LEADERSHIP STYLES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE:

A PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS

by

Hung Q. Kieu

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership: Information System and

Technology

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX

April 2010
 UMI Number: 3442746

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

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

UMI 3442746
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
 2010 by
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
 ABSTRACT

Leadership is critically important because it affects the health of the organization.

Research has found that leadership is one of the most significant contributors to

organizational performance. Expanding and replicating previous research, and focusing

on the specific telecommunications sector, this study used multiple correlation and

regression analyses to demonstrate a significant relationship between leadership styles

and organizational performance at a communications company. Validated in the study

were the effects of employee job satisfaction and affective commitment on the above

relationship. Participated in the Web-based survey were 151 IT knowledge workers from

a major communications company in the United States. Quantitative correlational was the

research method used in the study. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5X) Short

Form was the major instrument used to measure the predictor variables of

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. The findings of this study

indicated that transformational and transactional leadership related positively and

significantly to organizational performance. Transformational leadership was a stronger

predictor of organizational performance, satisfaction, and commitment than transactional

leadership was. Conversely, laissez-faire leadership had a direct and negative relationship

with organizational performance. The empirical results of this study may contribute to the

body of leadership knowledge and practice, and provide IT leaders and managers with a

new, validated leadership style that is situational, transformational, visionary, innovative,

participative, and employee-oriented. Recommended in the study was a new leadership

model that includes a new decision-making paradigm.

 v

DEDICATION

I am forever grateful to God for His unconditional love, amazing grace, spiritual

calling, and wonderful blessings. May I glorify His Name with the results of this research

study. May the learning I receive from this study be a blessing to everyone.

To my late father, Hng lun tng nh n li dy d ca B, v nh n B v

vn. c mong B toi nguyn v mm ci ni ci bnh yn v con c ca B c

gng vt bc duy tr huyt thng ca ging h Kiu.

To my living mother, I always felt strong and loved when I was a toddler resting

in your arms. Today, I strive diligently and vigorously when I think of you, remembering

your plain words, Con c chu kh thi i. These words are plain and simple yet they

are a special inspiration to me, a motivation for my lifelong learning.

To my wife, children, and grandchildren (Caleb and his future siblings, cousins),

this dissertation is my precious gift to you all. I prayerfully hope it will be of an

inspiration to your academic endeavor. When I was in high school, I said to myself

constantly that I must study hard, very hard for the ones I love someday. The day has

come, and I want each of you to know that I love you very much.
 vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to many individuals who provided me with love, support, and

guidance. I am indebted to Dr. Eugene Jablonski, my committee chair and mentor, who

taught me in a philosophy class early in the doctoral program, and later accepted my

invitation to serve in the dissertation committee. Since then, I have been receiving

nothing but his gracious response, warm support, practical guidance, and encouragement.

I would like to thank Dr. Stuart Gold and Dr. Brenda Jack who served as

committee members. I was inspired by the challenging, intriguing questions they offered.

They exemplified the quality of research and asked me tough questions, which enabled

me to become a stronger and resilient doctoral learner. I thank Dr. Bammel for her

speedy, outstanding editing services provided to me.

To the professors who taught me in this doctoral program at University of

Phoenix, I am very appreciative of their wisdom embedded in the lecture notes, scholarly

comments, and feedback. Their teaching and leadership were indeed exemplary. From

my perspective, they transcend the rigorous requirements of the doctoral program. My

special thanks go to Dr. Jack Crews, Dr. David Gould, Dr. Phil Davidson, Dr. M. Lind,

Dr. Alex Hapka, Dr. S. Ferebee, Dr. J. Keyes, Dr. Ron Black, and Dr. Frank Appunn.

The completion of this dissertation was not possible without great assistance I

received from my classmates, colleagues, friends, and business partners. I thank Ted

Woodrow, Glenda Holcomb, and Jose Gotay for their input to the pilot study. I am

thankful for the time and effort of the 1,200 people who received and responded to my

invitation e-mail. Words cannot express my gratitude to the 240 people who accepted my

invitation graciously and completed the survey successfully.

 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. xii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 1

Background of the Problem .................................................................................. 3

Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................... 8

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 9

Significance of the Problem ................................................................................ 11

Significance of the Study to Leadership ............................................................. 12

Nature of the Study ............................................................................................. 13

Research Questions ............................................................................................. 14

Hypotheses .......................................................................................................... 15

Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................... 17

Leadership Styles ......................................................................................... 18

Job Satisfaction ............................................................................................ 21

Affective Commitment ................................................................................ 22

Definition of Terms............................................................................................. 23

Assumptions........................................................................................................ 26

Scope ................................................................................................................... 26

Limitations .......................................................................................................... 26

Delimitations ....................................................................................................... 28

Summary ............................................................................................................. 28

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................. 30

 viii

Documentation .................................................................................................... 32

Transformational Leadership Theory ................................................................. 34

Historical Development ............................................................................... 34

Transactional Leadership ............................................................................. 35

Transformational Leadership ....................................................................... 37

Laissez-Faire Leadership ............................................................................. 40

Servant Leadership Theory .......................................................................... 41

Theory X and Theory Y Management Assumptions ................................... 42

Participative Theory..................................................................................... 44

Situational and Contingency Theories ......................................................... 45

Job Satisfaction ................................................................................................... 46

Affective Commitment ....................................................................................... 50

Organizational Performance ............................................................................... 53

Perspectives on Organization Performance ................................................. 53

Organizational Performance Measurement ................................................. 56

Analysis of Technology Impact on Organizational Performance................ 58

Organizational Performance Strategy and Planning .................................. 601

Organizational Performance Measurement An Example ......................... 61

Connections of Leadership Theories and Organizational Performance in the

Context of the Present Study............................................................................... 66

Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 68

Summary ............................................................................................................. 69

CHAPTER 3: METHOD .................................................................................... 72

 ix

Research Method ................................................................................................ 73

Design Appropriateness ...................................................................................... 75

Research Questions ............................................................................................. 77

Hypotheses .......................................................................................................... 77

Population ........................................................................................................... 78

Informed Consent................................................................................................ 79

Sampling Methods .............................................................................................. 80

Confidentiality .................................................................................................... 81

Geographic Location ........................................................................................... 82

Instrumentation ................................................................................................... 82

Leadership Style Instrument ........................................................................ 83

Organizational Performance Instrument ...................................................... 85

Job Satisfaction Instrument.......................................................................... 85

Commitment Instrument .............................................................................. 86

Data Collection ................................................................................................... 86

Data Collection Procedures ......................................................................... 87

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

Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 89

Summary ............................................................................................................. 91

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .................................................................................... 93

Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................... 93

Data Collection Procedures ......................................................................... 96

Survey Development and Design ................................................................ 96

 x

Pilot Study ................................................................................................... 97

Data Gathering ............................................................................................. 98

Preliminary Analysis ........................................................................................... 98

Response Rates and Demographic Data ...................................................... 99

Predictor Variables .................................................................................... 108

Reliability of Measures of Predictor Variables ......................................... 111

Mediator Variables .................................................................................... 113

Criterion Variable ...................................................................................... 116

Reliability of Measures of Mediator and Criterion Variables ................... 118

Reliability of All Measures Used in the Study .......................................... 119

Primary Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 121

Research Questions .................................................................................... 122

Hypotheses ................................................................................................. 123

Summary ........................................................................................................... 142

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 144

Summary of Key Findings ................................................................................ 145

Leadership Styles and Organizational Performance .................................. 146

Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction...................................................... 146

Leadership Styles and Affective Commitment .......................................... 147

Implications....................................................................................................... 148

Implications to Organizations .................................................................... 148

Implications to Leadership ........................................................................ 151

Limitations ........................................................................................................ 153

 xi

Delimitations ..................................................................................................... 154

Recommendations ............................................................................................. 155

Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................... 155

Recommendations for the Leadership Team at the Study Company ........ 158

Decision-making Paradigm ....................................................................... 161

Summary ........................................................................................................... 163

Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 164

REFERENCES .166

APPENDIX A: EMAIL INVITATION.185

APPENDIX B: PERMISSION TO USE THE PREMISES..188

APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT.190

APPENDIX D: LEADERSHIP SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE...192

APPENDIX E: EMPLOYEE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE...194

APPENDIX F: PERMISSION TO USE AN EXISTING SURVEY....196

APPENDIX G: E-MAIL WITH A LINK TO SURVEY..198

APPENDIX H: END OF SURVEY THANK YOU.200

APPENDIX I: WEB-BASED SURVEY SAMPLES...202

 xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of Major Database Search Results ........................................ 33

Table 2 Sample Items from the MLQ (5X) Short Form .106

Table 3 MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Scoring Key ...107

Table 4 t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means ..109

Table 5 Descriptive Statistics of All Dimensions by Employee Survey .110

Table 6 Comparison of Study Mean Scores and U.S. Normative Scores...112

Table 7 Descriptive Statistics for Job Satisfaction 114

Table 8 Descriptive Statistics for Affective Commitment ..115

Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Performance ...117

Table 10 Comparison of Study Mean Scores and U.S. Normative Scores 118

Table 11 Reliability of Scales 120

Table 12 Correlations: Leadership Styles and Performance .. 126

Table 13 Regression Statistics: Leadership Styles and Performance ..127

Table 14 ANOVA Summary .. 129

Table 15 Correlations: Step 1 - Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction ..133

Table 16 Correlations: Step 2 - Job Satisfaction and Performance ..... 133

Table 17 Regression Statistics: Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction ..134

Table 18 Regression Statistics: Job Satisfaction and Performance .. 135

Table 19 Correlations: Step 1 - Leadership Styles and Commitment ... 138

Table 20 Correlations: Step 2 - Commitment and Performance ...138

Table 21 Regression Statistics: Leadership Styles and Commitment ... 139

Table 22 Regression Statistics: Commitment and Performance ...139

 xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Relationship of Research Questions and Hypotheses ......................... 17

Figure 2. A Fishbone Diagram of Cause and Effect .......................................... 64

Figure 3. An Example of a Pareto Diagram ....................................................... 64

Figure 4. Connections of variables to research topic ......................................... 68

Figure 5. Summary of Conceptual Model .......................................................... 70

Figure 6. Graphic Representation of Research Process...................................... 74

Figure 7. Data Collection Process .. 95

Figure 8. Distribution of response rates ....100

Figure 9. Gender of participants ...101

Figure 10. Educational level of participants .102

Figure 11. Age of participants ..103

Figure 12. Participants by organization ....104

Figure 13. Participants by tenure in current position ....105

Figure 14. MLQ study mean score compared to U.S. norms ...113

Figure 15. Study JS, AC, OP mean scores compared to U.S. norms ...119

Figure 16. Regression of leadership styles onto organizational performance . 128

Figure 17. Stepwise regression of leadership styles onto job satisfaction, and job

satisfaction onto organizational performance ...135

Figure 18. Stepwise regression of leadership styles onto affective commitment,

and affective commitment onto organizational performance ...140

Figure 19. Regression of affective commitment onto job satisfaction.141

Figure 20: Integration of Decision-making Process and Leadership Model 163

 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Empirical findings of the most recent research studies indicated that

organizational performance, employee job satisfaction, and employee affective

commitment are outcomes highly desired by corporate leadership and management (Bass

& Riggio, 2006; Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004; Drucker, 2007). A

large number of researchers have suggested that leaders and managers could motivate and

help their employees succeed in todays globally competitive environment with effective

leadership styles (Barbuto & Bruback, 2006; Bass & Riggio; Dionne, Yammarino et al.,

2004; Luftman, 2004). The leaders consistent practice of effective leadership styles can

also be conducive to the promotion of exemplary standards of excellence in the

professional development of organizational members (LaRue, Childs, & Larson, 2004).

With regard to high-tech organizations, leadership also plays an important role,

and the approach to managing information systems (IS) can make a difference (Haag,

Cummings, & Phillips, 2005; Luftman, 2004; McAdams, 2006). Specific to the

information technology (IT) organization at the study communications company,

assessing potential performance of the organization is a challenge (D. Gould, personal

communication, September 15, 2006). While technology is not a panacea as it is merely a

set of tools (Haag et al., 2005), many IT leaders at the study company measure

organizational performance, effectiveness, and productivity using a pre-determined set of

technology-related standards rather than studying the energy produced by human

resources (Thompson, 2003). Although they have attempted to focus on human relations

aspects, the potential for enhancing human knowledge and innovation is immense (Child

& McGrath, 2001). Reportedly, human relations problems still exist in this IT
 2

organization, and they negatively affect the morale of organizational members and hinder

organizational performance (Moores, 2007).

Research has indicated that effective management of both technology and human

resources is essential to achieving positive outcomes such as quality services for

customers and high return on investment (ROI) for stakeholders (Luftman, 2004). When

business leaders work together toward a common goal, they can help organizations

achieve and sustain a competitive edge in the global market of the 21st century

(Luftman). There is no doubt that many corporate leaders of successful high-tech

organizations strive to help improve their organizational performance, employee job

satisfaction and employee commitment through consistent practices of effective

leadership (Luftman).

The present study examines the direct relationship between leadership styles and

organizational performance at a major communications company in the United States.

Chapter 1 of this study includes descriptions of the background information, problem

statement, purpose statement, significance and nature of study, research questions,

hypotheses, conceptual framework, definition of terms, assumptions, scope, limitations,

delimitations, and a summary. Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature by examining

the literature search in the areas of leadership, job satisfaction, employee commitment,

and organizational performance. In essence, examined in the literature review are the

relationship between leadership style, employee job satisfaction, employee commitment,

and organizational performance. Chapter 3 includes details on the research methodology,

which includes method appropriateness and design appropriateness. Chapter 3 also

contains descriptions of population; instrumentation; data collection; data analysis; and

 3

information pertaining to the objectivity, validity, and reliability of the study. Chapter 4

presents the results of data analysis. Chapter 5 provides recommendations for both future

research and the leadership team at the study company.

Background of the Problem

Empirical findings of the most recent studies have revealed a number of problems

in todays organizations (Child & McGrath, 2001; Drucker, 2007; Jones, 2004; Pfeffer,

2003; Senge, 2006). First, according to Bennis (2007) and Drucker, a large number of

organizations are over-managed and under-led. Many firms are relying on the ability of

management to control employee behaviors, and this has resulted in resistance,

dissatisfaction, uncommitted behaviors, psychological withdrawal, and turnover

(Humphreys & Einstein, 2004). Second, organizational leaders are maintaining the status

quo, reluctant to try innovative ideas rationalizing for expected returns on large

investments (Senge). Third, many leaders are practicing Theory X (McGregor, 1960)

leadership styles with the assumption and belief that employees are untrusting with

regard to accessing confidential or propriety business information and that critical

decisions create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Fourth, some leaders are undervaluing human

capitals, using bureaucratic structure and depersonalization, and relying solely on

technology to solve organizational problem (Child & McGrath). They consider people

needs unimportant and ignore employees affective organizational commitment and

satisfaction. They fail to maintain a proper balance between social and technical

considerations (Strategos, 2005). Fifth, some organizations pay no attention to the

external environment, and they fail to capture opportunities that innovation and change
 4

can bring to their firms gaining or sustaining competitive advantage (Hesselbein,

Goldsmith, & Beckhard, 1997; Porter, 2004).

In anticipation of, and response to, the aforementioned problems, todays

organizations need leaders who can shape organizational culture, communicate value

systems, model ethical behavior, engage and inspire followers, and manage diversity (J.

Crews, personal communication, July 25, 2006). Organizations will not benefit from

leadership styles that are limited to reflecting the patterns of the past; rather they will

embrace leadership styles that enable leaders to tune into the possibilities of the future

and to foster creativity and innovation (Brewer, 2005). Despite the importance of

effective leadership, which is critical to the success of most companies in todays global

business environment, there has been a quest for a new leadership paradigm (Senge,

2006).

Many factors can affect organizational performance. A number of researchers

have found that leadership is one of the most significant contributors to organizational

performance (Agle, Nagarajan, Sonnenfeld, & Srinivasan, 2006; Felfe & Schyns, 2004;

Peterson, Martorana, Smith, & Owens, 2003). Because these findings were from research

studies conducted in other industries than telecommunications, the focus of this study is

within the telecommunications sector, examining the direct relationship between

leadership styles and organizational performance at a major communications company in

the United States.

A review of literature on organizational performance within the sector of

telecommunications found little or no empirical studies addressing the relationship

between organizational performance and leadership. With respect to the impact of Bass
 5

(2006) transformational leadership styles on organizational performance, there also exists

a lack of current knowledge in the telecommunications sector. Of a few researchers who

examined the relationship between leadership and organizational performance in other

sectors than telecommunications, Chun and Rainey (2005) and Peterson et al. (2003)

explored the immediate impact of leadership on the performance of organizations. They

did not empirically study the factors that enabled leaders to achieve outstanding

organizational performance. Although many scholars agreed that leadership was an

attempt to influence the thinking or behavior of another person or group to accomplish

certain results (Gehring, 2007; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Northouse, 2006; Yukl, 2009),

these scholars provided no empirical evidence showing how leaders act to influence their

followers.

Examining the intervening variables of followers attitude and behaviors as an

important mediator role in the relationship between leadership and organizational

performance is also important. According to Kim (2005), the followers attitudes and

behaviors may affect organizational effectiveness and performance especially employees

job satisfaction, motivation to serve, commitment to the organization, and dedication to

work. Kinnie et al. (2005) argued that the main cause of personnel loss was the failure of

organizations to create and implement a retention strategy. Kinnie et al. also reported that

IT professionals in the organizations were very unhappy in their jobs. Schultz & Edington

(2007) and Singer (2004) indicated that the high turnover rate was the result of lack of

opportunities for job enrichments or career advancements, excessive work assignment,

and poor leadership and management. According to Terez (2002), the most important

factors of job satisfaction were career growth opportunities, pay and benefit packages, job
 6

security, employee-manager relationship, and clear job description. As job satisfaction is

different from one employee to the other and each employees career goals are unique

(Herzberg, 2002; Maslow, 1998), leaders must know how to motivate their employees

individually.

One important responsibility of leaders is to consider the employees effort,

performance, and the attainment of individual goals (Senge, 2006). The leaders also need

to create a linkage between managerial action and motivational considerations. Leaders

who follow the basic principles of leadership to create opportunities for their employees,

to give unwavering commitment and dedication will succeed (Senge). Leaders who

exercise their authority to draw their employees effort will fail because the employee

will find a way to work about 65% of his or her capacity (Drucker, 2007). Additionally,

one common characteristic of high-achieving employees is self-determination (LaRue,

Childs, & Larson, 2004). When the employees do what they have to do, they comply with

an order. When the employees choose what to do, they are committed. LaRue et al. noted

that leaders should not command for commitment because it comes from the will of the

employee.

According to Bass (2006), transformational leaders practiced their leadership by

shaping the values and motives and elevating the motivation, morale, and morals of their

followers. The transformational leader focuses on doing the right thing and doing it right.

Transformational leaders give emphasis to what they can do for their followers and

organization instead of what the followers and organization can do for them. The focus of

the Gallup Leadership Institutes inaugural summit held at the University of Nebraska,

Lincoln in June 2004 was on authentic leadership. Reporting from this meeting, Bass and
 7

Riggio (2006) suggested that although authentic transformational leadership is an

important topic, it is difficult to assess (p. 233). A number of articles and books have

focused on the topic of authentic leadership, such as Begley (2004), Bono and Judge

(2004), George (2004), and Senge (2006), yet this topic has received little research

attention (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 233). Within the telecommunications sector, a gap in

current literature continues to exist for the relationship between leadership styles and

organizational performance.

Consequently, the perceived leadership problem at the study company, which

forms the focus of the study, is twofold. First, there is not a common set of effective

leadership practices specified in the current leadership training for leaders and managers

to follow (D. Gould, personal communication, September 15, 2006). Second, there is a

lack of a set of standards or predictive model to assess the correlation between leadership

style and organizational performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The practice of an effective

leadership style may improve employee job satisfaction and employee affective

commitment, which, in turn, enhance organizational performance. As researchers

indicated, organizational leaders and managers could help employees succeed in todays

globally competitive environment with effective leadership styles (Bass & Riggio; Senge,

2006; Yukl, 2009). The problem is that there has been no single leadership theory

recognized as most effective and practiced in the IT organization at the study company

(Luftman, 2004).

Many leadership scholars defined leadership as an effort to influence the attitude

and behavior of the followers to accomplish certain results (Crosby & Bryson, 2005;

Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Northouse, 2006; Yukl, 2009). Recently, Crosby and Bryson
 8

(2005) defined leadership as an act of inspiration, mobilizing others to pursue excellence

for the common good. These definitions of leadership and many others as provided in

current literature, fail to specify the optimal number of leaders an organization should

have. These definitions do not indicate whether the leadership influence of an employee

is continual or periodic. Nor do they show if or how the leaders influence will enhance

the well-being of the employees and organization. The ambiguous definitions of effective

leadership are a contributing factor to the aforementioned issues at the study company.

Statement of the Problem

Authors of numerous leadership theories and models theoretically claimed their

respective models were effective (Brymer & Gray, 2006; Cohen & Bradford, 2005;

Northouse, 2006; Porter, 2004). Prior researchers also indicated that organizational

leaders and managers could help employees achieve success with effective leadership

styles (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Baldoni, 2003; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Kouzes & Posner,

2007; McGregor & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, 2006). The problem is that the basis of

anticipated relationship between leadership style and organizational performance is upon

models developed within other organizational environments having the potential to result

in less than optimal outcomes for IT within the telecommunication sector (Brewer, 2005).

Complimenting Demings (1986) principle of measurement, Dr. John Sperling,

founder and CEO of University of Phoenix stated, What you cant measure, you cant

manage (M. Lind, personal communication, March 16, 2007). At the study company, no

measurement of leadership exists to assess the correlation between leadership style and

organizational performance (Hancott, 2005). The second problem is the lack of a set of

standards and criteria to measure the leaders influence on employees satisfaction and
 9

commitment, which in turn, mediate the relationship between leadership style and

organizational performance at the study company (Kim, 2005). There has been no

empirical evidence that provides leaders a model to follow regarding any mediation of

the leadership-performance relationship by such potential intervening variables as

employee job satisfaction and affective commitment. In this quantitative correlational

research study, the general population was a group of IT workers in the IT organization at

a major communications company.

The specific problem at the study company is the lack of a single leadership

model recognized as most effective and practiced in the IT organization (Luftman, 2004).

The second problem is the lack of a set of standards and criteria to measure the leaders

influence on employee satisfaction and commitment (Hancott, 2005; Kim, 2005). The

geographical location was the companys branch offices and data centers in the United

States.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to address the two

problems: (a) lack of a single leadership model recognized as most effective, (b) lack of a

set of standards and criteria to measure the leaders influence on employee satisfaction

and commitment. The main purpose of the study was twofold: (1) to determine if there is

any relationship between leadership style and organizational performance, and (2) to

examine how employees job satisfaction and commitment mediate that relationship. A

survey of 240 IT people at a major communications company in North America was

conducted to (a) ascertain the presence of any relationship between the practice of

transformational leadership and organizational performance, and (b) examine any

 10

possible intermediate relationships of transformational leadership style to employee job

satisfaction and employee commitment. In the Internet-based survey, examined were the

components of transformational, transactional, and hands-off leadership styles; measures

of employee job satisfaction and commitment; and organizational performance.

In examining the two specific problems observed in the IT organization at the

study company, the quantitative correlational method was appropriate to determine if

there is any strong and direct relationship between leadership style and organizational

performance at this company. The second objective was to examine how each dimension

of transformational, transactional, and hands-off leadership styles relates to the thinking

and behaviors of the employees in terms of their job satisfaction and their volunteered

commitment. The study used a sample of 208 employees and 32 managers at the

company with branch offices and data centers located in North America.

The quantitative method and correlational design was appropriate for the study

because the use of the quantitative correlation approach can expose non-causal

relationships that may be tapped by a survey instrument (Creswell, 2005). The predictor

(independent) variables were leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and

hands-off leadership behaviors). The criterion (dependent) variable was organizational

performance. Using the goal approach, the study evaluated organizational performance as

a categorical variable. It is the ability of the organization in achieving its desired goals.

Predictor and criterion variables were used herein as independent and dependent

variables respectively. These variables were used explicitly to indicate that the said

relationship, if found in the study, is not causal but rather correlational. With regard to

employee job satisfaction and commitment, the presumption was that they were aspects
 11

of the participants that may have influenced the relationship. The attributes of job

satisfaction and commitment were measured on a Likert-type scale. Using this rating

scale, the employee-participants scored each of the descriptive statements related to job

satisfaction and affective commitment. The total score for the employee was the average

of the individual scores obtained from his or her answers to the survey questions. The

controlling variables included the sample size (240 employees), manager-to-employee

ratio (at least 3) and years of employment (more than 5 years). The specific population

was a group of 208 IT employees and 32 IT leaders of a major communications company

in the United States.

Significance of the Problem

The goal of the study was to contribute to the body of scholarship by providing

(a) new information toward understanding of the direct relationship between leadership

styles and organizational performance within the telecommunication sector, and (b) a

better understanding of the intermediate relationship between each of the dimensions of

transformational leadership practices and the employee job satisfaction and employee

commitment. According to Brewer (2005), many researchers using empirical studies

failed to show the significant impact of leadership on employee satisfaction,

commitment, and organizational performance. One possible reason for the lack of clarity

is that there might be no relationship between organizational performance and leadership

(Agle, Nagarajan, Sonnenfeld, & Srinivasan, 2006).

The significance of the research study included a new model of leadership or a

new way of practicing appropriate styles of leadership within the IT organization. Within

the telecommunications industry, this study could be one of the first attempts to relate
 12

leadership styles to various factors of employee attitudes and behaviors specifically job

satisfaction and commitment. This could also be one of the first ventures in measuring

the performance of the IT organization at a large communications company.

Significance of the Study to Leadership

In seeking to analyze the two aforementioned problems critically, the studys

empirical results may contribute positively to the body of leadership knowledge and

practice. The empirical findings may provide IT leaders and managers with a new,

validated leadership style that enables them to help organizations achieve optimal

performance and competitive advantage in the 21st century. The study is important in that

it may provide a new leadership model at a communications company and examine if

leadership styles have any direct relationship with organizational performance and any

effects on the employees satisfaction and commitment. Understanding if certain

leadership styles can relate to the satisfaction levels of employees is not only necessary

but also important (Senge, 2006). If a correlation between leadership styles and employee

job satisfaction and commitment exists, company managers may exercise various options

for improving their leadership practices. The findings of the study might add to the field

of leadership with empirical data and information on the relationship of leaders and

employees in terms of the degree to which leadership styles may relate to employees

satisfaction levels in the workplace. The results might be generalized, in that the

population of IT workers in the proposed study is likely typical of large communications

companies in the United States (Creswell, 2005; Salkind, 2006).

 13

Nature of the Study

A search of the current literature revealed a few researchers that examine the

relationship between leadership style and organizational performance in non-IT

environments (Brewer, 2005; Collins, 2007). The focus of this study was on IT to reveal

any relationship and examine the strength of the relationship between organizational

performance and leadership styles. There exists a need in IT for understanding any

mediators in that relationship so that leadership can work from some empirical model.

The main goal of this quantitative correlational research study was to determine if

there is any relationship between leadership style and organizational performance and to

examine how employees job satisfaction and commitment mediate that relationship. This

study used a simple sampling method (Cooper & Schindler, 2006) to conduct the survey.

Because of the possible large number of participants (240) and the distributed nature of

the sample, the study used electronic mails (e-mails) to invite the participants to

participate in an Internet-based survey. The participants e-mail addresses, organizations,

tenures, and other information were available via the corporate portals directory.

Leadership styles (predictor variables) were identified by using participants

responses to questions included in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Short Form

(MLQ 5X Short Form) (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The MLQ instrument is the foundation of

many prior studies reviewed in Chapter 2. The use of the instrument also enables the

extension and replication of prior research (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Barbuto

& Bruback, 2006; Hayashi & Ewert, 2006). Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam

(2003) reported the frequent and wide use of the MLQ and recognized the MLQ as a

valid tool. Used in the study will be the MLQ to assess the leaders leadership styles on a
 14

5-point Likert-type scale (Avolio & Bass). Leadership dimensions of transformational,

transactional, and hands-off theories are the predictor variables, and organizational

performance is the criterion variable. The two intervening variables are employee job

satisfaction and employee commitment.

The method of the study was consistent with prior research because it chose a

quantitative approach instead of a qualitative or mixed method (Cooper & Schindler,

2006; Creswell, 2005). The Internet-based survey and the quantitative analysis were the

preferred methods for the study because of the large sample size and multiple

geographical areas. A correlational design was appropriate because the purpose was to

examine, predict scores, and explain the relationships among predictor and criterion

variables (Creswell, 2005). A correlation statistical test and a multiple regression analysis

were appropriate for measuring the degree of association between the said variables.

