Tài liệu Research " THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADER/FOLLOWER CONGRUENCE AND FOLLOWER COMMITMENT " pdf

Although research findings note that leadership style influences factors that are involved in the followers role, little research has been done that specifically addresses whether differ

FOLLOWER COMMITMENT

By

Daniel Abrego, B.A.S, M.B.A

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Faculty of the Center

For Leadership Studies Our Lady of the Lake University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

In Leadership Studies

Our Lady of the Lake University San Antonio, Texas March 22, 2004

Dr Mark T Green

Dr Dale Calvert

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion

® UMI

UMI Microform 3132469 Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company

All rights reserved This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road P.O Box 1346

Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate the completion of this dissertation to my wife, Cynthia; son, Daniel Fredrick; and daughter, Kasandra Denise, for giving me the inspiration to continue Without their constant support and encouragement I would have not completed this task Lots of love and special thanks to them for their moral support Not once did they complain

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many individuals associated with Our Lady of the Lake University who

in one way or another helped me fulfill my dream of completing my dissertation My committee members were the stalwarts that kept me going in the right direction Dr Mark Green, initially the chair of my committee, as a newlywed spent an enormous amount of time tutoring and guiding me Under his watchful eye for the past 6 years, Dr Green made sure that I did not give up In doing so he provided me with the brotherly love and understanding that you would expect from a family member Dr Green, you are truly a blessed person, always giving and not wanting anything in return Thank you, Mark, my brother

To Dr Malcolm Ree, the chair of my committee, thank you for you stepping right

in and not letting me miss a beat You never gave up on me and always displayed a can- be-done attitude Your knowledge on statistics is unsurpassed by anyone with whom I have been associated When I started the program I knew you were going to be a valuable asset to Our Lady of the Lake University Thank you, my friend

To Valarie Spiser-Albert, thank you for the impact you have had on me I

appreciate your friendship Thanks so much for being there and providing me the support that I needed

To my immediate managers, Tom Madison and Larry Shearholdt, thank you for your support To Carlos De Leon, thanks for giving me support during a time that I was floundering I am grateful to Frank Bearden, a classmate, for helping me understand that there is an end Finally, to Mario Longoria, a childhood friend, who provided me with his research expertise and who has helped me to retain my sanity

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADER/FOLLOWER CONGRUENCE AND

commitment and leader-follower leadership style congruence Within the body of

research on leadership, very few studies have been devoted to examining the

relationships between leadership styles and organizational commitment The success of

an organization is heavily dependent on the quality of its leaders; their actions influence the behavior and potential of the organization’s members The population for this study consisted of 646 managers in a telecommunications industry of whom 46 were second- level managers and 600 were first-level managers The Multifactor leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ), Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), and a

demographic questionnaire were administered to study participants Descriptive statistics and multiple regressions were used to analyze the data The results of this study showed that level of organizational commitment of followers was 37.8% With regard to leader- follower congruence, the results revealed that congruence does have an effect on the followers’ organizational commitment In addition, the relationship between the

organizational commitment of the followers and selected demographic variables was

with organizational commitment.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

057.1034050 6000916)9)0/0(9))0 2 5 1 Organizational Commitment eeeeeeesecseeeeececeeseeeceesessaceeecesceeseesseeneesseeeseensesensessaeesees 2 BÍP091190I0010)4106x)13;Ð0 PP 3

Organizational Commitment ÏfnpaC - - 5 + +1 1v HH ng nh 4 Purpose of the SUdy ch HH TH Họ HH HT TH 0 5 Significance of the SfUỈy - cọ nọ tờ 6

Ibunirii 0 8 Research QQuestiOn - Ăn HH nọ HT 0g 9

PB Oiioii0i803 vi 1001777 10 Summary and V€TVICW - - G- sọ KT 3 0 12 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERA TURE <5 5< 51321 9 91 re 14

Leadership 'TÏH€OTI€S - 0 SH TH 1 16 University of Michigan SŠfUd1€§ - - in KH kh 18 Recent Theories of LeadershIp - - - - - s kH HgH HH nHnêg 21 Transactional LeadersHIp . - <5 S111 910190 0 ng 21

Transformational Leadership 24 Laissez-faire Leadership 2.0.0.0 ố ốốốốốốốỐốỐỐỐỐ 27 Empirical Research on Leadership :ccsccsscsssssssssscessessecssesseessceeessecesseseceesecseeeeeeeensees 28 Empirical Studies on Perceived Leadership Styles .cccccccssccsssssessessessecsersesteessees 32 Brief Description of the MLQ cessssssesscsesesessessecssesessesessecssesssesessecseeasssesaseseesaceeeaes 35 Empirical Studies Using MLQ (5x-Shoft) .cccceesecssssseseescesscssesseesesseeesessssseeaeeeees 36

