A STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLES

ON EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION AND COMMITMENT:

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF SELECTED
ORGANISATIONS IN CORPORATE SECTOR

Dissertation Submitted to the Padmashree Dr D. Y. Patil University,Navi

Mumbai, Department of Business Management in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

Submitted by

RIMA GHOSE CHOWDHURY

Enrolment Number DYP-PhD-116100003

Research Guide
Dr. R. GOPAL
DIRECTOR, DEAN& HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

PADMASHREE Dr. D.Y. PATIL UNIVERSITY,

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT,
Sector 4, Plot No. 10,CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614
November 2014
A STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLES

ON EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION AND COMMITMENT:AN

EMPIRICAL STUDY OF SELECTED ORGANISATIONS

IN CORPORATE SECTOR
This Thesis Is Dedicated to my Mother Late Ms Supti Ghose

who made me believe in myself

 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the thesis titled, “A study of the Impact of Leadership

Styles on Employee Motivation and Commitment: An empirical study of

selected organisations in Corporate sector” submitted for the Award of

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) in Business Management at PadmashreeDr. D.Y.

Patil University, Department of Business Management is my original work and

the thesis has not formed the basis for the award of any degree, associate

ship, fellowship or any other similar titles.

The material borrowed from other sources, incorporated in the thesis has

been duly acknowledged.

I understand that I myself could be held responsible for plagiarism, if any

declared later on.

The research papers published are based on the research conducted in the

course of the study and not borrowed from other sources.

Place: Navi Mumbai. Signature of the Student

Date: Enrolment no: 116100003

i
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis titled“A study of the Impact of Leadership

Styles on Employee Motivation and Commitment : An empirical study of

selected organisations in Corporate sector”,is a bonafide research work

carried out byRima Ghose Chowdhury, student of Doctor of

Philosophy(BusinessManagement), at PadmashreeDr. D. Y. Patil University‟s

Department of Business Management, Navi Mumbai during the year 2011-

2014, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Business Management and that the dissertation has

not formed the basis for the award previously of any degree, diploma,

associateship, fellowship or any other similar titleof any University or

Institution.

Also it is certified that the thesis represents independent work on the part of
the candidate.

Place: Navi Mumbai

Date:

Signature of the Signature of Guide

Head of the Department

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am grateful to the Almighty, who has blessed me with the fulfilment of a long-

cherished academic dream.

I am indebted to PadmashreeDr. D.Y. Patil University, Department of

Business Management, which has enabled me with this opportunity of

academic exploration.

This dissertation would not have been possible if the Director and Head of the

Department of Business Management of PadmashreeDr.D.Y.Patil University,

my Guide and Mentor Dr.R.Gopal did not provide me with his constant

encouragement,suggestions,constructive comments and motivation.My

heartfelt gratitude is due, for his scholarly guidance, approachability and deep

concern for my skill enhancement, both as an academician and corporate

practitioner. I would always cherish the intellectually stimulating conversations

with him for the betterment of the research.

This thesis is enriched with the contribution of several academicians, stalwarts

in corporate world, my colleagues and ex-colleagues, my supervisor, my

friends and other well-wishers. Not all contributions have been on paper, but

my interactions with them have helped me see things in a different

perspective, and their support has helped me fight the battle of multiple

conflicting priorities.In addition, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to all the HR

heads, who have enabled me to collect data from their organisations and who

have helped me establish connect with other HR heads who could help me,

and I thank all my respondents as well.

iii
The best and worst moments of my doctoral journey have been shared mostly

with my family, most of all with my best friend, my husband Anirban Dutta

Chowdhury, who has seen my frustrations, my sacrifices and has silently,

steadily egged me on to tread the path of quality. His support, both in my

professional career and academic journey, has been extraordinary.

The blessings of my parents, Late Ms Supti Ghose and Mr Amalendu Ghose

and my in-laws Ms Purabi Dutta Chowdhury and Late Mr Ajit Kr Dutta

Chowdhuryhelped me sail through this enriching but difficult phase. Another

staunch supporter was my seven year-old daughter Abhilasha, who, along

with her father, has endured my long hours on the computer and at the library

and was patient with my seemingly endless nights and weekends of study.

THANK YOU ALL…

(Rima Ghose Chowdhury)

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter no Sub- Title Page no
section
Preliminary Declaration i
Certificate ii
Acknowledgement iii
Table of Contents v
List of Tables viii
List of Figures x
List of Abbreviations xii
Executive Summary xiii
Introduction 1
1.1 History of Leadership Styles 3
1 1.2 The Concept of Commitment 8
1.3 The Concept of Motivation 9
1.4 Leadership in Indian Corporates 14
Review Of Literature 21
2.1 Theories and Background of 25
Leadership
2.2 Recent theories of Leadership 38
Styles
2 2.3 Employee Commitment 47
2.4 Employee Motivation 63
2.5 Employee Commitment within 65
Corporate Sector
2.6 Employee Motivation within 66
Corporate Sector
2.7 Employee Retention in Corporate 68
Sector
2.8 Gap in Research 77
Corporate sector in India 78
3.1 Structure of Corporates – The 82
Organisational Framework
3 3.2 Corporate Sector – Oil and 96
Petroleum
3.3 Corporate Sector – Fast Moving 99
Consumer Goods
3.4 Leadership in Oil and Petroleum 101
sector
3.5 Leadership in FMCG sector 104
Objectives, Hypothesis And 113
Research Methodology
4.1 Statement of Research Problem 114
4.2 Research Questions 115
4.3 Scope of the Study 115
4 4.4 Purpose of the Study 116
4.5 Objectives 116