Research Questions

Prior researchers have provided insufficient data to determine if there is a direct

relationship between leadership styles and organizational performance in the

telecommunications industry (Collins, 2007; Peterson, Martorana, Smith, & Owens,

2003). Peterson et al. (2003) discussed the resulting effect of the leaders personality on

the management of teams but provided no information on the effects of leadership on

organizational performance. In the public sector and county government, a number of

researchers (e.g., Brewer, 2005; Chun & Rainey, 2005; Felfe & Schyns, 2004;

Muterera, 2008) examined the correlation between leadership and organizational

performance. Brewer (2005) revealed a positive relationship between leadership and

organizational performance; however, this relationship may contribute indirectly to

 15

organizational performance. Prior researchers established the need to study the possible

correlation between leadership styles and organizational performance, and the need to

determine if employee job satisfaction and commitment mediate that relationship

(Collins, 2007; Kim, 2005; Peterson, Martorana, Smith, & Owens, 2003). The current

study took place in an IT organization at a communications company in the United

States. The following research questions guided the study:

1. What degree of significance of the relationship between leadership style

and organizational performance in the IT organization at the study

company?

2. What degree of significance that employee job satisfaction mediates the

relationship between the leadership style and organizational performance

at the study company?

3. What degree of significance that employee affective commitment mediates

the relationship between the leadership style and organizational

performance at the study company?

Hypotheses

The use of null hypotheses allows for making of predictions that there are no

relationships among predictor, criterion, and intervening variables (Creswell, 2005). The

alternative hypotheses are useful because according to the findings of prior research

reported in the literature; there will likely be a significant relationship between predictor

and criterion variables. The null hypothesis denoted by Ho, represents the default

possibility that is accepted because there is no relationship as evidenced by a correlation

between the values of predictor and criterion variables (Creswell, 2005). Conversely, the
 16

alternative hypothesis denoted by Ha, is accepted only if there is convincing statistical

evidence that a relationship exists as evidenced by a correlation of predictor and criterion

variables or greater (Creswell, 2005).

To answer the first research question, a first set of null and alternative hypotheses

(Ho1 and Ha1) was proposed to test the relationship between leadership styles and

organizational performance.

Ho1: There are no leadership styles that will correlate strongly with

organizational performance in the IT organization at the study company.

Ha1: There is at least one leadership style that will correlate strongly with

organizational performance in the IT organization at the study company.

To answer the second research question, the following hypotheses were proposed

to test the intermediate relationship between leadership style and organizational

performance.

Ho2: Employee job satisfaction will not mediate the relationship between the

leadership style and organizational performance at the study company.

Ha2: Employee job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between the

leadership style and organizational performance at the study company.

To answer the third research question, the following hypotheses were proposed to

test another intermediate relationship between leadership style and organizational

performance.

Ho3: Employee affective commitment will not mediate the relationship between

the leadership style and organizational performance at the study company.

 17

Ha3: Employee affective commitment will mediate the relationship between the

leadership style and organizational performance at the study company.

Depicted below in Figure 1 is the relationship between the research questions and the

hypotheses.

Transformational Transactional Hands-Off

Leadership Leadership Leadership

Employee Employee
Satisfaction Commitment
Employee

Organizational Performance

Figure 1. Relationship of Research Questions and Hypotheses

Note: The solid lines indicate direct relationships. The dotted lines indicate intermediate

relationships.

Theoretical Framework

Leadership is an important aspect in every organization. Leadership styles have

an effect on the employees of an organization, and might correlate with certain styles of

leadership. The setting for the quantitative correlational study on leadership styles and

organizational performance was the internal IT organization of a communications

 18

company. The encompassing theory for the leadership practices related to the quantitative

study is primarily Bass (1985, 2006) transformational leadership theory. The framework

integrates leadership behaviors and practices into organizations, focusing on three levels:

individual, department, and division.

Leadership Styles

Historically, leadership has been one of the most observed and least understood

phenomena on earth (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 2). The theoretical framework of the

present IS leadership model is also based on theories and concepts from Basss (1985,

2006) transformational leadership; Greenleaf and Spears (2002) servant leadership

model; Blanchard, Hersey, and Johnsons (2000) situational leadership model, and

Fiedlers (1964, 1996) contingency model. Conversely, hands-off leadership (or laissez-

faire) is essentially no leadership according to Northouse (2006) who wrote, Laissez-

faire leader takes a hand-off-let-things-ride approach (p. 179).

The transformational leadership, like many postmodern leadership models,

embraces the concept of motivation, mutually beneficial goals, leader-follower emotional

bond, and value-laden and assimilated vision (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Dvir, Kass, &

Shamir, 2004). The transformational leadership theory has four fundamental components:

idealized influence or charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized

consideration (Bass & Riggio, p. 7). Idealized influence is important because it develops

strong emotional connection between followers and leader and induces excitement about

the shared mission (Bass, 2006). The follower will be more willing to accept the

challenges if the leader earns his or her trust and respect (Bass & Avolio, 2004). The

second component of transformational leadership is inspirational motivation (Bass &

 19

Riggio, 2006). The leaders inspire their followers by clearly communicating

organizational visions with enthusiasm and optimism. Intellectual stimulation is the third

component through which the leaders provide their followers the opportunity to perform

their work with autonomy. The followers analyze problems from their perspective and

experience with creativity and innovation. The fourth component is individualized

consideration where the leader pays close attention to the followers needs and abilities

then assigns tasks to them with guidance, mentoring, and coaching (Bass & Avolio).

Modeled by Bass and Riggio (2006), transactional leadership consists of two

central components: contingent rewards and management-by-exception (p. 8).

Contingent rewards occur when the leader and individual follower have an understanding

of the rewards or punishments for good or poor performance. With regard to

management-by-exception, the leader exercises managerial actions only when the

follower exhibits major weaknesses or deviations from plans.

According to Walumbwa, Lawler, Avolio, Wang, and Shi (2005), the

transformational leadership theory focuses on the leaders ability to communicate a

vision, inspire, and empower their followers to accomplish shared responsibilities. The

theory called for leaders to formulate a shared vision, consider skills of everyone, provide

followers with organizations resources, and assist them to achieve objectives. To

facilitate the practice of transformational leadership, leaders would use a situational

approach to practicing different leadership patterns and styles according to the maturity

level of each individual follower. In this context, maturity means followers relevant

skills and technical knowledge as well as their confidence and self-respect. The maturity

level of the follower determines what the most effective leadership style would be
 20

(Blanchard, Hersey, & Johnson, 2000). The transformational leader would have the

flexibility of choosing one or any combination of the following situational leadership

styles:

1. Telling or directing: The leader defines objectives, tells followers what to

do, and uses one-way communication;

2. Selling or coaching: The leader is both directive and supportive,

emphasizes objectives, and uses two-way communication. The leader and

followers discuss what to do and agree on roles and assignments;

3. Participating: The leader is supportive and work with followers in

discussions that are more informal and friendly atmosphere; and

4. Delegating: The leader is lacking in both support and direction and there is

little need for task orientation. Followers operate more on their own and

have more independence (Blanchard et al.)

The transformational leader would play the role of a servant whose main duty is

to serve the followers (Greenleaf & Spears, 2002). Servant leadership promotes the idea

that task is accomplished in the context of public victory and win-win relationship

(Blanchard & Hodges, 2006). The effectiveness of managerial leadership is important but

humanity and welfare are of equal importance, according to Greenleaf and Spears (2002).

Some leadership theorists believe that servant leadership model enhances

transformational leadership. Transformational theorists focus on ethical behavior and

treat it as a necessary component. Servant leadership emphasizes both ethical behaviors

and practices (Burns, 1978, p. 25).

 21

Prior research provided no empirical studies that have examined the relationship

between Bass (2006) transformational leadership and organizational performance within

the telecommunications sector. The findings of many researchers in other sectors

suggested that the practices of transformational, transactional, and servant leadership

styles have positive effects on organizational performance, and the practices of hands-off

leadership have negative effects on organizational performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006;

Dvir et al., 2004; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Northouse, 2006; Yukl, 2009). The present

study used a multiple regression approach to demonstrating the presence or absence of

the relationship between leadership styles and organizational performance, and indicated

how strong it might be in the IT organization at the study company. To gain more insight

into the way leadership styles affects organizational performance through employee job

satisfaction and commitment, it was important to review the current literature related to

these two intervening variables.

Job Satisfaction

Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction based on the positive outcome that one

experiences in the accomplishment of tasks. Watson (2008) documented a number of

factors in which employees might satisfy with their job: managerial competence,

technical competence, autonomy, job security, innovation and creativity, challenging

tasks, sense of dedicated service, and lifestyle. According to Kim (2005) and Hunter

(2004), employee satisfaction and happiness in organizations will lead to increased

organizational performance. Chen, Beck, and Amos (2005) asserted that employees

would perform their best offering their services wholeheartedly when they think positive

toward their job, coworkers, and leaders. Lawler III & Porter (2008) associated
 22

satisfaction with employee interests in valuing differences, and recognizing outstanding

performance. Kinnie, Hutchinson, Purcell, and Rayton (2005) found a linkage between

employee job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Other researchers found that

when employees were satisfied, the employees exhibited positive attitudes and behaviors,

performed well, committed to the organization (Ndambakuwa & Mufunda, 2006; Schultz

& Edington, 2007). Based on the findings of prior research, this study used a multiple

regression to demonstrate the presence or absence of the relationship between leadership

style and organizational performance and determine if job satisfaction does or does not

mediate this relationship.

Affective Commitment

Drucker (2007) stated in a presentation to the Drucker Foundation Advisory

Board that, The leader of the past was a person who knew how to tell. The leader of the

future will be a person who knows how to ask (p. 1). The traditional leadership model of

the past will not work effectively for the majority of high-tech organizations in todays

rapidly changing world. Changes in global markets, economic conditions have

necessitated transformations in the psychological contract between employees and the

organization (Harland, Harrison, Jones, & Reiter-Palmon, 2005). Many scholars

considered the change emotional and examined the relationship between leadership styles

and employee commitment. According to LaRue, Childs, and Larson (2004), the

emotional bond exhibited an affective emotional connection between employee and

leader. Allen and Meyer (1996) defined organizational commitment as a psychological

connection between the employee and the organization. Because of this connection, the

employee would be willing to stay with the organization (p. 252). According to Allen and
 23

Meyer, organizational commitment had three types: normative commitment, continuance

commitment, and affective commitment. Normative commitment exists when the

employee believes that he or she has a moral obligation to stay with the company.

Continuance commitment exists when the employees have a need (social or financial or

the like) to keep their employment. Affective commitment refers to those employees who

love the company (for whatever reason) and want to have a lifelong career with the

current employer.

Although Cooper (2003) articulated that commitment is complex because it

operates at various levels and in many directions (p. 69). Dvir et al. (2004) noted that

commitment advanced from the employees normative forces, attitude and behavior.

LaRue et al. (2004) asserted that although leaders can issue orders and commands,

commitment comes from the will of the employee (p. 111). Kim (2005) indicated that

employees commitment, most significantly affective commitment, was one of the most

important contributing factors to increased organizational performance. The present study

used a multiple regression to demonstrate the presence or absence of the relationship

between leadership style and organizational performance and determine if employee

affective commitment does or does not mediate this relationship.

Definition of Terms

The following will provide definitions of terms used in the research study:

Affective Commitment: Allen and Meyer (1996) defined commitment as a

psychological state relating to organizational commitment. Three forms of commitment

are affective, continuance, and normative. LaRue et al. (2004) asserted that employee

commitments are not only powerful and essential psychological intentions but also
 24

indispensable components. Employee commitments demonstrate motivational goals and

bring energy and excitement to organizations. In the current study, follower commitment

is affective intensions to give support voluntarily.

Employees: For the purpose of the study, employees and followers are used

interchangeably. Employees are knowledge workers working in the IT organization as

systems programmers, systems engineers, software engineers, performance engineers,

capacity planners, database administrators, production support analysts, and operators.

Many of these employees are management staff members; they have no direct report or

supervise other employees (Wren, 2004).

Hands-Off Leadership: Hands-off leadership is leading by nonintervention or

noninterference. Hands-off leadership is the Bass and Riggios (2006) laissez-faire

leadership, which is no leadership or merely the absence or avoidance of leadership.

Hands-off leaders make no decisions, delay actions, ignore responsibilities, use no

authority, and avoid getting involved. According to Avolio and Bass (2004), hands-off

leadership is the least active and least effective type of leadership.

Job Satisfaction: Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as a pleasurable or

positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experiences (p.

1300).

Leaders: In the study, leaders are technical managers, directors, executive

directors, vice presidents, senior vice presidents, and chief information officers (CIO)

(Wren, 2004).
 25

Leadership: For the purpose of the study, the definition of leadership will be an

effort to influence the attitude and behavior of the followers to accomplish certain results

(Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Northouse, 2006; Yukl, 2009).

Organizational Performance: Specific to IT, Melville, Kraemer, and Gurbuxani

(2004) defined organizational performance as aggregate IT-enabled performance

impacts across all firm activities, with metrics capturing bottom-line firm impacts such as

cost reduction, revenue enhancement, and competitive advantage (p. 27).

Transactional Leadership: Transactional leadership involves the process in which

leaders exercise their administering of rewards and punishments depending on the

adequacy of the followers performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 8). Transactional

leaders give rewards contingent upon the followers performance (i.e., pay for

performance). Rewards may include merit pay increase, promotions, and other benefits.

Conversely, penalties may include demotions, pay reductions, and terminations.

According to Bass and Riggio, transactional leadership has two components: contingent

reward and management-by-exception (p. 8).

Transformational Leadership: Transformational leadership involves stimulating

followers into action, activates their higher order needs, and induces them to go beyond

self-interest for organizational objectives (Hayashi & Ewert, 2006). Transformational

leadership inspires followers to reach their goals of increased job satisfaction,

productivity, and organizational commitment (Kirkbride, 2006). Four major components

of transformational leadership are idealized influence, inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 6).
 26

Assumptions

Leedy and Ormrod (2005) posited that assumptions are necessary in the

investigation of research problems (p. 62). In examining the practices of leadership styles

of the leaders at the study company, and in the course of the study, the assumption was

that the respondents would be able to understand the survey questions and answer the

questions honestly and to the best of their ability. Another assumption was that the

participating IT organization at the study company would be representative of the

telecommunication industry. The last assumption of this study was the availability of the

participants home e-mail addresses because the premises of the study company were not

used in compliance with the company's policies.

Scope

The study was a quantitative correlational research designed to expand and

replicate previous studies on the effects of leadership on organizational performance and

employee job satisfaction and affective commitment at a major communications

company. Used in the study was a sample of 208 employees and 32 leaders who work in

various branch offices and data centers located in North America. A simple sampling

method is appropriate to survey 240 leaders and employees using emails (Cooper &

Schindler, 2006). The participants titles, organizations, tenures, and other information

are available via the corporate portals directory. Two survey forms were used to collect

data: the Leader Survey Questionnaire and the Employee Survey Questionnaire.

Limitations

Limitations refer to factors that the researcher cannot control (Creswell, 2005).

Items included in the limitations are the exceptions, reservations, qualifications,

 27

problems, and weaknesses that are related to the study (Neuman, 2003). In this study, the

limitations included the following. First, because all the potential respondents are within

the telecommunication industry, the results of the study may not be applicable in other

industries. Second, the accuracy of the findings will be dependent upon respondents full

understanding of the survey questions and their complete honesty in answering the survey

questions. Third, some respondents may not thoroughly comprehend the intent of the

questions and therefore, provide inaccurate responses. Fourth, the timeframe allotted for

the research is relatively short. A long-term study is essential to obtaining accurate data

and information because individual attitudes, employee satisfaction, and organizational

performance require comprehensive analyses. Finally, although an analysis of the data

from the study could reveal a correlation between perceptions of leadership styles and

organizational performance, the correlation cannot lead to a firm conclusion that indicates

which leadership style of leaders will lead to enhanced performance for any organization.

Other factors might contribute to organizational performance as well.

The study was limited to quantifiable data, as the data analysis will rely on

statistical results obtained from the surveys. With regard to data reliability and validity,

the study was limited to data available from those leaders and employees who participate

willingly and voluntarily. Any quantitative, correlational studies have certain limitations:

(a) the variables under study are related rather than develop causal relationships, and (b)

data are received and accepted without manipulation or normalization (Creswell, 2005).

To alleviate the limitations, experimental action research is necessary and may be

conducted should relationships emerge from the analyses conducted in the study

recommendation for experimental research may be in order.

 28

Delimitations

Delimitations are items that the researcher can control but decides not to consider

because of some resource constraint, which limits the generalization of the results

produced by the study (Creswell, 2005). In the present study, data were collected from

the employees, managers, and executives in the IT organization of a communications

company, who may not share similar leadership competencies, job satisfaction levels, and

performance in the general population. This could potentially influence the outcome of

the results of the assessments and ultimately the findings of the study (Cooper &

Schindler, 2006). The influence is that it stems from a single company within the industry

and the operating culture and policies could make it unique resulting in data that might

not be fully reflective of the field. The acknowledgement is that although the use of

instruments produces numeric data, the data may be based on subjective impressions of

the participants and therefore, a potential threat to the validity of the study because of the

nature of self-reporting instruments.

Summary

The purpose of the study was to determine if the practice of certain leadership

styles, such as transformational leadership, has a direct and significant relationship with

organizational performance at a major communications company and to examine how

each dimension of these leadership styles relates to the employee job satisfaction and

affective commitment. A sample of 208 high-tech IT employees and 32 managers and

executives of the study company was used for the study. The method of data analysis

included the use of an Internet-based Likert-type survey. In the analysis, descriptive

statistics, multivariate correlations, multivariate relationships, and multiple regressions

 29

were used to analyze the data to determine if a direct relationship exists between

leadership styles and organizational performance and the assumed intervening variables

of employee job satisfaction and commitment. The empirical results, produced by the

study, may contribute to the body of leadership knowledge and practice and provide IT

leaders and managers with a new, validated leadership style.

In a globalization, post-modern era, effectively managing high-tech organizations

is critical to maintaining sustainable success in most business firms. The practice of

effective leadership is essential to helping IT employees enhance job performance and

satisfaction. Performing exceptionally well, doing the right thing right, and doing more

with less, through supportive leadership, has become a mantra in this globally

competitive market. Increasing employee job satisfaction and stimulating employee

affective commitment can provide both tangible and intangible benefits to the

organization. To understand better the relationships among leadership style, employee job

satisfaction and commitment, and organizational performance, it is important to review

the literature. Chapter 2 of this study includes a review of the current literature on

relevant leadership theories, organizational performance, employee job satisfaction, and

employee commitment.
 30

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The research study was an attempt to find answers to the following three

questions. First, is there a leadership style related to organizational performance in the IT

organization at the study company? Second, does employee job satisfaction mediate the

relationship between the leadership style and organizational performance at the study

company? Third, does employee affective commitment mediate the relationship between

the leadership style and organizational performance at the study company? The purpose

of this quantitative study was twofold. First, the primary purpose was to determine if

there is a significant relationship between the practice of transformational leadership style

and organizational performance in the IT organization at a major communications

company in the United States. The second purpose was to examine how employee job

satisfaction and commitment relate to the scores on assessments of leadership styles and

organizational performance at the study company. The predictor (independent) variables

were transformational, transactional, and hands-off leadership styles. The criterion

(dependent) variable was organizational performance. Predictor and criterion variables

were used herein as independent and dependent variables respectively. Employee job

satisfaction and employee affective commitment were the intervening variables in this

study. The controlling variables were the sample size, manager-to-employee ratio, and

years of employment.

The goal of the literature review was to examine the literature search in the areas

of leadership, job satisfaction, employee commitment, and organizational performance.

Related in the literature review were the findings to leadership theories and

organizational performance. The focus of the literature review was on the relevant
 31

leadership theories, such as Bass and Riggios (2006) transformational and transactional

leadership theories, McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfelds (2006) Theory X and Theory

Y, Yukls (2009) participative theory, Greenleaf and Spears (2002) servant leadership

theory, Blanchard et al.s (2000) situational leadership theory, and Fiedlers (1964, 1996)

contingency model. In essence, this literature review examined the relationships among

leadership styles and employee job satisfaction, employee affective commitment, and

organizational performance. According to Agle et al. (2006), defining the aforementioned

areas provided a roadmap for leveraging the leadership effectiveness and organizational

success.

In the first section of the chapter, the study presents the key concepts described in

Bass and Riggios (2006) transformational leadership theory as well as related theories

such as transactional, servant, and hands-off leadership. The focus of the second and third

sections is on job satisfaction and affective commitment respectively from the current

literature. Finally, in section four, the focus is on current literature surrounding

organizational performance, which is the criterion variable. There are four subsections in

section four: (a) the measurement of organizational performance, (b) the analysis of

technology impact on organizational performance, (c) organizational performance

strategy and planning, and (d) an example of measuring organizational performance. In

the last section of the chapter, the study concludes with a description of how the predictor

variables (leadership styles) and criterion variable (organizational performance) are

connected. The study also describes the connection of transformational leadership theory

to the topic of this research study.

 32

Documentation

Multiple sources were used in compiling data for the present review of literature.

Sources include various online databases and books including EBSCOhost, ProQuest,

Gale PowerSearch and the UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertation database. The information

and data gathered and incorporated into the research is a combination of learning

experiences through individual research and coursework at the University of Phoenix

Online. Approximately 90% of research data were collected through the university

databases, which provided peer-reviewed journal articles. Articles were obtained through

title searches using the search criteria such as leadership theories, leadership and job

satisfaction, leadership and employee commitment, and leadership and organizational

performance [italics added]. The dissertations and theses at the University of Phoenix

database were searched using the same criteria above, which provided results of 78

articles. The number of texts used was on a multitude of topics, primarily focused on

leadership, management, organizational performance, job satisfaction, and organizational

performance. Table 1 shows the number of articles found and used in the search. Articles

that were relevant to the research topic were used for the purposes of this literature

review. In Table 1, the first number indicates the found articles or books; the second

number indicates the used articles or books. For example, 77 (10) indicates that 77

articles were found in the search but 10 of them were used in the study.
 33

Table 1

Summary of Major Database Search Results

Search Term Peer Reviewed Non-Peer Dissertations Books

Articles Reviewed Articles

Leadership theories 77(31) 25(0) 24(2) 31(11)

Leadership and 145(22) 12(0) 38(2) 4(2)

Employee

commitment

Leadership and Job 176(24) 43(0) 24(3) 5(2)

satisfaction

Leadership and 152(21) 27(0) 10(2) 7(3)

Organizational

performance

The foundation of the study was built on the work of the three authors: Bass

(1985, 2006) transformational leadership, Blanchard, Hersey, and Johnsons (2000)

situational leadership, Fiedlers (1964, 1996) contingency model, and Greenleaf and

Spearss (2002) servant leadership. Other authors whose work were important for the

study include Bass and Riggios (2006) transformational leadership, Bass, Avolio, Jung,

and Bersons (2003) prediction of performance and assessment of transformational and

transactional leadership, Druckers (2007) leadership and management principles, Kouzes

and Posners (2007) leadership challenge. The works of many other writers were also

contributing to the study, such as Taylors scientific management as cited in Wren

 34

(2004), McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfelds (2006) human side of enterprise, Druckers

(2007) guide to management by objective (MBO). With regard to motivation, the relevant

works of Maslows (1998) hierarchy needs theory of human motivation and Herzberg's

(2002) two-factor theory were considered. Discussions on leadership and performance

included Senge's (2006) systems thinking, and Kouzes & Posners (2007) leadership

challenge. With respect to organizational structure, design, and performance, reviewed in

the study were the works of Haag, Cummings, and McCubbrey (2005), Porter (2004),

and Scott and Davis (2007). Presented in the next section is a review of relevant

leadership theories with an emphasis on transformational leadership theory.

Transformational Leadership Theory

Transformational leadership is one of the prominent representatives of the 21st

centurys leadership theories that have received attention from many researchers (Avolio,

Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Barbuto, 2005; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Brymer & Gray, 2006;

Hancott, 2005). The transformational leader focuses on the followers concerning their

personal and development needs (Northouse, 2006). To motivate and help followers

succeed in a competitive environment, a transformational leader influences the followers

to perform beyond expectations and inspires the followers to put the organizational

interest above their own self-interest (Bass & Riggio). Described in the following section

are the components of transformational leadership theory.

Historical Development

Burns (1978) developed innovative ideas that gave rise to transformational

leadership theory. According to Burns, leadership involves both economic and non-

economic relationships between the leader and his or her followers. The economic
 35

relationship is the focus of transactional leadership, and the non-economic relationship is

the premise of transformational leadership theory. In Burns view, the transactional

leader would exchange something of value with his or her followers such as promotion,

merit raise, or rewards. The transformational leader would influence the followers using

non-economic means, such as ideals or moral values, to motivate them commit to

organizational goals and perform beyond expectations (Hayashi & Ewert, 2006;

Northouse, 2006). The leader motivates followers in such a way that they raise one

another to higher levels of motivation and morality (Burns, 1978, p. 20).

Inspired by the Burns (1978) principles of transformational leadership, Bass

(1985) took the transformational theory further by refining and incorporating it into

charismatic leadership previously developed by House (1976). The charismatic leader,

according to House, would influence his or her followers with high moral standards and

self-confidence, leading by examples and raising expectations. Bass introduced new

leadership model with three basic components, transactional, transformational, and

laissez-faire. Described in the following subsection are the components of each of Basss

model.

Transactional Leadership

The transactional leaders focus on the exchange process in which they use

positive or negative reinforcements in dealing with followers. The followers will receive

rewards such as salary increase or promotions if the followers meet the leaders

expectation. Conversely, the followers will receive punishments, such as pay cuts or

demotions, if the followers fail to meet the leaders expectation. Bass and Riggio (2006)

described the basic nature of transactional leadership as the exchange or transaction

 36

between the leader and employees. The employee would receive rewards if he or she

fulfills the requirement. The employee would receive punishment if he or she fails to

accomplish tasks or meet the requirement. According to Northouse (2006), transaction

leadership did not focus on the followers personal development. Transactional

leadership has two basic dimensions: contingent rewards and management-by-exception.

A brief description of the two dimensions follows (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Contingent reward. The rewards take place after the leader and followers

establish an agreement that implicitly or explicitly specifies the types of rewards and

sanctions. If the followers meet or exceed their performance expectations, they will

receive rewards administered by the leader. Otherwise, the followers will receive

sanctions for their failure to meet agreed upon objectives.

Management-by-exception. The leader takes action if and only if there is evidence

of major deviations from the plan or report of followers poor performance. The leaders

can exercise their supervisor role actively or passively. In the case of active management-

by-exception, the leader supervises and monitors followers very closely and if any of the

followers makes any mistakes, the leader will take actions immediately to correct them.

The leader provides no coaching to help the followers anticipate for problems or prevent

the mistakes. In the case of passive management-by-exception, the leader supervises the

followers in a passive manner and does not get involved until the follower has issues or

fails to meet performance expectations. When a problem arises, the leader will take

corrective actions to solve the problem and exercise a supervisor role by using

punishments against the follower.

 37

Because the premise of transactional leadership is the exchange of value, such as

pay for performance, the transactional leader does not aim to motivate his or her

followers more than what is required to gain extrinsic rewards or avoid sanctions. The

findings of many empirical studies have suggested that the practice of this transactional

leadership style may produce undesirable results and negatively influence the employees

performance and satisfaction (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Bono & Judge, 2004; Brymer &

Gray, 2006).

Transformational Leadership

The transformational leader aims to transform the individual followers assuming

that a person with vision and passion can achieve successes and uses a different approach

from that of transactional leadership (Bass, 2006). The transformational leader focuses on

engaging with followers, inspires the followers enthusiasm, and encourages them to rise

to the high moral and ethical standards. According to Bass, the transformational leader

transforms the follower by helping them understand the importance of organizational

outcomes, encouraging them to rise above their self-interest to achieve organizational

goals, and inducing their higher order needs (p. 56). Bass and Riggio (2006) proposed

four fundamental components of transformational leadership, idealized influence,

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (p. 6).

Idealized influence. The leader who has idealized influence demonstrates high

moral and ethical standards, earns respect and trust from followers, and provides the

followers with a clear vision and direction (Kirkbride, 2006). The leader concentrates on

building respect and trust as a means of influence and through idealized influence or

charisma; the leader creates a profound emotional connection between the leader and
 38

followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The transformational leader influences his or her

followers not only by his or her own characteristics but also by leadership behaviors,

which are observable and perceivable (Bass & Riggio).

Inspirational motivation. The inspirational leader uses effective motivation

techniques to inspire and encourage followers to perform extraordinarily transcending

their own interests in the pursuit of the organizations goals (Hayashi & Ewert, 2006).

The leader learns as much about the job as possible and communicates all pertinent

information to followers with enthusiasm and optimism (Bass, 2006). The leader has the

ability to motivate and inspire followers using his or her daily leadership practices and

providing clear, concise, correct, concrete, and complete communication of expectations

(Bass & Riggio).

Intellectual stimulation. The intellectual stimulation leaders have the ability to

promote creativity and innovation, stimulate the followers to challenge their own value

systems and improve their problem-solving skills and individual performance (Bass &

Riggio). The leader refuses to criticize followers in public; rather, provides genuine

coaching to help followers improve (Bass & Riggio). The leader has the ability to listen

to followers new ideas, to respect their independent thinking, and to stimulate their

innovative approaches to solving job-related problems (Hancott, 2005). Using intellectual

stimulation, the leader also encourages followers to use their own analytical and critical

thinking ability from their perspectives to challenge status quo and conventional,

traditional wisdom (Bass & Riggio).