Shared Vision—An Important Precursor to Organizational Commitmert 40 Organizational COMMItMENt .cccsccessceteesseceseceescesecesesecessecsseeseseeeacesseesesseseseeseseneeees 42 Introduction cc cscscesessesecsseenseeceatensessesceceasessesseaecacenscaceneeseeceenesesseesesaeseseneserenaees 42 Meaning and Definition of Organizational Commitment 5-5 5555 xs<s 42 Attitudinal and Behavioral Commitment Approaches - - 5 cccc«sssssesereree 47 h)01050/1910290)9)60-10))1 PA ố 52 Mowday, Steers, and PPOTẨ€T- - - s1 9x9 gọn Ho HH re 53 Antecedents of Organizational CommItIT€TI( - << s93 9y 1g ng re 55

a0) 0 Ầ.Ầ 64

Outcomes of Organizational Commitim€fiL . s2 + 393 v1 x gngx g ren 65 Commitment and Job PerfOrmannC© << s1 ng ng kg 65 Commitment and 'TI€TIUTC - G <6 <5 3 9 v91 914 110 The 66 Commitment and Attendance cececssssccsecesecnscneesscesssesesesesessenecesssssesensassaeeseaee 68 Commitment and 'Tardin€SS G5 1199 94 930 91 1 ng ng re 69 ®U909)00901<90Ẽ2)0 9100300) 69

Organizational Commitment QuestiOn\4i7€ À - 5 <2 9339 1n tư 71 Organ1zational Commitment and LeadershIp - ng ny 74 Importance of Organizational Commitment SfU1€S 0 55 Sen se 75 SUTTTTTATVV G5 S231 E1 30 Họ 00701 500 76 05.0402) 0508./020:(9)99)09 cam 77

6 ca nh 77

B201) St 3) ó1 0 78

y1: 2n 78

90®69A11)016(222ii8(-ì1121 000787 79

MLQ Validity and Reliability TP 80

Operational Deñnition for Dependent VariabÌ€ - - 6s xxx ng HH re 82 Operational Definition for Independent VarIabÌes - - - + vn Hư 82 Operational Definitions for Intervening VariablÏS - -s- 5 + ng ve 83 ;>và0008 I2 00888 84

185/071 84

ProC€dUT on H9 TT g0 gọn ng ng ng gu ng nh n0 85

Ethical COnnSI€TA1OT1S << th th HH ng ng TT nọ ng gà 86

990) v00: 0080888 86

ANALYSIS 18 86

h1 87

0.0402): G.0.34.510001.010077 89

Data ColÏe€C€d - GÓT TH nọ 0 89 €0 0 90

90122500 :0 91

Marital Status 92

0 92

Length of Service oo .ẻ 95

Results of Demographic S†afiSfICS - c1 1 1T HH rưm 97 Descriptive Statistics of the Dependent Variable, Organizational Commitment 98

Congruence Score Int€rDT€fafIOT 4 - sọ He 100 ¿v1 77 107

101.1727777 108

Sample Beliefs and Interpretation of Commitment Correlations ««<s+ 112 Sample Be€Ïi€fS - cọ Họ he 112 Transformational Congruence and Organizational Commitment . - - 112

Laissez-falre Congruence and Organizational CommmitimerI( «5< «sse+<c+ 113 Model Testing of Significant Study VariabÏ€S - «SH ng 115 II sà/9/:1x-11-¬ 011 121

nh 125

EUCAfIOT G0 Họ Họ nọ TH TT Họ Ti họ HH 125 6© 00 ồ.Ố.Ố 126

5120000 sa¿ v0 128

"lun: 129

Leadership ìà/" 129

009019000 0001057 130

Tp lication nh 131

Limitations of the SfUdy - G- 4 cọ TH he 132 Recommendations for Future Res€arCÌh s5 5< so 0 1g nu ng 133 ;3332):33) 0.0177 134

[.d2d.))098G 00177 159

APPENDIXB Part I, Organizational Commitment QuestlonnaIre . ‹ 161

APPENDIX C Part II, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form Có n 163

APPENDIXD Part I-A, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Rater Form 6© 0n 164

APPENDIX E Part HI, Personal Characteristics Sheet - nàn 165 APPENDIX Pu ceccesccsssscessesceescsceceescnecenecneencatenesaecaceceeaeesesanesesasenseasessosseseseasoneesaesoases 166 .jssI919 601077 167