v
 4.6 Statement of Hypothesis 117
4.7 Research Methodology – 118
Sampling Design
4.8 Data Processing 123
4.9 Limitations of the Study 135
Research Findings 137
5.1 Introduction 138
5.2 Pilot Study Report 138
5.3 Results - Description of 140
Respondents’ Characteristics in
Pilot Study
5 5.4 Testing the Hypotheses 150
5.5 Main Study Report 160
5.6 Results - Description of 161
Respondents’ Characteristics in
Main Research Study
5.7 Testing the Hypothesis of the 168
Main Research Study
5.8 Conclusion 238
Discussions And Conclusions 241
6 6.1 Discussion 242
6.2 Conclusion 251
Recommendations and 254
Suggestions
7.1 Recommendations 255
7
7.2 Suggestions 260
7.3 Scope for Further Studies 263
Bibliography 266
8 Annexure I - Questionnaires 296
Annexure II – Tables and Graphs 308

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Description Page

no no
4.1 City-wise Distribution of Respondents 119
4.2 Acceptable levels of Cronbach alpha coefficient 133
5.3.1 (i) For Pilot Study - Frequency Distribution by Age 140
(ii) Frequency distribution by Educational 142
Qualification
(iii) Frequency distribution by Marital Status 143
(iv) Frequency distribution by Occupational status 144
(v) Frequency distribution by Compensation 145
(vi) Frequency distribution by Length of service 146
(vii) Frequency distribution by Gender 147
(viii) Frequency distribution by Internal Promotion 148
5.3.2 (i) Data on Education of Managers as filled by 149
Respondents
(ii) Data on Gender of Managers as filled by 149
Respondents
(iii) Descriptive Statistics of Managers as filled by 150
Respondents
5.4 (i)Reliability statistics of Leadership styles and 153
Employee Commitment
(ii) Correlation of Transformational, Transactional 154
and Laissez faire leadership styles and
Employee Commitment
(iii)Reliability statistics of Leadership styles and 158
Work Motivation
(iv) Correlation of Transformational, Transactional 158
and Laissez faire leadership styles and Work
Motivation
5.6 (i) For Main Research - Frequency Distribution of 161
by Age
(ii) Frequency distribution by Education 162
(iii) Frequency distribution by Marital Status 163
(iv) Frequency distribution by Occupational status 164
(v) Frequency distribution by Compensation 164
(vi) Frequency distribution by Length of service 165
(vii) Frequency distribution by Gender 167
(viii) Frequency distribution by Internal Promotion 167
5.7.1 (i) Reliability – Transformational Style 169
(ii) Reliability – Transactional Style 171
(iii) Reliability – Laissez faire Style 172
(iv) Reliability – Work Motivation 174
(v) Reliability – Organisational Commitment 175

vii
 (vi) Inter correlations among the Leadership Styles 177
and (a) Employee Commitment Measure and (b)
Work Motivation
(vii) Regression Analysis – Leadership Style on Work 183
Motivation
5.7.2 (i) ANOVA By Length of service 197
(ii) ANOVA By Age 201
(iii) ANOVA by Educational Qualification 204
(iv) ANOVA by Occupational status 207
(v) ANOVA by Monthly Compensation 211
(vi) ANOVA by Length of Service 215
(vii) ANOVA by Internal Promotion 219
5.7.3 (i) Mean Standard Deviation of all Variables 222
(ii) Frequency Distribution of Employee Commitment 224
Scale
(iii) Frequency Distribution of Work Motivation Scale 225
(iv) Frequency Distribution of Transformational 227
Leadership Scale
(v) Frequency Distribution of Transactional 228
Leadership Scale
(vi) Frequency Distribution of Laissez faire Leadership 230
Scale

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

No. Description Page no

1.1 Model of Transformational Leadership 6

1.2 The Supply Demand gap : Booze and Company 16

analysis

2.1 The New Managerial Grid 32

2.2 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs 37

2.3 The Leadership Challenge Model 47

3.1 Role of a Manager 103

3.2 Zinger Model 109

ix
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

APM Administered Pricing Mechanism

LPC Least-Preferred Co-worker

MBEP Management-by-exception leadership

OC Organisational Commitment

UM University of Michigan

OSU Ohio State University

WMS Work Motivation Scale

WOVS Work Orientation Values Survey

MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

x
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Leadership and the different associated styles have an immense impact on

how employees perform and grow, to lead positive organisational outcomes.

The purpose of this study would be to investigate the impact of leadership

styles on motivation and commitment, as a predictor of group or

organizational performance. For ages, Leadership has been a subject of

much debate and deliberation and how the different styles of leadership evoke

different responses from followers. In corporate context the dynamics of these

two entities „the leader‟ and „the led‟ play a key role in shaping the destiny of

the organisation. The study followed the positivist paradigm which provided an

objective reality against which claims were compared and truth was

ascertained. In this descriptive study, the goal has been to discover the

pattern of cause and effect, which can predict phenomenon. As a part of the

descriptive research methodology, data collected has been subjected to the

thinking process in terms of ordered reasoning.A quantitative research

approach has been used to analyze the hypothesized relationships.