Individualized consideration. The leader with individual consideration is attentive

to the needs of each follower, provides warm support, is willing to listen to the followers
 39

personal problems, and provides mentoring when asked (Bass & Riggio). The leader also

gives honest feedback to the follower, can agree or disagree with respect, and genuinely

helps followers achieve organizational objectives according to their ability (Avolio, Zhu,

Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). Not only does the leader give personal attention to followers, the

leader treats the followers differently but equitably and aligns each followers needs with

team goals and organizational mission (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler,

2004).

Bass and Riggio (2006) proposed transformational leadership theory to achieve

exceptional individual and organizational performance contributed by followers. The

theory engages followers with self-actualization appealing to their ideals and higher level

needs for increased commitment, satisfaction, and performance (Bass, 2006; Walumbwa,

Lawler, Avolio, Wang, & Shi, 2005). Although Burns (1978) argued that transactional

and transformational leadership were on the opposite sides of a continuum, Bass and

Riggio viewed the leadership styles as complementary to each other, and leaders should

practice principles of both transactional and transformational leadership styles. Brymer

and Gray (2006) articulated that the leader needed to practice (a) transactional leadership

to satisfy low level needs of followers and (b) transformational leadership to motivate

followers, appeal them to higher level needs, and develop them to their fullest potential.

In addition, many leadership scholars provided empirical evidence to support Bass view

on the congruency of transactional and transformational styles suggesting that leaders

practice them in conjunction (Bono & Judge, 2004; Hayashi & Ewert, 2006). One could

conclude that transformational leadership build upon and augment transactional

leadership in accomplishing desirable organizational outcomes.

 40

Laissez-Faire Leadership

According to Bass and Riggios (2006), laissez-faire leadership is no leadership or

simply, laissez-faire is the absence or avoidance of leadership. Laissez-faire leaders make

no decisions, delay actions, ignore responsibilities, use no authority, and avoid getting

involved. According to Bass (2006), laissez-faire or hands-off leadership is the most

inactive and ineffective type of leadership. Contrasting to transactional and

transformational leadership, laissez-faire leadership has proven to be a fundamentally

unproductive approach to leadership and management. Corrigan, Lickey, Campion, and

Rashid (2000) wrote, The laissez-faire leader is aloof, uninvolved, and disinterested in

the day-to-day activities of the treatment team (p. 2). Corrigan et al. conducted a study to

examine the effects of leadership of psychiatric rehabilitation programs on consumers

satisfaction and one of the findings showed that laissez-faire leadership had a negative

influence (p. 3). In programs led by laissez-faire leaders, consumers had a lower level of

satisfaction and poor quality of life (Corrigan et al.). The findings also showed a low

satisfaction score when consumers involved in programs managed by managers who

exercised passive management-by-exception leadership style. Corrigan et al. concluded

that there was an inverse correlation between the consumer satisfaction and laissez-faire

leadership style and a positive association between and both transactional and

transformational leadership. Corrigan et al. also found a correlation between passive

management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership. Understandably, laissez-faire

leaders would assume a hands-off approach to managing staff and respond only when

serious problems arise and demand for their involvement. The following four subsections

contain a discussion of the leadership theories and models that are closely related to both
 41

transformational and servant leadership theories. The models are servant, Theory X and

Theory Y, participative, and situational theories.

Servant Leadership Theory

Greenleaf founded the servant leadership model (Greenleaf Center for Servant

Leadership, 2002). The model calls for the leader to play the role of a servant whose main

duty is to serve the followers. Servant leadership promotes the idea that task is

accomplished in the context of public victory and win-win relationship (Blanchard &

Hodges, 2006). The effectiveness of managerial leadership is important but humanity and

welfare are of equal importance (Greenleaf & Spears, 2002). Relating the fundamental

principles of servant leadership to those of transformational model, Burns (1978) posited

that servant leadership model takes transformational leadership to a higher level by

emphasizing ethical behaviors and practices. Transformational leaders focus only on

ethical behavior.

In Greenleaf and Spears (2002) servant leadership model, the leader chooses to

serve first playing the role of a servant. Many researchers articulated that servant

leadership improved effectiveness and advances organizational unity (Blanchard &

Hodges, 2006; Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, 2002; Spears, 2004; Stone,

Russell, & Patterson, 2004). According to Spears, the foundation of servant leadership is

teamwork and community. Spears further noted that the servant leader involved others in

the decision-making process, demonstrate caring and ethical behavior, and improve not

only the growth of but also the quality of care in the organization. Greenleaf and Spears

asserted that servant leadership is desirable because it aims to serve others for a higher

purpose (p. 59). They articulated for the ideal servant leader by describing the basic
 42

responsibility and duty of the leader, which is to serve others first and to aspire to lead.

The servant leader is sensitive to the needs of others as described by Greenleaf and

Spears. The servant leaders duty is to make sure that he or she understands the priority

of other people.

Theory X and Theory Y Management Assumptions

McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld (2006) asserted that the assumptions leaders

and managers made about their followers had a great deal with how the followers

respond. In articulating the point, they identified two opposing sets of leadership

assumptions; one labeled Theory X, the other labeled Theory Y. The following represent

Theory X assumptions. First, management is responsible for organizing an enterprise for

achieving economic ends. Second, managers must direct, motivate, and control the efforts

of their followers to reach economic goals. Third, without active intervention by

management, followers would be passive to the needs of the organization. Fourth, most

people work as little as possible; they are indolent by nature, lack ambition, avoid

responsibility, and prefer being led. Fifth, most people are, by nature, resistant to

organizational change and innovation. Finally, most people are rather gullible and dumb

(McGregor & Cutcher-Gershenfeld).

By contrast, Theory Y assumptions are that management is responsible for

organizing an enterprise to achieve its objectives and extending mental and physical

effort in work is as natural as playing or resting (McGregor & Cutcher-Gershenfeld,

2006). Furthermore, most people exercise self-direction and internal control toward

objectives to which they are committed (McGregor & Cutcher-Gershenfeld). Under

proper conditions, most people learn to seek responsibility and commitment to objectives
 43

comes because of rewards associated with achieving those (McGregor & Cutcher-

Gershenfeld). Meeting ego and self-realization needs is the most significant type of

reward. Imagination, motivation, creativity, and potential for development are widely

spread throughout the population (McGregor & Cutcher-Gershenfeld).

If leaders make Theory X assumptions about their followers, the leaders are more

likely to be directive and autocratic. McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld further argued

that the traits were not inherent in the nature of people. Rather, people may have learned

to behave like Theory X because of the organizations demands for conformity,

obedience, and dependence. Theory Y leaders are likely to be more open, sharing, and

supportive with their followers. The approach encourages the satisfaction of higher level

needs through employee involvement and participation.

McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld believed that leaders assumptions become a

self-fulfilling prophecy. If the leader assumes that followers are lazy, dumb, and

irresponsible, the leader will lead the followers autocratically and distrustfully. This type

of leadership, over a period, would then cause the followers to behave according to

Theory X assumptions. Leaders would say that they were right and that without close

supervision; the employees would not do anything.

Conversely, a more trusting, open, participative, transformational leader (Theory

Y) would encourage followers to behave more like Theory Y because of the way he or

she treated them. Management authorities (Bass, 2006; Bennis, 2003; Drucker, 2007;

Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Senge, 2006) and philosophers before them (e.g., Aristotle,

Machiavelli, and Plato) argued the issue of the inherent nature for ages, and undoubtedly
 44

will continue. Nevertheless, McGregors assertions have an effect on leadership by

causing leaders and managers to examine their beliefs about human nature.

Participative Theory

The fundamental principle of both transformational and servant leadership is the

followers active participation in the organizational decision-making process (Yukl,

2009). Participative leadership allows followers to involve in decision-making process.

The premise of the theory is that when people participate, they are more committed to

actions, more collaborative in a joint effort and less competitive (Yukl). When followers

participate in the decision making process, their commitment to the achievement of

organizational goals is stronger. Yukl proposed four decision procedures on the

participation continuum:

1. Autocratic decision: The leader makes a decision alone;

2. Consultation: The leader proposes decision, asks followers for their

opinions, feedback, and ideas, and makes the decision alone;

3. Joint decision: The leader meets with followers to formulate a joint

decision; the leader has no more influence over the final decision that any

other participant; and

4. Delegation: The leader gives authority to an individual or group to make a

decision (p. 86)

Participative leadership can provide some potential benefits. It helps develop

future leaders especially in decision-making skills, enhances the quality of decisions, and

most important, it increases followers commitment. Participative leadership can help

 45

facilitate team building and conflict resolution. Participative leadership goes beyond the

trait approach and beyond the simple leader-follower exchange.

Situational and Contingency Leadership Theories

Taking a similar approach to that of Greenleafs servant leadership and going a

step further than McGregors Theory Y, Blanchard et al. (2000) introduced a situational

theory and Fiedler (1964, 1996) introduced a contingency model. Situational theory and

contingency theory are similar in that there is no one best way of leading. A leadership

style may be effective in certain situations but may be ineffective in others. Both theories

prescribed different leadership patterns and styles according to the maturity level of each

individual follower. In this context, maturity means followers relevant skills and

technical knowledge as well as their confidence and self-respect. The maturity level of

the follower determines what the most effective leadership style would be. Blanchard et

al. developed a situational leadership approach that inter-relates three factors: Task

behavior, relationship behavior, and maturity of followers. Task behavior is the degree to

which the leader concentrates on structure, deadlines, and procedures, and emphasizes

getting the job finished. Relationship behavior is the degree to which the leader is

considerate and supportive of followers. The leader is available for informal discussions,

friendly chatter, and the like. Maturity of followers is the degree to which the follower

shows a desire for achievement and a willingness to accept responsibility.

Blanchard et al. (2000) combined task and relationship behaviors to outline a

range of leadership styles that leaders could use to influence their followers. First, the

telling and directing style is appropriate when the leader defines objectives and tells

followers what to do. It is one-way communication (telling and directing) (Blanchard et

 46

al.). Second, the leader is both directive and supportive and emphasizes objectives. It is

two-way communication. The leader and followers discuss what to do and agree on roles

and assignments (selling and coaching) (Blanchard et al.). Third, the leader is supportive

and works with followers in an informal and friendly atmosphere (participating)

(Blanchard et al.). Fourth, the leader is lacking in both support and direction and there is

little need for task orientation. Followers operate more on their own and have more

independence (delegating) (Blanchard et al.).

The preceding subsections of Chapter 2 have described the relevant leadership

theories, which are the predictor (or independent) variables in the study. The description

also included brief analyses of the closely related theories and models. The focus of the

following two sections is on the two intervening variables of the study, employee job

satisfaction and employee affective commitment.

Job Satisfaction

Locke (1976) reported that more than 3,300 articles existed in which authors

examined the topic of job satisfaction. In the early 1990s, the number of research studies

on job satisfaction was over 12,000 (Locke & Latham, 2004). Locke (1976) viewed job

satisfaction as a positive state of emotion obtaining from a positive job experience.

Whittington and Evans (2005) viewed job satisfaction as a subjective belief that an

employee had regarding the employment conditions with regard to the relationship

between the employee and the employer. Whittington and Evans also noted that the

emotion was built on the employees individual beliefs and values. It is difficult to

measure the overall degree of satisfaction that employees feel about their jobs

(Favara, 2009). Experts disagree to some extent, and satisfaction varies among different
 47

groups of employees (Collins, 2007; Lawler III, & Porter, 2008). Defining job

satisfaction from a career enhancement perspective, Hwang and Kuo (2006) stated that

when the employees are satisfied, they would not seek alternative employment

opportunities. According to Herzbergs (2002) two-factor theory, job satisfaction was

simply considering motivation factors with regard to the job. Most scholars recognize

that job satisfaction is about people and their jobs, and when organizations promote job

satisfaction, they will gain the benefits of increased employee commitment, performance,

and retention as well as reduced absenteeism and attrition (Helland & Winston, 2005).

According to Ndambakuwa and Mufunda (2006), job satisfaction, commitment,

and organizational performance were critically important in the organization, and the

organizational outcomes had a significant relationship with leadership style especially

transformational leadership. Schein (2002) provided a list of factors in which employees

might satisfy with their job: managerial competence, technical competence, autonomy,

job security, innovation and creativity, challenging tasks, sense of dedicated service, and

lifestyle. Although Kinnie et al. (2005) found a strong correlation between employee job

satisfaction and organizational commitment, Locke and Latham (2004) documented a

number of factors contributing to job satisfaction: job assignment, recognition, salary,

benefits, promotions, working condition, coworkers, supervisor, and management.

According to Kim (2005), employee satisfaction and happiness in organizations would

lead to increased organizational performance. Chen, Beck, and Amos (2005) asserted that

an employee would perform up to potential, produce outstanding results, and give his or

her services to the organization wholeheartedly when he or she feels satisfied and

positive toward leaders, managers and fellow workers.

 48

Prior researchers found a positive relationship among employee attitudes,

behaviors, individual performance, and job satisfaction (Kinnie, Hutchinson, Purcell,

Rayton, & Swart, 2005). Other researchers found that when employees were satisfied,

they exhibited positive attitudes and behaviors, performed well, and committed to the

organization (Collins, 2007; Humphreys & Einstein, 2004; Schweizer, 2004), and they

also had a good working relationship with management (Redman & Snape, 2005).

Collins (2007) indicated that some groups or employees were more satisfied than others

were. Professional people in high-tech companies such as knowledge workers, managers,

and senior staff members report more job satisfaction than unskilled workers do (Collins,

2007); perhaps because the former groups tend to have more control over their work

situations. The leaders and knowledge workers are not tied to strict production quotas,

working hours are more flexible, and procedures are less rigid. Generally, these workers

can make more decisions and have some hope of improving working conditions and

satisfaction. The society tends to assign more status and prestige to these work groups

(Collins, 2007).

Many people strongly believe that increased satisfaction leads to increased

individual performance (Lawler III & Porter, 2008). On the surface, this certainly seems

logical. The findings of some studies show the barest evidence of a link between

employee satisfaction and performance (Edington, 2007; Watson, 2008). For example,

Watson found that in hospitals with high ratios of patient-to-nurse, surgical staff and

nurses were more likely to experience burnout and job dissatisfaction. Locke (1976)

suggested that a job is a complex interrelationship of organizational elements rather than

an entity. These elements are responsibilities, roles, tasks, rewards, and incentives (p.
 49

1301). Cognitive and emotional experiences that interact with the aforementioned factors

stimulate affective commitment and organizational performance (Collins, 2007).

Measuring the degree of employees job satisfaction is a complex process because the

definition includes the job factors and the interpretation of the employee who experiences

with them. Prior researchers used a number of tools to measure job satisfaction (e.g.,

Schweizer, 2004; Vanneste, 2005). They evaluated different environmental conditions

addressed by motivation theories, and the most significant ones included Maslows

(1998) need hierarchy and Herzberg's (2002) motivation-hygiene theory.

Faragher, Cass, and Cooper (2005) provided a list of interpretive instruments to

assess job satisfaction. The major instruments they used to measure overall job

satisfaction include the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). The MSQ has been

widely used and recognized as one of the most comprehensive assessments of job

satisfaction. The MSQ contains 20 satisfaction indicators: achievement, ability usage,

advancement, activity, authority, compensation, policies and procedures, job security,

ethical and moral values, recognition, social service and status, technical and human

supervision, responsibility, and work conditions (Faragher, Cass, and Cooper, 2005).

Empirical findings of many studies have shown a positive relationship between

transformation leadership, job satisfaction, and commitment (Emery & Becker, 2007;

Kim, 2005; Kinnie et al., 2005; Locke & Latham, 2004; Lawler III & Porter, 2008).

Satisfaction with organizational leadership and management is a result of effective

leadership, career opportunity and growth, job enrichment, individual consideration,

equitable pay and benefits, and trusting relationship (Lawler III & Porter, 2008; Locke &

Latham, 2004). Analyzing employee job performance from a psychoanalysis perspective,

 50

Watson (2008) articulated that employees would give their best efforts, perform their jobs

wholeheartedly, and produce outstanding results when they feel positive about the job,

fellow workers, and leaders. Ndambakuwa & Mufunda (2006) associated satisfaction

with employee interests in valuing differences, and recognizing outstanding performance.

According to Schultz and Edington (2007), successful organizations were genuinely

attentive to the employment and emotional needs of their employees. Based on the

findings of prior research, the current study used a multiple regression to determine if

employee job satisfaction mediates the relationship between leadership style and

organizational performance. Provided in chapter 3, is the method for analyzing job

satisfaction. This method is useful to determine if job satisfaction (a) mediates the

relationship between leadership style and organizational performance as an intervening

variable, or (b) directly relates to organization performance as a predictor variable. The

next section presents a review of current literature on the employees organizational

commitment.

Affective Commitment

According to Redman and Snape (2005), organizational commitment exists when

an individual employee identifies himself or herself with an organization. Allen and

Meyer (1996) defined organizational commitment as a psychological link between the

employee and his or her organization that makes it less likely that the employee will

voluntarily leave the organization (p. 252). According to Allen and Meyer,

organizational commitment had three types: normative commitment, continuance

commitment, and affective commitment. Normative commitment exists when an

employee believes he or she has a moral obligation to remain and work for the company
 51

(Allen & Meyer). Continuance commitment exists when the employees have a need

(social or financial or the like) to keep their employment (Allen & Meyer). Affective

commitment refers to the employees who love the company (for whatever reason) and

want to have a lifelong career with the current employer (Allen & Meyer).

Prior researchers found a link of commitment with organizational behaviors

(Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Kaplan & Norton, 2005; Weiner, 2002). Avolio et al.

posited that transformational leaders influence their followers by inspiring their loyalty,

involving them in decision-making process, and encouraging them to use practical

approach to solving problems. Transformational leaders also recognize and appreciate the

needs of each employee and help him or her develop potential (p. 953). Kaplan and

Norton identified commitment to be a force that maintains behavioral direction when

equity and expectancy conditions were not functioning well or not met. In this context,

behaviors occur when there is no or little expectation of rewards, and thus commitment

has the affective nature. Weiner (2002) argued for a distinction between instrumental

beliefs and internalized normative beliefs. According to Weiner, commitment was the

sum of internalized beliefs causing the employees to (a) make personal sacrifice on

behalf of their organization, (b) act without expecting any rewards or punishment, and (c)

have a personal preoccupation with their organization.

Harland, Harrison, Jones, and Reiter-Palmon (2005) examined the dimensions of

commitment in organizations and the premise of employees psychological and emotional

attachment to organizations. The three dimensions of commitment identified in the study

were compliance, identification, and internalization (Harland et al., 2005). According to

these authors, compliance referred to behaviors that occurred when the employee
 52

expected rewards from leaders or tried to avoid punishment. As stated by Redman and

Snape (2005) above, identification is an important factor in employee commitment.

Identification refers to the voluntary involvement of the employee in organizational

activities out of his or her desire for affiliation (LaRue et al., 2004). Internalization refers

to the employees participation predicated on the existing congruency between the

employee and organizational values (LaRue et al., 2004).

As predicted by Drucker (2007), the leader of the future will be the one who asks

rather than tells the employees what to do. The traditional leadership model of the past

will not work effectively for the majority of high-tech organizations in todays rapidly

changing world. Changes in global markets, economic conditions have necessitated

transformations in the psychological contract between employees and the organization

(Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). Other scholars considered the change emotional and

examined the relationship between leadership styles and employee commitment (LaRue

et al., 2004). According to Bass and Riggio (2006), the emotional bond exhibited an

affective emotional connection between employee and leader.

Although Cooper (2003) articulated that commitment is a complex phenomenon

that operates in different directions and at different levels (p. 69), LaRue et al. noted that

commitment advanced from the employees normative forces, attitude, and behavior.

LaRue et al. emphasized the importance of achieving employees voluntary commitment

in their book. Kim (2005) asserted that employees effective commitment is critical to

obtaining and maintaining optimal performance for the organization.

Chapter 4 contains an analysis of the data to determine if affective commitment

(a) mediates the relationship between leadership style and organizational performance as
 53

an intervening variable, or (b) directly relates to organization performance as a predictor

variable. Presented in the previous two sections of Chapter 2 was a review of prior

research on employee job satisfaction and employee commitment, which are the

intervening variables in the study. In the following section, the focus of the discussion is

on the literature regarding various theories on organizational performance, which is the

criterion (or dependent) variable.

Organizational Performance

Many scholars have tried to identify and develop the best definition and

measurement of the organizational performance concept. Despite a surge of research on

the concept, there are numerous and even conflicting definitions and models of

organizational performance (Selden & Sowa, 2004). Thompson (2003) introduced a new

organizational theory from a sociological analysis perspective to which many scholars

named, Contingency. This was a clear departure from an earlier approach, administrative

theory, which focused on the one best way to managing organizations. By contrast,

Thompson stressed that organizational dynamics and structures were dependent on not

only technology and goals but also coordination issues and environmental uncertainties.

The changes to structural designs and responses must be contingent upon different types

of technology and various environmental conditions. According to Thompson, one

needed to assess the effectiveness of technology from a sociological perspective.

Perspectives on Organization Performance

Based on current literature, many scholars do not agree on the selection of criteria

for assessing organizational performance and effectiveness (Bolman & Deal, 2003;

DeClerk, 2008; LaRue, et al., 2006; Scott & Davis, 2007). Described briefly in the
 54

following section are the four approaches that dominate literature. The approaches are:

(a) the goal approach, (b) the system resource approach, (c) the multiple constituency

approach, and (d) the competing values approach.

The goal approach. Made in the goal approach are two assumptions. People

create organizations for a specific purpose, which is to accomplish a mission and achieve

certain goals determined by the stakeholders and identification of goals and measurement

of progress toward attainment of goals are the responsibility of organizational members

(Scott & Davis, 2007). Using the goal approach, assessed by the model is organizational

performance according to the ability of the organization in achieving its desired goals.

The system resource approach. The focus of the system resource approach is on

the relationship between an organization and the environment. According to Bolman and

Deal (2003), when the organization can take advantage of its environment in the

acquisition of highly values and scarce resources to sustain organizational functioning, it

is highly effective. The models in the approach measure organizational performance in

terms of the organizations acquisition ability to obtain scarce resources.

The constituency approach. This approach recognizes that an organization has

many stakeholders and that they participate in a variety of organizational activities for a

number of reasons. These reasons will be reflected in their evaluation of organizational

performance (Agle, Nagarajan, Sonnenfeld, & Srinivasan, 2006). According to Agle et al.

(2006), an organization is effective when the multiple stakeholders perceive the

organization as effective. From the dominant coalition perspective, constituencies with

more control over resources will likely have the most influence on the outcome (Scott &

Davis, 2007). From a social justice perspective; however, the effectiveness of the
 55

organization is evaluated according to the least advantaged constituency (Zammuto,

2004).

The competing values approach. Developed by Cameron and Quinn (2006),

recognized in the competing values approach is that organizational goals are created in

different directions by the various expectations of multiple constituencies. Consequently,

organizations have different criteria of measuring performance. The reasons, according to

Thompson (2003), included environmental constraints, multiple goals, and various

constituencies. Many scholars suggested that a multi-dimensional model be required to

measure organization performance in which competing values are present.

According to Cameron and Quinn (2006), the rational goal model and the goal

approach were complementary. Because goal setting is a means to achieve efficiency and

productivity, an organization is effective when tasks lead to the accomplishments of

goals. The open systems model complements the system resource approach. In the model,

the focus is on flexibility as a means for growth and resource acquisition. An

organization is effective when it is adaptive and innovative especially when it acquires

more resources and receives external recognition than its competitors.

The multiple constituency approach focuses on the perceptions of multiple

constituents and relies on their judgments of organizational performance. The competing

values approach integrates elements of the aforementioned approaches into a single

model and is the most comprehensive one (Cameron & Quinn). Stakeholders want their

organizations to be not only adaptable and flexible but also stable and effective (Cameron

& Quinn). An effective organization exhibits a high level of collaboration and affective

commitment among stakeholders through work groups, team projects, and management
 56

(Cohen & Bradford, 2005). Provided in the section was a review of the perspectives on

organizational performance and described the four major approaches to assessing

organizational performance and effectiveness. Discussed in the following section is the

methodology to measure organizational performance.

Organizational Performance Measurement

Many criteria can be used to measure organizational performance. Scott and

Davis (2007) indicated that the determination of organizational performance, for many

organizations, was by the organizations ability to use its resources to predict its future.

Today, more organizations are seeing their employees as their most valuable resources.

Bolman and Deal (2003) explained that measurement of organizational success today was

based on the organizations ability to set up a structure that was a close to a family

arrangement. The structure of the organization has proven to be an essential factor when

examining success in maintaining employees and customers (Wilson, 2008). The practice

of reviewing structures has become a good example for upcoming organizations dictating

that employees are important to the performance of organizations and should be valued

when making every day decisions.

Approximately, there are 30 different criteria to evaluate organizational

performance, and they range from organizational stability to employee turnover rate,

from productivity to profit and revenue, from organizations growth to stock values

(Cohen & Bradford, 2005). To rational system theorists, the number of outputs and

economic conditions are the indicators. To natural system theorists, the survival and

viability of the organization be the most important indicators. To open system theorists,

the adaptability, the flexibility, and the ability of the organization to take advantage of its
 57

environment in the acquisition of internal and external resources are the performance

indicators (Scott & Davis, 2007).

In addition to the performance criteria above, both Scott and Davis (2007) and

Siggelkow and Rivkin (2006) have suggested three different types of indicators:

outcomes, processes, and structure. Outcomes are not a good indication of the process,

accuracy, and care with which people perform work activities (Robinson, 2007). As

process measures place emphasis on assessment of energy, performers prefer them to

outcome measures (Robinson). The drawback is that the correlation between outcomes

and process measures is not very strong (Robinson). Structure can be a good indicator of

organizational performance but when process measures and outcomes are separated as

mentioned previously, structure becomes more remote because it does not measure the

true performance of the organization (Scott & Davis). In the past 15 years, many

organizations have considered shareholder value as a primary criterion for evaluating

performance. In their analysis of American businesses, Scott and Davis reported that

shareholder value as measured by the stock market is the key metric to measuring

organizational performance.

In selecting criteria for measuring organizational performance, organizational

power plays an important role. Kaplan and Norton (2006) used the centrality concepts in

the context of the study of human communication and suggested that when a particular

person in a group is strategically located on the shortest communication path connecting

pairs of others, that person is in a central position (p. 65). Other members of the network

were assumed responsive to persons in such central positions who could influence the

group by withholding information, or distorting it in transmission (Scott & Davis, 2007).

 58

With a slightly different approach, Pfeffer (2003) asserted that power was derived from

control over strategic interdependencies. Power can be accumulated in an exchange

network by gaining control over various types of valued resources including information,

monetary supplies, and alliances. According to Pfeffer and Scott and Davis,

organizational power originated from a wide variety of sources but the major ones

include network centrality, control of resources, communication, information flows,

authority, decision-making, and contingencies. Other means to increase organizational

efficiency and effectiveness include strategic initiatives focused directly on

organizational performance.

Other researchers showed that organizations used different criteria to measure

organizational performance (Agle et al., 2006; Selden & Sowa, 2004). From a strategic

management perspective, Mintzberg, Lampel, Quinn, and Ghoshal (2003) conducted at

least 11 intensive research studies to examine the process of strategy formation.

Mintzberg defined strategy as a pattern in a sequence of decisions and later as a pattern in

a series of actions (Mintzberg et al.). Kaplan and Norton (2005) asserted that

organizational performance, for many organizations, is determined by the organizations

ability to use its resources to predict its future.

Analysis of Technology Impact on Organizational Performance

Prior to implementing technology in an organization, one needs to consider

several important factors such as size, environment, power relationships, strategy, and

existing core and enabling technologies of the organization (S. Gold, personal

communication, February 28, 2009). Agle et al. (2006) indicated that through empirical

studies organizations needed to consider the factors when assessing the impact of
 59

technology on organizational structure and performance. The factors according to Agle et

al. were size of the organization, internal environment, power, and the strategic core

competency and technology.

Size. There is an inverse relationship between size and technology (Agle et al.). In

a large organization, technology would play a smaller, insignificant role, and technology

at the study company is no exception. It has become more important in the recent years

(S. Gold, personal communication, February 28, 2009).

Environment. Many organization theorists conducted research studies to examine

the relationship between organizational practices and environment uncertainty

(Thompson, 2003). Some researchers argued that organizational and environmental

constraints restricted the realization of strategic goals in many organizations (Bolman &

Deal, 2003; Chun & Rainey, 2005; Jones, 2004). Thompson (2003) asserted that

environmental uncertainty was the basic problem that top-level management must

resolve.

Power relationships and the technical core. In selecting criteria for measuring

organizational performance, organizational power plays an important role. S. Gold

(personal communication, February 28, 2009) articulated that the dominant coalition of

any organization plays a key role in technology decisions that relate to the foundational

technological capabilities and competencies. According to Thompson (2003),

organizational power originated from a wide variety of sources, but the major sources

included network centrality, control of resources, communication, information flows,

authority, decision-making, and contingencies. Other means to increase organizational

 60

efficiency and effectiveness include strategic initiatives focused directly on

organizational performance.

Strategy. In uncertain environments, the impact of technology on organizational

strategy is significant (Thompson). Other researchers showed a relationship between

technological deployment strategy and organizational performance (Agle et al., 2006;

Scott & Davis, 2007). Each organization tends to favor a specific type of strategy, and a

profile of technology deployment in this strategy will optimize performance. Strategic

alignment of technology and business strategy is critically important (Thompson).

