at_Hotel_Organizations

Černe, M., Dimovski, V., Marič, M., Penger, S., Škerlavaj, M. (2014). Congruence of

leader self-perceptions and follower perceptions of authentic leadership:

Understanding what authentic leadership is and how it enhances employees’ job

satisfaction. Australian Journal of Management, 39(3), 453-471. doi:

10.1177/0312896213503665

Charan, J., & Biswas, T. (2013). How to calculate sample size for different study designs

in medical research. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 35(2), 121.

Retrieved from http://www.ijpm.info/

Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-

subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior and

Organization, 81(1), 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009

151

Chin, W. W., Junglas, I., & Roldán, J. L. (2012). Some considerations for articles

introducing new and/or novel quantitative methods to IS researchers. European

Journal of Information Systems, 21(1), 1-5. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2011.46

Chiu, W. Y. B., & Ng, F. F. (2015). Enhancement of organizational commitment through

propensity to trust. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,

22(3), 272-294. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-04-2013-0029

Clinebell, S., Škudienė, V., Trijonyte, R., & Reardon, J. (2013). Impact of leadership

styles on employee organizational commitment. Journal of Service Science, 6(1),

139-152. doi: 10.19030/jss.v6i1.8244

Cochrane, L. L. (2013). Land degradation, faith-based organizations, and sustainability

in Senegal. The Journal of Culture & Agriculture, 35(2), 112–124. doi:

10.1111/cuag.12015

Colbert, A. E., Judge, T. A., Choi, D., & Wang, G. (2012). Assessing the trait theory of

leadership using self and observer ratings of personality: The mediating role of

contributions to group success. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 670-685. doi:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.004

Cox, A., Hannif, Z., & Rowley, C. (2014). Leadership styles and generational effects:

Examples of US companies in Vietnam. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 25(1), 1-22. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.778311

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

152

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crews, J. (2015). What is an ethical leader?: The characteristics of ethical leadership

from the perceptions held by Australian senior executives. Journal of Business

and Management, 21(1), 29-58. Retrieved from


Dai, Y. D., Dai, Y. Y., Kuan-Yang, C., Hui-Chun, W. (2013). Transformational vs

transactional leadership: Which is better?: A study of employees of international

tourist hotels in Taipei City. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

Management, 25(5), 760-778. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-Dec-2011-0223

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to

leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role

making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.

doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7

Dartey-Baah, K. (2015). Resilient leadership: A transformational-transactional leadership

mix. Journal of Global Responsibility, 6(1), 99-112. doi: 10.1108/JGR-07-2014-

0026

Deaton, A. V., Susan, B. W., & Douglas, R. S. (2013). Strengthening the next generation:

A multi-faceted program to develop leadership capacity in emerging nonprofit

leaders. The Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 3(1). Retrieved from


153

Derecskei, A. (2016). How do leadership styles influence the creativity of employees?

Society and Economy, 38(1), 103-118. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/204.2016.38.1.7

Derue, D. S., Nnahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and

behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their

relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-

6570.2010.01201.x

Devece, C., Palacios-Marqués, D., & Pilar Alguacil, M. (2016). Organizational

commitment and its effects on organizational citizenship behavior in a high-

unemployment environment. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1857-1861.

doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.069

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014).

Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends

and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36-62. doi:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005

Dorn, N. (2012). Knowing markets: Would less be more? Economy and Society, 41(3),

316-334. doi: 10.1080/03085147.2012.668032

Du, J., & Choi, J. N. (2013). Leadership effectiveness in china: the moderating role of

change climate. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,

41(9), 1571+. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2013.41.9.1571

154

Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., & Castañeda, M. B. (1994). Organizational commitment:

The utility of an integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 370-

380. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.370

Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research:

An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2), 144-

192. doi: 10.1177/109442810142004

Ershova, M., & Hermelink, J. (2012). Spirituality, administration, and normativity in

current church organization: An empirical study of the organizational culture in three

church denominations, under conditions of social change. International Journal of

Practical Theology, 16(2), 221-242. Retrieved from


Etzioni, A. (1961). The uniting of Europe: Political, social, and economic forces, 1950-

57. American Journal of Sociology, 66(5), 533-535. doi: 10.1086/222989

Fasola, O. S., Adeyemi, M. A., & Olowe, F. T. (2013). Exploring the relationship

between transformational, transactional leadership style and organizational

commitment among Nigerian banks employees. International Journal of

Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 2(6), 96. doi:

10.6007/IJAREMS/v2-i6/445

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses

using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior

Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.

155

Feizi, M., Ebrahimi, E., & Beheshti, N. (2014). Investigating the relationship between

transformational leadership and organizational commitment. International

Journal of Organizational Leadership, 3(1), 17 – 30. doi: 10.5539/ibr.v4n4p211

Fischer, R. L. (2004). The devil is in the details: Implementing secular outcome

measurement methods in faith‐based organizations. Nonprofit Management and

Leadership, 15(1), 25-40. doi: 10.1002/nml.51

Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, KY, Korotkin, A. L., Hein, M.

B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis

and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245–287. doi:

10.1016/1048-9843(91)90016-U

Foti, R. J., Bray, B. C., Thompson, N. J., & Allgood, S. F. (2012). Know thy self, know

thy leader: Contributions of a pattern-oriented approach to examining leader

perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 702-717. doi:

10.1016/j.leagua.2012.03.007

Francis, M., Townes, A., & Firesheets, E. K. (2012). Philanthropy in the faith

community: Mobilizing faith-based organizations for substance use prevention.