The concept of leadership

The global financial crisis has resulted in a wave of unprecedented challenges

to the world‟s economic & political order. In a situation of turbulence, the one

key factor that can make a difference, through foresight and dexterity, is

Leadership. However, as this study was initiated and probe started, to gain

xi
conceptual clarity, the results are baffling. The search for the right definition

has been age-old.According to Bass and Avolio (1997), a single specific

definition of leadership is a very complex task as literature and studies on this

topic are varied and there is no definition which is widely and universally

accepted. Some definitions describe leadership as an act of influence, some

as a process and yet others have looked at a person‟s trait qualities.

Nel et al. (2004) define leadership as the process whereby one individual

influences others to willingly and enthusiastically direct their efforts and

abilities towards attaining defined group or organisational goals.

Cole (2005) defines Leadership as a dynamic process whereby one man

influences other to contribute voluntarily to the realization and attainment of

the goals objectives; aspiration of values of the group that is representing the

essence of Leadership is to help a group or an Organisation to attain

sustainable development and growth.

There are various styles of leading, such as transformational, transactional

and laissez-faire.

Transformational Leadership

Transformational style of Leadership comprises of the components of

idealized influence, inspiration, intellectual stimulation and individualized

consideration and has been suggested widely as the optimum style for

managing change. Bass, Waldman, Avolio, and Bebb (1987) discovered that

leaders scoring higher on Transformational Leadership factors have followers

who display greater levels of transformational behaviors."The goal of

transformational leadership is to “transform” people and organizations in a

xii
literal sense – to change them in mind and heart; enlarge vision, insight, and

understanding; clarify purposes; make behavior congruent with beliefs,

principles, or values; and bring about changes that are permanent, self-

perpetuating, and momentum building." - Steven Covey, Author of 7 Habits of

Highly Successful People.

Transactional Leadership

The locus of the relationship is on an exchange. Each party to the exchange

recognizes the value of the exchange as well as the value of the relationship,

but these bargainers have no reason to remain together subsequent to the

exchange. There is nothing enduring about their relationship; no actual

engagement has occurred. That is, transactional leaders expect certain work

behaviors from their subordinates who are compensated for these behaviors

by both monetary and nonmonetary rewards.

Laissezfaire leadership

Laissez-faire leadership, also known as delegative leadership, is a type of

leadership style in which leaders are hands-off and allow group members to

make the decisions.This style of leadership implies that someone in the

position of a leader does not fulfil leadership responsibilities and practically

does notengage or involve in any meaningfultransactions whatsoever. This

leader does little or nothing to affect either the followers or the outcomes of

their behaviors.Passive or avoidant leadership describes the leaders who

avoid getting involved in the work progress and decision making. Goals and

standards of tasks are not clearly articulated for the followers. This leadership

style consists of passive management-by-exception leadership and are seen

xiii
as withdrawn and uninvolved. Passive management-by-exception leadership

(MBEP) refers to the leaders who avoid being involved until the problems

become more serious and wait with no actions until things go wrong before

taking actions. Leaders who display passive management-by-exception will

not interfere into problem solving until followers suffer from certain serious

deviations or wrongs.

The study essentially has four specific aims: first, to assess the impact of

transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles upon

organizational commitment of employees; second, to assess the impact of

transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles upon

motivation of employees; third, toexplore the relationship between selected

demographic variables and employee commitment; and fourth, to explore the

relationship between selected demographic variables and employee

motivation.

The concept of Commitment

Employee commitment is defined as the degree of identification and

involvement that individuals have with their organisation‟s mission, values and

goals. It is a multidimensional construct that comprises affective commitment,

normative commitment and continuance commitment.

Allen and Meyer (1997) define affective commitment as the employee‟s

emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the

organisation. Continuance component is defined as commitment that is based

on the costs that the employee associates with leaving the organisation, while

normative component is defined as the employee‟s feelings of obligation and

xiv
sense of loyalty to remain with the organisation and serve to the best of his

potential.

The concept of Motivation

Helliegel, Slocum, and Woodman (1992) describe motivation as“the force

acting on or within a person that causes the person to behave in a specific,

goal-directed manner". Driving employees towards a consistent behaviour in a

goal-oriented manner is essential for utilising the full potential of employees

so as to ensure quality output and successful organisational outcomes.The

imperative need to discover, comprehend and ensure employee motivation

has become a principal concern for organisations and managers because

employee motivation has been, and will be the deciding factor in work

performance, success or failure of an organisation (Samuel and

Chipunza,2009).

Review of Literature

An attempt has been made to review the concepts of leadership, commitment

and motivation in various literature, so that there is substantial foundation of

conceptual background behind this research proposal. Extensive research of

the available literature helped in identifying the gap which in turn served as

the basis of the current research undertaken.

Anderson and King (1993) : Concluded that with respect to the management

of transformation processes in organizations, there is a strong need for

leaders who are more change-centred. These leaders place value on the

development of a clear vision and inspire followers to pursue the vision. In this

way they provide a strong motivational force for change in followers. He also

xv
concluded that besides a participative leadership style, a clear vision or

mission is most likely to foster innovation.

Bass (1985) : Proposed a broader vision of transformational leadership, which

was to motivate followers to produce changes beyond expectations.

Specifically, transformational leaders are viewed as who have powers on

employees with individual considerations, inspirations, intellectually

stimulations, and personal development.

Bass &Avolio, 2004 : They attributed Laissez-faire leadership to the leaders

who avoid interfering when serious issues arise, this could also be described

as non-leadership.

Blickle, 2003 : Asserts that as suggested by Drucker (1999), organizations are

now evolving toward structures in which rank means responsibility but not

authority, and where the supervisor‟s job is not to command, but to persuade.