3500908000077 ồốồ.Ồ 169

APPENDIX Ï HH HH ng HH TH no TH TH HH ke 172

APPENDIX L, Ăn HH TH TH 174

Educational €V€Ì << Ă <4 v1 TH gu 91 Frequency Analysis for Marital Status of Leaders and Followers 92 Frequency Analysis for Age of FỌÏOWTS ĩc HH ngư 93 Frequency Analysis for Age of Lea€TS - 5 <1 9 9 ng ng 94 Frequency Analysis for Length of Service of FolÏOWeTS «s«cs«« 96 Frequency Analysis for Length of Service of Lead€rs ‹ s«cc«cc++ 97 Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Commitment Score 98 Frequency Analysis for Organizational Commitment of Followers 100 Range of Transformational Congruence SCOF€ 4s «sec 101 Frequency Distribution of Transformational Congruenee - 101 Other Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Congruence Score 102 Range of Transactional Congruence SŠCOT© - - s kkkgmg nkp 103 Frequency Distribution of Transactional Congpruence -«-s«- 104 Other Descriptive Statistics for Transactional Congruence Šcore 104 Range of Laissez-Fatre Congruence SCOT€S - nghiệt 105 Frequency Distribution of Laissez-faire Congruence Score 106 Other Descriptive Statistics for Laissez-falre Congruence Šcore 106

Model 1 Summary for Predictors and Organizational Commitment Regression Results of all Study Variables with Dependent Variable

Organ1zational CommItIm€fI., - 55s 11H ng Model 2 Summary for Predictors and Organizational Commitmert Models 1, 2, 3, 4 Summary for Organizational Commitment

and PT€CHICẦOFS - 0 G5 S0 nọ HT ng Summary of Null Hypotheses Tested Based on Multiple

Repression AnaÌyS€S - - cọ ngọn nọ vn

A Three-Component Model of Organizational Commitment 51 Hypothesized antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment 55 Major influences of the continuing development of organizational

commitment during the later career SỈÀ€S - - 5 s5 ng ve 67 Descriptive statistics for followers’ aGe :ccsccssesseesseseeeeeceseceseceeeeaaeeesers 93 Descriptive statistics for leaders’ Age ccsssescescceeeeneessenseseeseceneesesseeeseenees 94 Descriptive statistics for followers” length of serVICe - «<< <5 95 Descriptive Statistics for leaderˆs length o S€TVIC€ - 5 ĂS«Ssseees 96 Organizational commitment mean and standard deviation scores

Of fỌÏOWTS TH Họ họ TH v 99 Mean and standard deviation of transformational congruence scores

Of FOLLOWETS TP 103 Mean and standard deviation of transactional congruence scores

Of FOMOWETS 105 Laissez-faire congruence mean and standard deviation scores

“As the behavior of the leader, so is the behavior of the follower.” This proverb can be seen in families Angry parents tend to raise angry children Similarly, patient and understanding parents who also know how to set boundaries tend to raise balanced, patient children This observation can also be applied to the business environment This study was concerned with behavior of followers within an organization It included comparative evaluations of leadership styles and corresponding commitment of the followers within the organization

Many academicians and practitioners view leadership as the most important topic within the realm of organizational behavior (Rahim, 1981) The success of an

organization is more heavily dependent on the quality of its leaders than on any other single factor These leaders play a major role in making decisions that determine

organizational goals how these goals can be accomplished, and how the organization functions during the process of pursuing its goals

Since the end of World War II, many studies sought to identify leadership styles and theories A new theory of leadership emerged in the 1970s Burns (1978) first

introduced the ideas of transactional and transformational leadership styles A few years later, Bass (1985a) expanded the theory and created the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ) to help track the evolution of leadership styles

Subsequently, Avolio and Bass (1991) introduced leadership theoretical models that included three styles of leadership:

1 transactional

2 transformational

In addition to leadership, a wide variety of areas in organization behavior have been investigated in the last 3 decades Topics have included the effects of the continued downsizing by corporate America, employee loyalty, and employee commitment

attitudes Just in the area of employee turnover, more than 1,000 studies have been conducted

This concern for the linkage between an employee, subordinate, follower or member, and the organization and its resulting impact on the organization have led researchers to consider ways to improve leadership and employees organizational

commitment

Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment has been a topic of discussion in a number of studies and has been identified as an important aspect in understanding the work behavior of employees (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974; Steers, 1977) Businesses are

increasingly realizing that leadership styles have significant impact on work attitudes such as job satisfaction, performance, absenteeism, and turnover intentions; these factors have all been linked to the idea of organizational commitment (Matheiu & Zajac, 1990)

It has been reported that “Organizational commitment should be of great interest

to leaders, because managers with strong commitment tend to be highly productive and loyal, while those with lower levels tend to have higher incidence of turnover, and stress- related health claims” (Ward & Davis, 1995, p 35)

all have sought to catch the essence of the same concept Mowday et al (1979) defined organizational commitment as the relative strength of the identification between the individual and his or her involvement with the organization, business, and employer According to their definition, organizational commitment has three basic components:

1 A strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values, which is termed identification

2 The willingness to exert a considerable effort on behalf of the organization (i.e., the worker’s level of involvement)

3 A strong intent or desire to remain with the organization (i.e., the worker’s loyalty) (Mowday et al., 1982)

Allen and Meyer (1997) define organizational commitment as a psychological link between the employee and his or her organization This link is related to various job- related characteristics According to Buchanan (1974a) organizational commitment is a necessary prerequisite for successful organizations