The Foundation Review, 4(3), 14. doi: 10.4087/FOUNDATIONREVIEW-D-12-

00006.1

Franke, F., & Felfe, J. (2011). How does transformational leadership impact employees’

psychological strain? Leadership, 7(3), 295-316. doi:

10.1177/1742715011407387

156

Frazier, E. (2015). The leadership, culture, job satisfaction relationship. Academic

Forum. Conference. Proceedings, 68. Retrieved from

http://liberty.summon.serialssolutions.com/#!/search?bookMark=ePnHCXMw42J

gAfZbU5kYOI2ALXFdCwtTSw74mAfouDczY04GM2AYKPjA1-

rqKEDOj0zVUfDKT1IIRlrXrwBfEwZUx82g7OYa4uyhCys146EBXhxvaG4ArO

gNzS1AN-ASowoAxQYynA

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P. & Borg, W. R. (2010). Applying educational research. Boston,

MA: Pearson.

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). Can you

see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower

development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343-372. doi:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic

leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly,

22(6), 1120-1145. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.007

Garg, A. K., & Ramjee, D. (2013). The relationship between leadership styles and

employee commitment at a parastatal company in South Africa. The International

Business & Economics Research Journal (Online), 12(11), 1411-n/a. doi:

10.19030/iber.v12i11.8180

Garg, S., & Jain, S. (2013). Mapping leadership styles of public and private sector leaders

using Blake and Mouton leadership model. Drishtikon: A Management Journal,

157

4(1), 48-64. Retrieved from


Gatling, A., Kang, H. J. A., & Kim, J. S. (2016). The effects of authentic leadership and

organizational commitment on turnover intention. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 37(2), 181-199. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-05-2014-0090

Gerber, T. P. (2012). The structural perspective on postsocialist inequality: Job loss in

Russia. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(1), 17-31. doi:

10.1016/j.rssm.2011.09.001

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange

theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6),

827-844. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827

Gillet, N., & Vandenberghe, C. (2014). Transformational leadership and organizational

commitment: The mediating role of job characteristics. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 25(3). doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21192

Giltinane, C. L. (2013). Leadership styles and theories. Nursing Standard, 27(41), 35-

39. doi: 10.7748/ns2013.06.27.41.35.e7565

Gooraki, E., Noroozi, H., Marhamati, S., & Behzadi, F. (2013). The effect of leadership

style on the employees’ job motivation in health care centers in shiraz. Journal of

Advances in Medical Education and Professionalism, 1(2), 59-63. Retrieved

from http://jamp.sums.ac.ir/index.php/JAMP

158

Grandy, G. (2013). An exploratory study of strategic leadership in churches. Leadership

& Organization Development Journal, (34)7, 616-638. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-08-

2011-0081

Grasmick, L., Davies, T. G., & Harbour, C. P. (2012). Participative leadership:

Perspectives of community college presidents. Community College Journal of

Research and Practice, 36(2), 67-80. doi: 10.1080/10668920802421496

Gregory, J. L. (2011). Mirror, mirror: preferred leadership characteristics of south

African managers. International Journal of Manpower, 32(2), 211-232. doi:

10.1108/01437721111130215

Gulluce, A. C., Kaygin, E., Kafadar, S. B., & Atay, M. (2016). The relationship between

transformational leadership and organizational commitment: A study of bank

employees. Journal of Service Science and Management, 9(3), 263-275. doi:

10.4236/jssm.2016.93033

Gyensare, M. A., Anku-Tsede, O., Sanda, M. A., & Okpoti, C. A. (2016).

Transformational leadership and employee turnover intention. World Journal of

Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 12(3), 243 – 266.

doi: 10.1108/WJEMSD-02-2016-0008

Hackett, R.D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P.A. (1994). Further assessment of Meyer and

Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 79, 15-23. Retrieved from

http://psycnet.apa.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/journals/apl/79/1/15.pdf

159

Hage, J., & Posner, B. Z. (2015). Religion, religiosity, and leadership practices: An

examination in the Lebanese workplace. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, (36)4, 396–412. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-07-2013-0096

Hater, J. J. & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinate’s perceptions of

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,

73(4), 695-702. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.73.4.695

Hauser, L. (2014). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Economics, Management

and Financial Markets, 9(4), 239. Retrieved from


2085

Hayibor, S. (2012). Equity and expectancy considerations in stakeholder action.

Business & Society, 51(2), 220-262. doi: 10.1177/0007650308323396

Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies.

Evidence - Based Nursing, 18(3), 66. doi: 10.1136/eb-2015-102129

Hemsworth, D., Muterera, J., & Baregheh, A. (2013). Examining bass's transformational

leadership in public sector executives: A psychometric properties review. Journal

of Applied Business Research, 29(3), 853-862. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1370363950?pq-

origsite=summon&accountid=12085

Honore, J. (2009). Employee motivation. Consortium Journal of Hospitality & Tourism

Management, 14(1), 63+. Retrieved from


160

0396&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w&asid=a1ce4d4

baa77a4456e551a2323a7aeba

Hyun, S., & Oh, H. (2011). Reexamination of Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation

in the Korean army foodservice operations. Journal of Foodservice Business

Research, 14(2), 100-121. doi: 10.1080/15378020.2011.574532

Joseph, T. (2016). Developing the leader-follower relationship: Perceptions of leaders

and followers. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 13(1), 132-144.

