CHAPTER IV

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

A. Company Profile

1. Bank of the Philippine Islands

The Bank of the Philippine Islands is the oldest bank

in the country, with 155 years of banking leadership. Its

history began in 1828 when King Ferdinand VII of Spain

issued a decree mandating the establishment of a public bank

in the Philippines. However, it took 23 more years before

the bank was functional, under the leadership of then

governor-general Antonio de Urbiztondo y Eguia. The bank was

initially named El Banco de Espanol Filipino de Isabel II,

in honor of then reigning queen of Spain, Isabella II, but

was renamed to El Banco Espanol Filipino after the queen was

ousted. Its first office was located at the Royal Custom

House in Intramuros, where it printed the first paper money

of the Philippines. The bank continued to function with this

name until the Treaty of Paris in 1898, where it decided to

shed its Spanish character and take on a more Filipino one.

31

It was officially renamed to the Bank of the Philippine

Islands (BPI, Banco de las Islas Filipinas) in 1912.

In 1969, the Ayala Corporation became the biggest

shareholders of the company. Following this change in

ownership structure, BPI soon became the financial flagship

of the Ayala group of companies. Since then, BPI has

undergone many changes with its corporate culture due to

various factors: changes in leadership, mergers and

acquisitions, addition of other products and services, among

others.

The BPI follows a belief system that is outlined by six

main values: concern for people, excellence, loyalty,

teamwork, integrity and customer service. It envisions

providing its shareholders the highest possible return of

investment through prudent management and responsible

banking.

2. International Operations Department

The International Operations Department (IOD) belongs

under the umbrella family of Corporate Banking. Its

operations are centralized to the head office, defined as

32

having the function of processing all import and export

transactions made by local and international clients. As of

January 2011, it has a total of 53 employees with ranks

ranging from entry-level positions (Clerk A and B) up to

managerial ones (Supervisor A and B, Officer). All 53

employees report to one department supervisor; however, only

50 employees were selected to participate in the study,

since three have only been in the department for less than

two months. The 50 selected participants have been in the

department for at least one year, and are assumed to have

stayed there long enough to have already formed a meaningful

perception of their relationship with their leader.

B. Respondents Profile

The BPI-IOD has six basic tasks to perform, each

associated with their main function of processing all

imports and exports transactions made by local and

international clients. Following the six tasks, six groups

also exist, each with the main job of performing one basic

task, and a side job as back-up to another group, in the

case of possible emergencies or sudden workload influxes. As

33

such, two officers are designated as group coordinators for

each group, with the main function of checking the accuracy

and consistency of work done by employees. Still, even with

the distinct groupings and the existence of group

coordinators, all employees report to one superior, the head

of the BPI-IOD.

Employees in the BPI-IOD fall under three main

categories: 1.) relatively newly hired graduates of

accountancy or related courses; 2.) previous employees from

the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) and Prudential

Bank imports-exports departments, brought to BPI-IOD due to

the acquisitions made in 2000 and 2002 respectively ; and

3.) original BPI employees who have been in the company from

before 2000. With that, it is expected that there will be

differences in the background of each employee in the

department, as well as differences in the way they interact

with one another and ultimately with the department head.

As for the current head of the BPI-IOD, this person has

held the said position for over six years, starting early in

2005 up to present. Before that, this person was not part of

34

the BPI-IOD workforce, and was only transferred to the said

department when the previous head availed of early

retirement.

C. Data Presentation

Table 5 shows the results for descriptive statistics

treatment done on the Leader-Member Exchange instrument and

the Role stress instrument by the 43 respondents (R =

Respondents). Values for the total scores for the LMX

variable (labelled as LMX-T), as well as for each of its

dimensions (labelled as A = Affinity, Ct = Contribution, L =

Loyalty and R = Professional Respect) are seen in the 2nd to

6th columns in the said table. Values for the total scores

for the Role Stress variable (labelled as Sts-T), as well as

for each of its dimensions (labelled as Cf = Conflict, O =

Overload and A = Ambiguity) are seen in the 7th to 10th

columns in the same table. The values for the mean (Mean)

and standard deviation (SD) are found in the last two rows.