Statement of the Problem Leadership Impact Leadership is the process by which one individual influences others to achieve specified objectives Within a business organization, the leadership process can take the form of a manager who influences subordinates to accomplish goals Ideally, the

transformational leader/manager motivates followers to become more active and to create

a new generation of leaders (Burns, 1978) Bass (1985a) argued that heightening of

awareness requires a leader to have a vision, self-confidence, and inner strength, and to

or acceptable according to established wisdom of time

A review of literature reveals that leadership styles have an impact on many variables within an organization Although research findings note that leadership style influences factors that are involved in the followers role, little research has been done that specifically addresses whether differences in followers’ perception of leadership styles affect their organizational commitment (Challef, 1995; Kelley, 1992)

This research study sought information previously unavailable regarding what significance and effect does the relationship between leader-follower congruence have on the follower’s organizational commitment

Organizational Commitment Impact The concepts of leadership (Kotter, 1988) and organizational commitment

(Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982; Steers, 1977) have been key areas of research for theorists and researchers for decades Taylor and Rosenbach (1989) commented that, despite the growing number of books and articles written on leadership, the concept has not been thoroughly covered Most of the material in circulation for the typical employee living and working in organizations was inconsequential (Rosenbach & Taylor, 1993)

However, the new millennium has brought many new aspects to worker

commitment The economy has declined nearly 40% over the last 3 years, and the

Internet has provided quick, simple access to millions of job postings Finally, workers in generations X and Y have brought different societal values to the workplace The

working population in the new millennium has placed emphasis on and different

Kouzes and Posner (1995) stated:

Loyalty and job security, we’re told, have gone the way of the dodo bird

Instead, we have a new society contract that promises interesting work and

greater employability in exchange for commitment to excellence How do

leaders create commitment in a virtual organization? (p 19)

The identification or involvement between the organization and the individual is the heart of organizational commitment (Mowday et al., 1979) The strength of this relationship between the individual and the organization can mean success for the

organization Steers (1988) stated, “Commitment involves an active relationship with the organization in which individuals are willing to give themselves in order to help the organization succeed and prosper” (p 577)

Therefore, understanding the variables that influence organizational commitment should add value to the organization Differences between leader and follower perception

of leadership styles can greatly affect followers’ organizational commitment

Purpose of the Study This research study sought to examine the relationship between leader-follower congruence and the followers’ organizational commitment It examined the congruence

of each of the three leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and their relational influence on followers’ organizational commitment

The researcher hypothesized that if it could be demonstrated through empirical research that there is a significant relationship between leader-follower congruence and

followers’ commitment

The researcher wanted to extend the Organizational Commitment Model (Steers, 1977) and research by Mowday et al (1979) by investigating a new predictor of

organizational commitment called leadership congruence Research on this new

independent variable, congruence, could increase the generalizability of the model and lead to a greater understanding of organizational commitment

Significance of the Study This research was important because it was the first known study to examine significant differences between followers’ perception of their leaders’ leadership styles and the leaders’ own self-rating of their leadership style, and how this congruence affects followers’ organizational commitment within a Fortune 500 telecommunications

corporation

Investigating the leadership characteristics that have the greatest effect on the desired outcome can greatly help organizations as they chart their future By measuring leadership styles within the organization and the associated willingness of the workers to follow, organizations can build on their strengths, initiate training to minimize

weaknesses, and thus combat any negative consequences that are typically associated with lack of organizational commitment within their staff

The results of this study could be valuable in understanding the differences in leadership congruence that enlist follower commitment The relationship between leaders and followers is a partnership that, if equalized, helps result in organizational

achievements Employee commitment to the marketplace is essential for the success of

and innovation of the overall company

According to Moore (1965), committed employees require less supervision, perform better than non-committed employees, and behave more predictably in a crisis and in situations requiring individual decision making This claim was supported by the findings of Mowday, Porter, and Dubin (1974), who also indicated that highly committed employees perform better than less committed employees Those who are not committed

to the organization can actually threaten the survival of an organization In addition, organizational commitment has a high degree of influence on absenteeism and turnover, problems that are very costly to organizations that must face the direct cost of training and developing of new employees

The literature consistently indicated that organizational commitment is an

important factor in predicting turnover (Mowday et al., 1982) Porter et al (1974)

determined that organizational commitment is a better predictor of turnover across

several time periods than are other measures of personal satisfaction Porter further explained that although job satisfaction may represent a better predictor of employee turnover during the early stages of employment, commitment became a stronger predictor

of turnover than satisfaction because employees begin to identify more with the

organization and its goals Baron and Greenberg (1989) believed that the higher the level

of commitment, the lower rate of absenteeism and turnover In general, committed

employees are viewed as less likely to leave their job and more likely to exert efforts that benefit the organization

Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire congruence between leaders and followers were the independent variables in this study Additional intervening variables

of gender, age, level of education, marital status, and length of service were considered to determine if any relationship exists with followers’ organizational commitment Any relationships between this second set of variables and organizational commitment were noted and can be used by the Customer Relationship Management Organization at