Hence, in order to be effective, it is critical for managers to influence their

subordinates, peers, and superiors to assist and support their proposals,

plans, and to motivate them to carry out with their decisions.

Buchanan, 1974 : Defines commitment as “loyalty, identification, and

involvement with some appropriate object”. In an organizational setting, such

loyalty involves feelings of attachment, whichdevelops as individuals share

values in common with other members of the group.

Burns, 1978: Developed the theory of transformational leadership.

Transformational leaders would encourage followers to make great changes

personally and also generated great changes and challenges for the

organization. The characteristics of transformational leadership include

increasing confidence and motivation, clarifying follower's directions of work in

xvi
obtaining organizational goals, sharing beliefs and benefits, and being open to

employee's feedback and suggestions. Transformational leadership signifies

strong influences on relationship between leaders and followers that instils

power for achieving performance objectives and work goals.

Burns, 1978 : First proposed transactional leadership, which focuses on

exchanging benefits to satisfy the needs of both side of followers and leaders.

Transactional leadership focuses more on daily practices of work.

Eisenberger et al., 2001 : Emphasizes that commitment is feeling of emotional

attachment with something or someone. This attachmentmight be mental or

intellectual with a person, group or with organization.

Gaertner (2000: 487) : Argues that “more flexible and participatory

management styles can strongly and positively enhance organisational

commitment”. Organisations need to ensure that leadership strategies are

aimed at improving employee commitment rather than compliance as with

autocratic leadership style.

Howell &Avolio, 1989 : Opine that leaders who enhance followers‟ confidence

and skills to devise innovative responses, to be creative, and to take risks,

can also facilitate the changeover processes in organizations. As promoters of

change, transformational leaders elicit performance beyond expectations by

instilling pride, communicating personal respect, facilitating creative thinking,

and providing inspiration.

Kanter (1999) : Suggests that, in order to build commitment to change,

managers should allow employees to participate; provide a clear picture or

vision of the future; share information; demonstrate commitment to the

change; tell employees exactly what is expected of them; and offer positive

xvii
reinforcement. This kind of information sharing helps alleviate the feelings of

uncertainty in the minds of the employees. They get more clarity about their

roles and the future direction of the organisation.

Kanter (1982), Pavett and Lau (1983) : Pointed out that an important

component of successful management is the ability to influence others. As

such, committed employees are more motivated and dedicated towards

meeting and achieving organizational goals (Pfeffer, 1998).

Lind and Stevens, 2004 : Assert that transformational leadership style is

considered more appropriate as it allows for leaders to rally people behind

clearly defined goals .

Stum (1999) : Argues that employee commitment reflects the quality of the

leadership in the organisation. Therefore it is logical to assume that leadership

behaviour has a significant relationship with the development of organisational

commitment

Swanepoel, Erasmus, Van Wyk and Scheck (2000) : Highlighted that

leadership styles that encourage employee commitment is essential in order

for an organization to successfully implement business strategies, achieving

their goals, gain competitive advantage and optimizing human capital.

Zeffanne (2003: 979) :Opined that “the answer to the question of employee

commitment, morale, loyalty and attachment may consist not only in providing

motivators, but also to remove demotivators such as styles of management

not suited to their context and to contemporary employee aspirations”. Thus, a

leadership or management style that encourages employee involvement can

help to satisfy employees‟ desire for empowerment and demand for a

xviii
commitment to organisational goals. This aspect serves as the right pointer to

delve deeper into the styles of leadership.

Gap in Research

Past research, historical data, books in the library, catalogues, databases,

Internet, were widely accessed to arrive at the gaps in literature.The intensive

review of literature reveals that there is no dearth of researches focussed on

the subject of employee commitment and leadership style. But in the Indian

corporate sector, there are very limitedstudies on the impact of leadership

style on employee motivation and employee commitment. Within the Indian

corporate sector, it is very rare to come across studies which have been

conducted on the impact of leadership style on commitment and motivation in

the FMCG and Oil/Petroleum sector. Therefore the intention of the researcher

was to find out how far the leadership styles become parameters impacting

employee motivation and commitment in these selected organisations which

are of repute world-wide.The results of the study would equip the

organisational leadership to determine which styles to adopt so that the

employees are more committed and motivated and hence have a much better

engagement and connect with the organisation. Adoption of the appropriate

style will help induce trust and loyalty for the organisation.

Scope of the Study

The study is currently restricted to the permanent full-time employees of

support functions and operations, in the western, eastern and northern states,

of selected organisations in Fast Moving Consumer Group, Oil and Petroleum

segment, who are exposed to management researches and studies of similar

xix
kinds. The premise was that confirmed employees have spent significant

amount of time in the organisation and are equally affected by some basic

processes which could influence their perspectives on commitment and

motivation. The study could also be extended to the non-management

category of employees at the lower grades, where they could judge the

leadership styles of supervisors managing them.It could also be extended to

other states of India and even globally, since all these organisations have a

significant global presence.

Objectives of the Study

Based on the above findings, the objectives of the study were as follows :

1. To assess the impact of Transformational Leadership Styles and level

of Employee Commitment

2. To assess the impact of Transactional Leadership Styles and level of

Employee Commitment

3. To assess the impact of Laissez Faire Leadership Styles and level of

Employee Commitment

4. To assess the impact of Transformational Leadership Styles and

Employee Motivation

5. To assess the impact of Transactional Leadership Styles and

Employee Motivation

6. To assess the impact of Laissez Faire Leadership Styles and

Employee Motivation

The study would be limited to select cities of Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Delhi and

Kolkata. The employees who responded to the study were working atdifferent

xx
levels in Eastern and northern region in India and were informed of

theiranonymity.