Retrieved from


Jost, P. J. (2013). An economic theory of leadership styles. Review of Managerial

Science, 7(4), 365-391. doi: 10.1007/s11846-012-0081-1

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational

leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751-765. doi: 10.1037/0021-

9010.85.5.751

Kanste, O., Miettunen, J., & Kyngäs, H. (2007). Psychometric properties of the

multifactor leadership questionnaire among nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing,

57(2), 201-212. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04100.x

Kaiser, R. B., LeBreton, J. M., & Hogan, J. (2015). The Dark Side of Personality and

Extreme Leader Behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64(1),

55-92. doi: 10.1111/apps.12024

161

Kapoor, C., & Solomon, N. (2011). Understanding and managing generational

differences in the workplace. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(4),

308 – 318. doi: 10.1108/17554211111162435

Keegan, S. (2009). Qualitative research: Good decision making through understanding

people, cultures and markets. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Keith, S. J., M. D., & Buckley, P. F., M. D. (2011). Leadership experiences and

characteristics of chairs of academic departments of psychiatry. Academic

Psychiatry, 35(2), 118-21. doi: 10.1176/appi.ap.35.2.118

Kempster, S., & Parry, K. (2014a). Charismatic leadership through the eyes of followers.

Strategic HR Review, 13(1), 20-23. doi: 10.1108/SHR-07-2013-0076

Kempster, S., & Parry, K. (2014b). Love and leadership: Constructing follower narrative

identities of charismatic leadership. Management Learning, 45(1), 21-38. doi:

10.1177/1350507612470602

Kenney, M. T. (2012). Evolutionary leadership theory. Journal of Leadership Studies,

6(1), 85-89. doi: 10.1002/jls.21233

Keskes, I. (2014). Relationship between leadership styles and dimensions of employee

organizational commitment: A critical review and discussion of future directions.

Intangible Capital, 10(1), 26-51. doi: 10.3926/ic.476

Khan, A. (2013). Approaches in leadership: Trait, situational and path-goal theory: A

critical analysis. Pakistan Business Review, 14(4), 830-842. Retrieved from

http://www.pbr.iobm.edu.pk/

162

Khan, R., Naseem, A., & Masood, S. A. (2016). Effect of continuance commitment and

organizational cynicism on employee satisfaction in engineering organizations.

International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 7(4), 141-146.

doi: 10.18178/ijimt.2016.7.4.661

Khandekar, R. P. (2012). Interacting sets of contradictory human needs as drivers of

human behavior. Indian Journal of Economics and Business, 11(2), 323+.

Retrieved from


2892&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=59b25

09e4a8b0455eb04c312d2db28fc

Khanin, D. (2007). Contrasting burns and bass: Does the transactional-transformational

paradigm live up to burns’ philosophy of transforming leadership? Journal of

Leadership Studies, (1)3, 7-25. doi: 10.1002/jls

Khasawneh, S., Omari, A., and Abu-Tineh, A. M. (2012). The relationship between

transformational leadership and organizational commitment: The case for

vocational teachers in Jordan. Educational Management Administration &

Leadership, 40(4), 494-508. doi: 10.1177/1741143212438217

Kleine, C., & Weißenberger, B. E. (2014). Leadership impact on organizational

commitment: The mediating role of management control systems choice. Journal

of Management Control, 24(3), 241-266. doi: 10.1007/s00187-013-0181-3

163

Ko, Y. J., Rhee, Y. C., Walker, M., & Lee, J. H. (2014). What motivates donors to

athletic programs: A new model of donor behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary

Sector Quarterly, 43(3), 523-546. doi 10.1177/0899764012472065

Koryak, O., Mole, K. F., Lockett, A., Hayton, J. C., Ucbasaran, D., & Hodgkinson, G. P.

(2015). Entrepreneurial leadership, capabilities and firm growth. International

Small Business Journal, 33(1), 89-105. doi: 10.1177/0266242614558315

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The Leadership Challenge: How to Make

Extraordinary Things Happen in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (1987). Leadership Practices Inventory. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Kriger, M., & Zhovtobryukh, Y. (2013). Rethinking strategic leadership: Stars, clans,

teams and networks. Journal of Strategy and Management, 6(4), 411-432. doi:

10.1108/JSMA-09-2012-0051

Laguilles, J. S., Williams, E. A., & Saunders, D. B. (2011). Can lottery incentives boost

web survey response rates? findings from four experiments. Research in Higher

Education, 52(5), 537-553. doi: 10.1007/s11162-010-9203-2

Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, & Van de Ven. (2013). Process studies of change in

organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow.

Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1-13. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.4001

Lawler, J., & Ashman, I. (2012). Theorizing leadership authenticity: A Sartrean

perspective. Leadership, 8(4), 327-344. doi: 10.1177/1742715012444685

164

Lazaroiu, G. (2015). Work motivation and organizational behavior. Contemporary

Readings in Law and Social Justice, 7(2), 66-75. Retrieved from


Leong, L. C., & Fischer, R. (2011). Is transformational leadership universal? A meta-

analytical investigation of multifactor leadership questionnaire means across

cultures. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2), 164-174. doi:

10.1177/1548051810385003

Leow, K. L. (2011). The organizational commitment. The International Journal of

Interdisciplinary Social Sciences: Annual Review, 6(1), 123-146. doi:

10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v06i01/51993

Lester, D. (2013). Measuring Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Psychological Reports,

113(1), 15-17. doi: 10.2466/02.20.PR0.113x16z1

Limsila, K., Ogunlana, S. O. (2007). Performance and leadership outcome correlates of

leadership styles and subordinate commitment. Engineering, Construction and

Architectural Management, 15(2): 164-184. doi: 10.1108/09699980810852682

Lisbon, E. I. (2010). A study of leadership preferences by generation. ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from


Longman, K. A., & Lafreniere, S. L. (2012). Moving beyond the stained glass ceiling:

Preparing women for leadership in faith-based higher education. Advances in

Developing Human Resources, 14(1), 45-61. doi: 10.1177/1523422311427429

165

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: a positive development

approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn Eds.) Positive

Organizational Scholarship, 241-258. San Fransico: Berrett-Goehler

Lynch, B. (2015). Partnering for performance in situational leadership: A person-centered

leadership approach. International Practice Development Journal, 5, 1 – 10.

Retrieved from


2085

Maddox, M. (2012). ‘In the goofy parking lot’: Growth churches as a novel religious

form for late capitalism. Social Compass, 59(2), 146-158. doi:

10.1177/0037768612440954

Mathieu, J E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,

correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological

Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171

McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational

commitment: Reexamination of the affective and continuance commitment scales.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 638–641. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.72.4.638

McKeown, M., & Carey, L. (2015). Editorial: Democratic leadership: A charming

solution for nursing's legitimacy crisis. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24(3-4), 315-

317. doi: 10.1111/jocn.12752

166

Mclaggan, E., Bezuidenhout, A., & Botha, C. T. (2013). Leadership style and

organisational commitment in the mining industry in mpumalanga. SA Journal of

Human Resource Management, 11(1), 1-e9. Doi :10.4102/sajhrm.v11i1.483

McMurray, A. J., Islam, M., Sarros, J. C., & Pirola‐Merlo, A. (2012). The impact of

leadership on workgroup climate and performance in a non‐profit organization.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(6), 522 – 549. doi:

10.1108/01437731211253000

McMurray, A. J., Pirola-Merlo, A., Sarros, J. C., & Islam, M. M. (2010). Leadership,

climate, psychological capital, commitment, and wellbeing in a non-profit

organization. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(5), 436-457.

doi: 10.1108/01437731011056452

Memili, E., Welsh, D. H. B., & Kaciak, E. (2014). Organizational psychological capital

of family franchise firms through the lens of the leader–member exchange theory.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(2), 200-209. doi:

10.1177/1548051813515513M

Mercurio, Z. A. (2015). Affective commitment as a core essence of organizational

commitment: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development

Review, 14(4), 389-414. doi: 10.1177/1534484315603612

Mesu, J., Sanders, K., & van Riemsdijk, M. (2015). Transformational leadership and

organizational commitment in manufacturing and service small to medium-sized

enterprises: The moderating effects of directive and participative leadership.

Personnel Review, 44(6), 970-990. doi: 10.1108/PR-01-2014-0020

167

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (2004). TCM employee commitment survey academic users

guide 2004. The University of Western Ontario.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and

application. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of

organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 64–98.

doi: 10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational

commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 69(3), 372-378. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.372

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and

occupations: Extension and test of a three-component model. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78(4), 538-551. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, L. J., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2012). Employee commitment in

context: The nature and implication of commitment profiles. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.002

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., and Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,

continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of

antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61,

20-52. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842

Miao, Q., Newman, A., & Huang, X. (2014). The impact of participative leadership on

job performance and organizational citizenship behavior: Distinguishing between

168

the mediating effects of affective and cognitive trust. International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 25(20), 2796-2810. doi:

10.1080/09585192.2014.934890

Middlebrooks, A. (2015). Introduction—Entrepreneurial leadership across contexts.

Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(4), 27-29. doi: 10.1002/jls.21349

Mind Garden FAQ. (2016). Should I use the self form of the MLQ? Mind Garden.

Retrieved from http://www.mindgarden.com/content/23-faq#horizontalTab3

Mitchell, D. E. (2015). The relationship of transformational leadership behaviors with

organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and productivity at one investment

services company in the mid-Atlantic region. (Doctoral dissertation). Wilmington

University. Retrieved from


Molina, R., & Klinker, J. F. (2012). A code of ethics for democratic leadership.

International Journal of Leadership in Education 15(3), 381-386. doi:

2048/10.1080/13603124.2011.617469

Morin, A. J. S., Vandenberghe, C., Turmel, M., Madore, I., & Maïano, C. (2013).

Probing into commitment's nonlinear relationships to work outcomes. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 28(2), 202-223. doi: 10.1108/02683941311300739

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1992). The measurement of

organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224-247.

doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1

169

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organizational linkages: The

psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY:

Academic Press.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Lyman, L. W. (1979). The measurement of

organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224-247.

doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1

Moyer, J. M., Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. P. (2014). Learning for sustainability among

faith-based organizations in Kenya. Environmental Management, 54(2), 360-372.

doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0289-8

Mtimkulu, D. S., Naranhee, N., & Karodia, A. M. (2014). An evaluation of the

leadership styles of managers and their impact on human capital factors of

motivation, performance and absenteeism of employees at selected hospitals in

eastern free state South Africa. Arabian Journal of Business and Management

Review, 4(2). Retrieved from

http://www.arabianjbmr.com/pdfs/OM_VOL_4_(2)/5.pdf

Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. S., & Swamy, D. R. (2014). Leadership styles. Advances in

Management, 7(2), 57-62. Retrieved from


Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis.

Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 129-132. doi: 10.1177/1362168815572747

170

National NAICS 2-digit and 3-digit Industry Data. (2012). Research data on nonprofit

sector. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from:

https://www.bls.gov/bdm/nonprofits/nonprofits.htm

Nichols, A. L. (2016). What do people desire in their leaders? The effect of leadership

experience on desired leadership traits. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 37(5), 658-671. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-09-2014-0182

Nisen, J. A., & Schwertman, N. C. (2008). A simple method of computing the sample

size for chi-square test for the equality of multinomial distributions.

Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 52(11), 4903-4908. doi:

10.1016/j.csda.2008.04.007

Notgrass, D. (2014). The relationship between followers' perceived quality of relationship

and preferred leadership style. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

35(7), 605. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-08-2012-0096

Nyberg, D., & Sveningsson, S. (2014). Paradoxes of authentic leadership: Leader

identity struggles. Leadership, 10(4), 437–455. doi: 10.1177/1742715013504425

Ogunjinmi, A. A., Onadeko, S. A., Ladebo, O. J., & Ogunjinmi, K. O. (2014). Personal

characteristics and training opportunities as determinants of organisational

commitment among Nigeria National Parks' employees. European Scientific

Journal, 10(5), 221+. Retrieved from


7864&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=3cd60

0faf83255008554a20a1fe81f21

171

Okinyi, O. M. (2015). Effect of reward practices on employee commitment in faith-based

health organization in Kakamega County, Keyna. International Journal of

Management Research and Reviews, 5(10), 729-743. Retrieved from


Olukayode, L. (2013). The effect of personal characteristics and other status related

factors on employee commitment to work in the manufacturing industry in

Nigeria. Ife Psychologia, 21(2), 150-159. Retrieved from


Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). Leadership and employees’ reactions to change: The role

of leaders’ personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel

Psychology, 64(3), 627-659. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01221.x

Overall, J. (2015). A conceptual framework of innovation and performance: The

importance of leadership, relationship quality, and knowledge management.

Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 21(2), 41+. Retrieved from

http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=vic_liber

ty&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA457622760&sid=summon&asid=17d0441d855

0e8d5861e0d2474e97406

Paramanandam, P. (2013). Organizational commitment and functional role stress.

Journal of Organization and Human Behavior, 2(1), 34-39. Retrieved from


Parker, B., & Chusmir, L. H. (1990). A generational and sex-based view of managerial

work. Psychological reports, 66(3), 947. doi: 10.2466/PR0.66.3.947-950

172

Patiar, A., & Wang, Y. (2016). The effects of transformational leadership and

organizational commitment on hotel departmental performance. International

Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(3), 586-608. doi:

10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0050

Patten, M. L. (2009). Understanding research methods: An overview of the essentials.

Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant leadership: Exploring

executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 565-

596. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01253.x

Phipps, K. A., & Burbach, M. E. (2010). Strategic leadership in the nonprofit sector:

Opportunities for research. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management,



Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader

behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,

commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of

Management, 22(2), 259-298. doi: 10.1177/014920639602200204

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational

commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover, among psychiatric technicians.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603-609. doi: 10.1037/h0037335

173

Putting people first: Employee retention and organizational performance. (2011).

Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 25(1),

25-27. doi: 10.1108/14777281111096816

Pyngavil, R. S. (2015). Leadership dimensions & organizational commitment in small

scale enterprises in Delhi. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 50(3), 479+.

Retrieved from


6397&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=647e0

d8963ce9c5abf74cb6bb274a9d8

Quintana, T. A., Park, S., & Cabrera, Y. A. (2015). Assessing the effects of leadership

styles on employees’ outcomes in international luxury hotels. Journal of Business

Ethics, 129(2), 469-489. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2170-3

Rego, P., Lopes, M. P., & Nascimento, J. L. (2016). Authentic leadership and

organizational commitment: The mediating role of positive psychological capital.

Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 9(1), 129-151. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1540

Renko, M., El Tarabishy, A., Carsrud, A. L. and Brännback, M. (2015), Understanding

and measuring entrepreneurial leadership style. Journal of Small Business

Management, 53(1), 54–74. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12086

Renko, M., Kroeck, K. G., & Bullough, A. (2012). Expectancy theory and nascent

entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 667-684. doi:

10.1007/s11187-011-9354-3

174

Reiss, S. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 39(2), 152-

156. doi: 10.1177/0098628312437704

Riley, G. (2016). The role of self-determination theory and cognitive evaluation theory

in home education. Cogent education, 3(1), 1163651. doi:

10.1080/2331186X.2016.1163651

Rodriquez, J. C. (2014). Servant leadership: Helping people make wise choices. Journal

of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 114(5), S5. doi:

10.1016/j.jada.2010.04.021

Rodriguez, E. V., Franco, T. C. & Santos, M. J. N. (2006). Nature and antecedents of

organizational commitment: Considerations for human resource management.

European Journal of Management Studies, 11(2), 75-95. doi: 10.1.1.454.7248

Rogers, C. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as

developed in a client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology 3, 54-72.

Toronto: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from http://bibliotecaparalapersona-

epimeleia.com/greenstone/collect/ecritos2/index/assoc/HASH0171/74dac6cc.dir/d

oc.pdf

Ronquillo, J. C. (2011). Leadership in Nonprofit Organizations. A Reference Handbook,

Vol. 1, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 345-352.

