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
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
Table 20. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis and Collinearity Statistics of
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
Table 33. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis and Collinearity Statistics of
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
leadership style and organizational commitment in employees of faith-based
organizations.
HA1: There is a statistically significant relationship between personal perceived
leadership style and organizational commitment in employees of faith-based
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
organizational commitment.
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
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. 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
organizational commitment.
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
Questionnaire (MLQ) and Meyer and Allen’s (1991, 1997) TCM Employee Commitment
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
Questionnaire (MLQ) and Meyer and Allen’s (1991, 1997) TCM Employee Commitment
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
leadership style and organizational commitment in employees of faith-based
organizations.
HA1: There is a statistically significant relationship between personal perceived
leadership style and organizational commitment in employees of faith-based
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
a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Scale
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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.
Model Sum of Squares df
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
affective commitment.
Table 12 ANOVA of Individual Consideration on Affective Commitment
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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
p>.05. This indicated that there was less than 75.4% 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 15
ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Passive) on Affective Commitment
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Model Sum of Squares df
Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 14.787 5 2.957 4.501 .001b
Residual 63.070 96 .657
Total 77.856 101
a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Scale
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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.
An analysis on collinearity was conducted and the variance information factor
(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
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .440a .194 .115 .7575980213
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df
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.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF (Constant) 3.812 .659 5.789 .000 Builds Trust (IIA)
-.032 .188 -.021 -.168 .867 .553 1.807
Acts with Integrity (IIB)
-.071 .203 -.052 -.353 .725 .409 2.444
Encourages Others (IM)
-.355 .178 -.269 -1.998 .049 .485 2.064
Encourages Innovative Thinking (IS)
-.292 .185 -.201 -1.575 .119 .535 1.868
Coaches; Develops People (IC)
.179 .224 .117 .798 .427 .408 2.453
Rewards Achievement (CR)
.014 .168 .011 .084 .933 .545 1.833
Monitors Deviations; Mistakes (MBEA)
.267 .111 .251 2.400 .018 .801 1.249
Fights Fires (MBEP)
.049 .174 .064 .540 .591 .626 1.578
Avoids Involvement (LF)
.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
Model Sum of Squares df
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)
Table 22 illustrates the analysis of variance of behavioral idealized influence (IIB)
(transformational leadership) on continuance commitment, where F(1,101)= 3.736, and
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Table 23 illustrates the analysis of variance of inspirational motivation (IM)
(transformational leadership) on continuance commitment, where F(1,101)= 11.910, and
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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)
Table 24 illustrates the analysis of variance of intellectual stimulation (IS)
(transformational leadership) on continuance commitment, where F(1,101)= 6.428, and
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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)
Table 25 illustrates the analysis of variance of individual consideration (IC)
(transformational leadership) on continuance commitment, where F(1,101)= 4.626, and
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Table 26 illustrates the analysis of variance of contingent reward (CR)
(transactional leadership) on continuance commitment, where F(1,101)= 2.407, and
p>.05. This indicated that there was less than 12.4% chance that an F-ratio this small
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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)
Table 27 illustrates the analysis of variance of active management-by-exception
(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
would happen if the null hypothesis was true; therefore, the regression model did predict
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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)
Table 28 illustrates the analysis of variance of passive management-by-exception
(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
would happen if the null hypothesis was false, therefore, the regression model did not
predict continuance commitment.
Table 28 ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Passive) on Continuance Commitment
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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.
An analysis on collinearity was conducted and the variance information factor
(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
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .411a .169 .088 .8058620225
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df
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.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std.
Error Beta Tolerance VIF
(Constant) 3.209 .700 4.581 .000
Builds Trust (IIA)
.093 .199 .059 .465 .643 .553 1.807
Acts with Integrity (IIB)
.446 .215 .308 2.071 .041 .409 2.444
Encourages Others (IM)
-.033 .189 -.024 -.177 .860 .485 2.064
126
Encourages Innovative Thinking (IS)
-.449 .197 -.295 -2.275
.025 .535 1.868
Coaches; Develops People (IC)
-.232 .239 -.145 -.971 .334 .408 2.453
Rewards Achievement (CR)
.153 .179 .110 .854 .396 .545 1.833
Monitors Deviations; Mistakes (MBEA)
.082 .119 .074 .692 .491 .801 1.249
Fights Fires (MBEP)
.093 .145 .076 .638 .525 .634 1.578
Avoids Involvement (LF)
.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
would happen if the null hypothesis was false, therefore, the regression model did not
predict normative commitment.
Table 34 ANOVA of Idealized Influence (Attributed) on Normative Commitment
Model Sum of Squares df
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)
Table 35 illustrates the analysis of variance of behavioral idealized influence (IIB)
(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
would happen if the null hypothesis was false, therefore, the regression model did not
predict normative commitment.
Table 35
ANOVA of Idealized Influence (Behavioral) on Normative Commitment
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Table 36 illustrates the analysis of variance of inspirational motivation (IM)
(transformational leadership) on normative commitment, where F(1,101)= .097, and
p>.05. This indicated that there was less than 75.6% 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 36
ANOVA of Inspirational Motivation on Normative Commitment
Model Sum of Squares df
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)
Table 37 illustrates the analysis of variance of intellectual stimulation (IS)
(transformational leadership) on normative commitment, where F(1,101)= 3.143, and
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
normative commitment.
129
Table 37 ANOVA of Intellectual Stimulation on Normative Commitment
Model Sum of Squares df
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 illustrates the analysis of variance of individual consideration (IC)
(transformational leadership) on normative commitment, where F(1,101)= 1.919, and
p>.05. This indicated that there was less than 16.9% 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 38 ANOVA of Individual Consideration on Normative Commitment
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Table 39 illustrates the analysis of variance of contingent reward (CR)
(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
normative commitment.
Table 39 ANOVA of Contingent Reward on Normative Commitment
Model Sum of Squares df
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)
Table 40 illustrates the analysis of variance of active management-by-exception
(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
would happen if the null hypothesis was false; therefore, the regression model did not
predict normative commitment.
131
Table 40
ANOVA of Management-by-Exception (Active) on Normative Commitment
Model Sum of Squares df
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)
Table 41 illustrates the analysis of variance of passive management-by-exception
(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
would happen if the null hypothesis was true; therefore, the regression model did predict
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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
Model Sum of Squares df
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
affective commitment.
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
organizational commitment.
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
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 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
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA45460
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1497172449?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1777749208?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1730194927?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1450019363?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1477998237?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1650863092?accountid=1
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
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA33068
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1791040214?accountid=12085
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
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA30508
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1747589019?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/866567817?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1793668971?accountid=1
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1680274602?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1502695803?accountid=12085
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
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA36443
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1734625539?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1440183748?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1478026668?accountid=12085
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,
11(2), 137-154. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/196725752?accountid=12085
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
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA42766
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1698459190?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1827601495?accountid=1
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1753248990?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/902630952?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1791660506?accountid=12085
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,
34(3), 75-91. Retrieved from
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1321119999?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1735314761?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1231281369?accountid=12085
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
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1779874631?accountid=12085
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,
15(2), 264-275. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1030094192?accountid=12085
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.
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
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.
Top Related