Statement of Hypothesis:

The following hypotheses would be tested:

H01 :There is no significant relation between Transformational leadership style

and Employee Commitment

H11 :There is a significant relation between Transformational leadership style

and Employee Commitment

H02 :There is no significant relation between Transactional leadership style

and Employee Commitment

H12 :There is a significant relation between Transactional leadership style and

Employee Commitment

H03 :There is no significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style and

Employee Commitment

H13:There is a significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style and

Employee Commitment

H04 :There is no significant relation between Transformational leadership style

and Employee Motivation

H14 :There is a significant relation between Transformational leadership style

and Employee Motivation

H05 :There is no significant relation between Transactional leadership style

and Employee Motivation

xxi
H15 :There is a significant relation between Transactional leadership style and

Employee Motivation

H06 :There is no significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style and

Employee Motivation

H16 :There is a significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style and

Employee Motivation

Research Methodology

Sampling Design:

While conducting research, it was almost always impossible to study the

entire population. Hence the researcher used samples as a way to gather

data. This sample is the subset of the population being studied. It represents

the larger population and is used to draw inferences about that population. As

per the research technique widely used in the social sciences, this study was

conducted in Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Kolkata and Delhi as a way to gather

information about the population without having to measure the entire

population.The targeted population for the study was the confirmed (not on

probation), full-time employees from Support functions and Operations, who

are exposed to management studies and researches of similar kinds.

Sample size:

The size of the population is 650. The margin of error has been considered as

4% and the desired confidence interval is 95%.

Sample Size: According to formula – SS = Z2 * (P) * (1 – p) / C2

xxii
Where –Z = Z value (e.g., 1.96 for 95% confidence), P = Percentage picking

a choice, expressed as decimal (.5 used for sample size needed)

C = Confidence interval expressed as decimal (e.g., .04 = + 4)

Total Population is about 650 for the targeted group. Hence total number of

sample is 295.

Based on the population, sample size was estimated to be around 300 and

hence 450 questionnaires were distributed on email and through the HR

function. About 326 were considered to be valid since they were duly filled up.

Hence 326 questionnaires were processed for further research findings.

For the final study also, reliability tests were performed to assess the internal

consistency of each measure.

Distribution of Respondents

Sl no Cities No of Respondents

1 Mumbai 146

2 Navi Mumbai 65

3 Kolkata 50

4 Delhi 65

TOTAL 326

This formula is the one used by Krejcie& Morgan in their 1970 article

“Determining Sample Size for Research Activities” (Educational and

Psychological Measurement, #30, pp. 607-610).

xxiii
Based on the population, 85 questionnaires were distributed on email and

through the HR function. About 50 were considered to be valid since they

were duly filled up. Hence 50 questionnaires were processed for further

research findings.For the pilotstudy,reliability tests were performed to assess

the internal consistency of each measure.

Data Source :

The researcher used both primary and secondary data sources, which is

termed as triangulation or dual methodology.

Primary data source :

Primary sources used allowed the researcher to form reasoned conclusions,

base conclusions on evidence, and connect primary sources to the context in

which they were created, synthesizing information from multiple sources.

"Primary sources originate in the time period that historians are studying.

They vary a great deal. They may include personal memoirs, government

documents, transcripts of legal proceedings, oral histories and traditions,

archaeological and biological evidence, and visual sources like paintings and

photographs. "(Storey, William Kelleher. Writing History: A guide for Students.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999, p.18).

Descriptive Survey:

The survey includes correlational research and survey research, yielding

quantitative information that was summarized through statistical analyses.

Review of literature and other available information from various published

and unpublished reports of these organisations, data on these industry

xxiv
segments available in thepublic domain, journals, and periodicals, books,

newspapers, etc. (including databases like EBSCO, Pro-quest, and others).

Field Survey:

Research Tool:

The research instrument used for collecting primary data was Questionnaire,

which is the most widely used data collection methods in evaluation research.

The Questionnaires used for the final data collection were close ended

questionnaires. Questionnaires helped gather information on attitudes,

opinions, behaviors, facts, and other information.

In the final step, reliability of the questionnaire using a pilot test was carried

out. Reliability refers to random error in measurement. Reliability indicates the

accuracy or precision of the measuring instrument (Norland, 1990). The pilot

test attempted to answer the question,does the questionnaire consistently

measure whatever it measures?

To assess reliability of knowledge questions, test-retest or split-half is

appropriate.Data collected from pilot test wasanalyzed using SPSS (Statistical

Package for Social Sciences). A reliability coefficient (alpha) of .70 or higher

was considered acceptable reliability.

Aquestionnaire with four parts was used for different variables of the study :

1. Part A for Demographic details

2. Part B for Employee Commitment

3. Part C for Leadership Styles -

(i) Transformational; (ii) Transactional; (iii) Laissez-Faire

xxv
 4. Part D for Employee Motivation

Part A :Employee Demographics

This part contains statements concerning general information about the

participant and helps us understand the demographics of the respondents

who took the survey. The questionnaire aims to find out for respondents the

Age, Educational background, Marital status, Occupation, Monthly gross

compensation, Length of Service, Gender and the time when he/she got

promoted last.

Part B : Employee Commitment

This part of the questionnaire provides the Researcher with information on the

employee‟s state of mind and attitude pertaining to his/her work area and

sense of alignment and loyalty to the organisation.