Strategic alignment of IT and business is the number-one issue facing many IT leaders in

strategic planning (Luftman, 2004). Luftman stressed the importance of IS strategic

alignment, which aims at aligning IS strategy with business strategy. Many firms have

experienced poor organizational performance and returns on investments because they

selected tools that do not align with business strategy, especially tools for distributed

teams (Luftman). The selection of tools must be a rigorous exercise included in the

strategic management process. Most important, the chosen tools need to provide the

dynamic project visibility so that team members can make informed decisions and

leverage strategic project initiatives (Luftman).

Organizational Performance Strategy and Planning

With respect to performance planning, efficiency and effectiveness, successful

organizations develop strategies to improve organizational performance and increase

their bottom-line values. Organizational performance strategies clearly define the

domains for marketing the product successfully. The use of the strategies also facilitates

processes by creating structures to pursue the strategic goals. Jones (2004) articulated that
 61

organizations develop core competences to gain competitive advantage through

organizational strategy. Not only do they need to manage their domain more effectively,

they also need to develop new competencies to use the resources better. In every industry,

organizations tend to identify themselves, or more strategically recognized, as having

distinctive competence, unique capabilities that can outperform competitors.

Snow and Hrebiniak (2002) examined the relationship among distinctive

competence, strategy, and organizational performance. They concluded that organization

could achieve optimal performance with strategies that are supported by appropriate

distinctive competences (p. 317). In a research study to investigate the strategic

involvement of mid-level management in many organizations, ICF International (2006)

found that managerial involvement in the creation of strategy was conducive to

improving organizational performance. Jones (2004) confidently argued that a well-

thought-out strategy would enable an organization to shape and manage the domain of

the industry effectively, not only taking advantages of the present core competences but

also expanding its horizon into new competences and capturing a competitive edge in the

global market. In the formulation of organizational strategy, Jones suggestion included

the four-level strategy: functional, business, corporate, and global.

Organizational Performance Measurement An Example

According to Jones (2004):

In many companies, the initial decision to adopt a TQM [Total Quality

Improvement] approach signals a radical change in the way their activities are

organized. Once TQM is adopted by an organization, however, it leads to

 62

continuous, incremental change, and all functions are expected to cooperate with

each other to improve quality (p. 312).

In the late 1980s, TQM had become essentially a phenomenon, a social movement in the

United States. Deming (1986) defined TQM as a continuous improvement program

strategically implemented in all the functional units (departments and groups) of an

organization to improve the quality of its services. Total Quality Management is a

management philosophy found and introduced by Deming in the early 1980s, and later

enhanced by Juran (2005). According to these scholars, the primary purpose of most

organizations was to find sustainable success in business with organizational stability,

employees job satisfaction, useful products, and quality customer services (Deming;

Juran). They argued that when organizational members are unhappy and unable to feel

positive toward their organization, the organization should not exist. Indeed, TQM is

rooted in four interlocked assumptions about product quality, people, organization, and

customer (Scott & Davis, 2007).

The major components of TQM include strategic planning, process management,

leadership, people and customer focus, statistical analysis, and performance. Leadership

is the major driver of TQM, which sets strategic directions and facilitates high

organizational performance and learning (Scott & Davis). The voice of employees is

another important element in the TQM process as well as its training, development, and

career enhancement programs. Effective customer relationship management is critical to

maintaining competitive position in the market as Evans and Lindsay (2005) noted that

customer focus is the fundamental principle of TQM (p. 4). Strategic planning includes

those of TQM and of corporate. The former focuses on the way to compete for
 63

customers, and the latter deals with the decision in selecting the type of customers to

compete for (Evans & Lindsay). Careful analysis of information and data can help

organizations achieve outstanding performance and improved customer satisfaction

(Kaplan & Norton, 2006).

Some of the TQM techniques such as quality circles, brainstorming, fishbone

diagram, cause-and-effect analysis, and Pareto charts are used to help organizations

process information timely and effectively. Many organizations have used fishbone

diagrams and Pareto charts in their quality management process. Juran (2005) first

applied the Pareto concept to identify the root cause of a problem noting that only a vital

few defects account for most problems. The concept gave rise to the 80/20 rule that says

80% improvement in quality can be achieved by eliminating 20% of the causes.

The TQM team members have often used the fishbone diagram in a brainstorming

session to identify the root cause and effects of a problem. They may refer to it as a

cause-and-effect diagram. Because the sketch of this diagram looks like a fishs skeleton,

as shown in Figure 2, many authors called it a fishbone diagram. Figures 2 and 3 are

examples of fishbone diagram and Pareto chart as shown below respectively.

 64

I/O Delay Excessive New Inefficient

Users Applications

Root Cause
Of Slow
Response
Time

Inadequate Network Insufficient

CPU Capacity Delays Memory

Figure 2. A Fishbone Diagram of Cause and Effect

Causes of System Delays

100

80

60

40

20

0
I/O Delays Net Work Delays Inefficient CPU Capacity Insufficient New Users
Application Memory

Figure 3. An Example of a Pareto Diagram

The Pareto chart is a bar chart whose percentages sum to 100%. The causes of the

problem are sorted in decreasing importance with the bars descending from left to right.
 65

As shown in Figure 3, the Pareto chart reveals that the highest concentration of

improvement be in the two areas: I/O delays and network delays, which account for 73%.

The creation of TQMs process management is that departments and groups are

sets of interlinked processes, which must be managed (Deming, 1986). Many

organizations have reported significant improvements by applying process reengineering

(Haag, Cummings, & McCubbrey, 2005). The last component is the TQMs performance

aspect, which emphasizes on the quality of service delivery and organizational and

business performance. Evans and Lindsay (2005) reported that TQM had been used by

many organizations for improving organizational performance but with mixed success (p.

7). Although some organizations experienced positive results because of TQM, many

others did not find success with TQM and discontinued the programs. According to Jones

(2004), TQM is not a quick remedy and cannot improve organizational performance in a

short period. Rather, it is a long-term process that brings success only if it becomes a way

of life in an organization.

In summary, the performance of an organization could improve with a successful

implementation of TQM. Caveats do exist; however, as TQM is a process that requires

patience, perseverance, determination, and unwavering principles of high standards. To

benefit from the rewards of TQM, the concepts must be in the organizations culture. To

realize the value of TQM, an organization must have an organizational structure that

facilitates implementation. To implement TQM programs successfully, top-level

management must involve and participate in the process. Today, more organizations are

seeing their employees as their most valuable resources (Drucker, 2007). Bolman and

Deal (2003) explained that the measurement of organizational success was based on the
 66

organizations ability to set up a structure that was a close to a family arrangement. The

structure of the organization and the strategic management are important factors when

examining success in maintaining employees and customers. The practice of reviewing

structures and strategies has become a good example for upcoming organizations

dictating that employees are important to overall performance of organizations and

should be valued when making strategic decisions.

Connections of Leadership Theories and Organizational Performance in the Context of

the Present Study

Elenkov (2002) examined the impact of transactional and transformational

leadership practices on organizational performance in a number of companies in Russia.

The survey consisted of 253 leaders and 498 followers. The study used Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to measure leadership behaviors. The findings of this

study showed a strong correlation (0.80 to 0.61, p < .01) between transformational

leadership styles and organizational performance. The correlation was weak (0.30 to

0.21, p < .01) between transactional leadership components and organizational

performance.

Zhu, Chew, and Spangler (2005) conducted a study in 170 companies in

Singapore to investigate the relationship between transformational leadership behaviors

of their CEOs and organizational performance and several other factors such as human

resources management, sales, and absenteeism. They measured the CEOs leadership

behaviors using the MLQ instrument. Of particular relevance to the present study was the

correlation of transformational leadership and organizational performance. The results of

Zhus et al. study showed a positive relationship between transformational leadership and
 67

organizational performance ( = 0.59, p < 0.01). Most relevant to the present study is that

when the authors added the human resources management variable to their regression

test, the effects of transformational leadership on organizational performance decreased (

= 0.32, p < 0.01). This indicates that human resources management mediated the

relationship between transformational leadership and organizational performance in these

170 Singaporean companies.

In this study, the research questions were about the relationship between

leadership style and organizational performance not in various industries in Russia or

Singapore but in the telecommunications industry in the United States. The study will

examine if employee job satisfaction and employee commitment mediate the said

relationship. Specific to this study was the use of a multiple regression to demonstrate the

presence or absence of the relationship between leadership styles and organizational

performance and indicate how strong it might be in the IT organization at a

communications company in the United States.

Historically, prior research studies attempted to explore the relationship between

leadership styles and organizational performance (Bolman & Deal, 2003; DeClerk, 2008;

Elenkov, 2002; LaRue, et al., 2006; Scott & Davis, 2007; Zhu, Chew, & Spangler; 2005).

Within the telecommunications sector; however, no empirical studies have examined the

effects of leadership styles on organizational performance. Most recent research that

examined the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational

performance included those of Roi (2006) and Moores (2007).

Roi (2006) found a positive association between transformational leadership and

the financial performance of the 94 corporations. Roi reported a positive and significant
 68

relationship between transformational leadership and long-term net income growth. The

purpose of the present study was to study the relationship between transformational

leadership and organizational performance rather than financial performance.

In his research, Moores (2007) studied the linkage between leadership style and

organizational effectiveness in the United Way of America organization. To measure

transactional, transformational, and hands-off leadership, Moores used the MLQ

instrument. Moores found a positive correlation between transactional leadership style

and organizational performance, which was a surprise compared to other similar studies.

When the author controlled the gender variable; however, the result reflected a positive

relationship. To conclude, Moores wrote, there is a significant positive relationship

between transformational leadership (rs (118) = 0.308, p = 0.001) and the revenue

component of organizational effectiveness for female leaders. (p. 103). This study

examined the said relationship in a communications company rather than in a nonprofit

organization. Figure 4 below depicts the connection of the study variables and research

topic.

Predictor variables Criterion variable

(Leadership Styles) (Organizational Performance)

Research Study Proposal

Figure 4. Connections of variables to research topic

Conclusion

The gap in current literature is that prior researchers have not examined the direct

relationship between leadership styles and organizational performance within the

 69

telecommunications industry. Nor have the researchers determined if employee job

satisfaction and affective commitment mediate that relationship. First, no empirical

research studies have examined the relationship between leadership style and

organizational performance within the telecommunication sector. Second, few empirical

studies have explored the said relationship in non-telecommunications sectors; however,

they did not examine the indirect effects of leadership styles on organizational

performance. The researcher has found no studies that examine the mediating effects of

employee job satisfaction and employee affective commitment on the relationship

between leadership styles and organizational performance. In this study, the focus was to

integrate the predictor variables (leadership styles), mediator variables (satisfaction,

commitment), and criterion variables (organizational performance) into a single model.

The conceptual framework of the leadership model was that leaders who practice certain

leadership styles could influence the employee job satisfaction and employee affective

commitment, which, in turn, improve organizational performance.

Summary

Chapter 2 has provided a review of literature concerning relevant leadership

theories, organizational performance, employee job satisfaction, and employee

volunteered commitment. With regard to leadership theories, the review included detailed

analyses of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership theories. The

focus of the review was on the topics of organizational performance (OP) including

perspectives on OP, measurement of OP, technological impact on OP, OP strategy and

planning, and examples of OP measurements.

 70

The review of literature confirmed that prior researchers had not examined the

relationships among leadership style, job satisfaction, employee commitment, and

organizational performance in a single study within the telecommunications industry.

Investigated and integrated in this quantitative correlational study were the

aforementioned variables into a single model by examining (a) the direct relationship

between leadership and organizational performance, (b) the correlations between

leadership and employee job satisfaction and commitment, and (c) the correlation

between employee job satisfaction and commitment and organizational performance. The

conceptual framework of the model, detailed in Figure 1 (page 16) and condensed in

Figure 4 (page 67), was that leadership styles correlate strongly with organizational

performance and that both employee job satisfaction and employee affective commitment

mediate the relationship between leadership style and organizational performance. Figure

5 below summarized the conceptual framework of this study.

Leadership Style Employee Job Organizational

Satisfaction & Performance
Commitment

Figure 5. Summary of Conceptual Model

Included in chapter 4 are the results of multiple regression analyses showing how

each of these above leadership styles relates to organizational performance. Integrated in

the study are job satisfaction and affective commitment into the above multiple

regression to determine if they (a) mediate the relationship between leadership style and

organizational performance or (b) directly relate to organization performance. Presented

 71

in chapter 3 is a discussion of the methodology appropriate to examine the relationships

of the variables.
 72

CHAPTER 3: METHOD

The purpose of the quantitative correlational study was to determine if there is

any statistical relationship between leadership style and organizational performance and

examine the intermediate relationships among each dimension of transformational,

transactional, and hands-off leadership theories and employee job satisfaction and

employee commitment. A quantitative correlational design was used because it is useful

for identifying the type of association, explaining complex relationships of multiple

factors that explain an outcome, and predicting an outcome from one or more predictors

(Creswell, 2005, p. 338). An Internet-based survey was useful to gather data for the

employees in the IT organization, at a major communications company in North

America. The empirical findings of the study may contribute to the knowledge body of

the current practices of leadership behaviors pertaining to organizational performance

especially within telecommunication industry. Presented in chapter 1 was the research

problem, purpose, and questions. Provided in chapter 2 was a literature review of the

concepts of relevant leadership theories, organizational performance, employee job

satisfaction, and employee commitment in the context of telecommunications as well as

review of current research findings. Chapter 3 includes descriptions for the research

questions, hypotheses, research methodology and design, survey instrument, data

collection, data analysis, and data validity and reliability.

The goal of the study was to apply a quantitative method and correlational design

to measure the degree of relationships, if they exist, between the leadership styles among

IT leaders at the study company and organizational performance in the

telecommunications industry. Measured in the study were organizational performance,

 73

job satisfaction, and affective commitment using data obtained from the Internet-based

survey questionnaire. The use of statistical analysis assisted in the evaluation of the

outcome of the study using tools such as Microsoft Excel, Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS) software, and Statistical Analysis System (SAS). The survey

instrument consisted of a Likert-type scale to measure the variables and Avolio and Bass

(2004) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Short Form (MLQ 5X) to measure

variables. A detailed explanation appears in the instrumentation section of chapter 3.

Research Method

According to Creswell (2005), the research method is the blueprint or recipe for

the research study. Used in the current study was a quantitative method, rather than a

qualitative method or a mixed method because the goal of the study was to collect

numerical data of the known variables and apply statistical measures to assess the results.

Hart (2007) wrote the following sentence to differentiate quantitative research from

qualitative studies:

Quantitative studies involve deductive reasoning or developing specific

predictions from the literature or other sources and involve testing hypotheses

while qualitative studies utilize inductive reasoning or developing conclusions

from specific observations or narratives to look for patterns to develop new ideas

(p. 22).

Figure 6 on the next page depicts a graphic representation of the research study.
 74

Problem (Chapter 1)
(1) No guidelines of effective leadership practices specified
in the current leadership training.
(2) No standards or criteria to measure the leaders
influence on employees satisfaction and commitment.

Research Questions (Chapter 1 and 3)

Report Findings (1) What degree of significance of the relationship
(Chapter 5) between leadership style and organizational
- Present conclusions from performance?
quantitative data. (2) What degree of significance that job satisfaction
- Make recommendations for future mediates the above relationship?
studies based on empirical (3) What degree of significance that affective
findings. commitment mediates the above relationship?

Analysis and Interpretation Literature Review (Chapter 2)

(Chapter 4) - Documentation
- Correlational analysis: MLQ, BRI, - Leadership Theories
and ACS. - Job Satisfaction
- Statistical analysis: M/S Excel, - Affective Commitment
- SPSS, SAS, and Likert-type scale - Organizational Performance
- Multiple correlations, regressions - Connections of variables

Research Method and Design (Chapter 3)

(1) Administer Leader and Employee surveys
(2) Instruments: MLQ, BRI, and ACS
(3) Demographic information
(4) Population: IT organization
(5) Sample: 240 IT workers

Figure 6. Graphic representation of research process.

 75

Answers to the research questions were sought and hypothesis tests were

conducted using a quantitative method to analyze the data and by using statistical

procedures to explore possible correlations. The procedures may provide information to

answer the research questions and to support or reject the hypotheses (Creswell, 2005).

The quantitative method was appropriate for the current study because of the following

reasons. First, used in the current study was an extensive literature review. Second, the

study relied on impartial and rigorous procedures to collect data. Third, appropriate

statistical procedures were applied to the data in order to make objective interpretations

of the data. Fourth, employed in the study were instruments proven reliable in prior

empirical studies. Finally, the collection of numerical data ensured that the researcher

interjected no personal biases and values to influence the results of the study, from asking

specific questions to collecting numerical data, to analyzing the numbers using statistical

procedures (Cooper & Schindler, 2006; Creswell; Neuman, 2003; Simon, 2006).

Design Appropriateness

The current quantitative research study used the correlational design. The

quantitative correlation design was appropriate for the study because the main goal of the

study was to determine if there are any relationships between leadership style and

organizational performance and to examine how employee job satisfaction and

commitment mediate that relationship. The objective was to examine the correlations of

the predictor, criterion, and intervening variables rather than manipulate the independent

variables as in an experiment research. No manipulation of variables was present but

rather, perceptions and opinions were gathered and statistical correlations were evaluated

based on the obtained information. According to Cooper and Schindler (2006), the
 76

research design establishes the blueprint for collecting, measuring, and analyzing data.

The use of a correlational research design allows the researcher to determine the degree

of association or relationship between variables of leadership styles and organizational

performance in the current study. Furthermore, an identification of the type of

association, explanation of complex relationships of multiple factors, and prediction of an

outcome of organizational performance from several predictors of leadership dimensions

are provided (Creswell, 2005). In providing guidance to researchers of correlational

studies, Creswell suggested that predictive studies are useful for the anticipation of future

behaviors. Salkind (2006) statistically described correlational research as an attempt to

determine a linear relationship between variables without indicating any possible effects

of one variable on another. Correlational studies use a descriptive technique to determine

if variables have any common attributes and are correlated with one another.

In the study, leadership predictor variables were used to make a prediction about

organizational performance as a criterion variable (Creswell). Reported in the study were

correlations using advanced statistical procedures such as multiple regression. The

purpose of using the multiple correlation and regression analyses in the study was to

evaluate any changes in criterion variance as the factors of leadership, job satisfaction,

and job commitment were factored in one at a time. The use of multiple regressions

would add in a measure of job satisfaction, and then add in a measure of affective

commitment to see what they do to organizational performance as intervening variables.

The expectation was that leadership style should not be a strong predictor variable until

the two intervening variables (satisfaction and commitment) are factored in.
 77

Research Questions

Three questions in the research study are as follows:

1. What degree of significance of the relationship between leadership style and

organizational performance in the IT organization at the study company?

2. What degree of significance that employee job satisfaction mediates the

relationship between the leadership style and organizational performance at

the study company?

3. What degree of significance that employee affective commitment mediates the

relationship between the leadership style and organizational performance at

the study company?

Hypotheses

To answer the first research question, proposed were the following null and

alternative hypotheses (Ho1 and Ha1) to test the relationship between leadership styles

and organizational performance.

Ho1: There are no leadership styles that will correlate strongly with

organizational performance in the IT organization at the study company.

Ha1: There is at least one leadership style that will correlate strongly with

organizational performance in the IT organization at the study company.

To answer the second research question, proposed were the following hypotheses

to test the intermediate relationship between leadership style and organizational

performance.

Ho2: Employee job satisfaction will not mediate the relationship between the

leadership style and organizational performance at the study company.

 78

Ha2: Employee job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between the

leadership style and organizational performance at the study company.

To answer the third research question, proposed were the following hypotheses to

test another intermediate relationship between leadership style and organizational

performance.

Ho3: Employee affective commitment will not mediate the relationship between

the leadership style and organizational performance at the study company.

Ha3: Employee affective commitment will mediate the relationship between the

leadership style and organizational performance at the study company.

Population

The general population was a group of 1,200 IT knowledge workers of a major

communications company in the United States. The specific population was a sample of

208 employees and 32 leaders who work in various offices and data centers. The

employees were software programmers, hardware programmers, system analysts,

database specialists, storage administrators, systems engineers, systems architect,

technical analysts, and data centers operation analysts. The leaders were directors (D),

executive directors (ED), vice presidents (VP), senior vice president (SVP), and chief

information officer (CIO). Led by the chief information officer (CIO), the IT organization

at the study company has 11 departments, and a SVP or VP is the leader of each

department. Within a department, there are several large groups (between five and seven

groups) led by EDs. Reporting to each ED are the directors. Each director has several

technical managers who manage functional groups of between three and eight employees.

The number of employees and leaders in the IT organization is approximately 1,200.

 79

Although the researcher had had access to the companys electronic directory, the survey

questionnaire was sent to the participants home email addresses. This was in compliance

with the companys polices that prohibit the use of company resources. Permission to use

premises was unnecessary in this study.

Informed Consent

Before participating in the study, each of the sampled leaders and employees

received an invitation e-mail containing the consenting information (see Appendix A).

The potential participants were informed of the purpose and significance of the study.

The researcher had access to the companys electronic directory, and the survey

questionnaire was sent to the participants home email addresses. As noted, this was in

compliance with the companys polices that prohibit the use of company resources. Thus,

permission to use premises was unnecessary and was not sought in this study (see

Appendix B).

The informed consent was in electronic form, typical of Web-administered

surveys. The survey includes a full disclosure screen with a selection button on which the

participant can press to acknowledge. Upon acknowledging, the informed consent screen

would appear and the participant would read a mandatory statement as included in

Appendix C. The selection would then read Acknowledge and Accept. Only with a

positive response can access to the survey be granted to the participant. The survey also

includes a decline selection option on each screen that will take the participant to a thank

you screen and invite them to return if they change their mind. A full description of the

process is included in Appendix C. Additional items of the informed consent e-mail

 80

include information on age requirement, expected benefits, time commitment, and data

management.

Sampling Methods

Sample size is a function of the size of the population, the confidence level, and

the level of precision (King, Murray, Saloman, & Tandon, 2004; Simon, 2006). Although

the purpose of the quantitative correlation study was to collect data from individuals

working in the IT organization at the study company, the population consisted of

randomly selected individuals whose names appear on the study companys hierarchy

chart. The proportionate distribution of departments and functional groups in the IT

organization did not necessitate the use of stratified random sampling. The premise of

using the simple probability sampling technique in the study was that simple probability

sampling technique has a high degree of accuracy and precision and that there is enough

similarity among the elements in a population that a few of these elements will

adequately represent the characteristics of the total population (Cooper & Schindler,

2006, p. 210).

The sampling was accomplished by randomly selecting participants from the IT

organizations database through the hierarchy chart that lists the names of all the leaders

and the employees. Each of the names also serves as a hyperlink on which one can click

to obtain contact information of each individual as well as the people who report to the

individual. Because each member has a unique identification number, Microsoft Excel

was used to generate computerized random numbers to select two sets of member

identifications (208 employees and 32 leaders) from the list of approximately 1,200

members. It is advantageous to use the sampling approach because it can ensure that each
 81

member of the study organization has an equal probability of being selected in a sample

(Cooper & Schindler).

Using Creative Research Systems (2009) statistical formula, the calculation of

the sample size is as follows:

Z 2 * p(1 p)
n=
C2

Where

n = sample size

Z = Z value (e.g. 1.96 for 95% confidence level)

p = percentage picking a choice typically expressed as decimal (e.g., 0.5)

C = confidence interval, expressed as decimal and calculated to be 5.66

The sample size of 240 from the population of 1,200 is sufficient based on a 95%

confidence level. As previously stated, the number of employees and leaders in the IT

organization is approximately 1,200 of which 172 are leaders. For average, each leader

has seven employees. 32 leaders were randomly selected from the leader population of

172, and 208 employees were selected from the employee population of 1028.

Confidentiality

Ethics is of special consideration in any study (King, Murray, Saloman, &

Tandon, 2004; Simon, 2006), and in this study, ensured was the confidentiality and

anonymity to each participant. An e-mail of informed consent is in Appendix C. The

document includes statements that (a) participation in the study is voluntary, (b)

individuals responses to the survey are confidential, (c) individuals decision to

participate or not to participate is not compromised or shared with anyone, and (d) the

only person who can see the data from survey is the researcher. The participants privacy
 82

is kept confidential, and the results of the research are published as a dissertation in

partial fulfillment of the degree requirements. The electronic consent forms and the

survey data are electronically stored and archived by the researcher on a personal storage

device and kept for three years. At the end of the three-year archival period, a firm that

specializes in erasing and destroying confidential data will destroy all the data and

consent forms permanently. The researcher uses the coded individual data, aggregated

data reporting; secure storage of the raw data, all analysis work, and destruction of the

raw data after a three-year period.

Geographic Location

The research study included 208 employees and 32 leaders who work in the IT

organization at a major communications company and with offices geographically

disbursed throughout the United States thus minimizing any regional variables. In

compliance with the organization's policies, the researcher used home e-mail addresses of

the participants to conduct the survey. Each participant was asked to provide his or her

home e-mail address. The permission to use premises was unnecessary and was not

obtained from the study companys human resources department.

Instrumentation

The researcher used an electronic survey because its proven advantages. The

collection of data is rapid and efficient; the privacy of participants is easier to protect; the

administering of survey is cost-effective; the response rate is high, and the data are more

reliable (Ray & Tabor, 2003). Two forms of instruments were useful to collect data: the

Leader Survey Questionnaire and the Employee Survey Questionnaire. The Leader

Survey Questionnaire appears in Appendix D asking the participating leaders to respond

 83

to questions regarding their leadership styles and organizational performance. The

Employee Survey Questionnaire is in Appendix E asking the participating employees to

(a) respond to questions regarding the leadership behaviors of their leaders and (b) grade

their own levels of job satisfaction and commitment. Included in the two survey

instruments were questions to solicit participants background and demographic data such

as gender, educational background, current position, and years of employments.

Leadership Style Instrument

Obtained was written permission to use the Avolio and Bass (2004) Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (see Appendix F) to measure the predictor variables

(e.g., transformational, transactional, and hands-off leadership behaviors). Prior

researchers used the MLQ instrument with success (e.g., Antonakis et al., 2003; Avolio &

Bass, 2004; Bass, 2006). According to many researchers who recently have used MLQ in

their leadership studies, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is one of the most

useful instruments to measure transformational and transactional leader behaviors in

todays organizations (Cole, 2009; Daenzer, 2009; Godzyk, 2008; Hulsing, 2008;

Windsor, 2009). The MLQ contains 45 questions used to collect information on

transformational leadership, transactional leadership, hands-off leadership, and leadership

outcomes Avolio and Bass (2004). The dimensions of the aforementioned leadership

styles were measured on a Likert-type scale with scores ranging from (0) being not at

all to (4) being frequently, if not always. Transformational leadership consisted of five

dimensions with four items per dimension. The mean score of these dimensions (20

items) was the score of transformational leadership per respondent. Transactional

leadership consisted of three dimensions with four items per dimension. The mean score
 84

of these three dimensions (12 items) was the score of transactional leadership per

respondent. Hands-off leadership had one dimension, and this single dimension had four

items. The mean score of these four items was the score of hands-off leadership per

respondent.

According to Bass and Avolio, the original design of the MLQ instrument was of

Burns analysis of transformational and transactional leadership. They noted that the

basic concept for the MLQs structure began with Burn (1978) in his description of

transformation leadership. Early development of MLQ included analyses of leadership

skills and traits practiced by charismatic leaders. Subsequent versions of the MLQ forms

include a few revisions (Bass & Avolio).

The validity and reliability of the MLQ instrument is statistically high. Bass and

Avolio examined the initial validation of the MLQ Form 5X conducting a study of 14

samples with the population size of 3,860. Bass and Avolio (2000) reported reliability

scores ranging from .74 to .94 and validity coefficient of .91. Gellis (2001) showed a high

reliability of MLQ. On the four dimensions of transformational, the reliabilities of

idealized influence was .81, of inspirational motivation was .80, intellectual stimulation

was .89, and individual consideration was .77 (Gellis). For transactional leadership

behaviors, the reliability of contingent reward was .74 and management by exception was

.70 for active and .75 for passive scores (Gellis). The reliability score for hands-off

leadership was .84 (Gellis). In a study conducted by Antonakis et al. (2003), the

reliability scores of the MLQ 5X short form were excellent showing a Comparative Fit

Index (CFI) of .90.

 85

Organizational Performance Instrument

Included in Section II and III of the Leadership Survey Questionnaire were

questions regarding organizational performance, which was the single criterion variable

in the current study. According to Hancott (2005), objective data such as return on

investments, earning per share, and stock price performance were excellent

measurements of organizational performance. In Section III, the Leader Survey asks

participant-leaders to respond to questions with respect to financial data, such as year-

over-year revenue growth, profits, and positive cash-flow growth, available in the CEOs

Quarterly Update and Annual Report. The MLQ short form and 16-item questionnaire

developed by Quinn (1988) were used to measure organizational performance. Using the

Quinns 16-item questionnaire, the leader-participants scored each of the 16 descriptive

statements related to organizational performance. Using a Likert-type scale, the leaders

evaluated themselves. The overall organizational performance score was the average of

the individual scores obtained from his or her answers to the survey questions.