Table 6Descriptive statistics for the two variable and their dimensions

35

Scores from instrument

Respondent

LMX Role Stress

A Ct L R LMX-T Cf O ASTS-T

1 15 11 11 14 51 21 27 14 622 9 9 9 10 37 26 24 20 703 15 12 15 15 60 22 25 16 634 15 13 14 15 57 27 27 10 645 13 13 12 15 53 22 24 14 606 13 14 11 14 52 24 27 20 717 14 15 14 15 58 22 24 16 628 9 11 12 11 43 16 21 16 539 14 15 14 15 58 22 24 14 6010 14 15 14 15 58 22 24 14 6011 9 13 9 11 42 26 30 12 6812 15 13 9 15 52 25 24 17 6613 15 15 15 15 60 22 24 17 6314 14 14 15 15 58 23 26 14 6315 15 12 10 15 52 23 24 15 6216 11 14 12 13 50 20 21 16 5717 12 9 9 12 42 24 23 19 6618 9 12 9 12 42 16 11 14 4119 11 11 12 12 46 27 32 15 7420 9 13 11 13 46 22 29 17 6821 9 9 9 9 36 24 29 15 6822 9 11 9 13 42 24 31 15 7023 14 10 10 11 45 18 23 17 5824 14 12 9 13 48 28 22 15 6525 14 13 11 13 51 20 20 15 5526 13 9 11 12 45 17 19 18 5427 15 15 11 15 56 20 18 16 5428 12 15 9 15 51 20 25 10 5529 12 8 8 13 41 17 23 21 6130 13 13 12 12 50 27 31 17 7531 13 13 12 15 53 18 20 17 5532 15 14 14 15 58 29 27 15 7133 12 15 12 12 51 27 27 18 7234 15 15 15 15 60 20 25 16 6135 9 12 12 12 45 28 29 17 7436 9 9 8 10 36 20 20 20 6037 10 11 9 10 40 29 29 17 7538 13 14 12 12 52 22 23 22 6739 13 10 7 15 45 25 27 18 70

36

40 10 9 12 11 42 23 19 14 5641 11 11 13 12 47 25 27 17 6942 14 15 15 15 59 27 25 16 6843 15 11 10 15 51 18 21 19 58Mean 4.15 4.12 3.78 4.40 49 23 24 16 63SD 0.74 0.71 0.74 0.60 7 4 4 3 7

Table 7 shows the results for the Cronbach’s Alpha test

of reliability. Each variable was treated in order to show

the degree to which items of the instruments are related to

one another (internal consistency). Both alpha values

obtained fall under the Respectable category, as determined

by DeVellis (1991) in the table of acceptable alpha

coefficient values.

Table 7Cronbach’s alpha values for the LMX and role stress variables

VariableCronbach’s Alpha Value Number of Items

LMX 0.868 12Role Stress 0.702 24

To show the construct validity and the degree of

variance for the two instruments, a factor analysis was also

performed as shown in Table 8. The LMX instrument, composed

of 12 items, produced a total variance percentage of 76.811%

while the Role Stress instrument, composed of 24 items

produced a total variance percentage of 74.935%. Both values

37

generated fall within acceptable limits, with 70% as the

minimum, according to Field (2005). Values for LMX show that

74.935% of the observed variations in the LMX instrument can

be attributed to the LMX variable; 74.935% can be attributed

to Role Stress. The remaining 23.189% and 25.065%

respectively can be attributed to measurement error, random

chance and/or other variables. Results from the two tests

show that the two instruments used for the study are

reasonably valid and reliable.