Ruth, J. A. (2015). An examination of the impact of the big five personality traits and

work environment on the leadership behaviors of millennial generation

employees. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from


175

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic

definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54-67.

doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Sabella, A. R., El-Far, M. T., & Eid, N. L. (2016). The effects of organizational and job

characteristics on employees’ organizational commitment in arts-and-culture

organizations. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(5), 1002-

1024. doi: 10.1108/IJOA-08-2015-0900

Sabir, M., Sohail, A., & Asif Khan, M. (2011). Impact of leadership style on organization

commitment: In mediating role of employee value. Journal of Economics and

Behavioral Studies, 3(2), 145-152. doi: 10.19030/jss.v6i1.8244

Saha, R. (2016). Factors influencing organizational commitment - research and lessons.

Management Research and Practice, 8(3), 36. Retrieved from


2085

Salahuddin, M. M. (2011). Generational differences impact on leadership style and

organizational success. Journal of Diversity Management, 5(2), 1-6. doi:

10.19030/jdm.v5i2.805

Schneider, J. A. (2012). Comparing stewardship across faith-based organizations.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 42(3), 517-539. doi:

10.1177/0899764012461399

176

Schuh, S. C., Zhang, X., & Tian, P. (2013). For the good or the bad? Interactive effects of

transformational leadership with moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors.

Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 629-640. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1486-0

Seifert, M., Brockner, J., Bianchi, E. C., & Moon, H. (2016). How workplace fairness

affects employee commitment. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(2), 15-17.

Retrieved from


Sell, L., & Cleal, B. (2011). Job satisfaction, work environment, and rewards:

Motivational theory revisited. Labour, 25(1), 1-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

9914.2010.00496.x

Sethuraman, K., & Suresh, J. (2014). Effective leadership styles. International Business

Research, 7(9), 165-172. doi: 10.5539/ibr.v7n9p165

Shamir, B. & Eilam, G. (2005). What’s your story? A life-stories approach to authentic

leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly 163(3), 395–417. doi:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.005

Shaw, K., M. Cartwright, C., Sankaran, S., Kelly, J., Dick, B., Davies, A., & Craig, J.

(2013). Leadership in faith-based aged and community care. Leadership in Health

Services, 26(4), 312-321. doi: 10.1108/LHS-05-2012-0014

Shi, W., Connelly, B. L., & Hokisson, R. E. (2016). External corporate governance and

financial fraud: Cognitive evaluation theory insights on agency theory

prescriptions. Strategic Management Journal. doi: 10.1002/smj.2560

177

Shim, H. S., Jo, Y., & Hoover, L. T. (2015). Police transformational leadership and

organizational commitment: Mediating role of organizational culture. Policing: An

International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 38(4), 754 – 774. doi:

2048/10.1108/PIJPSM-05-2015-0066

Skiba, M., & Rosenberg, S. (2011). The disutility of equity theory in contemporary

management practice. The Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 17(2), 1-

19,97-98. Retrieved from


Soane, E., Butler, C., & Stanton, E. (2015). Followers’ personality, transformational

leadership and performance. Sport, Business and Management: An International

Journal, 5(1), 65-78. doi: 10.1108/SBM-09-2011-0074

Solinger, O. N., Hofmans, J., & van Olffen, W. (2015). The dynamic microstructure of

organizational commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 88(4), 773-796. doi: 10.1111/joop.12097

Smalley, S. W., Retallick, M. S., Metzger, D., & Greiman, B. (2016). Analysis of

leadership perceptions, skills and traits as perceived by agribusiness and industry

professionals. NACTA Journal, 60(1), 43-48. Retrieved from


Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational

work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4),

363-382. doi: 10.1002/job.147

178

Sparrow, J. (2015). Developing authentic leaders, always able to engage at their best.

Strategic HR Review, 14(3), 100-102. doi: 10.1108/SHR-04-2015-0031

Starke, R. E. (2010). Qualitative Research. New York: The Guildford Press.

Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584–

2069. New York: William Morrow.

Stazyk, E. C., Pandey, S. K., & Wright, B. E. (2011). Understanding affective

organizational commitment. The American Review of Public Administration

41(6), 603-624. doi: 10.1177/0275074011398119

Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 46-56. doi:

10.1080/08853134.1989.10754511

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the

literature. Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35. doi:

10.1080/00223980.1948.9917362

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Stone, D. N., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2009). Beyond talk: Creating autonomous

motivation through self-determination theory. Journal of General Management,


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279692537_Beyond_talk_Creating_auto

nomous_motivation_through_self-determination_theory

Sudha, K. S., Shahnawaz, M. G., & Farhat, A. (2016). Leadership styles, leader’s

effectiveness and well-being: Exploring collective efficacy as a mediator. Vision:

179

The Journal of Business Perspective, 20(2), 111-120. doi:

10.1177/0972262916637260

Susanj, Z., & Jakopec, A. (2012). Fairness perceptions and job satisfaction as mediators

of the relationship between leadership style and organizational commitment.