Part C :Leadership Styles

The first section of this part of the questionnaire deals with background

information about the manager available/observable to the employee. The

second section has questions which help establish the leadership style of the

Head of Function (or the person the respondent reports to), as he/she

employeeperceives/observesit.

Part D :Work Motivation

This partof the questionnaire provides the Researcher with information about

how the employee feels about the job.

xxvi
PILOT STUDY

A total of 85 questionnaires were distributed among the confirmed, full-time

employees in four locations. The population was the predefined set of

potential respondents in a given geographical area. The potential respondents

were the group of team members working for a manager in that organisation

in that location. Out of 85, 50 respondents‟ instruments were analysed, since

they were filled up in all aspect. The final questionnaireswere moderated

based on the pilot study. The reliability test of the questionnaires was made

and was found to be good. For the pilot study, reliability tests were performed

to assess the internal consistency of each measure. Cronbach„s Alpha

coefficients were reported as follows: 0.806 for the Organizational

Commitment Questionnaire, 0.891 for the MLQ Leadership Style

Questionnaire, 0.834 for the Employee Motivation Questionnaire.

For the final study, reliability tests were performed to assess the internal

consistency of each measure. Cronbach„s Alpha coefficients were reported

as follows: 0.850 for the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, 0.90 for

the MLQ Leadership Style Questionnaire, 0.854 for the Employee Motivation

Questionnaire.

Data Collection:

The data for this study was collected through questionnaires administered to

the confirmed (not on probation), full-time employees from Support functions

and Operations, who are exposed to management studies and researches of

similar kinds. The number of completed and returned questionnaires was 326.

Descriptive statistics, Co-relational statistics, Simple and multiple Regression

xxvii
analysis, One-way analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Cronbach‟s alpha were

used to analyse the data.

The questionnaires were sent to employees in different cities of India. The

cross-section of employees in these selected cities was considered as a fair

representation of the attitudes and behaviours of employees in those cities.

Given below is the bifurcation of the data collected from different geographical

regions of India in tabular form:

xxviii
Distribution of Respondents

Sl no Cities No of Respondents

1 Mumbai 146

2 Navi Mumbai 65

3 Kolkata 50

4 Delhi 65

TOTAL 326

Tabulation and Statistical Analysis of Data:

The responses observed from each of the items in the instrument used for

primary data collection were scored and tabulated into a master sheet. The

statistical tools included Co-relation, Regression techniques, Simple and

Multiple regression, Anova. Descriptive statistics have been applied to draw

logical conclusion. The analysis was done using Statistical Package of Social

Sciences (SPSS).

Interpretation and Report Writing:

The analysed data were finally interpreted to draw the conclusions and

reported with the objective of the study in view. The same was also used to

test the hypotheses put forward by the researcher.

Major Findings:

The questionnaire used for the study of the respondents‟ characteristics

included 8 items. All the respondents were operational and managerial full-

time confirmed employees in three organisations in corporate sector. They

were asked about their age, education, marital status, gender, occupational

xxix
status, salary (monthly income), length of services and internal promotion.

The questionnaire used for the Testing of Hypothesis consists of fourparts:

1) Demographic details

2) Employee Commitment

3) Leadership styles as observed by the employees

4) Employee Motivation

The hypothesis of this study addressed the field of Leadership, Employee

Commitment and Motivation and how the demographic factors affect the two

variables Employee Commitment and Employee Motivation. In the current

study, Six (6) hypotheses were tested. To test these, some appropriate

statistical tools such as frequency analysis, analysis of variance (Anova),

Pearson‟s co-relation techniques, regression techniques – simple and

multiple, were used.

The findings are discussed below:

Transformational Leadership Style: Transformational leadership styles as

observed by employees are found to be positively co-related and highly

significant with the Employee Commitment.

Transformational leadership styles as observed by employees are found to be

positively co-related and highly significant with the Employee Motivation.

Transactional Leadership Style: Transactional leadership styles as

observed by employees are found to be positively co-related and highly

significant with the Employee Commitment.

Transactional leadership styles as observed by employees are found to be

positively co-related and highly significant with the Employee Motivation.

xxx
Laissez-fairre Leadership Style: Laissez-fairre leadership styles as

observed by employees are found to be negatively co-related and highly

significant with the Employee Commitment.

Laissez-faire leadership styles as observed by employees are found to be

negatively co-related and highly significant with the Employee Motivation.

The statistical results have indicated a positive direct relationship between

three dimensions of transformational leadership styles, namely intellectual

stimulation, idealized influence, and inspirational motivation, with affective and

normative commitment. Similarly, two dimensions of transformational

leadership, namely, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration

were found to have positive relationship with continuance commitment.

Transformational Leadership Style vs Transactional Leadership

Style:Transformational leadership style has a greater impact on Employee

Commitment compared to Transactional leadership style.

Transformational leadership style has a greater impact on Employee

Motivation compared to Transactional leadership style.

The present study findings are consistent with previous studies by Walumbwa

and Lawler (2003) who emphasized that leaders who exhibit transformational

leadership styles are more effective in achieving significantly higher

commitment levels than transactional.

The findings on employee motivation also conclude that Rewarding and

Encouraging, which are salient attributes in Transformational leadership

styles, and are consistently to be one of the important motivators (Snape

1996; Erkutlu 2008), have played a significant role in employee motivation.

xxxi
Co-relations with Demographic details

Age: Age of the employees of the organisation is positively co-related with a)

employee commitment and b) employee motivation.