Job Satisfaction Instrument

Included in Section IV, Part 1 of the Employee Survey Questionnaire are

questions regarding employee job satisfaction, which is one of the two intervening

variables in this study (Curry, Wakefield, Price, & Mueller, 1991). Originated by

Brayfield and Rothe (1951) and modified by Curry et al. (1991), the Brayfield-Rothe

Index (BRI) instrument contains six items used to measure job satisfaction. The attributes

of job satisfaction were measured on a Likert-type scale. Using this rating scale, the

employee-participants scored each of the six descriptive statements related to job

satisfaction. The total score for the employee was the average of the individual scores
 86

obtained from his or her answers to the survey questions. The choice of the BRI was

appropriate because the BRI instrument is reliable, time-effective, easy to use, and

applicable to a wide variety of working conditions (Miller, 1991). The reliability

coefficient of BRI computed in a study conducted by Miller as corrected by Spearman-

Brown formula was .87.

Commitment Instrument

Included in Section IV, Part 2 of the Employee Survey Questionnaire are

questions regarding employee affective commitment, which is one of the two intervening

variables in this study. The choice in the present study of Allen and Meyers (1990)

Affective Commitment Scale (ACS) is appropriate to measure employee affective

commitment. The attributes of affective commitment were measured on a Likert-type

scale. Using this rating scale, the employee-participants scored each of the six descriptive

statements related to affective commitment. The overall commitment score for the

employee was the average of the individual scores obtained from his or her answers to

the survey questions. The selection of the ACS was appropriate because the ACS

instrument is reliable and has only a small chance for biases (Allen & Meyer, 1990).

Prior researchers considered ACS as a widely used instrument to measure commitment

because of its internal consistency scores ( coefficients) usually showing higher than .70

(Allen & Meyer).

Data Collection

The Web-based survey was the method used to survey 32 leaders and 208

employees at the study company. The Survey Monkey online survey service was useful

for the collection of data. Explained in the following subsection are the survey
 87

procedures. Leaders and employees did not receive an announcement memo from the

CIO of the organization announcing the research study as planned (see Appendix G).

Data Collection Procedures

In the first stage, the 32 identified leaders received a pre-survey e-mail invitation

(see Appendix A), which contains an overview of the study, a hyperlink to the Leader

Survey, and a unique identification number. On the survey Website, the leaders had an

option to opt out or continue by giving consent. They opt out by pressing the exit link.

Otherwise, the leader would then proceed to complete the sections of the Leader Survey.

The second stage involved sending the Employee Survey Questionnaire to the

employees of the leaders who had provided responses to the survey. The employee would

follow the same procedures as the leaders did after receiving a pre-survey e-mail

invitation that contains an overview of the study, a hyperlink to the Employee Survey,

and a unique identification number. To minimize the elapsed time, the employees were

contacted as soon as the responses from the leaders of the employees are received. When

possible, data collecting was conducted in an interleaving or alternating fashion. At the

end of the data collection process, each participant received a thank you e-mail (see

Appendix H).

Validity and Reliability

Neuman (2003) articulated the importance of reliability and validity: Reliability

and validity are central issues in all measurement. Both concern how concrete measures

are connected to constructs. Reliability and validity are salient because constructs in

social theory are often ambiguous, diffuse, and not directly observable (Neuman, p.

178). Used in the study was the MLQ instrument because of the strong validity, both
 88

internal and external, statistics and the widespread use in prior research. Thus, the MLQ

instrument may power the quest for generalization.

According to Antonakis et al. (2003), the MLQ established high validity and

reliability in the measurement of transformational, transactional, and hands-off leadership

dimensions. The MLQ is also one of the most useful instruments with regard to the

correlations of leadership style, organizational performance, and employee job

satisfaction (Avolio & Bass, 2004). In articulating for the worldwide acceptance of MLQ,

Hirt (2004) wrote, The Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), originally

developed by Bernard Bass in 1985, has been used internationally to assess leadership

styles, with an emphasis on factors associated with James MacGregor Burnss concept of

transforming leadership (p. 14). Not only has the MLQ been used in many research

studies conducted in the United States, the MLQ has been translated into other languages

and become the primary tool for researchers in other countries (Bass & Avolio, 2000).

According to Bass and Avolio, the current version of the MLQ, Form 5X, has been used

in 200 research studies, in many doctoral dissertations, and in masters theses around the

world in the past several years.

To ensure data validity, the researcher used data coding techniques to copy the

scores onto an Excel spreadsheet and create a data table for them (King, Murray,

Saloman, & Tandon, 2004). This table served as a focal point for the next three

processes: (a) preparing tables for descriptive and frequency statistics, (b) calculating

means, standard deviations, variance standard deviations, population standard deviation,

and variance standard deviation, and (c) preparing charts to depict the frequency

distributions and determine the strength of correlations between variables. In addition,

 89

analysis of demographic data was performed carefully to avoid any thread to the validity

of data. To raise data validity to a higher degree, the ratio of leader to employee was

determined such that the results be meaningful (i.e., data obtained from any leader who

has no employees will be invalid).

To enhance data validity and reliability, the researcher calculated and reported

Cronbachs alpha coefficient for all the scales (Cronbach & Shavelson, 2004). This was

to ensure the internal consistency reliability for any scales or subscales because the

researcher used Likert-type scales (Revelle & Zinbarg, 2009). The researcher also used a

series of t-tests to compare the study mean scores to the subscales of the United States

scores maintained by Mind Garden (Bass & Avolio, 2004). The alpha level used for each

of the tests was adjusted by the Bonferroni correction method (Abdi, 2007; Strassburger

& Bretz, 2008). In general, the researcher formalized the study design to maximize the

stability and consistency of the scores by using unambiguous survey questions and

reliable instruments (Creswell, 2005). The researcher also controlled the extraneous

variables that would have otherwise threatened the validity or any explanation of the

results (King et al., 2004; Simon, 2006).

Data Analysis

The data analysis process consisted of data collection procedures, data coding and

preparation, a pilot study, a preliminary analysis, and a primary analysis. The initial step

was to record, analyze, and evaluate the validity of the participant responses. Invalid

responses were excluded from the study including the following (a) unanswered

questions (blank), (b) same response to every question, and (c) no matched set of leader

and employee responses. The preliminary analysis provided descriptive statistics rather
 90

than answered the research questions. Provided in this preliminary analysis was

information about participants such as gender, level of education, age, current

organization, and tenure. The researcher used Microsoft EXCEL statistical add-in

application program to conduct t-tests and produce descriptive statistics such as mean,

mode, kurtosis, range, and standard deviation. Most important, the findings of this

preliminary analysis provided information to determine if the survey data were out-of

range, if the standard deviation values were normal, and if the skewness and kurtosis

were both in the acceptable range (Abdi, 2007). Analysis of the t-test results indicated if

the data sampling were from a normal distribution (Strassburger & Bretz, 2008).

Following the above preliminary analysis, the primary analysis was conducted.

This included analysis of variance (ANOVA), multiple correlation and regression

analyses, statistical analyses of the findings, and reasons for accepting or rejecting the

hypotheses. The variables were transformational leadership style, transactional leadership

style, hands-off leadership style, employee job satisfaction, employee affective

commitment, and organizational performance. Although both leaders and employees

provided responses to leadership variables, the use of multiple correlation and regression

analyses to detect any relationships between predictor, intervening-predictor and criterion

variables was appropriate. The use of multiple correlation and regression analyses also

produced ANOVA source tables to determine the significance of the regressions.

Microsoft Excel and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

software were used to compile and analyze the survey data. The study was consistent

with prior research because of the choice of a quantitative method and correlational

design instead of a mixed or qualitative method (Brymer & Gray, 2006; Duckett &
 91

Macfarlane, 2003; Hancott, 2005). With regard to job satisfaction and affective

commitment as the two intervening variables, used in the study was the average score of

the responses. To measure organizational performance as a criterion variable, computed

in the study were the average scores as well as standard deviations. Chapter 4 includes

descriptive statistics and reliability scores of all the variables.

To examine the relationship between leadership styles as predictor variables and

organizational performance as a criterion variable, and to determine if job satisfaction

and affective commitment mediate this relationship, reported were the correlations using

the correlation statistical test including advanced statistical procedures. The main reason

for the use of multiple regressions for data analysis is that used in the current study was a

correlation of each of the leadership styles with a measure of organizational performance.

The multiple regression process adds in a measure of job satisfaction, and then adds in a

measure of affective commitment to see what the intervening variables do to

organizational performance. The expectation was that leadership style could be a stronger

predictor variable with the addition of the two intervening variables (job satisfaction and

commitment). To test the hypotheses, correlation analyses and multiple regression

analyses were used. The results for normality using skew and kurtosis tests were

available by using Microsoft Excel. Chapter 4 presents the results.

Summary

Presented in chapter 3 was an overview of the research methodology for the

study. Described in detail were the research method, research design, and research

questions and hypotheses. Discussion included information on population and sampling

techniques as well as the instruments used to measure the predictor, criterion, and
 92

intervening variables in the study. Presented in the chapter was a discussion of the data

collection process and statistical methods of data analysis.

All responses received from the respondents were recorded and analyzed to

ensure data validity and reliability. Responses are invalid if (a) there is any unanswered

question or blank and (b) there are identical responses to every question. Invalid

responses were excluded from the analysis. The next step was to analyze the frequency

distribution within each of the demographic variables. Using the codes on the survey

questionnaires, the leaders responses and the employees responses were separated, and

leadership questions were grouped by leadership behavior categories such as

transformational, transactional, and hands-off leadership. Because both the leaders and

employees scored leadership variables, t-test for pair samples correlations was performed

to determine the significance of difference between these two scores.

To measure employee job satisfaction (first intervening variable), the average

score of the six responses (subscales) to the job satisfaction questions was calculated.

Similarly, employee commitment (second intervening variable) was measured by

calculating the average score of the six responses to the commitment questions on the

Follower Survey Questionnaire. Organizational performance (criterion variable) was

measured by the leaders responses obtained from the Leader Survey Questionnaire.

Average scores and standard deviations were calculated for the entire leader group.

Hypotheses were tested using a correlation statistical test, and multiple regression

analyses were used to measure the degree of association between the said variables.

Reliability tests and descriptive statistics are presented in chapter 4.

 93

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

Chapter 4 presents the results of the research survey and the data analysis. The

main objective of the data analysis was to examine the relationships between the

predictor (independent) variables of transformational, transactional, and hands-off

leadership styles, and the criterion (dependent) variable of organizational performance.

The second objective of the analysis was to examine the intermediate relationship

between the predictor variables and the mediator variables of employee job satisfaction

and employee affective commitment. Figure 7 shows the data collection process, which

includes preparation steps and administration of the Web-based survey, preliminary

analysis, collection procedures, and data storage and disposal. Analyzed using descriptive

statistics were data obtained through the MLQ, BRI, and ACS survey instruments.

Included in this chapter are a review of the purpose of the study, a flow chart

depicting the data collection process, and a description of the response rate and

demographic data of the survey participants. Preliminary analysis including descriptive

statistics of the research variables are in the second section. Primary analysis is in the

third section, which consists of analysis of variance (ANOVA), multiple correlation and

regression analyses, statistical analyses of the scores, and acceptance or rejection of the

hypotheses. A summary of the results is at the end of this chapter.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the present quantitative correlational study was to address the two

problems: (a) lack of a single leadership model recognized as most effective, (b) lack of a

set of standards and criteria to measure the leaders influence on employee satisfaction

and commitment. The main objective of the study was twofold: (a) to determine if there
 94

is any relationship between leadership style and organizational performance, and (b) to

examine how employees job satisfaction and commitment mediate that relationship. The

general population was 1,200 IT personnel (leaders and employees) at a major

communications company in North America. The specific population was a sample of

151 IT personnel, which consisted of 32 leaders and 119 employees (subordinates).

The researcher used the MLQ 5X Short Form (see Appendix D and E) refined by

Bass and Avolio (2004) to measure the predictor variables of leadership styles. The

criterion variable of organizational performance was measured by the 16-item

questionnaire developed by Quinn (1988). To measure the mediator variables of

employee job satisfaction and affective commitment, the researcher used the BRI and

ACS instruments respectively (see Chapter 3). Provided in the second section is the

demographic information, which is necessary to examine the interrelationship between

the respondents evaluation of leadership styles and job satisfaction and commitment

across age, gender, tenure, and level of education.

Prior research has used the quantitative correlational research method to examine

the relationship between variables in an anticipated pattern for a group of individuals

(Creswell, 2005). In this study, the goal of the survey was to ascertain the presence of any

relationship between the practice of transformational leadership and organizational

performance, and examine any possible intermediate relationships of leadership style to

employee job satisfaction and employee commitment. A quantitative correlational

method was appropriate to achieve this goal because the use of the quantitative

correlation approach can expose non-causal relationships that may be tapped by a survey

instrument (Creswell).
 95

Preparation
- Identify research target population
- Initiate advanced verbal invitations
- Create a relational database of invitees
- Obtain permission to use survey instruments
- Conduct pilot studies

Database

Survey Administration (1) - Update database

- Run 1st random sample selection (240) - Rerun random sample
- Send 240 introduction e-mails including selection
informed consent
No

> 20 leaders ?
Agree to participate?
> 100 raters ?
No

Yes Yes

Survey Administration (2)

- Create survey designs and collectors
- Send e-mail with an URL link to the Web-
based survey
- Perform pilot testing

Data Collection
- Collect and validate raw data
- Conduct follow-up phone calls
- Perform data analysis
- Store research data and dispose in 3 years

Figure 7. Data Collection Process

 96

Data Collection Procedures

To collect data for analysis, the researcher used the Web-based survey method to

survey 32 leaders and 208 employees at the study company. The data collection process

included the use of a secure, password-protected Website maintained by the Survey

Monkey (SurveyMonkey, 2010) professional firm. The researcher decided to purchase a

professional monthly account from this firm instead of Zoomerang Online Services

(MarketTools, Inc. (2008) as proposed originally. The main reason was to select a more

powerful web-based survey tool that was simple to use and more cost-effective.

On this Website, the researcher designed the survey and created two collectors.

The Rater Collector collected the employee data; the Leader Collector collected the data

provided by the leaders. The preparation of the Leader Survey consisted of transferring

the MLQ Leadership Survey Questionnaire from the MLQ Manual provided by Mind

Garden, Inc. and typing the Quinns 16-item questions onto the survey. Similarly, the

preparation of the Follower Survey consisted of transferring the MLQ Rater Survey

Questionnaire and typing the job satisfaction (BRI) and commitment (ACS) questions

onto the survey. Only those personnel who had responded positively to the invitation and

agreed explicitly to participate could access to the survey. The leader-participants had

access only to the Leader Survey assigned to them, and the employee-participants had

access only to the Rater Survey assigned to them.

Survey Development and Design

The Leader Survey had four sections (see Appendix G). The first section included

the informed consent in electronic form, typical of Web-administered surveys, and a full

disclosure screen with two selection buttons. The participant could either press one
 97

button to give permission and continue or press the other button to exit the survey. The

first section also provided directions to complete this survey. The second section included

questions about demographic information. The third section included 45 questions asking

each leader to describe his or her leadership style as he or she perceives it. The fourth

section had 16 questions asking for the leaders perceptions of the performance of his or

her organization.

The Rater Survey also had four sections. The first and second sections included

the same questions as those of the Leader Survey but designed for employee-participants.

The third section included 45 questions asking each participant to describe the leadership

style of his or her supervisor as the participant perceived it. In the last section, the

participants responded to a number of statements to (a) evaluate their satisfaction level

with the current job, and (b) evaluate the level of their commitment to their respective

organization.

Pilot Study

To conduct the initial pilot study, the researcher asked two doctoral students for

assistance. One completed the Leader Survey and the other completed the Rater Survey.

Their feedback and suggestions included making the survey instructions more reader-

friendly and adding a thank-you page at the end of the survey. During this initial pilot

testing, the researcher studied the survey manuals thoroughly and made good use of the

suggested best practices, useful tips, and instructions for creating an effective survey.

To test drive and prepare for the final survey, the researcher completed both the

Leader and Rater surveys himself. During this special pilot study, the researcher was able

to improve the survey significantly. The final improvement included an addition of the
 98

electronic informed consent to the first section of the surveys and a revision of the survey

instructions, which provided clear, correct, concise, concrete, and complete guide for

those who complete the survey. It was also helpful to provide the participants with an

accurate estimate of the time to complete the survey and a well designed, easy to follow

survey. For example, the researcher added an option for the participants to save their

input and exit the survey at any time.

Data Gathering

During the pilot study, the researcher collected and verified the raw data for

accuracy and for ensuring that both the Leader Collector and Rater Collector were

working properly and collecting data correctly. The survey system included a built-in

function used to download data from the collectors into a Microsoft EXCEL

spreadsheet. The researcher found some missing data but resolved the problems by

contacting the responsible participants. The coding was necessary during the process of

entering the raw data into the EXCEL spreadsheet and reorganizing them such that the

participants numbers were on the left-most column, and the survey question numbers

were in the top row. Each participant had a unique identification number, and the variable

names on the spreadsheet were different from those of the surveys raw data.

Preliminary Analysis

The purpose of the preliminary analysis was to provide descriptive statistics rather

than answer the research questions. Provided in this preliminary analysis is information

about participants such as gender, level of education, age, current organization, and

tenure. This section also provides the response rate information. The preliminary analysis

used the data collected from the participants who acknowledged and agreed to the
 99

informed consent in writing and participated in the survey (n = 154). The researcher used

Microsoft EXCEL statistical add-in application program to conduct t-tests and produce

descriptive statistics such as mean, mode, kurtosis, range, and standard deviation. The

extensive use of tables and graphs was for depicting the results of the survey.

Response Rates and Demographic Data

The researcher initiated a series of contacts using e-mails and follow-up phone

calls in a four-month period. In the first stage, 32 leaders received invitation e-mails, all

of whom accepted the invitation and received the link to the Leader Survey. The second

stage involved sending the invitation e-mails to 208 employees of the leaders who had

provided responses to the survey. Of these 208 employees, 124 accepted the invitation

and received the link to the Rater Survey.

As mentioned in chapter 3, invalid responses were those including (a) any

unanswered question or blank and (b) identical responses to every question. The analysis

excluded all the invalid responses. In the Leader Survey, all the 32 responses were valid

giving a response rate of 100%. In the Rater Survey, 119 out of 124 responses were valid,

giving a response rate of 57% (119/208). Thus, the usable response rate for both the

leader and employee surveys was (32 + 119) / 240 = 63%. According to Rosenthal,

Hursh, Lui, Isom, and Sasson (2007), this was a very good response rate at the high end

of the acceptable range. The graph shown in Figure 8 illustrates the response rates.
 100

Response Rates
120%

100%
100% 100%
80%
64% 63%
Total
60%
60% 57% Leader
40%
Employee
20%

0%
Returned Responses Usable Responses

Figure 8. Distribution of response rates.

The demographic questions were about the participants gender, level of

education, age, organization, and tenure in the current position. Of the 240 IT personnel

invited, 32 were leaders and 208 were employees (subordinates). The total number of

usable responses from both the leaders and employees was 151 giving a response rate of

63%. The results are in the following subsections.

Gender

Of the 32 leader-participants, the majority were male. The graph in Figure 9

shows that approximately 78% (n = 25) of the valid leader responses were male and 22%

(n = 7) were female. Of the 119 employee-participants, the majority were also male. The

graph in Figure 9 shows that approximately 61% (n = 73) of the valid employee

responses were male and 39% (n = 46) were female.

 101

Participants by Gender
90%
80%
70% 78%
60%
61%
50%
Male
40%
39% Female
30%
20%
22%
10%
0%
Leader Employee

Figure 9. Gender of participants

Level of Education

The majority of leader-participants had earned masters degrees. The graph in

Figure 10 shows that approximately 38% (n = 12) of the valid leader responses received

bachelors degrees, 56% (n = 18) received masters degrees, and 6% (n = 2) received

doctorate degrees. Of the 119 employee-participants, the majority had earned bachelors

degrees. Figure 10 also shows 5% (n = 6) received associate degrees, 59% (n = 70)

received bachelors degrees, 28% (n = 33) received masters degrees, 3% (n = 4) received

doctorate degrees, and 5% (n = 6) received other degrees or professional certificates.

 102

Participants by Educational Level

70%

60%
59%
50% 56%

40%
38% Leader
30%
28%
Employee
20%

10%
0% 5% 6% 3% 0% 5%
0%
Associate Bachelors Masters Doctorate Other

Figure 10. Educational level of participants.

Age of participants

Leader-participants identified their age groups approximately as follows. Of a

total of 32 leaders, 9% were between 31 and 40 years old, 35% were between 41 and 50,

47% were between 51 and 60, and 9% were older than 60. Employee-participants

identified their age groups as follows. Of a total of 119 employees, 4% were between 21

and 30 years old, 24% were between 31 and 40, 38% were between 41 and 50, 25% were

between 51 and 60, and 9% were older than 60. The graph in Figure 11 shows the

participants age groups.

 103

Participants by Age
50%
45% 47%
40%
35% 38%
35%
30%
25% Leader
24% 25%
20% Employee
15%
10%
9% 9% 9%
5%
0% 4%
0%
21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-older

Figure 11. Age of participants.

Organization

Of 32 leaders, approximately 19% worked in the Software organization, 22%

worked in Hardware, 10% in Database, 6% in Operations, 6% in Application

Development, 6% in System Performance, and 31% in Engineering and Architecture.

Employee-participants identified their age groups as follows. Of a total of 119

employees, 16% worked in the Software organization, 18% worked in Hardware, 13% in

Database, 10% in Operations, 9% in Programming and Development, 10% in System

Performance, and 24% in Engineering and Architecture. The graph in Figure 12 shows

the numbers of leader and employee-participants by organization.

 104

Participants by Organization

29
Engineering-Architecture 10

12
System Performance 2

11
Application Development 2

12
Operations 2 Employee
Leader
15
Database 3

21
Hardware 7

19
Software 6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Figure 12. Participants by organization.

Tenure in Current Position

The majority of leader-participants had been working in the current position fewer

than 10 years. Of 32 leaders, 3% (n = 1) had worked at their current position fewer than

one year; 37% (n = 12) from between 1 and 10 years; 31% (n = 10) from between 11 and

20 years; 16% (n = 5) from between 21 and 30 years; and 13% (n = 4) from 31 years and

longer. The majority of employee-participants had been working in their current position

fewer than 20 years. Of 119 employee-participants, 4% (n = 5) had worked at their

current position less than one year; 34% (n = 41) from between 1 and 10 years; 50% (n =

59) from between 11 and 20 years; 10% (n = 12) from between 21 and 30 years; and 2%

(n = 2) from 31 years and longer. The graph in Figure 13 shows the distributions of

leaders and employees by tenure in current position.

 105

Participants by Tenure in Current Position

60%

50%
50%

40%
37%
30% 34% Leader
31%
Employee
20%
16%
10% 13%
10%
3% 4% 2%
0%
< 1 year 1 - 10 11 - 20 21 - 30 > 31 years

Figure 13. Participants by tenure in current position.

Descriptive Statistics

The researcher adopted the MLQs 36 questions to measure transactional,

transformational, hands-off leadership behaviors. He also used the MLQs nine questions

to compare to the organizational performance, job satisfaction, and commitment scores

measured by the Quinns questionnaire and BRI and ACS instruments. The coding of the

items in the MLQ 5X Short Form was that higher scores equate to a favorable, positive

response. The scale scores of the MLQ 5X Short Form were calculated to obtain average

scores for the item comprising each score. When the score is high, the strong perception

of the specific leadership behavior is strong. When the score is low, the weak perception

of the specific leadership behavior is weak. Table 2 shows some sample items from the

MLQ (5X) Short Form.

 106

Table 2

Sample Items from the MLQ (5X) Short Form

__________________________________________________
Leadership Dimensions MLQ Statements
____________________________________________________________________________

Idealized Influence (Attributed): My leader instills pride in me for being

associated with him or her.

Idealized Influence (Behaviors): My leader talks about his/her most important

values and beliefs.

Inspirational Motivation: My leader articulates a compelling vision of

the future.

Intellectual Stimulation: My leader gets me to look at problems from

many different angles.

Individualized Consideration: My leader helps me to develop my strengths.

Contingent Reward: My leader provides me with assistance in

exchange for my efforts.

Management-by-Exception (Active): My leader concentrates his/her full attention

on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and

failures.

Management-by-Exception (Passive): My leader waits for things to go wrong

before taking action.

Hands-off: My leader avoids making decisions.

__________________________________________________

Adopted from Avolio and Bass (2004) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.

 107

The calculation method of the mean score was that the MLQ scale scores were

mean scores for the items on the scale. Each mean score was a numeric value computed

by summing the items and dividing by the number of items that make up the scale. If an

item was a blank, the number of items answered divided the total for that scale. All of the

leadership style scales had four items, Effectiveness has four items, Satisfaction had two

items, and Commitment had three items. Table 3 below shows the leadership dimensions,

outcomes related to each leadership style, and the questions in each dimension.

Table 3

MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Scoring Key

___________________________________________
Leadership Dimensions Survey Questions
_________________________________________________________
Transformational Leadership (TRF)
Idealized Influence Attributed (IIA) 10, 18, 21, 25
Idealized Influence Behavior (IIB) 6, 14, 23, 34
Inspirational Motivation (IM) 9, 13, 26, 36
Intellectual Stimulation (IS) 2, 8, 30, 32
Individualized Consideration (IC) 15, 19, 29, 31
_________________________________________________________
Transactional Leadership (TRX)
Contingent Reward (CR) 1, 11, 16, 35
Management-by-Exception Active (MEA) 4, 22, 24, 27
Management-by-Exception Passive (MEP) 3, 12 17, 20
_________________________________________________________
Hands-off Leadership (HO) 5, 7, 28, 33
_________________________________________________________
Organizational Performance (OP) 37, 40, 43, 45
_________________________________________________________
Job Satisfaction (JS) 38, 41
_________________________________________________________
Affective Commitment (AC) 39, 42, 44
___________________________________________
 108

Predictor Variables

The predictor variables were leadership styles including transformational,

transactional, and hands-off leadership. The measure of the leadership behaviors used

both the responses by the leaders on the MLQ Leader Questionnaire and by employees on

the MLQ Rater Questionnaire. The participants scored each of the MLQs 45 descriptive

statements with a score between zero (0) and four (4). The leaders evaluated themselves

and the employees evaluated their leaders with 0 (not at all), 1 (once in a while), 2

(sometimes), 3 (fairly often), and 4 (frequently, if not all the time).

Transformational leadership consisted of five dimensions with four items per

dimension. The mean score of these dimensions (20 items) was the score of

transformational leadership per respondent. Transactional leadership consisted of three

dimensions with four items per dimension. The mean score of these three dimensions (12

items) was the score of transactional leadership per respondent. Hands-off leadership had

one dimension, and this single dimension had four items. The mean score of these four

items was the score of hands-off leadership per respondent (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

As shown in Table 4 below, the transformational leadership mean scores are 4.27

and 3.24 obtained from the Leader Survey (leaders rate themselves) and the Rater Survey

(employees rate their leaders) respectively. Similarly, the transactional leadership mean

scores are 2.92 and 3.19; and the hands-off leadership mean scores were 1.49 and 2.15

obtained from the Leader Survey and Rater Survey respectively. Table 4 also shows the

results of the t-test for paired samples conducted to determine correlations between the

leaders score and the employees score.

 109

Table 4

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Transformational Leader Employee

Mean 4.27 3.24
Variance 0.06 0.07
Observations 20 20
Pearson Correlation 0.18
Mean Difference 1.03
df 149
t Stat 3.12
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.5
t Critical one-tail 1.73
P(T<=t) two-tail 1
t Critical two-tail 2.09

Transactional Leader Employee

Mean 2.92 3.19
Variance 1.34 0.30
Observations 12 12
Pearson Correlation 0.89
Mean Difference 0.27
df 149
t Stat -2.66
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.01
t Critical one-tail 1.79
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.02
t Critical two-tail 2.20

Hands-off Leader Employee

Mean 1.49 2.15
Variance 0.03 0.10
Observations 4 4
Pearson Correlation 0.46
Mean Difference 0.66
df 149
t Stat -9.35
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.001
t Critical one-tail 2.35
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.002
t Critical two-tail 3.18
 110

The above t-tests indicate that all of the mean scores were significantly different.

The leaders perceived and rated themselves as transformational leaders higher than their

employees rated them. By contrast, the leaders rated themselves as transactional and

hands-off leaders lower than their employees did. To ensure high data validity and

reliability, the researcher used either the leader scores or employee scores when it is

appropriate. Presented in the next section are descriptive statistics for each of the

leadership dimensions (see Table 5) and results of another set of t-tests showing the

differences between the means of the study subscales and the United States norms

subscales. Some values of kurtosis are marked with asterisks (*) to indicate non-normal

distribution. The corresponding subscales were excluded from the primary analysis.