Table 8Total variance percentages for the LMX and role stress variablesVariable Number of Items % of VarianceLMX 12 76.811Role Stress 24 74.935

The following values found in Table 9 were generated through

Pearson Product Moment Correlation test:

Table 9Correlation coefficients and p-values from Pearson Product Moment Correlation

Correlationr coefficient

r2% p-value

LMX – Role Stress -0.1205 0.0145 1.45% 0.221LMX – Conflict -0.0320 0.0010 0.10% 0.419LMX – Ambiguity -0.2884 0.0831 8.31% 0.030*LMX – Overload -0.0072 0.0001 0.01% 0.482Role Stress – -0.1741 0.0303 3.03% 0.132

38

AffinityRole Stress – Contribution -0.0401 0.0016 0.16% 0.399

Role Stress – Loyalty 0.0052 0.0000 0.003% 0.487

Role Stress – Pro. Respect -0.2038 0.0415 4.15% 0.095**

Affinity – Conflict -0.1001 0.0100 1.00% 0.262Affinity – Ambiguity -0.1613 0.0260 2.60% 0.151

Affinity – Overload -0.1232 0.0152 1.52% 0.216Contribution – Conflict 0.0490 0.0024 0.24% 0.377

Contribution – Ambiguity -0.2828 0.0800 8.00% 0.033*

Contribution – Overload 0.0625 0.0039 0.39% 0.345

Loyalty – Conflict 0.0554 0.0031 0.31% 0.362Loyalty – Ambiguity -0.2315 0.0536 5.36% 0.068**Loyalty – Overload 0.1057 0.0112 1.12% 0.250Pro. Respect – Conflict -0.1234 0.0152 1.52% 0.215

Pro. Respect – Ambiguity -0.2888 0.0834 8.34% 0.030*

Pro. Respect - Overload -0.0765 0.0058 0.58% 0.313

Notes: * Correlation is significant at p </= 0.05 ** Correlation is significant at p </= 0.10

Of the 20 pairs of correlated values, three (LMX-

Ambiguity, Contribution-Ambiguity and Professional Respect-

Ambiguity) are significant at the 0.05 level (p </= 0.05),

while two (Role Stress-Professional Respect and Loyalty-

Ambiguity) are significant at the 0.10 level (p </= 0.10).

39

D. Data Results

Values obtained through the Pearson Product Moment

Correlation treatment were mostly negative, meaning that the

relationship between the two variables, and consequently

their corresponding dimensions, are inversely proportional.

That is to say that as the LMX variable increases, the Role

Stress variable decreases.

The following is a summary of the conclusions that can

be drawn from the correlation coefficients, including

strength and direction of the correlation:

Table 10Summary derived from correlation coefficients and p-valuesCorrelation r Strength Direction