Psychological Topics, 21(3), 509-526. Retrieved from


Suma, S., & Lesha, J. (2013). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment: The case

of Shkodra municipality. European Scientific Journal, 9(17), 41+. Retrieved from

http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=vi

c_liberty&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA348453092&sid=summon&asid=ecb386

1722a54e930eeced87e7aeeb7d

Suriyamurthi, S., Velavan, M., & Radhiga, T. D. (2013). Importance of leadership in

innovations of HR practices. Advances in Management, 6(11), 47. Retrieved

from

http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.ed

u/docview/1470793027?accountid=12085

Taormina, R. J., & Gao, J. H. (2013). Maslow and the motivation hierarchy: Measuring

satisfaction of the needs. American Journal of Psychology, 126(2), 155+. doi:

10.5406/amerjpsyc.126.2.0155

Terry, J. D., Smith, A. R., Warren, P. R., Miller, M. E., McQuillin, S. D., Wolfer, T. A.,

& Weist, M. D. (2015). Incorporating evidence-based practices into faith-based

organization service programs. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 43(3), 212-

180

223. Retrieved from


Thompson, C. B. & Panacek, E. A. (2007). Research study designs: Non-experimental.

Air Medical Journal, (26)1, 18–22. doi: 10.1016/j.amj.2006.10.003

Thompson, G., & Glasø, L. (2015). Situational leadership theory: A test from three

perspectives. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(5), 527-544.

doi: 10.1108/LODJ-10-2013-10130

Ugah, A. D., & Arua, U. (2011). Expectancy theory, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and

cataloguing departments. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1-4. Retrieved from


Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership. A review and synthesis. Journal of

Management, 37, 1228-1261. doi: 10.1177/0149206310380462

Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development

and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and

Psychology, 26(3), 249-267. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1

Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative

divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information

systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21.

Vijayakumar, V. S. R., & Saxena, U. (2015). Herzberg revisited: Dimensionality and

structural invariance of Herzberg's two factor model. Journal of the Indian

Academy of Applied Psychology, 41(2), 291-298. Retrieved from


181

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J.

(2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of theory-based

measure. Journal of Management 34(1), 89-126. doi:

10.1177/0149206307308913

Watson, R. (2015). Quantitative research. Nursing Standard (Royal College of Nursing

(Great Britain): 1987), 29(31), 44. doi: 10.7748/ns.29.31.44.e8681

Westerlaken, K. M., & Woods, P. R. (2013). The relationship between psychopathy and

the full range leadership model. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(1),

41-46. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.026

Wilson, J. (2016). VII—Internal and external validity in thought experiments.

Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 116(2), 127-152. doi:

10.1093/arisoc/aow008

Winston, B. E., Cerff, K., & Kirui, S. (2012). Motivation to serve in faith-based non-

profit churches: The role of affective and normative commitment as well as

motivation to lead. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior,



Wright, R. A. (2016). Motivation theory essentials: Understanding motives and their

conversion into effortful goal pursuit. Motivation and Emotion, 40(1), 16-21. doi:

10.1007/s11031-015-9536-4

182

Xu, L., Fu, P., Xi, Y., Zhang, L., Zhao, X., Cao, C., Ge, J. (2014). Adding dynamics to a

static theory: How leader traits evolve and how they are expressed. The

Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1095-1119. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.10.002

Xu, L., Wubbena, Z., & Stewart, T. (2016). Measurement invariance of second-order

factor model of the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) across K-12

principal gender. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(6), 727-748. doi:

10.1108/JEA-01-2015-0001

Yahaya, R., & Ebrahim, F. (2016). Leadership styles and organizational commitment:

Literature review. Journal of Management Development 35(2), 190-216. doi:

2048/10.1108/JMD-01-2015-0004

Yi, Y. J., & Park, K. H. (2014). Motivational needs on team performance of Korean

nursing students. International Nursing Review 62(1), 47-53. doi:

10.1111/inr.12164

Yousef, D. A. (1998). Satisfaction with job security as a predictor of organizational

commitment and job performance in a multicultural environment. International

Journal of Manpower, 19(3), 184 – 194. doi: 2048/10.1108/01437729810216694

Yu, H., & Miller, P. (2005). Leadership style. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 26(1), 35-50. doi: 10.1108/01437730510575570

Yu-Chi, W., & Ping Ju, T. (2012). Multidimensional relationships between paternalistic

leadership and perceptions of organizational ethical climates. Psychological

Reports, 111(2), 509-527. doi: 10.2466/01.17.PR0.111.5.509-527

183

Yucel, I., McMillan, A., & Richard, O. C. (2014). Does CEO transformational leadership

influence top executive normative commitment? Journal of Business Research

67(6), 117-1177. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.005

Zander, L., Mockaitis, A. I., & Butler, C. L. (2012). Leading global teams. Journal of

World Business, 47(4), 4592-603. doi: 10.1016/jwb.2012.01.012

Zamperion, A., Spanio, D., Bernardi, P., Milan, R. & Buja, A. (2013). Nurse managers’

preferred and perceived leadership styles: a study at an Italian hospital. Journal of

Nursing Management, 21, 521–528. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01358.x

Zancher, H., Rosing, K., Henning, T., & Frese, M. (2011). Establishing the next

generation at work: Leader generativity as a moderator of the relationships

between leader age, leader-member exchange, and leadership success.

Psychology and Aging, 26(1), 241-252. doi: 10.1037/a0021429

Zatzick, C. D., Deery, S. J., & Iverson, R. D. (2015). Understanding the determinants of

who gets laid off: Does affective organizational commitment matter? Human

Resource Management 54(6), 877-891. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21641

Zehir, C., Sehitoglu, Y., & Erdogan, E. (2012). The effect of leadership and supervisory

commitment to organizational performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 58, 207-216. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.994

184

Appendix A: Sample of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Questions

Mind Garden, Inc. provided a letter of permission specifying the number of sample

items allowed for inclusion in a dissertation appendix and a copyright statement

(Appendix B). The authors of the MLQ only provide permission to list sample questions.