American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation to understand their work force in a given location The dependent variable for this study was organizational commitment

Assumptions This study was based on the following assumptions:

1 The participants’ responses to the questionnaires were honest and sincere

2 The Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5x-Short) is an effective means for measuring the area managers (leaders) and followers’ ratings of the leaders (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) leadership

characteristics

3 The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) is an effective means for measuring followers’ organizational commitment

Limitations This study had the following major limitations

1 It was restricted to participants within the first and second level management

of a Fortune 500 Telecommunications company

leadership beyond the Network Services Customer Relationship Area

managers cannot be ensured

This study was mainly concerned with examining the effects of leader-follower congruence upon organizational commitment of first-level managers in the Customer Relationship organization Therefore, future research is recommended to discover

congruence influencing followers’ organizational commitment at other management levels of the corporation

All subjects of the study were customer service managers and area managers within the Customer Relationship Organization All other organizations were excluded

Research Question This study sought to extend previous research studies by exploring the following research question: What is the magnitude and direction of the association between leader- follower congruence and the organizational commitment of followers?

Hypotheses Based on the research question, two hypotheses were established and tested: Hoi= There is no statistically significant relationship between leader-follower congruence and followers’ organizational commitment

Ho2= There is no statistically significant relationship between leader/follower congruence and the followers’ organizational commitment when controlling for age, gender, level of education, marital status, length of service, and followers’ organizational

commitment

Definition of Terms The following are the terms used in this study and their definitions

Area managers are second-level managers in a telecommunications customer relationship management organization who have first-line customer service managers reporting directly to them In this study they are classified as the leaders

American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) is a Fortune 500 voice and data telecommunications company serving more than 80 million customers worldwide

Congruence is the degree of similarity between followers’ and leaders’ perception

of leaders’ style

Commitment is “the strength of an individual’s identification with and

involvement in a particular organization” (Porter et al 1974, p 604) It refers to an individual’s strong belief in the goals of the organization, investment in the organization

by expending effort, and desire to maintain a position within the organization (Mowday

et al., 1982) Commitment was defined operationally as the commitment measurement score of subordinates on the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ)

Customer relationships management organization refers to an organization within AT&T that handles Growth and Global long-distance accounts that generate $30 million

a year in revenue

Customer service managers are first-level managers or supervisors in the

Customer Relationship Management Organization who have no workers reporting to them Their primary job function is to implement long-distance requests for voice and data, frame, and management information systems, and to interact with customers on account issues such as incorrect billing, wrong billing address, and new or disconnect

requests They report to second-level managers In this study they are classified as

followers

Laissez-faire leadership is a leadership style used by people who give group members complete freedom of action, provide them with materials, refrain from

participating except to answer questions when asked, and do not make evaluative

remarks They are inactive rather than proactive They do not provide clear boundary conditions, may work alongside subordinates or withdraw into paperwork, and avoid rather than share decisions making (Bass, 1985a) A style used by some leaders who try

to maintain a “country-club” atmosphere avoiding responsibility and decision-making (Bass, 1997)

Leadership style refers to the pattern or constellation of leadership behaviors that characterized a given leader (Williams, 1978, p 217)

Length of service refers to length of time or length of service an employee in years has been employed in present organization It is also referred to as tenure

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5x-Short) is an instrument created by Bass (1985b) and further developed by Bass and Avolio (1990b) It includes four factors of transformational leadership: idealized influence, inspirational leadership, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration; three factors of transactional

leadership; contingent reward, management-by-exception (passive), and management-by- exception (active); and one factor of laissez-faire leadership

Organizational commitment is the relative strength of the identification between the individual and his or her involvement with the organization (Mowday et al., 1979)

The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) is a tool developed by Mowday et al (1979) that measures organizational commitment

Subordinate (follower) is an employee working under the direct supervision of a leader, manager, or supervisor

Transformational leadership is “the process of influencing major changes in attitudes and assumptions of organizational members and building commitment for the organizations’ mission and objectives” (Yukl, 1989b, p 204) This leadership style focuses on the leader-follower relationship to benefit both the individuals involved and the organization as a whole (Bass, 1990b; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978)

Transformational leaders are those who seek to motivate followers to do more than

originally was expected (Bass, 1985a) Transformational leaders have four

characteristics: (a) idealized leadership (charisma), (b) inspirational leadership, (c)

intellectual stimulation, (d) individualized consideration, (Bass, 1985)

Transactional leadership is leadership based on an exchange process between leaders and followers (Burns, 1978) Transactional leaders focus on clarification of task requirements and the specification of contingent rewards (Bass, 1990b) Transactional leadership has three dimensions: (a) contingent reinforcement, (b) management-by- exception (active) (c) management-by-exception (passive) (Bass, 1985a)