LMX – Role Stress

-0.1205

Very weak

Inverse; as LMX quality increases, Role Stress level decreases

LMX – Conflict-0.0320

Very weak Inverse; LMX ↑, Conflict ↓

LMX – Ambiguity-0.2884

Weak Inverse; LMX ↑, Ambiguity ↓

LMX – Overload-0.0072

Very weak Inverse; LMX ↑, Overload ↓

Role Stress – Affinity

-0.1741

Very weak Inverse; Role Stress↑, Affinity↓

40

Role Stress – Contribution

-0.0401

Very weakInverse; Role Stress↑, Contribution↓

Role Stress – Loyalty

0.0052

Very weak Direct; Role Stress↑,Loyalty↑

Role Stress – Respect

-0.2038

WeakInverse; Role Stress ↑, Professional Respect ↓

Affinity – Conflict

-0.1001

Very weak Inverse; Affinity ↑, Conflict ↓

Affinity – Ambiguity

-0.1613

Very weak Inverse; Affinity ↑, Ambiguity↓

Affinity – Overload

-0.1232

Very weak Inverse; Affinity ↑, Overload↓

Contribution – Conflict

0.0490

Very weak Direct; Contribution ↑, Conflict↑

Contribution – Ambiguity

-0.2828

Weak Inverse; Contribution↑, Ambiguity↓

Contribution – Overload

0.0625

Very weak Direct; Contribution ↑, Overload↑

Loyalty – Conflict

0.0554

Very weak Direct; Loyalty ↑, Conflict↑

Loyalty – Ambiguity

-0.2315

Weak Inverse; Loyalty ↑, Ambiguity↓

Loyalty – Overload

0.1057

Very weak Direct; Loyalty ↑, Overload↑

Respect – Conflict

-0.1234

Very Weak Inverse; Respect ↑, Conflict ↓

41

Respect – Ambiguity

-0.2888

Weak Inverse; Respect ↑, Ambiguity↓

Respect - Overload

-0.0765

Very weak Inverse; Respect ↑, Overload ↓

E. Discussions

The results from the treatment imply that there

generally exists a very weak, inversely proportional

association between the quality of leader-member exchange

and the levels of role stress in employees from the BPI-IOD,

except for a few relationships between some of the

dimensions. For the correlation between the quality of

leader-member exchange and the level of role ambiguity, the

association is weak and inversely proportional. The same is

true for the Role Stress and Professional Respect pair, the

Contribution and Ambiguity pair, the Loyalty and Ambiguity

pair, and as well as the Respect and Ambiguity pair.

Although the values are still very small and are considered

to be weak, it is still worth taking note of their relative

difference to the other dimensions in terms of strength.

42

Also noteworthy are five pairs that had a direct

relationship instead of the usual inverse: the Role Stress

and Loyalty pair, the Contribution and Conflict pair, the

Contribution and Overload pair, the Loyalty and Conflict

pair, and as well as the Loyalty and Overload pair. It is

interesting to note that while all the other correlation

pairs adhere to the earlier assumption of an inversely

proportional association between leader-member exchange and

role stress, these five pairs, and most specifically the two

dimensions of Contribution and Loyalty do not seem to follow

the said pattern. In interpreting the data in Table 10, the

following possible conclusions can be drawn: 1.) that

Contribution and Loyalty, both dimensions of the Leader-

Member Exchange variable may be set by the respondents at a

different value system or consideration from the other

dimensions of the said variable, and 2.) that the

differences with the results from various Western studies

lie in the differences in the culture and value systems of

the respondents, similar to the findings by Hwa, Jantani and

Ansari (2009) in their Malaysian studies.

43

Provided is a matrix of the percentages and the

corresponding interpretations in Table 11.

Table 11Summary of percentages and corresponding interpretationsCorrelation % Interpretation

LMX-Role Stress 1.45

Ability to predict Role Stress goes up by 1.45% with the knowledge of LMX

LMX-Conflict 0.10

Ability to predict Role Conflict goesup by 0.10% with the knowledge of LMX

LMX-Ambiguity 8.31

Ability to predict Role Ambiguity goes up by 8.31% with the knowledge of LMX

LMX-Overload 0.01

Ability to predict Role Overload goesup by 0.01% with the knowledge of LMX

Role Stress-Affinity

3.03

Ability to predict Role Stress goes up by 3.03% with the knowledge of Affinity

Role Stress-Contribution

0.16

Ability to predict Role Stress goes up by 0.16% with the knowledge of Contribution

Role Stress-Loyalty

0.003

Ability to predict Role Stress goes up by 0.003% with the knowledge of Loyalty

Role Stress-Respect

4.15

Ability to predict Role Stress goes up by 4.15% with the knowledge of Professional Respect

Affinity-Conflict

1.00

Ability to predict Role Conflict goesup by 1.00% with the knowledge of Affinity

Affinity-Ambiguity

2.60

Ability to predict Role Ambiguity goes up by 2.60% with the knowledge of Affinity

Affinity-Overload

1.52

Ability to predict Role Overload goesup by 1.52% with the knowledge of Affinity

Contribution-Conflict

0.24

Ability to predict Role Conflict goesup by 1.00% with the knowledge of

44

Affinity

Contribution-Ambiguity

8.00

Ability to predict Role Ambiguity goes up by 8.00% with the knowledge of Contribution

Contribution-Overload

0.39

Ability to predict Role Overload goesup by 0.39% with the knowledge of Contribution

Loyalty-Conflict 0.31

Ability to predict Role Conflict goesup by 0.31% with the knowledge of Loyalty

Loyalty-Ambiguity

5.36

Ability to predict Role Ambiguity goes up by 5.36% with the knowledge of Loyalty

Loyalty-Overload 1.12

Ability to predict Role Overload goesup by 1.12% with the knowledge of Loyalty

Respect-Conflict 1.52

Ability to predict Role Conflict goesup by 1.52% with the knowledge of Professional Respect

Respect-Ambiguity

8.34

Ability to predict Role Ambiguity goes up by 8.34% with the knowledge of Respect

Respect-Overload 0.58

Ability to predict Role Overload goesup by 0.58% with the knowledge of Respect

Note: * With the remaining difference (subtracted from 100%)to be explained by measurement error, random chance or othervariables.