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics of All Dimensions by Employee Survey

II(A) II(B) IM IS IC CR MEA MEB HO

________________________________________________________________________
Mean 3.18 3.26 3.36 3.50 2.89 3.71 3.32 2.55 2.15

Median 3.16 3.29 3.40 3.46 2.90 3.71 3.41 2.58 2.08

SD 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.23 0.14 0.25 0.33 0.32

Kurtosis 1.20 1.77* -1.16 -0.85 0.91 0.84 2.20* 0.42 2.26*

Skewness 1.02 -1.20 -0.87 0.89 -0.18 2.96* -1.56* -0.53 1.23

Range 0.30 0.31 0.36 0.36 0.55 0.33 0.54 0.78 0.75

Minimum 3.06 3.08 3.14 3.36 2.61 3.55 2.96 2.13 1.85

Maximum 3.36 3.39 3.50 3.72 3.16 3.88 3.50 2.91 2.60

Sum 12.74 13.06 13.45 14.01 11.57 14.86 13.28 10.21 8.62
______________________________________________________
 111

Reliability of Measures of Predictor Variables

To understand the implication of the study mean scores shown in Table 5, the

researcher used a t-test to compare them to the subscales of the United States scores

maintained by Mind Garden (Bass & Avolio, 2004). According to Trochim (2006), the

use of t-tests is necessary to determine the statistical differences between sample means.

The formula for the t-test is a fraction. The difference between the two means is in the

numerator and the variability of the scores is in the denominator.

difference _ between _ group _ means XT XC

t= t=
var iability _ of _ groups SE(X T X C )

The difference between group means is simply the difference between the score

means in this study. The variability of groups is the standard error of the difference

computed by taking the variance for each group and dividing it by the number of items in

this group. Thus, the formula for the standard error of the difference (SE) between the

means is below:

varT varC
SE(X T X C ) = +
nT nC

Because the variance is simply the square of the standard deviation (SD), the final

formula for the t-test is the following:

XT XC
t=
varT varC
+
nT nC

The t-value is negative if the first mean is smaller than the second is and positive

if it is larger. To test the significance, the researcher set an alpha level at 0.05/3 = 0.016

(risk or significant level). The degrees of freedom (df) for this t-test was the sum of the
 112

participants in both samples minus two. The alpha used for each of the three tests was

adjusted by the Bonferroni correction method (Abdi, 2007; Strassburger & Bretz, 2008).

The one-tailed t-test with alpha of 0.016 produced the results of the comparison

shown on Table 6 and the graph in Figure 14. The results indicated that in this study, the

employees rated their leaders to have a transformational leadership style mean score 13%

higher than the Unites States normative score. They rated their leaders to have a

transactional leadership style mean score 42% higher than the U.S. normative score. They

also rated their leaders to have a hands-off leadership style mean score 71% higher than

the United States normative score. Except for the IC (individualized consideration) score,

all the mean scores in the study were significantly higher than the United States mean

scores. These differences suggest that leaders at the study company exhibit a higher level

of transactional leadership (t = 2.92, p < 0.01) and higher level of transformational

leadership (t = 2.13, p < 0.01) than the leaders in the national norms.

Table 6

Comparison of Study Mean Scores and United States Normative Scores

______________________________________________________
II(A) II(B) IM IS IC CR MEA MEB HO
________________________________________________________________________
Mean (Study) 3.18 3.26 3.36 3.50 2.89 3.71 3.32 2.55 2.15

Mean (U.S) 2.97 2.74 2.78 2.70 2.83 2.87 1.68 1.03 0.63

SD (Study) 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.23 0.14 0.25 0.33 0.32

SD (US) 0.71 0.70 0.76 0.69 0.66 0.62 0.88 0.73 0.63
______________________________________________________
p < 0.01
 113

MLQ Leadership Mean Scores

4
3.5
3
MLQ Scores

2.5
2
1.5
1 Study
0.5 U.S.
0
II(A) II(B) IM IS IC CR MEA MEB HO

Transformational Transactional Hands-

off
MLQ Scales

Figure 14. MLQ study mean score compared to U.S. norms

Mediator Variables

The mediator variables were employee job satisfaction (JS) and employee

affective commitment (AC). To measure job satisfaction, the researcher used two

instruments. The primary instrument was the Brayfield-Rothe Index (BRI) (see Chapter

3); the secondary instrument was the MLQ (5X) Short Form (Bass & Avolio, 2004). To

measure affective commitment, the researcher also used two instruments. The primary

instrument was the Affective Commitment Scale (ACS) (see Chapter 3); the secondary

instrument was the MLQ (5X) Short Form (Bass & Avolio, 2004).

First, the BRI instrument contains six items used to measure job satisfaction. The

attributes of job satisfaction were measured on a Likert-type scale with scores ranging

from (0) being strongly disagree to (4) being strongly agree. Using this rating scale,

the employee-participants scored each of the six descriptive statements related to job
 114

satisfaction (e.g., I feel fairly satisfied with my job.) The total JS score for the

employee was the average of the individual scores obtained from his or her answers to

the survey questions. To validate the measure of JS by the BRI instrument, the researcher

used the MLQ Rater Survey. On this survey, the employee-participants scored each of the

MLQs two descriptive statements related to job satisfaction (e.g., I feel fairly satisfied

with my job.). The employees evaluated their level of job satisfaction using the same

Likerts type rating scale as indicated above. Table 7 shows the descriptive statistics for

the JS variable.

Table 7

Descriptive Statistics for Job Satisfaction

__________________________________________
BRI Instrument MLQ Instrument
________________________________________________________
Mean 3.29 3.09

Standard Deviation 0.42 0.11

Kurtosis 2.17 n/a

Skewness -0.14 n/a

Range 1.33 0.16

Min 2.61 3.01

Max 3.94 3.17

Confidence Level (95%) 0.45 1.02

__________________________________________

Second, the ACS instrument contains six items used to measure affective

commitment. The attributes of affective commitment were measured on a Likert-type

scale with scores ranging from (0) being strongly disagree to (4) being strongly
 115

agree. Using this rating scale, the employee-participants scored each of the six

descriptive statements related to affective commitment (e.g., This organization has a

great deal of personal meaning to me.). The total AC score for the employee was the

average of the individual scores obtained from his or her answers to the survey questions.

To validate the measure of AC by the ACS instrument, the researcher used the MLQ

Rater Survey. On this survey questionnaire, the employee-participants scored each of the

MLQs three descriptive statements related to affective commitment (e.g., My leader

heightens my desire to succeed.). The employees evaluated their level of affective

commitment using the same Likert-type rating scale as indicated above. Table 8 shows

the descriptive statistics for the AC variable.

Table 8

Descriptive Statistics for Affective Commitment

__________________________________________
ACS Instrument MLQ Instrument
________________________________________________________
Mean 3.10 3.14

Standard Deviation 0.49 0.06

Kurtosis 0.81 n/a

Skewness 0.30 1.21

Range 1.45 0.11

Min 2.42 3.10

Max 3.87 3.21

Confidence Level (95%) 0.51 0.14

__________________________________________
 116

As shown in both Table 7 and Table 8, none of the means is significantly

different. Thus, the researcher used the JS and AC scores measured by the primary

instruments (BRI and ACS) for correlation and regression analyses presented later in the

Primary Analysis section.

Criterion Variable

Organizational performance was the single criterion (dependent) variable in this

study. To measure this variable, the researcher used two instruments. The primary

instrument was the 16-item questionnaire (Quinn, 1988); the secondary instrument was

the MLQ (5X) Short Form (Bass & Avolio, 2004). The basis of the Quinns 16-item

questionnaire was that, according to Cameron and Quinn (2006), the goal setting is a

means to achieve efficiency and productivity, and an organization is effective when tasks

lead to the accomplishments of goals. An organization is effective when it is adaptive and

innovative especially when it acquires more resources and receives external recognition

than its competitors.

First, using the Quinns 16-item questionnaire, the leader-participants scored each

of the 16 descriptive statements related to organizational performance (e.g., The

organization has the image of a growing, dynamic system.). Using a Likert-type scale,

the leaders evaluated themselves with 0 (not at all), 1 (once in a while), 2 (sometimes), 3

(fairly often), and 4 (frequently, if not all the time). The overall organizational

performance score was the average of the individual scores obtained from his or her

answers to the survey questions.

Second, on the MLQ Leadership Survey Questionnaire, the leader-participants

scored each of the MLQs four descriptive statements related to organizational

 117

effectiveness (e.g., I lead a group that is effective.). The leaders evaluated the

performance of their respective organization using the same Likert-type rating scale as

indicated above. Table 9 presents the descriptive statistics for the OP variable.

Table 9

Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Performance

__________________________________________
Quinns Instrument MLQ Instrument
________________________________________________________
Mean 3.79 4.36

Standard Deviation 0.27 0.10

Kurtosis 0.95 2.82

Skewness -0.78 -1.63

Range 1.09 0.22

Min 3.13 4.22

Max 4.22 4.44

Confidence Level (95%) 0.15 0.16

__________________________________________

As shown in Table 9, the OP mean score measured by the Quinns instrument was

slightly lower than the mean score measured by the MLQ instrument. Because the

Quinns instrument was a primary tool, and the number of questions on it was

significantly higher than that of MLQ, the OP score measured by the Quinns instrument

was the chosen score for multiple correlation and regression analyses later in the Primary

Analysis section.
 118

Reliability of Measures of Mediator and Criterion Variables

To understand the implications of the JS, AC, and OP mean scores shown in

Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9 respectively, the researcher compared their subscales to the

United States subscales means maintained by Mind Garden (Bass & Avolio, 2004). The

use of t-tests was necessary to determine the statistical differences between sample means

(Trochim, 2006). The one-tailed t-test with alpha of 0.05 produced the results that

indicated no significant difference between the mean of the study and the mean of the

United States norms. Table 10 and the graph in Figure 15 show a summary of the t-test

results.

The results indicate that the employee-participants of the study reported (a) 6%

higher job satisfaction level than the U.S. normative sample, and (b) 13% higher affective

commitment level than the U.S. normative sample. They also rated the performance of

their organization 19% higher than the United States normative sample. In sum, all the

mean scores of JS, AC, and OP in the study were higher than the national norms.

Table 10

Comparison of Study Mean Scores and United States Normative Scores

_________________________________________
JS AC OP
_______________________________________________________
Mean (Study) 3.29 3.09 3.79
Mean (U.S) 3.08 2.68 3.05
SD (Study) 0.42 0.11 0.27
SD (US) 0.76 0.78 0.71
_________________________________________
 119

JS, AC, OP Mean Scores

4
3.5
3

Mean 2.5
2 Study
1.5 U.S.
1
0.5
0
Satisfaction Commitment Performance

Figure 15. Study JS, AC, OP mean scores compared to U.S. norms

Reliability of All Measures Used in the Study

In the preceding sections of the preliminary analysis, the researcher had used the

Likert-type scale. Thus, it was imperative to use reliability coefficients to calculate and

report Cronbachs alpha coefficient for the scales. These scales included those of

predictor variables (transformational leadership, transactional leadership, hands-off

leadership), of mediator variables (satisfaction, commitment), and of the single criterion

variable (organizational performance). According to Revelle and Zinbarg (2009), the

calculation of Cronbachs alpha is important to ensure internal consistency and reliability

for any scales or subscales. To increase reliability, the analysis must include the

summation of scales or subscales rather than individual scale (Zinbarg, Revelle, Yovel, &

Li, 2005). The original formula used to calculate the Cronbachs alpha (Cronbach, 1951)

is below:
 120

K
=
K
1
i =1 2 Y
i
K 1 2 X

In the above formula, K is the number of items, 2 X is the variance of the subscale

scores, and 2 Yi is the variance of component i for the sample. Recently, Cronbach and

Shavelson (2004) has simplified and refined the above formula as the following:

K*r
= K>1
[1 + ( K 1) * r ]
K is the number of items (must be greater than 1), and r is the mean of the correlation

coefficients. Normally, the range of Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient is between

zero (0) and one (1). The closer it is to one, the greater the reliability and internal

consistency of the items in the Likert-type scale used in this study. Table 11 gives a

listing of the Cronbachs alpha values for each of the aforementioned scales.

Table 11

Reliability of Scales

_________________________________________________
Sample N Items Cronbachs
__________________________________________________________________
Transformational Leadership 151 20 0.86

Transactional Leadership 151 12 0.81

Hands-off Leadership 151 04 0.72

Job Satisfaction 151 06 0.79

Commitment 151 06 0.83

Organizational Performance 151 16 0.94

_________________________________________________
 121

According to George and Mallerys (2003, p. 231), the Cronbachs alpha

coefficient value of 0.9 or greater is excellent, 0.8 or greater is good, 0.7 or greater is

acceptable. When it is less than 0.7, 0.6, and 0.5, the internal consistency and reliability is

questionable, poor, and unacceptable respectively. As shown in Table 11, the Cronbachs

alpha reliability coefficient values of the scales used in this study were in the range of

0.72 and 0.94. This indicates that the reliability of, and internal consistency in, these

measures was acceptable. Presented in this section was the preliminary analysis. The next

section is the primary analysis, which includes analysis of variance (ANOVA) and

multiple correlation and regression analyses.

Primary Data Analysis

To test the hypotheses concerning the relationships among the three predictor

variables, two mediator variables, and one criterion variable, the researcher used both the

correlation analysis and regression analysis. In this study, the predictor variables were

transformational leadership (TRF), transactional leadership (TRX, and hands-off

leadership (HO). The mediator variables were job satisfaction (JS) and affective

commitment (AC). The single criterion variable was organizational performance (HO).

Prior to testing the three proposed hypotheses, the researcher had conducted a

preliminary analysis to ensure satisfactions of the assumptions in correlation and

regression. The findings of the preliminary analysis, shown in the preceding sections,

suggest that there were no out-of range data, the standard deviation values were normal,

and the skewness and kurtosis were both in the acceptable range (Abdi, 2007). Analysis

of the variables indicated the data sampling were from a normal distribution (Strassburger
 122

& Bretz, 2008). Presented in the next subsections are the results of multiple correlation

and regression analyses to address the research questions and hypotheses.

Research Questions

Previous research has not established if a relationship existed between leadership

styles and organizational performance in IT organizations in the United States

telecommunications industry. Outside of telecommunications, some research studies

attempted to explore the relationship between leadership styles and organizational

performance (Bolman & Deal, 2003; DeClerk, 2008; Elenkov, 2002; LaRue, et al., 2006;

Scott & Davis, 2007; Zhu, Chew, & Spangler; 2005). Within the telecommunications

sector, no empirical studies have examined such a relationship. Nor have they evaluated

the effects of leadership styles on employee job satisfaction and affective commitment in

a single study. Roi (2006) and Moores (2007) examined the relationship between

transformational leadership and organizational performance in non-communication

sectors.

Roi (2006) found a positive association between transformational leadership and

the financial performance of 94 corporations. Roi reported, there was a positive and

significant relationship between transformational leadership and long-term net income

growth (p. 54). The purpose of the present study was to study the relationship between

leadership styles and organizational performance rather than financial performance.

In his research, Moores (2007) studied the linkage between leadership style and

organizational effectiveness in the United Way of America organization. To measure

transactional, transformational, and hands-off leadership, Moores used the MLQ

instrument. Moores found a positive correlation between transactional leadership style

 123

and organizational performance, which was a surprise compared to other similar studies.

When the author controlled the gender variable; however, the result reflected a positive

relationship. Moores concluded that a positive relationship did exist between

transformational leadership and organizational effectiveness. This study examined the

relationship between leadership styles and organizational performance in a for-profit

communications company rather than in a nonprofit organization.

The study took place in the IT organization at a telecommunications company.

The first research question was What degree of significance of the relationship between

leadership style and organizational performance in the IT organization at the study

company? The second research question asked What degree of significance that

employee job satisfaction mediates the relationship between the leadership style and

organizational performance at the study company? The third research question was

What degree of significance that employee affective commitment mediates the

relationship between the leadership style and organizational performance at the study

company?

Hypotheses

The use of null hypotheses was useful in making predictions that there exist no

relationships among predictor, criterion, and intervening variables (Creswell, 2005). The

alternative hypothesis is in contrast to the null hypothesis and may be true if the null

hypothesis is rejected (Creswell, p. 131). Alternative hypothesis were essential in this

study because the researcher had predicted a relationship between predictor and criterion

variables in the population of IT workers in the telecommunications industry.

 124

Hypothesis 1 Leadership and Organizational Performance. To answer the first

research question, the proposed set of null and alternative hypotheses (Ho1 and Ha1) to

test the relationship between leadership styles and organizational performance was as

follows:

Ho1: There are no leadership styles that will correlate strongly with organizational

performance in the IT organization at the study company.

Ha1: There is at least one leadership style that will correlate strongly with

organizational performance in the IT organization at the study company.

Correlations. Testing of the first hypothesis established the degree to which a

relationship existed between the predictor variables and criterion variable. The first step

included the conduct of correlation analyses. The outcomes of these analyses were the

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients, which determined if any relationship

existed between leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and hands-off) and

organizational performance.

The transformational leadership subscales were IIA, IIB, IM, IS, and IC. The

transactional leadership subscales were CR, MEA, and MEP. The hands-off leadership

had one subscale (see Table 3, page 107). The mean score of each leadership styles

subscales for each participant was the value substituting the x variable in the correlation

formula and in the Input Range of Microsoft Excel. Similarly, the raw scores of the OP

subscales were the organizational performance scores substituting the y variable in the

formula and the Excel Input Range. In sum, the calculation of correlation coefficients

(rho) involved comparing the combined mean of each leadership style with the raw score

of the OP subscales for each participant.

 125

The results of the first correlation analysis are in table 12 and indicate that the

relationship between transformational leadership (TRF) and organizational performance

(OP) was positive. The results of the second correlation analysis indicate that the

relationship between transactional leadership (TRX) and OP was also positive. By

contrast, the results of the third correlation analysis show an inverse relationship between

hands-off leadership (HO) and OP.

Table 12

Correlations: Leadership Styles and Organizational Performance

_____________________________________________
Organizational Performance
Correlation coefficients (rho) p
____________________________________________________________
Transformational Leadership (TRF) 0.67 < .001

Transactional Leadership (TRX) 0.51 < .01

Hands-off Leadership (HO) -0.18 < .05

____________________________________________________________
N = 32
_____________________________________________

Regressions. Conducting multiple regression analyses was the second step of

testing the first hypothesis. For this study, regression analyses were useful to determine

the predictive validity of, and the association between, predictor variables of leadership

styles (TRF, TRX, and HO) and criterion variable of organizational performance (OP). In

the preceding correlation analyses, the correlation coefficient provided a measure of the

reliability of the linear relationship between each leadership style and OP. In the

following regression analyses, the regression coefficient provided information on the

 126

strength of such linear relationship. Table 13 and the graphs in Figure 16 summarize the

results of the regressions.

Table 13

Regression Statistics: Leadership Styles and Organizational Performance

______________________________________________
Organizational Performance (OP)
R2 Coefficient p
_____________________________________________________________
Transformational Leadership (TRF) 0.44 0.65 < .001

Transactional Leadership (TRX) 0.26 0.48 < .01

Hands-off Leadership (HO) 0.03 -0.19 < .05

_____________________________________________________________
N = 32
______________________________________________

First, as shown in Tables 12 and 13 above, the correlation coefficient (rho) was

0.67 and the regression coefficient (beta) was 0.65 between TRF and OP. Similarly, the

rho and beta values were both positive (0.51 and 0.48) for TRX and OP. This suggests a

positive, strong relationship between TRF and OP and between TRX and OP. By

contrast, the rho and beta values were both negative (-0.18 and -0.19) for HO and OP.

This suggests a negative relationship between hands-off leadership and organizational

performance. Additionally, the three graphs in Figure 16 produced by Microsoft Excel

depict the relationships of the three leadership styles (TRF, TRX, and HO) and

organizational performance. In the first two graphs, both the regression lines shows an

upward slope toward the upper right corner, indicating positive relationships between

TRF and OP and between TRX and OP. In the third graph, the regression line shows a

downward slope indicating a negative relationship between HO and OP.

 127

TRF Line Fit Plot

5
4
3
OP OP
2
1 Predicted OP

0 Linear (Predicted OP)

0 1 2 3 4 5
TRF

TRX Line Fit Plot

5
4
3
OP OP
2
1 Predicted OP

0 Linear (Predicted OP)

0 1 2 3 4 5
TRX

HO Line Fit Plot

5
4
3
OP OP
2
Predicted OP
1
Linear (Predicted OP)
0
0 1 2 3 4
HO

Figure 16. Regression of leadership styles onto organizational performance

 128

Second, the R-squared ( R 2 ) value obtained in the regression analysis (see Table

13) was the square of the correlation coefficient (rho) obtained in the correlation analysis

(see Table 12). In the case of transformational leadership, for example, the square of rho

was equal to the beta value, (0.667) 2 = 0.45. The R 2 values of 0.45, 0.26, and 0.03 were

indications of strengths of the relationship between TRF and OP, TRX and OP, and HO

and OP respectively.

Third, the linear regression ANOVA (analysis of variance), as shown in Table 14,

was useful in determining how well the model describes the data. The significance F (1,

30) = 24.10, p < .001. This indicates that approximately 44% of the variance in the

criterion variable (organizational performance) occurred because of the change in the

predictor variable (transformational leadership).

Table 14

ANOVA

___________________________________
df SS MS F
_______________________________________________
Regression 1 9.01 9.01 24.10

Residual 30 11.21 0.37

Total 31 20.22
___________________________________

Finally, the Web-based statistical calculator provided a method to develop a

prediction of the relationship between the predictor variable and the criterion variable

using the regression equation and formula. This calculator was useful in the pilot study.

Prior to using the automated regression functions embedded in Microsoft Excel, the
 129

researcher used the following formula for manually calculating the values of slope (b)

and intercept (a) in the regression equation.

y = a + bx

n XY ( X )( Y )
b=
n X 2 ( X )
2

a=
Y b( X )
n

In the above equation and formulas, x and y are the variables, X and Y are the first

and second scores respectively, n is the number of elements, b is the slope of the

regression line, and a is the intercept point of the regression line and the y- axis. Using

the same method described in the correlation analysis above, the calculation of slope (b)

value and y-intercept (a) involved simple algebraic manipulations of the raw data. For

example, the combined transformational leadership scores for each participant substituted

the X variable in the formula; the raw score of the OP subscales for each participant

substituted the Y variable in the formula. The results of the hand calculation of regressing

TRF onto OP were as follows.

Slope (b) = 0.80

y-intercept (a) = 0.62

The regression equation: y = 0.62 + 0.80x

In the above calculation, the regression equation was useful for predicting the

criterion variable (OP) by the predictor variable (TRF). This indicates that each increase

of transformational leadership variable by 1 would result in a corresponding increase of

organizational performance by a value of (0.62 + 0.80). Subsequent calculations were for

 130

comparing transactional leadership mean scores and hands-off mean scores with the raw

OP scores for each participant.

In summary, the findings of the above correlation and regression analyses suggest

the following. First, the relationship between transformational leadership and

organizational performance was positive, direct, and highly significant. Second, the

relationship between transactional leadership and organizational performance was also

positive, direct, and significant. Third, the relationship between hands-off leadership and

organizational performance was negative, direct, and significant. All relationships were

significant at the alpha level of .05. Consequently, the results rejected the null hypothesis

(Ho1) and accepted the alternate hypothesis (Ha1). The answer to the first research

question was that there exists a direct relationship between leadership styles and

organizational performance in the IT organization at the study company.

Hypothesis 2 Leadership, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Performance.

The second research question was What degree of significance that employee job

satisfaction mediates the relationship between the leadership style and organizational

performance at the study company? This question was about (a) the relationship

between expressed employees satisfaction and their perception of the leaders leadership

style, and (b) the mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship of leadership style

and organizational performance. To answer the second research question, the proposed

set of null and alternative hypotheses (Ho2 and Ha2) to test the relationship between the

above variables was as follows:

Ho2: Employee job satisfaction will not mediate the relationship between the

leadership style and organizational performance at the study company.

 131

Ha2: Employee job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between the

leadership style and organizational performance at the study company.

Testing of the second hypothesis involved the use of statistical methods described

in the testing of the first hypothesis and with multiple regression analyses. The main

objective of testing the second hypothesis was to determine if job satisfaction mediates

the relationship between the leadership style and organizational performance (OP). The

alternative hypothesis holds true if the following two conditions are true: (a) there exists a

correlation between leadership style and job satisfaction (JS), and (b) there exists a

correlation between JS and OP (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Thus, the conduct of multiple

analyses was necessary.

Correlations. Testing of the second hypothesis established the degree to which a

relationship exists between (a) the predictor variables and mediator variable and (b) the

mediator variable and criterion variable. The outcomes of the correlation analyses were

the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. In the first step, the results provided

data to determine if any relationship exists between leadership styles (TRF, TRX, and

HO) and JS. In the second step, the results provided data to determine if any relationship

exists between JS and OP.

First, the outcomes of the first-step analysis indicate that the relationship between

(a) TRF and JS was positive, (b) TRX and JS was positive, and (c) HO and JS was

negative. Table 15 shows the results of the first-step analysis, which are the correlations

between leadership styles and JS. Second, the results of the second-step analysis indicate

that the relationship between JS and OP was positive. Table 16 shows the results of the

second step analysis.

 132

Table 15

Correlations: Step 1 - Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction

__________________________________________
Job Satisfaction (JS)
rho p
________________________________________________________
Transformational Leadership (TRF) 0.45 < .01

Transactional Leadership (TRX) 0.20 < .05

Hands-off Leadership (HO) -0.18 < .05

________________________________________________________
N = 119
__________________________________________

Table 16

Correlations: Step 2 - Job Satisfaction and Organizational Performance

__________________________________________
Organizational Performance (OP)
rho p
________________________________________________________
Job Satisfaction (JS) 0.16 < .05
________________________________________________________
N = 119
__________________________________________

Regressions. Conducting multiple regression analyses was useful to determine the

predictive validity of, and the association between, (a) the predictor variables and

mediator variable, and (b) the mediator variable and criterion variable. Specifically in this

study, multiple regression analyses were necessary to test if the leadership styles of the

study companys leaders contributed to the level of employees satisfaction. In the

preceding correlation analyses, the correlation coefficients provided a measure of the

 133

reliability of the linear relationship between the said variables. In these multiple

regression analyses, the regression coefficients provided information on the strength of

such linear relationship. Table 17 shows the results of the first-step regression. Table 18

and the graphs in Figure 19 summarize the results of the second-step regression.

Table 17

Regression Statistics: Step 1- Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction

______________________________________________
Job Satisfaction (JS)
R2 Coefficient p
_____________________________________________________________
Transformational Leadership (TRF) 0.20 0.41 < .01

Transactional Leadership (TRX) 0.04 0.16 < .05

Hands-off Leadership (HO) 0.03 -0.15 < .05

_____________________________________________________________
N = 119
______________________________________________

Table 18

Regression Statistics: Step 2 - Job Satisfaction and Organizational Performance

______________________________________________
Organizational Performance (OP)
R2 Coefficient p
_____________________________________________________________
Job Satisfaction (JS) 0.03 0.20 < .05
_____________________________________________________________
N = 119
______________________________________________
 134

TRF Line Fit Plot TRX Line Fit Plot

4 4
3 3
JS 2 JS 2
1 1
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
TRF TRX

HO Line Fit Plot JS Line Fit Plot

4 6
3 4
JS 2 OP
2
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

HO JS

Figure 17. Multiple regression of leadership styles onto job satisfaction, and job

satisfaction onto organizational performance.

In summary, both the results of multiple correlation and regression analyses

provide evidence that (a) there exists a significant relationship between leadership styles

and job satisfaction (positive for transformational and transactional but negative for

hands-off leadership), and (b) there exists a positive relationship between job satisfaction

and organizational performance. All relationships were significant at the alpha level of

.05. Consequently, the results rejected the null hypothesis (Ho2) and accepted the

alternate hypothesis (Ha2). The answer to the second research question is that there exists

a high degree of significance that employee job satisfaction mediates the relationship

between the leadership styles and organizational performance at the study company.
 135

Hypothesis 3 Leadership, Commitment and Organizational Performance. The

third research question was What degree of significance that employee affective

commitment mediates the relationship between the leadership style and organizational

performance at the study company? This question was about (a) the relationship

between expressed employees affective commitment and their perception of the leaders

leadership style, and (b) the mediating role of affective commitment in the relationship of

leadership style and organizational performance.

To answer the third research question, the proposed hypotheses were as follows:

Ho3: Employee affective commitment will not mediate the relationship between

the leadership style and organizational performance at the study company.

Ha3: Employee affective commitment will mediate the relationship between the

leadership style and organizational performance at the study company.

Testing of the third hypothesis involved the use of statistical methods described in

the testing of the second hypothesis including multiple regression analyses. The main

objective of testing the third hypothesis was to determine if affective commitment (AC)

mediates the relationship between the leadership style and organizational performance

(OP). The alternative hypothesis holds true if the following two conditions are true: (a)

there exists a correlation between leadership style and affective commitment (AC), and

(b) there exists a correlation between AC and OP (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Thus, the use

of multiple analyses was necessary.

Correlations. Testing of the third hypothesis established the degree to which a

relationship exists between (a) the predictor variables and mediator variable and (b) the

mediator variable and criterion variable. The outcomes of the correlation analyses were
 136

the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. In the first step, the results provided

data to determine if any relationship exists between leadership styles (TRF, TRX, and

HO) and AC. In the second step, the results provided data to determine if any relationship

exists between AC and OP.

First, the results of the first-step analysis indicate that the relationship between (a)

TRF and AC was positive, (b) TRX and AC was also positive, and (c) HO and AC was

negative. Table 19 shows the results of the first-step analysis, which are the correlations

between leadership styles and affective commitment (AC). Second, the results of the

second-step analysis indicate that the relationship between AC and OP was positive.