Summary and Overview Chapter 1 briefly described why it is critical for corporate America to understand the importance of the correlation between leadership styles and followers’ perception of organizational commitment Understanding the relationship between the congruence of leadership styles and organizational commitment can provide leaders in the

telecommunications industry with valuable insight and operational tools that can be critical for organizational survival

Chapter 2 contains a review of the related literature and conceptual framework of the study The research methodology is described in chapter 3 Results of data analysis are presented in chapter 4, and chapter 5 includes a summary of the research, findings, conclusions, and recommendations

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction This chapter addresses studies contributing to the literature on leadership styles and organizational commitment but is not meant to be exhaustive of every study in the field; rather, it is an attempt to provide the reader with sufficient knowledge and

information that will provide the setting for the study It provides a review of the different leadership styles under which an organization can operate and how these styles affect organizational commitment and productivity It does not provide any findings or previous studies on leadership congruence and organizational commitment

There are many measurements of leadership, management, and models that seek

to measure the employees’ connectedness, or commitment to the organization Although

a few of them are examined herein, the focus on this chapter is on the definitions,

theoretical background, and determinants and outcomes of organizational commitment

Leadership as a Concept The concept of leadership has drawn the attention of scholars and others since the early 1900s The scientific study of leadership began around 1900 (Stodgill, 1974) From then until the present, researchers’ ideas and thoughts regarding the leadership

phenomenon have failed to reach agreement on the meaning of leadership for all

circumstances Hersey and Blanchard (1988) defined leadership as “ the process of influencing the activities of an individual or a group in efforts toward goal achievement

in a given situation” (p 94) Thus, managers who give direction to their organizations provide leadership, and leadership is based on the desire to reach goals by using

organizational resources (Drucker, 1992)

Drucker (1954) hypothesized that:

“Leadership is the lifting of a man’s vision to higher sights, the raising of a

man’s performance to higher standard, the building of a man’s personality

beyond its normal limitations” (p 159)

Katz and Kahn (1966) viewed leadership as the influential increment beyond the meeting of routine direction of the organization, while Koontz, O’Donnell, and Wehrich (1986) defined leadership as “ the art or process of influencing people so that they will strive willingly toward the achievement of group goals”(p 661)

Bass (1990b) summarized thousands of leadership studies and concluded that

“there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept” (p 234) He noted that leadership has been viewed

as the focus of group processes and personality and its effects; the art of inducing

compliance; the exercise of influence; an act or behavior; a form of persuasion; a power

relation; an instrument of goal achievement; the initiation of structure; and a combination

of these elements

Yuk1 (1989a) pointed out that most definitions of leadership have as a common denominator that it is a group phenomenon involving interaction between two or more people Researchers have tried to define influence on followers’ task goals,

organizational culture, and organizational interaction models (Yukl, 1989a) Yukl

suggested that the key distinction between a leader and a manager is that a leader

influences commitment, whereas a manager carries out the position responsibilities

One of the earlier definitions is in line with the needs of this study Leadership is

“the behavior of an individual when he is directing the activities of a group toward a

shared goal” (Hemphill & Coons, 1957, p.7) Moorhead and Griffin (1989) emphasized that leadership does not involve the use of force but is primarily a process of influence

Although influence is present, the people exercising that influence may change Possession of influence depends on the situation and the relevancy of the individual’s skills and abilities to the situation For example, if a person has the expertise required to solve a problem, then it may be assumed that he or she has some degree of influence over others

Even though there is no consensus among scholars on the definition of leadership,

it is certain that leadership is a complex phenomenon involving a leader, followers, and the situation (Hollander, 1978) There can never be leader without followers

Leadership Theories Scholars have developed different theories and approaches in their attempts to explain leadership Until the 20th century, research on leadership was not based on

scientific inquiry (Chemers, 1997) The following section includes a review some of the most recent popular theories on leadership, concluding with an update on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, its validity, and its reliability

In the early 1950s, researchers changed their focus from studying leaders’

personal characteristics to the study of their observable behaviors (Schermerhorn, Hunt,

& Osborn, 1982) Specifically, they began to focus on “what the leader does and how he

or she does it” (Ivancevich, Szilagyi & Wallace, 1977, p 277) Researchers found that a leader’s behavior, rather than his or her traits, is most important in determining

effectiveness Leaders use a variety of behaviors to mobilize resources and accomplish goals Two major sets of behavior have received considerable attention in the leadership

literature: influence behaviors and task behaviors (Lewin, Lippit, & White, 1939)

Influence behaviors are those aimed at compliance and motivation among followers to improve productivity

Previously, top managers relied deeply on direct control for compliance and commitment from their employees The employees were intimidated on the basis of economic self-interest and were treated as machines Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990) reported that that era was characterized by an authoritarian work organization, where intimidation prevailed over consent