Due to the very small figures produced by the

treatment, the overall ability to predict the level of role

stress only increases by 1.45% with the knowledge of the

quality of leader-member exchange, with the remaining 98.55%

to be explained by measurement error, random chance or other

45

variables. This summary of values only show that although it

is possible to find an association between the two variables

being tested, the probability of finding values that

actually correspond to each other, instead of only being the

consequence of random chance, measurement error or as the

effect of another variable is generally, across all 20

pairs, too small to be greatly significant, with the average

percentage set at only 2.41%.

However, it should be noted that both instruments

tested highly for the Cronbach’s Alpha measure of

reliability and for the Factor Analysis measure of internal

consistency. This implies that the instruments used in the

study did measure the variables that they were supposed to

measure; however, results show a very low correlation among

all the pairs tested. This could be probably be attributed

to the relatively small population size used for the study;

as posited by Debotys (1999) in the selected discussions by

Durepos, Mills and Weibe (2010), such issues may be

addressed by increasing the sample size to either 1.) 100

respondents, or 2.) ten times that of the number of

46

variables being tested, including dimensions, whichever is

the smallest. Although the study made use of the population

of an entire department, the size of the respondents falls

outside of the description given by Debotys, thereby

limiting the variation among the answers given by the

respondents by virtue of a low frequency of answers. Also,

the use of only one department as the source for the

respondents compromises the generalizability of the results.

As such, one way to address this is to expand the

number of respondents by selecting more workgroups from

other departments and other industries. It should be noted

however, that compared to studies using leader-member pairs,

the use of workgroups has enabled a closer look upon the

interactions among the variables at play; thus it would be

worth testing the same style of data gathering with a bigger

sample size.

On the other hand, the low correlation could also be

attributed to the non-existence of any significant

relationship between the two variables; however, this may

only be proven through the elimination of the other

47

possibilities that the error lies in the sampling method, or

other variables not measured in this study (such as age,

sex, tenure, etc.). Once the other possibilities have been

addressed (either proven or disproven) and respectively

integrated into the study, only then can the two variables

be tested to show whether there really is a significant

correlation between the quality and dimensions of leader-

member exchange and the level and dimensions of role stress.

But as for this study, the general finding is that as the

quality of Leader-Member exchange approaches that of being

an in-group member, the level of role stress the subordinate

experiences decreases, with the only exceptions being the

relationship between Role Stress and Loyalty, Contribution

and Conflict, Contribution and Overload, Loyalty and

Conflict, and as well as Loyalty and Overload. For these

variables, as one variable increases, the other follows in

the same direction. The following are the conclusions

derived from the results, as well as the review of related

literature, taking into account the work of Kahn, Wolfe,

Quinn and Snoek (1964), Latack (1981), and Judge and Robbins

48

(2009) for role stress; Dienesch and Liden (1986), Graen and

Uhl-Bien (1995), Liden and Maslyn (1998), and Ansari,

Jantani and Hwa (2009) for leader-member exchange:

1.) Role Stress – Loyalty: As employees get more

uncertain and conflicted about their roles in the workplace,

their dependence, and consequently their trust in following

the directions given to them by their leaders increase,

since they are unable to compromise the idea of what their

role exactly is.

2.) Contribution – Conflict: As employees invest more

in the relationship building between them and their leaders,

the amount of dissonance between the original role set and

the new role set expected from the employees due to the

changing relationship increases.

3.) Contribution – Overload: As employees invest more

in the relationship building between them and their leaders,

the amount of roles they are expected to perform also

increases, so much that they develop feelings of being

overworked and overburdened.

49

4.) Loyalty – Conflict: As employees develop higher

levels of dependence and trust on the decisions and

directions given by their leaders, the amount of dissonance

between their original role set and the new role set

expected from them increases. This may be pertaining to

instances where employees feel conflicted about following

directions from the leaders that contradict directions from

the company rule book.