The following sample of questions were selected from the MLQ (Form 5X) for inclusion

in this research.

1. I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts.

2. I spend time teaching and coaching.

3. I display a sense of power and confidence.

4. I am effective in meeting organizational requirements.

5. I lead a group that is effective.

185

Appendix B: Permission to Use MLQ Appendix C: Questionnaire of Workplace

186

Appendix C: Questionnaire of Workplace Commitment1

Affective Commitment Scale

1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.

2. I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own.

3. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization (Reverse Scored).

4. I do not feel "emotionally attached" to this organization (Reverse Scored).

5. I do not feel like a "part of the family" at my organization (Reverse Scored).

6. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.

Continuance Commitment Scale

1. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as

desire.

2. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted

to.

3. Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my

organization now.

4. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization.

5. If I had not already put so much of myself into this organization, I might consider

working elsewhere.

1 From Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application, J. P. Meyer and

N. J. Allen, 1997, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Copyright 1997 by J. P. Meyer and N. J. Allen. Reprinted with permission. Do not reproduce without the permission of the authors.

187

6. One of the few serious consequences of leaving this organization would be the

scarcity of available alternatives.

Normative Commitment Scale

1. I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer (Reverse Scored).

2. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my

organization now.

3. I would feel guilty if I left my organization now.

4. This organization deserves my loyalty.

5. I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation

to the people in it.

6. I owe a great deal to my organization

188

Appendix D: Permission to Use Questionnaire of Workplace Commitment

189

Appendix E: Instruments and Variables

Survey Instrument

Variable Sub variables Sub variables

Question

Organizational Commitment

Affective Commitment AC 46-51 Continuance Commitment

CC 52-57

Normative Commitment NC 58-63 Leadership Practice

Idealized Influence Idealized Attributes Idealized Behaviors

IA IB

10,18,21,25 6,14,23,34

Inspirational Motivation IM

9,13,26,36

Intellectual Stimulation IS

2,8,30,32

Individual Consideration

IC

15,19,29,31

Contingent Reward CR

1,11,16,35

Management-by-exception (Active)

MBEA 4,22,24,27

Management-by-exception (Passive)

MBEP 3,12,17,20

Laissez-Faire Laissez-Faire LF 5,7,28,33

190

Appendix F: IRB Exemption 2782.030117

IRB Exemption 2782.030117: A Quantitative Examination of the Relationship Between Leadership and Organizational Commitment in Employees of Faith-Based Organizations Dear Kimberly Maiocco, The Liberty University Institutional Review Board has reviewed your application in accordance with the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations and finds your study to be exempt from further IRB review. This means you may begin your research with the data safeguarding methods mentioned in your approved application, and no further IRB oversight is required. Your study falls under exemption category 46.101(b)(2), which identifies specific situations in which human participants research is exempt from the policy set forth in 45 CFR 46:101(b):

(2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless: (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation.

Please retain this letter for your records. Also, if you are conducting research as part of the requirements for a master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation, this approval letter should be included as an appendix to your completed thesis or dissertation. Your IRB-approved, stamped consent form is also attached. This form should be copied and used to gain the consent of your research participants. If you plan to provide your consent information electronically, the contents of the attached consent document should be made available without alteration. Please note that this exemption only applies to your current research application, and any changes to your protocol must be reported to the Liberty IRB for verification of continued exemption status. You may report these changes by submitting a change in protocol form or a new application to the IRB and referencing the above IRB Exemption number. If you have any questions about this exemption or need assistance in determining whether possible changes

to your protocol would change your exemption status, please email us at [email protected].

Sincerely,

G. Michele Baker, MA, CIP Administrative Chair of Institutional Research The Graduate School

Liberty University | Training Champions for Christ since 1971

191

Appendix G: Demographic Data Frequencies and Percentages for Demographic Categorical Variables (N= 102).

Gender Frequency Percent

Male 56 54.9 Female 45 44.1

Undisclosed 1 1 Total 102 100.0

Ethnicity

Frequency Percent Caucasian 95 93.1

Hispanic 2 2 African American 3 2.9

Other 2 2 Total 102 100.0

Generational Cohort

Frequency Percent Traditionalist 2 2 Baby Boomer 34 33.3 Generation X 34 33.3

Millennial 32 31.4 Total 102 100.0

Employment Status

Frequency Percent Full Time 84 82.4 Part Time 18 17.6

Total 102 100.0

Faith-Based Organization Type Frequency Percent

K-12 Education 8 7.8 Higher Education 24 23.5

Church 39 38.2 Ministry 28 27.5

Accreditation/Certification 3 2.9 Total 102 100.0

192

Appendix H: Terms of Service

Section 4 (f) Data Retention Limitation. Mind Garden is not obligated to keep data or

honor unused or unrequested assessments beyond a period of one year from the creation

of the data or assessment unless the customer contacts Mind Garden via email prior to the

end of that year with a request to retain it longer. Mind Garden may choose to grant or

reject the request in its sole discretion.

A Quantitative Examination of The Relationship Between

Documents

Transcript of A Quantitative Examination of The Relationship Between