According to Hellriegel, Slocum, and Woodman in (2001), “Motivation

represents the forces acting on or within a person that cause the person to behave in a specific, goal-directed manner Because the work motives of employees affect their productivity; one of management’s jobs is to channel employee motivation effectively toward achieving organizational goals”(p 10) An organization’s management has the duty to motivate its employees through daily tasks to produce at its most effective levels

This motivational responsibility is measured on two scales simultaneously The everyday, black and white measurement of “how many widgets did the company produce today” is the final measurement of an organization’s effectiveness But arriving at that goal involves the second measurement of how satisfied, committed, and productive are the people within the organization By executing the correct motivational action, an organization can operate smoothly and efficiently However, a mistaken use of

motivation can lead to a much different outcome

The behavioral approach aimed to identify certain kinds of behaviors that leaders exhibit and determine the effects of such behaviors on subordinates Robbins (1994) observed that behavioral style was the focus of a number of studies in the 1950s

University of Michigan Studies The University of Michigan conducted one such task vs relations-oriented

leadership study Blake and Mouton (1975) developed a model that prescribed the

integration of both task and relations orientations as the best way to achieve effective leadership Their Managerial Grid (Blake & Mouton, 1975) is based on the concept that managers and leaders vary from 1 to 9 in their concern for people see (the vertical axis of the grid) and from 1 to 9 in their concern for production see (the horizontal axis)

Although they used different names for the leadership styles explored in the study, Blake and Mouton (1975) identified five various leadership styles: impoverished, country club, produce-or-perish, middle-of-the road, and team These styles take into account the concepts of transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership

This study correlated these leadership styles with different combinations of concern for people and concern for production Managers who scored high on these dimensions simultaneously (labeled team management) performed best

The impoverished style is located at the lower left-hand corner of the grid, point (1, 1) Leaders fitting this style show a low concern for both people and production Although this is not the primary motivation of the laissez-faire leader, he or she can be easily mistaken for a leader with little concern for his or her staff The primary objective

of the impoverished style is for managers to stay out of trouble

The country club style is located at the upper left-hand corner of the grid, point (1, 9) Country club leaders are characterized as having a high concern for people and a low concern for production The primary objective of this style of leader is to create a secure and comfortable atmosphere and trust that subordinates will respond positively

The produce or perish style is located at the lower right-hand corner of the grid, (9, 1) These leaders show a high concern for production and a low concern for people The primary objective of this type of leader is to achieve the organization’s goals,

regardless of the relevance of the employees’ needs

The middle-of-the-road style is located at the middle of the grid, point (5, 5) This type of leader tries to strike a balance between workers’ needs and the organization’s productivity goals The primary objective of the middle-of-the-road leader is to maintain employee morale at a level sufficient to get the organization’s work done A line could run diagonally from the upper left corner to the lower right of the grid that would

correspond to the differing levels of transactional leaders A transactional leader works toward balancing the environment of the work place with the performance of the

company, settling for a level of personal comfort along this line

The team style is located at the upper right-hand of the grid; point (9, 9) It is characterized by a high concern for people and production, and this demonstrated, pro- active approach to leadership is the description of the transformational leader The

primary objective of the team style is to establish cohesion and foster a feeling of

commitment among workers Blake and Mouton (1975) advocated this high-people and high-task style as the style to which all leaders should aspire Figure 1, shows the

University of Michigan Managerial Grid.

University of Michigan Managerial Grid

integration of task and

human requirements into a unified system of interplay toward organizational goals

Middle of the Road (5,5) Push for production but don’t go “all out.”

Give some, but not all

“Be fair but firm

Impoverished Management (1,1) Effective production is unobtainable because people lazy, apathetic and indifferent

Sound and mature relationships are difficult to achieve because human nature being what it is conflict is inevitable

Task Management

(9,1) People are a commodity

just as machines A manager’s responsibility are

is to plan, direct and control the work of those

subordinate to him or her

Recent Theories of Leadership Burns (1978) introduced the idea of transactional and transformational leadership styles, providing the first comprehensive theory to explain the differences between these types of leaders Before this time, however, the field of leadership was in a state of turmoil and confusion Most of the widely known theories were plagued with conceptual weaknesses and lacked strong empirical support A few years later, Bass (1985a)

proposed that transformational leadership augments the effects of transactional leadership

on the followers’ effort, satisfaction, and performance

Bass (1985a) expanded Burns’ theory and developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5x-Short) The MLQ (5x-Short) describes leadership in terms of three styles: laissez-faire (extremely inactive), transactional, and transformational

leadership (extremely active)

Transactional Leadership

Managers are transactional leaders who survey their follower’s needs and set goals for them based on the effort they can expect from the followers (Zaleznik, 1977) Transactional leaders view their job as a process by which they respond to subordinates’ basic lower level and security needs Transactional leaders focus more on the results of the organization via the individual transactions performed