5.) Loyalty – Overload: As employees develop higher

levels of dependence and trust on the decisions and

directions given by their leaders, the amount of roles they

are expected to perform also increases, so much that they

develop feelings of being overworked and overburdened. As

employees show more willingness to adhere to the directions

of leaders, perhaps more so than other members of the

workgroup, they are given more roles to perform, thus making

then develop feelings of being overworked.

Other notable results from the correlation coefficients

are the relationships between the quality of leader-member

exchange and the level of role ambiguity, Role Stress and

50

Professional Respect, Contribution and Ambiguity, Loyalty

and Ambiguity, and as well as Respect and Ambiguity, where

the strength of the correlation was relatively stronger than

that of the other correlation pairs. Again, the following

are the conclusions derived from the results, as well as the

review of related literature, taking into account the work

of Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn and Snoek (1964), Latack (1981), and

Judge and Robbins (2009) for role stress; Dienesch and Liden

(1986), Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), Liden and Maslyn (1998),

and Ansari, Jantani and Hwa (2009) for leader-member

exchange:

6.) LMX – Ambiguity: As the relationship between

employees and their leaders approach levels closer to that

of the in-group level, the amount of uncertainty regarding

knowledge of what roles leaders expect employees perform

decreases. It becomes clearer to employees what their

leaders expect them to do or act as their relationship with

them becomes more defined.

7.) Role Stress – Professional Respect: As employees

get more uncertain and conflicted about their roles in the

51

workplace, the quality of their impressions on the

credibility and reputation of their leaders decreases. Since

employees begin to experience higher levels of stress, they

begin to think less of their leaders as reliable and

dependable people.

8.) Contribution – Ambiguity: As employees invest more

in the relationship building between them and their leaders,

the amount of uncertainty regarding knowledge of what roles

leaders expect employees to perform decreases. Since the

leader-member relationship becomes more defined, employees

also become more certain of the roles they are expected to

perform. It is consistent with the earlier discussed

correlation pairs Contribution – Overload and Contribution –

Conflict; it follows that as members invest more in the

relationship building between them and their leaders, the

roles expected of them increase, become more defined and

possibly induce dissonance between their original role set

and the new role set expected of them.

9.) Loyalty – Ambiguity: As employees develop higher

levels of dependence and trust on the decisions and

52

directions of their leaders, the amount of uncertainty

regarding knowledge of what roles leaders expect them to

perform decreases. Since there is an increase in the

dependency and adherence of employees on the decisions,

directions and possibly even value systems of the leaders,

they also become more certain of the roles they are expected

to perform. It is consistent with the earlier discussed

correlation pairs Loyalty – Conflict and Loyalty – Overload;

it follows that as members become more dependent and

conforming to the decisions of the leaders, the roles

expected of them increase, become more defined and possibly

induce dissonance between their original role set and the

new role set expected of them.

10.) Professional Respect – Ambiguity: As the quality

of the impressions employees have of the credibility and the

reputation of their leaders increase, the amount of

uncertainty regarding knowledge of what roles leaders expect

them to perform decreases. Since employees are able to

reconcile the projected and the real images of credibility

and reputation of their leaders, they become more certain of

53

the roles they are expected to perform. Since employees are

able to see that the attitudes, behaviors, value systems,

beliefs and general management styles practiced by the

leaders are the same or closely similar to what they preach,

it follows that they are also able to gauge better what

roles leaders expect them to perform. Using the inverse of

this situation, if employees see that leaders generally do

not adhere to their own rules, they would have a harder time

determining exactly which roles they are expected to

perform.

While these conclusions provide a new in-depth

interpretation of the dynamics between the dimensions of

leader-member exchange and role stress, possibly one that is

more fitting for a Filipino-based organization, it should be

noted that the correlation coefficients obtained for these

are too small to be used as a basis for generalization, and

are also too weak to stand as empirical evidence of the

claims. It is with this conclusion, therefore, that the

recommendation for further testing with a larger sample size

composed of more diversified workgroups is based.