Education:Educational qualifications of the employees of the organisations

are positively and significantly co-related with a) employee commitment and

b) employee motivation.

MaritalStatus:Married employees of the organisations are found to be more

a) committed and more b) motivated than the unmarried employees.

Occupational Status:Occupational status of the employees of the

organisations are positively and significantly co-related with a) employee

commitment and b) employee motivation.

Compensation: Monthly income (Salary) of the employees of the

organisations is positively and significantly co-related with a) employee

commitment and b) employee motivation.

Service Tenure:Experience of the employees of the organisation is positively

and significantly co-related with a) employee commitment and b) employee

motivation.

Gender:Gender of the employees of the organisations is positively co-related

with a) employee commitment and b) employee motivation.

Employees of Male gender are found to be more a) committed and more b)

motivated than employees of Female gender.

Career progression:Internal promotion is positively and significantly co-

related with a) employee commitment and b) employee motivation.

xxxii
Analysis

The fast-paced growth that our country has seen post-independence has

majorly been due to the leap into globalization. This has also fuelled the need

to figure out leadership skills and competencies required to sustain the rapid

pace of life and business, as well as to drive growth. Considering the

complexities which exist in history of the country, intertwined threads of

culture, socio-economic diversity of the country and also of the states within, it

is important to focus on leadership issues which can drive key changes in

behaviour. The study basically aimed to seek an understanding of the factors

that may directly or indirectly impact individual‟s behaviours and consequently

drive performance, in organizations.Organizationalbehaviour is largely

influenced by variables like employee‟s commitment to the organisation,

levels of motivation and styles of leadership of the managers. The literature

revealed that all of these were considered as major contributors to the

success of any organization, public or private, operating in any sector.

Based on the findings of the present study, the researcher developed the

following conclusions:

The research findings make it amply clear that in order to have committed

employees in the organisation, leadership plays a very key role. The function

heads need to utilise both Transformational and Transactional leadership

styles in order to have the desired impact on employees. Transformational

style of leadership had a significant correlation with employee commitment

(0.485) and Transactional style of leadership was also significantly co-related

to employee commitment (0.395). Laissez-faire style of leadership had a

negative co-relation to employee commitment (-0.398). It is also evident that

xxxiii
transformational leadership style is more effective in bringing in the element of

commitment in employees.

The research findings also establish that in order to have motivated

employees in the organisation, leadership plays a very key role. The function

heads need to utilise both Transformational and Transactional leadership

styles in order to have employees who are motivated to contribute to the best

of their potential. Transformational style of leadership had a significant

correlation with employee motivation (0.602) and Transactional style of

leadership was also significantly co-related to employee motivation (0.445).

Laissez-faire style of leadership had a negative co-relation to employee

motivation (-0.177). It is also evident that transformational leadership style is

more effective in bringing in the element of commitment in employees.

The results of this study summarized effective strategies of improving

leadership skills which would positively impact supervisor-employee

relationship. It is believed that this study may add value to the literatures on

supervisors‟ leadership styles, especially in the oil company settings and fast

moving consumer goods settings, since there were limited literatures done on

similar setups. The characteristics of transformational leadership include

increasing confidence and motivation, channelizing the followers‟ performance

for accomplishing organizational goals, sharing beliefs and benefits, and

being open to employee's feedback and suggestions. This would make

followers more loyal and aligned to the organisation.

The supervisors, especially the ones in senior leadership roles, should have

their own vision and development plans for team members, working groups

and organizations. They should motivate and encourage followers to

xxxiv
challenge themselves, move out of comfort zone and explore the untapped

potential. They should be good coaches as well, showing

others the direction to follow, mainly by walking the talk and

setting an example. Empathy and emotional intelligence also lay the

foundation for an effective leader-follower relationship. By being change

agents and visionaries and having the ability to deal with complexity,

ambiguity and uncertainty, they exercise a tremendous amount of control on

the performance of their followers. In some situations, transactional leadership

is also an effective leadership style, having moderate and positive correlations

with employee's commitment, and positive correlations with attachment to

supervisor and internalization of supervisor's values. To be more effective,

they should clarify expectations and offer rewards and recognition when goals

are achieved.

Also, internal candidates should be considered for promotions, whenever

there are opportunities. Job rotation, redeployment increase stickiness to the

organisation.Styles that encourage employee commitment and motivation are

necessary in order for an organization to successfully implement business

strategies, achieve goals, gain competitive advantage and optimize human

capital.

The organizations can develop certain training programs to develop

leadership skills especially for managers who have a big span of control. Even

mentoring programs, sessions by executive coaches help senior leaders hone

their skills. Professionals and trainers can use the results from the current

study to develop leadership development training interventions, based on

organisational and individual needs. Volk and Lucas (1991) demonstrated that

xxxv
leadership style was the only predictor of employee's retention and explained

32% of the variance in turnover. Over a period of time there have been other

studies which have all indicated that „employees leave the manager, not the

organisation‟.

Analysis of the demographic factors indicate that age plays a big role in

developing and enhancing the sense of commitment and motivation. This also

explains the low stability, lack of commitment in Generation Y employees and

points out that for organisations which employ a significant number of such

employees, need to have special retention program and career progression

for them. The findings regarding gender of employees and the consequent

impact of employee commitment and employee motivation should prompt

organisations to think of gender sensitivity issues and targeted women-centric

programs which address their career growth and welfare.

The instruments used to determine the impact and the findings obtained,

clearly indicate that by providing adequate coaching, mentoring,

encouragement, supporting work environment, sense of respect and

confidence in employees‟ ability, the leaders can significantly increase both

employee motivation and commitment.