Table 20 shows the results of the second step analysis.

Table 19

Correlations: Step 1 - Leadership Styles and Affective Commitment

_____________________________________________
Affective Commitment (AC)
rho p
____________________________________________________________
Transformational Leadership (TRF) 0.59 < .001

Transactional Leadership (TRX) 0.27 < .01

Hands-off Leadership (HO) -0.06 < .05

____________________________________________________________
N = 119
_____________________________________________
 137

Table 20

Correlations: Step 2 - Affective Commitment and Organizational Performance

_____________________________________________
Organizational Performance (OP)
rho p
____________________________________________________________
Affective Commitment (AC) 0.26 < .05
____________________________________________________________
N = 119
_____________________________________________

Regressions. Conducting multiple regression analyses was useful to determine the

predictive validity of, and the association between, (a) the predictor variables and

mediator variable, and (b) the mediator variable and criterion variable. Specifically in this

study, multiple regression analyses were necessary to test if the leadership styles

contributed to the level of employees affective commitment. In the preceding correlation

analyses, the correlation coefficients provided a measure of the reliability of the linear

relationship between the above variables. In these multiple regression analyses, the

regression coefficients provided information on the strength of such linear relationship.

Table 21 shows the regression of transformational, transactional, and hands-off

leadership onto affective commitment. Table 22 and the graphs in Figure 18 summarize

the results of regressing affective commitment onto organizational performance.

 138

Table 21

Regression Statistics: Step 1 - Leadership Styles and Affective Commitment

______________________________________________
Affective Commitment (AC)
2
R Coefficient p
_____________________________________________________________
Transformational Leadership (TRF) 0.35 0.60 < .001

Transactional Leadership (TRX) 0.07 0.23 < .05

Hands-off Leadership (HO) 0.003 -0.06 < .05

_____________________________________________________________
N = 119
______________________________________________

Table 22

Regression Statistics: Step 2 - Affective Commitment and Organizational Performance

______________________________________________
Organizational Performance (OP)
R2 Coefficient p
_____________________________________________________________
Affective Commitment (AC) 0.07 0.30 < .05
_____________________________________________________________
N = 119
______________________________________________

TRF Line Fit Plot TRX Line Fit Plot

6 6
4 4
AC AC
2 2
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
TRF TRX
 139

HO Line Fit Plot AC Line Fit Plot

6 6
4 4
AC OP
2 2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6
HO AC

Figure 18. Multiple regression of leadership styles onto affective commitment, and

affective commitment onto organizational performance.

In summary, both the results of multiple correlation and regression analyses

provide evidence that (a) there exists a significant relationship between leadership styles

and affective commitment (positive for transformational and transactional but negative

for hands-off leadership), and (b) there exists a positive relationship between affective

commitment and organizational performance. All relationships were significant at the

alpha level of .05. The results rejected the null hypothesis (Ho3) and accepted the

alternate hypothesis (Ha3). The answer to the third research question is that there is a high

degree of significance that employee affective commitment mediates the relationship

between the leadership styles and organizational performance at the study company.

Relationship of Job Satisfaction and Affective Commitment

To validate the results of the above hypothesis tests, the correlation and regression

analyses of the two mediating variables of job satisfaction and affective commitment

were conducted. The results validated the degree of significance that job satisfaction and

affective commitment mediate the relationship between the leadership style and

organizational performance. Tables 23 and 24 show the results of these analyses.

 140

Correlation. The correlation analysis established the degree to which a

relationship existed between the two mediator variables of job satisfaction (JS) and

affective commitment (AC). The outcome of this analysis was the Pearson product-

moment correlation coefficient, which determined if any relationship existed between JS

and AC. The results of the t-test and correlation shown in Table 23 indicate that the

relationship between JS and AC was positive and highly significant.

Table 23

Correlation: Job Satisfaction and Affective Commitment

________________________________________
Job Satisfaction (JS)
rho p
_____________________________________________________
Affective Commitment (AC) 0.86 < .05
_____________________________________________________
N = 119
________________________________________

Regression. The regression analysis was the second step to determine the

predictive validity of, and the association between, mediator variables of job satisfaction

and affective commitment (JS and AC). The regression coefficient provided information

on the strength of the linear relationship of these two mediator variables. Table 24 and the

graphs in Figure 20 summarize the results of the regression. ANOVA was also conducted

to support the analysis. In summary, the findings of the above correlation and regression

analyses suggest that the relationship between the two mediator variables (job satisfaction

and affective commitment) was positive, direct, and highly significant. This was an

indication of the strong support of the results of the foregoing hypothesis tests.
 141

Table 24

ANOVA
df SS MS F
Regression 1 9.38 9.38 84.24
Residual 30 3.34 0.11
Total 31 12.72

Standard
Coefficients Error t Stat P-value
Intercept 0.37 0.20 1.89 0.07
AC 0.76 0.08 9.18 3.24

Table 24

Regression: Job Satisfaction and Affective Commitment

_________________________________________
Job Satisfaction (JS)
2
R Coefficient p
______________________________________________________
Affective Commitment (AC) 0.74 0.77 < .05
______________________________________________________
N = 119
_________________________________________

AC Line Fit Plot

4
3
JS 2 JS
1 Predicted JS
0 Linear (JS)
0 1 2 3 4 5
AC

Figure 19. Regression of affective commitment onto job satisfaction.

 142

Summary

Chapter 4 presented the results of the data analysis. The results of this analysis

associated with the three research questions that concerned leadership styles, job

satisfaction, affective commitment, and organizational performance. In brief, chapter 4

began with a description of the data collection process and procedures, a preliminary

analysis that includes demographic data and descriptive statistics, and a primary analysis

that analyzes the correlations and regressions of the variables. The results validated the

rejection of all three null hypotheses and supported the acceptance of all three alternate

hypotheses. The findings of this study indicate that (a) there is a significant relationship

between leadership styles and organizational performance, and (b) job satisfaction and

affective commitment mediate the said relationship in the IT organization at the study

company. Provided in the following paragraph are additional details of the findings.

The predictor variables of leadership styles examined in this study were

transformational, transactional, and hands-off leadership. Two mediator variables were

employee job satisfaction and employee affective commitment. The single criterion

variable was organizational performance. As presented in this chapter, transformational

leadership had a direct, significant, and very strong relationship with organizational

performance. Transactional also had a direct and significant relationship with

organizational performance but this relationship was not as strong. Conversely, hands-off

leadership had a direct and negative relationship with organizational performance as

shown in the preceding subsections.

The findings also indicate that both job satisfaction and affective commitment

played important roles in mediating the relationship between leadership styles and
 143

organizational performance. Although the purpose of this study was to examine the

correlational relationship among the variables rather than causal, one could articulate for

the indirect effects of leadership styles on organizational performance. The findings of

multiple regression analyses validated that the correlations of leadership styles and

organizational performance were statistically significant when either job satisfaction or

affective commitment was a mediator.

Finally, chapter 4 has ended with an acceptance of the three proposed hypotheses

and with positive answers to the three research questions. The next chapter is chapter 5.

Presented in chapter 5 are the summary and conclusions of this research study including a

discussion of the research findings, the implications of the results for organizations, and

recommendations for future research and for the leadership team at the study company.
 144

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Organizational performance, employee job satisfaction, and employee affective

commitment are significant contributors to the companys sustainable success (Bass &

Riggio, 2006; Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004; Drucker, 2007). A large

number of researchers have suggested that leaders and managers could motivate and help

their employees succeed in todays globally competitive environment with effective

leadership styles (Barbuto & Bruback, 2006; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Dionne et al., 2004;

Luftman, 2004). The leaders consistent practice of effective leadership styles also can be

conducive to the promotion of exemplary standards of excellence in the professional

development of organizational members (LaRue, Childs, & Larson, 2004). According to

Elbashir, Collier, and Davern (2008), many corporate leaders of successful high-tech

organizations strive to help improve their organizational performance through consistent

practices of effective leadership.

In many organizations; however, no measurement of leadership exists to evaluate

the correlation between leadership style and organizational performance (Hancott, 2005).

Research has provided little or no empirical evidence suggesting how the leader can

influence the level of employee satisfaction and commitment (Gozubenli, 2010; Hancott,

2005; Hulsing, 2008; Moore, 2007). There has been no empirical evidence that provides

leaders a model to follow regarding any mediation of the leadership-performance

relationship by such potential intervening variables as employee job satisfaction and

affective commitment (Hwang & Kuo, 2006; Kaplan & Norton, 2005; Kim, 2005; Lawler

& Porter, 2008). The findings of this study have validated that satisfaction and
 145

commitment can positively mediate the relationship between leadership style and

organizational performance.

As noted in chapter 1, no prior studies have examined leadership styles,

organizational performance, job satisfaction, and affective commitment in a single study

within the telecommunications industry (Collins, 2007). Examined in this study were the

relationships among the above variables. The primary purpose of the study was to

determine if the practice of certain leadership styles, such as transformational leadership,

have any direct and significant relationship with organizational performance at a major

communications company. The secondary purpose was to examine how each dimension

of these leadership styles relates to the employee job satisfaction and affective

commitment. Integrated in the study were the three predictor variables of leadership

styles (e.g., transformational, transactional, and hands-off), the two mediator variables of

employee job satisfaction and employee affective commitment, and the one single

criterion variable of organizational performance.

The previous four chapters included an introduction of the study, a review of the

literature, a method for data analysis, and a presentation of the findings. Presented in this

chapter are the key findings of the research study, the implications for leaders and

organizations, the limitations of the study, the recommendations for both future research

and the leadership team at the study company, and the summary of Chapter 5. Finally,

concluding remarks are provided.

Summary of Key Findings

The present study took place in an IT organization at a communications company

in the United States. A group of 151 personnel participated in the research survey and
 146

provided usable data for analysis. The researcher pursued answers to the three research

questions statistically. The first question was about the degree of significance of the

relationship between leadership style and organizational performance in the IT

organization at the study company. The second question was about the degree of

significance that employee job satisfaction mediates the relationship between the

leadership style and organizational performance. The third question was about the degree

of significance that employee affective commitment mediates the relationship between

the leadership style and organizational performance. The results of multiple correlation

and regression analyses presented in the preceding section provided information to

answer these questions. A summary of the key findings is in the following subsections.

Leadership Styles and Organizational Performance

To answer the first research question, the proposed set of null and alternative

hypotheses were necessary. The null hypothesis was, There are no leadership styles that

will correlate strongly with organizational performance in the IT organization at the study

company." The findings rejected the first null hypothesis. The results of the correlation

and regression analyses indicated there was at least one leadership style that correlated

strongly with organizational performance in the IT organization at the study company. As

presented in chapter 4, page 131, the relationship between transformational, transactional

leadership and organizational performance was positive, direct, and significant

statistically.

Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction

To answer the second research question, the proposed set of null and alternative

hypotheses was instrumental. The null hypothesis stated, Employee job satisfaction will
 147

not mediate the relationship between the leadership style and organizational performance

at the study company. A statistical rejection was appropriate for this null hypothesis.

The results of the multiple correlation and regression analyses indicated there existed a

high degree of significance that employee job satisfaction mediates the relationship

between the leadership style and organizational performance at the study company (see

page 136).

Leadership Styles and Affective Commitment

To answer the third research question, the proposed set of null and alternative

hypotheses was useful. The null hypothesis stated, Employee affective commitment will

not mediate the relationship between the leadership style and organizational performance

at the study company. A statistical rejection was appropriate for this null hypothesis.

The results of the multiple correlation and regression analyses indicated there existed a

high degree of significance that employee affective commitment mediates the

relationship between the leadership style and organizational performance at the study

company (see page 140).

Concretely, a statistical rejection was appropriate for each of the three null

hypotheses. Concisely, the study found that leadership styles had a direct relationship

with organizational performance. This relationship was positive and significant for

transformational and transactional leadership, whereas it was negative for hands-off

leadership (see page 131). With respect to the mediating role of employee job satisfaction

and employee affective commitment, the study found that they both mediated the

relationship between the aforementioned leadership styles and organizational

performance (see page 142). Although this study examined the correlation, non-causal
 148

relationships among the above variables, the findings of multiple regression analyses

suggested that the indirect effects of leadership styles on organizational performance

were statistically significant when either job satisfaction or affective commitment was a

mediator (see page 142).

Implications

Within the telecommunications sector, previous research provided no empirical

studies that examined the relationship between Bass (2006) transformational leadership

and organizational performance (Kaplan & Norton, 2005). Nor have researchers found

any concrete evidence to validate the mediating role of job satisfaction and affective

commitment in that relationship (Fogler & LeBlanc, 2008; Friedman, 2008; Gartner,

2009). Although the findings of the most recent studies suggested leadership styles have

positive effects on organizational performance, their studies took place in public domains

or governmental agencies (Godzyk, 2008; Gozubenli, 2010; Hancott, 2005;

Hulsing, 2008; Moore, 2007; Muterera, 2008; Yukl, 2009). Within the specific

telecommunications sector, the present study used multiple regression analyses to

demonstrate a significant relationship between leadership styles and organizational

performance at a communications company. Validated in the study were the effects of job

satisfaction and affective commitment on the above relationship. Described in the

following two subsections are the implications of the studys findings.

Implications to Organizations

First, to understand the implication of the study mean scores, the researcher used

a t-test to compare them with the subscales of the United States scores maintained by

Mind Garden (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Most noticeable was that the employees rated their
 149

leaders to have a hands-off leadership style mean score 71% higher than the United States

normative score (see page 113). The first implication is that a large majority of leaders

are practicing hands-off leadership at this company.

Second, relating to the first implication, the comparison of the study scores and

the United States scores reveals that the employees also rated their leaders positively with

respect to transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Except for the IC

(individualized consideration) score, all of the mean scores in the study were significantly

higher than the United States mean scores. The implication is that beside hands-off

leadership, the practices of transactional leadership and transformational leadership are

evident at this company.

Third, the empirical findings of this study consistently indicated that

transformational and transactional leadership practices related to organizational

performance positively and significantly. A close examination of the results presented in

the primary analysis; however, revealed that transformational leadership was a stronger

predictor of organizational performance than transactional leadership was (see page 128).

The implication of these findings is that the employees in the IT organization at the study

company prefer, endorse, and appeal to the practice of transformational leadership. Thus,

the leaders at the company should continue to focus on engaging with followers, inspire

the followers enthusiasm, and encourage them to rise to the high moral and ethical

standards. To maximize organizational performance and productivity, the leader must

have the ability to promote creativity and innovation, stimulate the followers to challenge

their own value systems and improve their problem-solving skills and individual

performance. The leader also needs to be attentive to the needs of each follower, provides
 150

warm support, is willing to listen to the followers personal problems, and provides

mentoring when requested.

Fourth, the results of the multiple regression analyses provided empirical

evidence that leadership styles may have both direct and indirect relationship with

organizational performance. The implication is that leaders at the study company could

improve the performance of their organization in a number of ways. Directly, they could

practice the principles of an effective leadership, such as transformational leadership.

They could also avoid the practice of hands-off leadership (see Figure 16). Indirectly,

they could influence to improve the level of employees job satisfaction and affective

commitment (see page 135 & 140). A satisfied employee would exhibit positive attitude

and behavior, perform well on the job, and possibly give genuine effort to his or her

colleagues, management, and organization. Increased satisfaction leads to increased

individual performance (Edington, 2007; Lawler III & Porter, 2008; Watson, 2008).

Furthermore, changes in global markets and economic conditions have necessitated

transformations in the psychological contract between employees and the organization

(Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). The emotional bond exhibits an affective emotional

connection between employee and leader (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Employee affective

commitment is voluntary yet critical to the success of the organization.

Fifth, the study provided strong evidence that leadership styles, such as

transformational leadership, may be an excellent predictor of organizational performance

as well as employee attitude and behavior. The implication is that organizations may

benefit from developing a leadership model for management training and development

and for measuring leadership effectiveness. Investing money and resources to create a
 151

learning environment would enable organizations to gain competitive advantage in the

global economy of the 21st century. With the increasing complexity of todays rapidly

changing environment, leaders turn to understanding leadership models that can integrate

and align their areas of responsibility, and ease repeatability of successes.

Of particular note of this study is that the participant-leaders provided a response

rate of 100%. This is a gratifying testimonial of their enthusiasm, strong motivation,

positive attitude, and eagerness to improve their leadership skills through companys

training and development programs. The leadership model proposed in this study and the

organizational implications described in the foregoing synthesis may serve as a starting

point for such a leadership development program as the leaders need to bridge to other

areas of the enterprise.

Implications to Leadership

The empirical findings of the multiple correlation and regression analyses

provided useful insights into the practice of effective leadership styles. The study has

produced empirical results, which may contribute to the body of leadership knowledge

and practice. The strong evidence of positive and significant correlations between

leadership styles, job satisfaction, affective commitment, and organizational performance

may provide IT leaders and managers with a new, validated leadership style that enables

them to lead their organizations successfully and manage organizational teams

effectively.

With respect to management and leadership, the study has made an important

contribution because it provided a new leadership model and possibly validated the direct

and strong correlations between leadership behaviors and organizational effectiveness.

 152

Possibly the study has also validated the anticipated effects of leadership styles on the

employees level of satisfaction and commitment. Understanding if certain leadership

styles can relate to the satisfaction levels of employees is not only necessary but also

important (Senge, 2006). Because the aforementioned correlations exist, company

managers may exercise various options for improving their leadership practices.

The traditional leadership model of the past will not work effectively for the

majority of high-tech organizations in todays rapidly changing world (Kouzes & Posner,

2007). Technological advances and services in the global business environment continue

to intensify global competition. Not only do they pose a challenge for organizations, they

also provide the company with an opportunity to gain competitive advantage (Drucker,

2007; Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2007). In this context, innovative, transformational

leadership can be a driver of change.

Perhaps the most important implication to leadership drawn from this study is that

leaders may need to apply the principles of transformational leadership in a situational

manner. First, the empirical results of the multiple regression analysis presented

throughout chapter 4 indicate consistently that possibly both transactional and

transformational leadership are strong predictors of, and possibly relate positively and

significantly with, organizational performance, satisfaction, and commitment. Second,

the congruency of transactional and transformational styles was evident by this studys

multiple regression analyses. Thus, the leaders may consider practicing them in

conjunction: (a) to satisfy low-level needs of followers with transactional leadership and

(b) to motivate followers, appeal them to higher level needs, and develop them to their

fullest potential with transformational leadership.

 153

Limitations

This study has a number of limitations. Limitations refer to factors, or

compromises that limit the study, are beyond the control of the researcher, and excluded

from the study (Creswell, 2005). Items included in the following paragraphs are the

unavoidable exceptions, reservations, qualifications, problems, and weaknesses related to

the study (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005; Neuman, 2003).

First, as noted in the first and second implications above, all the mean scores in

the study were significantly higher than the United States mean scores. There exists the

possibility of the time differences between previous studies and this study. Previous

studies were conducted during strong economic periods, whereas this study conducted in

the weak economic conditions. On the other hand, one could also articulate for the

opposite. When a company can survive through an uncertain economy, the perception is

that some leaders must have practiced exemplary leadership skills to steer the

organization through the economic turbulence, in the right direction, and toward the

sustainable success.

Second, the timeframe allotted for the research was relatively short. A long-term

study would be essential to obtaining accurate data and information because individual

attitudes, employee satisfaction, and organizational performance require comprehensive

analyses. Had more time allotted to the study, investigation of the individual leadership

components would have resulted in more insights. It is quite possible that each employee

responds differently to each of these components or dimensions. For example, the way

employees respond to the intellectual stimulation (IS) dimension may not be necessarily

the same as they do to the inspirational motivation (IS) dimension. Employees may have
 154

a higher level of satisfaction or commitment with the active management-by-exception

(MEA) than they have with passive management-by-exception (MEP). The time

constraint limited the investigation of the specific leadership dimensions.

Third, the study has another limitation in the use of quantifiable data because the

data analysis must rely on statistical results obtained from the survey. With regard to data

reliability and validity, the study could only use data available from those leaders and

employees who participate willingly and voluntarily. According to Creswell (2005), any

quantitative correlational studies have certain limitations: (a) the variables under study

are relational rather than causal, and (b) the analysis of data is without manipulation or

normalization. The experimental design can provide the causal relationships between

variables.

Delimitations

Delimitations are items that the researcher can control but decides not to consider

because of some resource constraints, which limits the generalization of the results

produced by the study (Creswell, 2005). In the present study, data were from the

employees and managers in the IT organization of a communications company, who may

not share similar leadership competencies, job satisfaction levels, and performance in the

general population. This could potentially influence the outcome of the results of the

assessments and ultimately the findings of the study (Cooper & Schindler, 2006).

Second, the study had not included the analysis of demographic data and

correlated them with the criterion variable of organizational performance or predictor

variables of leadership styles. Conducting multiple regression analyses on the

relationship between leadership styles and participants level of education, gender, or

 155

tenure may provide more insight and useful information for growing effective leadership

in organizations. The significantly high rating scores obtained in this study as compared

to the national norms may reveal the fact that survey participants are from a successful

organization, have a higher level of education, and are with the company for a long time.

According to Windsor (2009) and Yukl (2009), people tend to rate their leaders highly

when they perceive the organization as a vibrant, high-potential organization with strong

evidence of participative decision-making, clear goals and missions, and positive

interpersonal climate. In sum, analysis of demographic data was an exclusion of this

study as it was beyond the scope of this academic research.

Recommendations

The empirical findings, the limitations, and the delimitations of this research

provide the basis for the following recommendations. The key findings are that the

relationship between leadership styles and organizational performance is significant, and

employee job satisfaction and affective commitment mediate this relationship. The

limitations include the exceptions, reservations, qualifications, problems, and weaknesses

described in the preceding subsection. Suggested by the foregoing analysis is that the

support and practice of effective leadership may improve the performance of organization

and positively influence the employee satisfaction and commitment. The next two

subsections include two types of recommendations; one is for future research, and the

other is for the leadership at the study company.

Recommendations for Future Research

Organizations benefit from leadership styles that enable leaders to tune into the

possibilities of the future and to foster creativity and innovation (Brewer, 2005). Despite
 156

the importance of effective leadership, which is critical to the success of most companies

in todays global business environment, there has been a quest for a new leadership

paradigm (Senge, 2006). A list of recommendations for future research studies have

emerged from this study.

The first recommendation is that future researchers should conduct a replication

study using a different industry. One of the foci of this replication study should be to

evaluate methodological errors, and to support findings from the present study. Rigorous

testing of hypotheses may strengthen the original study and provide additional insight

into areas of potential bias, weakness, and threats. Ideal would be to use a sample across

diverse organizations and multiple industries with different demographic characteristics.

Second, future studies should consider an experimental research design to address

the limitation of correlational research design and to establish causal relationship between

leadership styles and organizational performance. One could further enhance the

accuracy of the causal relationship by using a longitudinal survey design as an alternative

to the cross-sectional design used in this study. Collecting research data in multiple times

to study the trends with the same research problem and population, and later evaluate the

effects of the changes to the problems within that population would produce conclusive

evidence of such causal relationships.

As part of the second recommendation, future researchers should consider a

mixed method to take advantage of the two-level analysis. Qualitative data would be

useful to explain and support the findings of a quantitative analysis. As presented in this

study, in defining the level of analysis, the model relied on the assumption that the

individual perception of each employee affects the organizational performance. It is also

 157

possible that the perception expressed by the leader-participants affects the mean

organizational performance. From a theoretical perspective, the model construct would

have meaning at both the individual and organizational levels of analysis. This would

alleviate or minimize potential biases. To achieve quantitative results, this study used

descriptive statistics, multiple correlation and regression analyses, and multivariate

relationships to obtain and show the correlations between and among predictor

(independent) and criterion (dependent) variables. For qualitative evidences, this study

could have used ethnographic interviews and thematic analysis with the leaders and

employees exposed to the main themes: (a) leadership styles, (b) organizational

performance, and (c) job satisfaction and affective commitment.

Third, for a long-term study, future research should conduct a comprehensive

analysis to examine not only the variables used in this study but also expand the scope by

including examinations of individual components of transformational and transactional

leadership, such as inspirational motivation or active management-by-exception. Close

examination of specific dimensions of each of the above leadership styles may provide

better insight into the effects of these dimensions on organizational performance. Most

important, the findings of such comprehensive analysis would be more accurate.

Fourth, this study investigated the intermediate relationship of two mediator

variables, job satisfaction and affective commitment. Future research may benefit from

exploring an alternative evaluation of using a three-way analysis of the relationship

among leadership styles, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. Future research may

also benefit from investigating additional mediator variables, which can influence and

mediate the relationship between leadership styles and organizational performance. The
 158

potential mediators include job stress (Daenzer, 2009), generational cohort

(DeClerk, 2008), organizational vision (Dvir, Kass, & Shamir, 2004), followership

styles (Favara, 2009), entrepreneurial endeavors (Hulsing, 2008) and employment

opportunities (Hwang & Kuo, 2006), to name a few.

Fifth, demographic data are an important element to consider for future research.

Although this study did not examine the relationship between demographic data and

leadership styles, future researchers may gain useful insights into the way demographic

data influence or mediate the relationships between leadership styles and organizational

performance. In this study, 56% of leader-participants earned masters degree, whereas

28% of employee-participants earned bachelors degrees (see page 102). The leaders also

reported a higher level of satisfaction and commitment than the employees did, and they

perceived and rated themselves as transformational leaders higher than their employees

rated them. The first question is how the level of education affects or relates to job

satisfaction and commitment. The second question is if the level of education relates

more positively with transformational leadership. An investigation of the correlation

between demographic data and dependent or independent variables would generate

additional intriguing questions.

Recommendations for the Leadership Team at the Study Company

According to Bass (2006), the transformational leader transforms the followers by

making them more aware of the importance of task outcomes, inducing them to

transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the organization or team, and activating

their higher order needs (p. 56). To enhance the performance of his or her organization,

the leader need to demonstrate high moral and ethical standards, earn respect and trust
 159

from followers, and provide the followers with a clear vision and direction (Kirkbride,

2006). The leader concentrates on building respect and trust as a means of influence and

through idealized influence or charisma; the leader creates a profound emotional

connection between the leader and followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

To facilitate the practice of transformational leadership, leaders should use a

situational approach to practicing different leadership patterns and styles according to the

maturity level of each individual follower. In this context, maturity means followers

relevant skills and technical knowledge as well as their confidence and self-respect. The

maturity level of the follower determines what the most effective leadership style would

be (Blanchard & Hodges, 2006). The transformational leader would have the flexibility

of choosing one or any combination of the situational leadership style that involves

directing, coaching, participating, and delegating. Recommended in the following

paragraphs is the decision-making paradigm, an important element of the strategic

leadership model.

According to Yukl (2009), the fundamental principle of transformational

leadership is the followers active participation in the organizational decision-making

process. Participative leadership allows people to involve in a decision-making process

(Kouzes & Posner, 2007). The premise of the proposed leadership model is that when

people participate, they are more willing to engage in organizational activities, more

collaborative in a team effort, and less competitive (Yukl). When people participate in the

decision-making process, their commitment to the achievement of organizational goals is

stronger (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). The theoretical framework of the leadership model is

an extension of the theories and concepts of Bass (2006) transformational leadership.

 160

The transformational leadership, like many postmodern leadership models, embraces the

concept of motivation, mutually beneficial goals, leader-follower emotional bond, and

value-laden, assimilated vision (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Dvir, Kass, & Shamir, 2004).

The transformational leadership theory has four fundamental components:

idealized influence or charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized

consideration (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 7). For the study company, idealized influence is

important because it develops strong emotional connection between followers and leaders

and induces excitement about the shared mission (Bass, 2006). The follower will be more

willing to accept the challenges if the leader earns his or her trust and respect (Bass &

Avolio, 2004). The second component of transformational leadership is inspiration (Bass

& Riggio). The company leaders inspire their followers by clearly communicating

organizational visions with enthusiasm and optimism. Intellectual stimulation is the third

component through which the company leaders provide their followers the opportunity to

perform their work with autonomy. The followers analyze problems from their

perspective and experience with creativity and innovation. The fourth component is

individual consideration in which the leaders pay close attention to the followers needs

and abilities then assign tasks to them with guidance, mentoring, and coaching (Bass &

Avolio).

One important responsibility of the company leaders is to consider the employees

effort, performance, and the attainment of individual goals (Senge, 2006). The leaders

also need to create a linkage between managerial actions and motivational considerations.

Leaders who follow the basic principles of leadership to create opportunities for their

employees and to give unwavering commitment and dedication will succeed (Senge).
 161

Leaders who exercise their authority to draw their employees effort will fail because the

employee will be reluctant to perform his or her best with extra effort (Drucker, 2007).

Additionally, one common characteristic of high-achieving employees is self-

determination (LaRue, Childs, & Larson, 2004). When the employees do what they have

to do, they comply with an order. When the employees decide what to do, they will

volunteer their affective commitment. The results of this study can attest to this concept.

Suggested by the foregoing is that the implementation of the proposed leadership

model requires integration of innovative, transformational leadership, and a new

decision-making paradigm. Concisely, to gain and sustain competitive advantage, the

leaders must involve their employees in the participative decision-making process.

Briefly described in the following subsection is the decision-making paradigm.