Transactional leadership is based on the notion of a social exchange as opposed to personal growth and change Leaders control followers’ behaviors by imposing authority and power on the one hand and satisfying followers’ needs on the other That is, leaders offer organizational resources in exchange for followers’ compliance and responsiveness Thus, a staff member may follow a leader as long as he or she perceives that leader to be

in a position to satisfy some important needs In some cases, the followers of a political leader may be very fickle; if the desired needs of the followers are not met by the policies enacted by that leader’s government, these followers may readily give their vote—follow another—at the next election Leaders and subordinates may be viewed as bargaining agents whose relative power regulates an exchange process as benefits are issued and

received

A transactional leader believes that the unfair evaluation of staffs’ opinion and feelings result in job dissatisfaction, and by eliminating any evaluation, she or he will free the staff to perform to their peak ability

The transactional leader uses the following methods:

1 Contingent rewards: Based on performance, workers are rewarded This is not a pro-active response, as used by the transformational leader, but a reactive response

Management-by-exception—active: Rather than have involvement with staff members, this leader assumes that they “take care of business” on their own and provides input only on an exception basis This frees up the leader to take care of his or her personal tasks

Management-by-exception—passive: This leader is most likely to have difficulty with staff, as he or she gets involved only when there is a problem

This leader’s staff could be struggling with the day-to-day activities, but as

long as consistent progress is made and problems do not escalate to his or her desk, this leader assumes that the organization is performing well

Bass (1985a) argued that “transactional leaders mostly consider how to

marginally improve and maintain the quantity and quality of performance, how to

substitute one goal for another, how to reduce resistance to particular actions, and how to implement decisions” (p 27) On the other hand, transformational leaders “attempt to succeed in raising colleagues, subordinates, followers, clients, or constituencies to a greater awareness about the issues of consequence The heightening of awareness

requires a leader with a vision, self-confidence, and inner strength to argue successfully for what he or she sees is right or good, not for what is popular or is acceptable according

to established wisdom of time” (p 17)

Unlike transformational leadership, transactional leaders make no particular effort

to change followers’ values or involve them in a process by which they internalize

organizational values In times of crisis, people become sensitive to the adequacy of their leadership If they have confidence in their leader, they will assign more than usual responsibility to him or her However, if they lack that confidence, they will be less tolerant than usual The general notion is that, when the job and the environment of the follower fail to provide the necessary motivation, direction, and satisfaction, the leader, through his or her behavior, will be effective only by compensating for the deficiencies The leader must clarify the performance criteria (i.e., what is expected from subordinates) and what followers will receive in return (House, Woycke, & Fodor 1988) Furthermore, people are more likely to follow and to have critical decisions made by the leader if they feel that somehow they, the followers, have a part in the decision-making process

In summary, the theory of transactional leadership is focused on how leaders can motivate followers by creating fair exchanges and by clarifying mutual responsibilities

and benefits In doing so, it directs attention to the importance of a relationship between leader and follower

To gain an insight into a kind of leadership that seems to go beyond transactional considerations to create situations in which followers are induced to transcend their own self-interests and become truly committed to the leader’s mission, we must address

transformational leadership

Transformational Leadership

Although transformational leadership is just recently becoming more popular, it was actually developed into an organizational theory by Bass (1985b) when he integrated the ideas of charismatic and inspirational leadership of Downton (1973), House (1977), and Burns (1978) He found that that most leaders exhibit patterns of both

transformational and transactional leadership

Bass (1985b) referred to transformational leaders “as moral agents who focus themselves and followers on achieving higher-level missions and purposes” (p 34) Bass’ main thesis was that transformational leadership results in followers exerting efforts that

go beyond the leader’s expectations He stated that the higher levels of identification result in higher levels of commitment, trust, loyalty, and performance

Transformational leaders are those who guide followers in the direction of

established goals by clarifying role and task requirements They often are aware of

personality traits and blend their leadership directives with subtle motivational

techniques Transformational leaders, who are charismatic and visionary, often inspire followers to transcend their own self-interest for the good of the organization

Transformational leaders augment transactional leadership by increasing followers’ confidence and elevating the value of outcomes

Bass (1985a), Hater and Bass (1988), and Seltzer, Numerof, and Bass (1989) suggested that transformational leadership can be conceptually divided into four distinct factors labeled as the 4 Is:

1 Idealized: The leader tends to focus on the attributes, attitudes,

and behaviors of his staff

2 Inspirational: This leader wants to motivate the staff from within, rather

than control from without

3 Intellectual This leader seeks to stimulate his or her staff with new

theories, opportunities, and breaks from the routine, and by accepting input from personnel

4 Individualized: The transformational leader will take into consideration

the needs, talents, and desires of the organization, and work toward fitting the pieces into the position most suitable for each individual, rather than forcing the person to fit into the position

The theory of transformational leadership incorporates essential features of

behavior, contingency, and trait leadership theories It emphasizes symbolic leader

behavior, visionary and inspirational messages, nonverbal communication, ideological values, emotions, and intellectual stimulation of followers by the leader as dependent variables (Bass, 1985a; Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993; Yukl, 1994)