Decision-making Paradigm

The design of the decision-making paradigm in the proposed leadership model

consists of the following components: (a) a decision SWAT team (special weapon and

tactics), (b) a communication team, and (c) a decision management team. Described

below are the responsibilities of each team. The charts in Figure 19 below depict the

integration of this decision-making process and the leadership model presented in this

study.

SWAT team. Members of this team are organizational members who make

decisions on behalf of the entire organization. The teams authority to make decision can

be of centralization or decentralization depending upon the situation, the issue, and the

decision-making ability of the employees. The ultimate missions of this team are as

follows. First, the team would make decisions or assign decision-making authority to the
 162

next level in a cost-effective manner given the problem situation from an organizational

perspective. The team would define the specialization level, which is most appropriate for

the complexity of the situation. The team would maintain the flexibility levels with a dual

structure to handle for both simple and complex decisions.

Communication team. Members of this team are to provide the SWAT team with

data and information about the internal conditions and external environments of the

organization. They communicate and coordinate the central activities for making

decisions to ensure that the SWAT team can make informed decisions in an effective and

timely manner. This team is also responsible for minimizing the number of contacts in

communication chains because any delays and distortions in communication will affect

the quality of decisions. The use of communication technologies will facilitate the teams

activities.

Figure 20: Integration of decision-making process and leadership model.

Legend. OP: Organizational Performance. JS: Job Satisfaction. AC: Affective Commitment
 163

Decision management team. As the decision-making processes are essentially a

consequence of loosely connected routines and in most situations, they are difficult to

anticipate. Coordination and management of these processes are critical. Members of this

team are responsible for the proactive management of the decision-making processes as

they are the central activity of the organization. They need to review and select the most

urgent, important among candidate problems, and assign priority accordingly. In a global

organization, such as the study company, managing the decision-making process is

critical to the performance of the organization.

Summary

Many factors can affect organizational performance. A number of researchers

have found that leadership is one of the most significant contributors to organizational

performance (Agle, Nagarajan, Sonnenfeld, & Srinivasan, 2006; DeClerk, 2008; Felfe &

Schyns, 2004; Peterson, Martorana, Smith, & Owens, 2003). Because the authors

research findings were from research studies conducted in other industries than

telecommunications, this research study took place in the telecommunications industry,

examining the direct relationship between leadership and organizational performance at a

major communications company in the United States. The sample consists of 151 IT

workers and managers of the study company who participated in the survey and provided

usable data. The method of data collection included the use of a Web-based Likert-type

survey and statistical analysis including descriptive statistics, t-tests, analysis of variance,

multivariate relationships, multiple correlation and regression analyses.

Presented in the preceding sections were the key findings of the research study,

the implications for leaders and organizations, the limitations and delimitations of the
 164

study, and the recommendations for both future research and the leadership team at the

study company. A list of recommendations is a response to the limitations, delimitations,

reservations, and weaknesses related to this study. The findings indicate that (a) a

significant relationship exists between leadership styles and organizational performance,

and (b) job satisfaction and affective commitment mediate the said relationship in the IT

organization at the study company. The empirical results, produced by the study, may

contribute to the body of leadership knowledge and practice, and provide IT leaders and

managers with a new, validated leadership style that is transformational, visionary,

innovative, participative, and employee-oriented.

Conclusions

The first null hypothesis (Ho1) predicted that no relationship exists between

leadership styles and organizational performance in the IT organization at the study

company. The findings rejected the first null hypothesis. The second null hypothesis

(Ho2) predicted that employee job satisfaction would not mediate the relationship

between the leadership style and organizational performance. The findings rejected the

second null hypothesis. The third null hypothesis (Ho3) predicted that employee affective

commitment would not mediate the relationship between the leadership style and

organizational performance. The findings also rejected the third null hypothesis.

The results have validated the rejection of all three null hypotheses and supported

the acceptance of all three alternate hypotheses. The concrete answers to the three

research questions are as follows. First, there is a significant relationship between

leadership styles and organizational performance. Second, employee job satisfaction

 165

mediates the said relationship. Third, employee affective commitment mediates the said

relationship.

In a globalization, post-modern era, effectively managing high-tech organizations

is critical to maintaining sustainable success in most business firms (Carr, 2005; Porter,

2004; Sharma, Stone, & Ekinci, 2009; Tallon, 2008). The practice of effective leadership

is essential to helping employees improve job performance and satisfaction (Bass &

Riggio, 2006; Bennis, 2007; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; LaRue et al., 2006). Performing

exceptionally well and doing more with less through supportive leadership has become a

mantra in todays globally competitive market (Simon, Poston, & Kettinger, 2009).

Increasing employee job satisfaction and stimulating employee affective commitment can

provide both tangible and intangible benefits to the organization (LaRue et al.). Proposed

in this study was a new leadership model that focuses on innovation, value-laden,

employee-oriented vision, and participative decision-making paradigm.

 166

REFERENCES

Abdi, H (2007). Bonferroni and idk corrections for multiple comparisons. In N.J.

Salkind (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage. http://www.utdallas.edu/~herve/Abdi-Bonferroni2007-pretty.pdf.

Agle, B. R., N. J. Nagarajan, N. J., Sonnenfeld J. A., & Srinivasan, D. (2006). Does CEO

charisma matter? An empirical analysis of the relationships among organizational

performance, environmental uncertainty, and top management teams' perceptions

of CEO charisma. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 161-174. Retrieved

October 10, 2007, from ProQuest database.

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), 1-18. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from ProQuest

database.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment

to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 49(3), 252-276. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An

examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295. Retrieved

March 15, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire sampler set:

Manual, forms, and scoring key (3rd ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.

Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.mindgarden.com/products/mlqr.htm

 167

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire sampler set:

Manual, forms and scoring key (3rd ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.

Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.mindgarden.com/products/mlqr.htm.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and

organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and

moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8),

951-968.

Baldoni, J. (2003). Great communication secrets of great leaders. New York: McGraw

Hill.

Barbuto Jr., J. E. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational

leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 11(4), 26-40. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from EBSCOHost database

Barbuto, J. E., & Bruback, M. E. (2006). The emotional intelligence of transformational

leaders: A field study of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology,

146(1), 51-64. Retrieved March 10, 2006 from ABI/Inform Global database.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free

Press.

Bass, B. M. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.
 168

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (2004). The multifactor leadership questionnaire: Sampler set.

Mendo Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance

by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(2), 207-225. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bennis, W. (2003). On becoming a leader. New York: Perseus.

Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world. American

Psychologist, 62(1), 25.

Blanchard, H. K., Hersey, P. J., & Johnson, E. (2000). Management of organizational

behaviors: Leading human resources (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Blanchard, H. K., & Hodges, P. (2006). The servant leader: Transforming your heart,

head, hands & habits. Nashville, TN: J. Countryman.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional

leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901-910.

Retrieved May 6, 2006, from EBSCOHost database.

Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 35, 307-311. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from ProQuest database.
 169

Brewer, G. A. (2005). In the eye of the storm: Frontline supervisors and federal agency

performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 505-

527. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Brymer, E., & Gray, T. (2006). Effective leadership: Transformational or transactional?

Australian Journal of Outdoor Education. Milton, 10(2), 13-19.

Burns, J. M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational

culture: Based on the competing values framework. The Jossey-Bass business &

management series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carr, N. G. (2005). The end of corporate computing. MIT Sloan Management Review,

46(3), 67-73.

Chen, H. C., Beck, S. L., & Amos, L. K. (2005). Leadership styles and nursing faculty

job satisfaction in Taiwan. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(4), 374-380.

Retrieved May 5, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Child, J., & McGrath, R. G. (2001). Organizations unfettered: Organizational form in an

information-intensive economy. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1135-

1148. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Chun, Y. H., & Rainey, H. G. (2005). Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in

U.S. Federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,

15(4), 529-557. Retrieved April 26, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Cohen, A. R., & Bradford, D. L. (2005). Influence without authority (2nd ed.). New

York: John Wiley & Sons.

 170

Cole, D. (2009). Relationship between leadership style and bank performance among

minority-owned depository institutions. D.M. dissertation, University of Phoenix,

United States -- Arizona. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses

@ University of Phoenix.(Publication No. AAT 3357440).

Collins, M. (2007, February). The interaction between organizational rewards and

budget performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences, Boston.

Cooper, D. J. (2003). Leadership for follower commitment. Burlington, NJ: Butterworth-

Heinemann.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business research methods (9th ed.). New

York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Corrigan, P. W., Lickey, S. E., Campion, J., & Rashid, F. (2000). Mental health team

leadership and consumers' satisfaction and quality of life. Psychiatric Services,

51, 781-785. Retrieved March 28, 2009, from http://www.psychservices

.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/51/6/781

Creative Research Systems. (2009). The survey system. Petaluma, CA. Retrieved

November 13, 2008, from http://www.surveysystem.com/

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Crews, J. (2006). Week one lecture. Retrieved July 25, 2006, from University of Phoenix

Newsgroup, DBA.07-25.DBAA04C242-COM705.Course-Materials

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

 171

Cronbach, L. J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and

successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391-

418. Retrieved April 02, 2010, from Research Library. (Doc. ID: 688831721).

Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2005). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public

problems in a shared-power world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Curry, J. P., Wakefield, D. S., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1991). On the causal

ordering of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The Academy of

Management Journal, 29(4), 847-858. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from ProQuest

database.

Daenzer, B. (2009). Quantitative correlation of leadership styles and job stress in a

Midwest United States auto company. D.M. dissertation, University of Phoenix,

United States -- Arizona. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses

@ University of Phoenix.(Publication No. AAT 3350853).

DeClerk, C. (2008). The relationship between retail store manager leadership styles and

employee generational cohort, performance, and satisfaction. D.M. dissertation,

University of Phoenix, United States -- Arizona. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from

Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix.(Publication No. AAT

3302633).

Deming, E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004).

Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 17(2), 177. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from ProQuest

database.
 172

Drucker, P. F. (2007). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. New Brunswick,

NJ: Transaction.

Duckett, H., & Macfarlane, E. (2003). Emotional intelligence and transformational

leadership in retailing. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5/6),

309-317. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Dvir, T., Kass, N., & Shamir, B. (2004). The emotional bond: Vision and organizational

commitment among high-tech employees. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 17(2), 126-143. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Elbashir, M. Z., Collier, P. A., & Davern, M. J. (2008). Measuring the effects of business

intelligence systems: The relationship between business process and

organizational performance. International Journal of Accounting Information

Systems, 9(3), 135-153.

Elenkov, D. S. (2002). Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian

companies. Journal of Business Research, 55, 467-480.

Emery, C. R., & Barker, K. J. (2007). The effects of transactional and transformational

leadership styles on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of

customer contact personnel. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication

and Conflict, 11(1), 77-90. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Evans, J. R., & Lindsay, W. M. (2005). Management and control of quality. Mason, OH:

Thomson South-Western.

Favara, L. (2009). Examining followership styles and their relationship with job

satisfaction and performance. Ph.D. dissertation, Northcentral University, United

 173

States -- Arizona. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full

Text.(Publication No. AAT 3356567).

Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relationship between job

satisfaction and health: A meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental

Medicine, 62,105-112.

Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2004). Is similarity in leadership related to organizational

outcomes? The case of transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, 10(4), 92-102. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from EBSCOhost

database.

Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz

(ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.

Fiedler, F. E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and training: One view of the

future. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 241-250. Retrieved March 11, 2010,

from ProQuest database.

Fogler, H. S., & LeBlanc, S. E. (2008). Strategies for creative problem solving (2nd ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Friedman, S. D. (2008). Total leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Gartner. (2009). Gartner reveals five business intelligence predictions for 2009 and

beyond. Gartner Newsroom. Retrieved from

http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=856714

Gellis, Z. D. (2001). Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional

leadership in healthcare. Social Work Research, 25(1), 17-26. Retrieved March

28, 2008, from ProQuest database.

 174

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and

reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Godzyk, K. (2008). Critical thinking disposition and transformational leadership

behaviors: A correlational study. D.M. dissertation, University of Phoenix, United

States -- Arizona. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses @

University of Phoenix.(Publication No. AAT 3354216).

Greenleaf center for servant leadership. (2002). Retrieved May 27, 2008, from

http://www.greenleaf.org/index.html

Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of

legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Gozubenli, M. (2010). An investigation of leadership styles in a large American police

department: Effects on officers' extra effort, perceptions of leader effectiveness,

and satisfaction with leaders. Ed.D. dissertation, Spalding University, United

States -- Kentucky. Retrieved March 31, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full

Text.(Publication No. AAT 3390246).

Haag, S., Cummings, M., & McCubbrey, D. (2005). Management information systems

for the information age (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Hancott, D. E. (2005). The relationship between transformational leadership and

organizational performance in the largest public companies in Canada. Retrieved

July 1, 2009, from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (AAT No.

3159704)

Hannum, K. M., Martineau, J. W., & Reinelt, C. (2007). The handbook of leadership

development evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

 175

Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J. R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership

behaviors and subordinate resilience. Journal of Leadership and Organizational

Studies, 11(2), 2-14. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from EBSCOHost database.

Hart, M. (2007). Design. International Journal of Childbirth Education, 22(1), 22-26.

Retrieved April 28, 2008, from EBSCOhost database.

Hayashi, A., & Ewert, A. (2006). Outdoor leaders' emotional intelligence and

transformational leadership. The Journal of Experiential Education, 28(3), 222-

242. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Helland, M. R., & Winston, B. E. (2005). Towards a deeper understanding of hope and

leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(2), 42-54.

Retrieved May 23, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M., & Beckhard, R. (1997). The leader of the future. San

Francisco, CA. The Drucker Foundation, Jossey-Bass.

Herzberg, F. (2002). The motivation-hygiene concept. In K. Heldman (Ed.), PMP:

Project management professional study guide. London, UK: Sybex International.

Hirt, M. J. K. (2004). Capacity building: The self-reflective leader. Public Management,

86(1), 12-16. Retrieved April 29, 2009, from ProQuest database.

House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L.

Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL:

Southern Illinois University Press.

Hulsing, R.(2008). Leadership and entrepreneurial success: The relationship of leadership

factors and economically successful entrepreneurial endeavors. D.M. dissertation,

University of Phoenix, United States -- Arizona. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from
 176

Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix.(Publication No. AAT

3345041).

Humphreys, J. H., & Einstein, W. O. (2004). Leadership and temperament congruence:

Extending the expectancy model of work motivation. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 10(4), 58-79. Retrieved November 15, 2007 from

ProQuest database.

Hunter, J.C. (2004). The worlds most powerful leadership principle: how to become a

servant leader. New York: Crown Business.

Hwang, I., & Kuo, J. (2006). Effects of job satisfaction and perceived alternative

employment opportunities on turnover intention An examination of public

sector organizations. The Journal of American Academy of Business 8(2), 1-7.

Jones, G. R. (2004). Organizational theory, design, and change (4th ed). Upper Saddle

River, NY: Prentice Hall.

Juran, J. M. (2005). The quality trilogy. In J. C. Wood & M. C. Wood (Eds.). Critical

evaluations in business and management (pp. 54-77). New York: Taylor &

Francis.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2005). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive

performance. Harvard Business Review, 83(7/8), 100-109. Retrieved August 25,

2008, from EBSCOhost database.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006). How to implement a new strategy without

disrupting your organization. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 100-109.

Retrieved May 27, 2009, from EBSCOhost database.

 177

Kim, S. (2005). Individual-level factors and organizational performance in government

organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 245-

261.

King, G., Murray, C., Saloman, J., & Tandon, A. (2004). Enhancing the validity and

comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science

Review, 98, 191-207. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from the CJO Abstract

database.

Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B., & Swart, J., (2005). Satisfaction with

HR practices and commitment to the organization: Why one size does not fit all.

Human Resource Management Journal, 15(4), 9-29.

Kirkbride, P. (2006). Developing transformational leaders: The full range leadership

model in action. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(1), 23.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge: How to get

extraordinary things done in organizations (4rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

LaRue, B., Childs, P., & Larson, K. (2004). Leading organizations from the inside out:

Unleashing the collaborative genius of action-learning teams. New York: Wiley.

Lawler E. E., III, & Porter, L. W. (2008). The effect of performance on job satisfaction.

Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 7(1), 20 28.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (pp. 12971347).

Chicago: Rand McNally.

 178

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six

recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review,

29(3), 388-403.

Luftman, J. N. (2004). Managing the information technology resource: Leadership in the

information age. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

MarketTools, Inc. (2008). Online surveys by Zoomerang: The best solution for fast, easy

feedback. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from http://www.zoomerang.com/online-

surveys/

Maslow, A. H. (1998). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

McAdams, A. C. (2006). An investigation of the relationship between users and

providers of information technology services for improved IT effectiveness.

Retrieved November 20, 2007 from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.

(ATT No. 3211803)

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill Book

Company.

McGregor, D., & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (2006). The human side of enterprise. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Melville, N. Kraemer, K., & Gurbuxani, V. (2004). Review: Information technology and

organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value, MIS

Quarterly, 28(2), 283-322. Retrieved June 27, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Miller, D. C. (1991). Handbook of research design and social measurement (5th ed.).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

 179

Mintzberg, H., Lampel, J., Quinn, J. B., & Ghoshal, S. (Eds.). (2003). The strategy

process concepts, contexts, cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Moore, E. M. (2007). The impact of leadership style on organizational effectiveness:

Leadership in action within United Way of America. Doctoral Dissertation,

Capella University.

Muterera, J. (2008). The relationship between leadership theory behaviors, follower

attitudes and behaviors, and organizational performance in United States county

governments. Ph.D. dissertation, Western Michigan University, United States --

Michigan. Retrieved March 31, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.

(Publication No. AAT 3303472).

Ndambakuwa, Y., & Mufunda, J. (2006). Performance appraisal system impact on

university academic staff: Job satisfaction and productivity. Performance

Improvement Quarterly, 19(1), 117-127. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from ProQuest

database.

Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Northouse, P. G. (2006). Leadership theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Peterson, R. S., Martorana, P. V., Smith, D. B., & Owens, P. D. (2003). The impact of

chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: One

mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 88(5), 795-808. Retrieved June 27, 2009, from ProQuest

database.
 180

Pfeffer, J. (2003). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Porter, M. E. (2004). Competitive advantage (7th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and

competing demands of high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ray, N. M., & Tabor, S. W. (2003). Several issues affect e-research validity. Marketing

News, 37(19), 50-53. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from EBSCOhost database.

Redman, T., & Snape, E. (2005). Unpacking commitment: Multiple loyalties and

employee behavior. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 301-328. Retrieved

June 27, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb:

Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145154.

Robinson, M. L. (2007). Week 8 lecture. Retrieved October 6, 2007, from

http://classroom.phoenix.edu/afm203/secure/view-thread.jspa?threadID=3979266

Roi, R. C. (2006). Leadership, corporate culture and financial performance. Doctoral

Dissertation, University of San Francisco.

Rosenthal, D. A., Hursh, N., Lui, J., Isom, R., & Sasson, J. (2007, Winter). A survey of

current disability management practice: Emerging trends and implications for

certification. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50(2), 76-77. Retrieved

February 24, 2010, from EBSCO database.

Salkind, N. J. (2006). Exploring research (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education.

Schultz, E. W., & Edington, A. B. (2007). Employee health and presenteeism: A

systematic review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 17(3), 547-580.

 181

Schweizer, K. (2004, December). 24th annual salary & job satisfaction survey: Cents

of status quo. The Magazine for Operations and Manufacturing Management.

Retrieved February 21, 2007, from

http://www.foodengineeringmag.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/coverstory/BNPC

overStoryItem/0,6326,138969,00.html

Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. (2007). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems.

(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Selden, S. C., & Sowa, J. E. (2004). Testing a multi-dimensional model of organizational

performance: Prospect and problems. Journal of Public Administration Research

and Theory, 14(3), 395-416. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization.

New York: Doubleday.

Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. (2006). When exploration backfires: Unintended

consequences of multilevel organizational search. Academy of Management

Journal, 49(4), 779-795.

Simon, M. K. (2006). Dissertation & Scholarly Research. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt

Publishing.

Singer, M. (2004, March 1). Shortage of IT staff approaching: Employers should prepare

now. Retrieved March 2, 2004, from

http://www.startribune.com/stories/541/4632035.html

Snow, C.C., & Hrebiniak, L. G. (2002). Strategy, distinctive competence, and

organizational Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2), 317-336.

Retrieved March 17, 2009, from ProQuest database.

 182

Spears, L. C. (2004). Practicing servant-leadership. Leader to Leader, 34, 7-11. Retrieved

July 21, 2008, from ProQuest database.

SPSS Inc. (2009). SPSS statistics. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from http://www.spss.com/

statistics/

Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant

leadership: a difference in leader focus. Leadership and Organization

Development Journal, 25(4), 349-361.

Strassburger, K., & Bretz, F. (2008). Compatible simultaneous lower confidence bounds

for the Holm procedure and other Bonferroni-based closed tests. Stat Med.

Retrieved April 16, 2010, from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/sim.3338

Strategos. (2005). Lean manufacturing - A socio-technical System (STS). Retrieved

March 7, 2009, from http://www.strategosinc.com/socio-technical.htm

SurveyMonkey. (2010). Create surveys like a pro. Retrieved March 11, 2010, from

http://www.surveymonkey.com/

Terez, T. (2002). 22 keys for creating a meaningful workplace. Avon, MA: Adams Media

Corporation.

Thompson, J. (2003). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative

theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). The t-test. Retrieved March 11, 2010, from

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/stat_t.php

Vanneste, J. M. (2005). Scheins career anchor model and its relevance to career

satisfaction: A case study of engineers at Micro Motors. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Capella University.

 183

Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Wang, P., & Shi, K. (2005).

Transformational leadership and work-related attitudes: The moderating effects of

collective and self-efficacy across cultures. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 11(3), 2-16.

Watson, L. (2008). The influence of supervisor leadership behaviors on motivators

affecting job satisfaction of medical imaging professionals. D.M. dissertation,

University of Phoenix, United States -- Arizona. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from

Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix.(Publication No. AAT

3302629).

Weiner, Y. (2002). Commitment in organization: A normative view. Academy of

Management Review, 7, 418-428. Retrieved May 23, 2009, from ProQuest

database.

Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the

Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire. Work adjustment project industrial relations

center, University of Minnesota. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from ProQuest

database.

Whittington, J. L., & Evans, B. (2005). General issues in management. Problems &

Perspectives in Management, 2005(2), 114-122.

Wilson, C. (2008). A relational study of leadership spirituality and organizational

performance in home health care agencies. D.M. dissertation, University of

Phoenix, United States -- Arizona. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from Dissertations &

Theses @ University of Phoenix.(Publication No. AAT 3313181).

 184

Windsor, K. (2009). Correlation of nurse leadership style to organizational commitment

of foreign-educated nurses in U.S. hospitals. (D.H.A. dissertation, University of

Phoenix, United States Arizona). Retrieved July 24, 2009, from Dissertations &

Theses @ University of Phoenix.(Publication No. AAT 3353755).

Wren, D. A. (2004). The evolution of management thought (5th ed.). New York, NY: John

Wiley and Sons.

G. A. (2009). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Zammuto, R. F. (2004). A comparison of multiple constituency models of organizational

effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 606-616. Retrieved March

11, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Zhu, W., Chew, I. K. H., & Spangler, W. D. (2005). CEO transformational leadership and

organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human

resource management. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 39-52. Retrieved August 06,

2009, from ProQuest database.

Zinbarg,R., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbachs alpha, Revelles beta,

and McDonalds omega: Their relations with each other and two alternative

conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70, 122133.

 185

APPENDIX A: EMAIL INVITATION

 186

To: Leaders Email Address

Subject: Invitation to Participate in a Study on Leadership

Dear <Name of Leader>

As a leader in our IT organization, you are part of a carefully selected sample of
individuals who are invited to participate in a doctoral research study entitled
Quantitative Correlation of Leadership Styles and Organizational Performance in an
American Communications Company. My expectation is that this study will help
researchers and practitioners understand how leadership behaviors, employee job
satisfaction, and employee commitment influence the performance of organizations.

I am writing in advance because I have found most people like to know ahead of time
that they will be contacted. With your busy schedule, it is beneficiary to inform you that
you will be receiving a URL link to a survey via email within a few weeks.

I appreciate your time and consideration. It is only with the generous help of leaders like
you that the benefits of this study, which include a significant contribution to the field of
study and practice, can be achieved.

Kindest Regards,

Hung Q. Kieu
Doctoral Student, University of Phoenix Online
Email: xxxxx@email.phoenix.edu
Mobile: ### ###-#### (Mountain Time)
 187

To: Employees Email Address

Subject: Invitation to Participate in a Study on Leadership

Dear <Name of Employee>

As an employee of our IT organization, you are part of a carefully selected sample of
individuals who are invited to participate in a doctoral research study entitled
Quantitative Correlation of Leadership Styles and Organizational Performance in an
American Communications Company. My expectation is that this study will help
researchers and practitioners understand how leadership behaviors, employee job
satisfaction, and employee commitment influence the performance of organizations.

I am writing in advance because I have found most people like to know ahead of time
that they will be contacted. With your busy schedule, it is beneficiary to inform you that
you will be receiving a URL link to a survey via email within a few weeks.

I appreciate your time and consideration. It is only with the generous help of employees
like you that the benefits of this study, which include a significant contribution to the
field of study and practice, can be achieved.

Kindest Regards,

Hung Q. Kieu
Doctoral Student, University of Phoenix Online
Email: xxxxx@email.phoenix.edu
Mobile: ### ###-#### (Mountain Time)
 188

APPENDIX B: PERMISSION TO USE THE PREMISES

 189

Although the researcher has access to the companys electronic directory, the

survey questionnaire was sent to the participants home email addresses. This is in

compliance with the companys polices that prohibit the use of company resources.

Permission to use premises was unnecessary and was not sought in this study.
 190

APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT

 191

Dear <name>:

I am a student at the University of Phoenix working on a Doctorate in Management,

Organizational Leadership. I am conducting a research study that examines the
relationship between leadership styles and organizational performance and determines if
employee job satisfaction and commitment meditate that relationship.

You have been randomly selected to participate in this research study. As a participant,
your participation will involve completing an online survey, which should not take more
than 20 minutes of your time to complete. Once this consent form is signed and returned
to my email address, you will receive an email instructing you where and how to
complete the online survey.

In this research study, there are no foreseeable risks to you. The intent of the study is to
produce data that is relevant to helping leaders identify effective leadership styles that
would help generate higher levels of follower satisfaction and affective commitment,
which may lead to higher levels of organizational performance resulting in greater
profitability for the organization.

Confidentiality Statement
Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to
withdraw from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to
yourself. The results of the research study may be published but your name, your
organizations name will not be used and your results will be maintained in strictest
confidence. No exceptions!

If you have any questions concerning the research study, please contact me via email.

Kindest Regards,

Hung Q. Kieu
Doctoral Student, University of Phoenix Online
Email: xxxxx@email.phoenix.edu
Mobile: ### ###-#### (Mountain Time)

By accepting acknowledgement of this form I acknowledge that I understand the nature of the study, the
potential risks to me as a participant, and the means by which my identity will be kept confidential. My
selection of acknowledgement of this form also indicates that I am 18 years or older and that I give my
permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described.

________________________________ _________________
Name (print) Date

________________________________ _________________
Name (signature) Date
 192

APPENDIX D: LEADERSHIP SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

193
 194

APPENDIX E: EMPLOYEE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

195
 196

APPENDIX F: PERMISSION TO USE AN EXISTING SURVEY

 197

----- Original Message -----

From: info@mindgarden.com
To: xxxxx@email.phoenix.edu
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 12:55 PM
Subject: Permission from Mind Garden, Inc.

This is to confirm that upon purchase of Permission to Reproduce you

will have our permission to use the MLQ.

Best,
Valorie Keller
Mind Garden, Inc.
 198

APPENDIX G: E-MAIL WITH A LINK TO SURVEY

 199

______________
(Date)

Dear Research Participant,

Some time ago, I asked your participation in a doctoral research study to examine the
relationship between leadership styles and organizational performance. Thank you for
accepting my invitation. Today, the survey is finally ready!

The survey has four sections. Each section includes instructions and consists of several
short questions or statements. The URL link to the survey is below. Please click on it or
type the entire address into your web browser:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/drkieu-ratersurvey

Thank you so much for helping me with this research study. If you have any questions or
concerns, please feel free to contact me via email or phone.

Kindest Regards,

Hung Q. Kieu
Doctoral Student, University of Phoenix Online
Email: xxxxx@email.phoenix.edu
Mobile: ### ###-#### (Mountain Time)
 200

APPENDIX H: END OF SURVEY THANK YOU

 201

Dear <Participant Name>

About two or three months ago, I asked for your help in completing the survey
questionnaire regarding my research study on leadership and organizational performance.
Please accept my sincere appreciation for participating in this study. Your participation
greatly contributed to the success of this study, and I am very thankful for your time.

If you would like a copy of the survey results, please let me know. I can be reached at the
email address and phone number below. Again, thank you very much for your help.

Kindest Regards,

Hung Q. Kieu
Doctoral Student, University of Phoenix Online
Email: xxxxx@email.phoenix.edu
Mobile: ### ###-#### (Mountain Time)
 202

APPENDIX I: WEB-BASED SURVEY SAMPLES

203
204
205
206