Limitations of the Study:

This study has some potential limitations. It may be noted that a causality

relation cannot be inferred due to the cross-sectional nature of the data,

although, it is one of the most-used methods in applied and field psychological

research (especially in organizations, Spector, 1994). Future investigations,

then, should adopt an experimental or longitudinal design. The data used in

xxxvi
the study were acquired using the same questionnaire and this procedure

might have led to common method bias that might have inflated the

relationship among factors. A second one is represented by the fact that the

criteria variables have been assessed by self-report measures, which may

reflect participants' perceptions rather than objective realities.

The second limitation is about the duration which is limited and short. A longer

duration of say, two years, would have given the researcher time to study a

broader cross-section of employees in corporate sector. Along with three

dimensions of leadership, namely Transformational, Transactional and

Laissez-faire, the study could have explored Charismatic style of leadership

as well, to give it a well-rounded character. Also, some funding would have

enabled the researcher to travel extensively and interview corporate

employees, even globally, to get a better insight on the topic of study. The

study could then also have a higher coverage to include other functions, like

sales, business development, marketing.

The aspect of culture in different parts of India and its impact on the leader-

follower relationship has not been explored here. The relation cannot be

inferred due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, although, it is one of the

most-used methods in applied and field psychological research (especially in

organizations, Spector, 1994). Culture affects behaviour patterns, but that

would have called for a study in itself and hence not covered here.

xxxvii
Suggestions:

The researcher anticipates that the findings, ideas and suggestions that

emerge from this study would be beneficial for the decision making authorities

of the organisations covered in the study. The revelations would provide an

insight into the Human Resources Management and Development strategy

formulated by these organisations, particularly when implementingpolicies

related to organisational performance. Even the institutions or experts who

partner with these organisations in their strategic journey could refer to these

findings to base their learning interventions. The study might generate diverse

interests andfocus on further studies in some of the areas highlighted.

Detailed discussions with the experts in the field of Human Resources

Management, for validating the results obtained through statistical analysis

revealed the following insights:

a) Focussed efforts can be undertaken byLeaders or Managers to adopt

more of transformational leadership styles since that act as extrinsic

motivator.

b) Sincere attempts can be made by Leaders or Managers to be more co-

operative and participative in nature. Even while carrying out

transactions, the focus should be on solutions to problems rather than

fault-finding. The leaders should develop efficient team work and

express genuine concern and trust for co-workers.

c) The message of „walking the talk‟ as anessential factor in influencing

subordinates can be harped on executive members periodically. The

need is to adopt a collaborative culture and democratic leadership

leadership insteadof an authoritative or non-interference one.

xxxviii
d) Based on the findings of the study, a need is felt to establish a

soundsystem of benefits, promotion, and development in order to

increaseemployees‟organizational commitment, reduce labor turnover,

raiseproductivity and improve service quality.

e) The managers can strengthen their people Skills to be able to relate to

others and for others to relate to them in earning trust and building a

foundation of respect.

f) The managers can focus and introspect on shared goals to build

meaningful relationships that can then serve to achieve results

together.

g) There is a periodic reinforcement required to be mindful that leadership

is a give and take and the by-product of a trustworthy relationship for

the betterment of a healthier whole.

h) The managers may take an advocating approach to build a trustworthy

relationship.

i) Employees should be encouraged to take part in various training and

workshops so as to enhance knowledge, widen their horizon and

upgrade their skills to meet changing job requirements.

j) Programs need to be developed and people have to be trained on

areas of leadership, people management, coaching.

k) Decision making should be fast, fair and just, without unnecessary

delays, critical and urgent situations should be responded to as soon

as possible, to bail out their subordinates. They should be involved in

all the important issues which plague their teams on a regular basis.

xxxix
l) Communications on the strategy of the organisation and the function

should be regular and there should be formal forums to address these.

m) Compensation should be fair and based on performance. No bias or

favouritism should be encouraged in such decisions.

n) For new positions and replacements, internal sourcing should be given

a priority over external hires, to the extent possible. Promotions should

not be tenure-based but performance-based and have the aspirational

element embedded.

o) Inspirational and motivational sessions should be held at regular

interval by senior management or external experts

p) Rewards and recognitions in organisational forums go a long way in

motivating employees to bring out their best

q) Seniority should be rewarded and respected by involvement in

decision–making process.

xl
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Introduction & Background

"Leadership consists of method, not magic" (Schmoker, 2001, p. 19).

Leadership and the different associated styles have an immense impact on

how employees perform and grow, to lead positive organisational outcomes.

The purpose of this study would be to investigate the impact of leadership

styles on motivation and commitment, as a predictor of group or

organizational performance. For ages, Leadership has been a subject of

much debate and deliberation and how the different styles of leadership evoke

different responses from followers. In corporate context the dynamics of these

two entities ‘the leader’ and ‘the led’ play a key role in shaping the destiny of

the organisation. The study followed the positivist paradigm which provided an

objective reality against which claims were compared and truth was

ascertained. In this descriptive study, the goal has been to discover the

pattern of cause and effect, which can predict phenomenon. As a part of the

descriptive research methodology, data collected has been subjected to the

thinking process in terms of ordered reasoning. A quantitative research

approach has been used to analyze the hypothesized relationships.

The concept of leadership

The global financial crisis has resulted in a wave of unprecedented challenges

to the world’s economic & political order. In a situation of turbulence, the one

key factor that can make a difference, through foresight and dexterity, is

2
Leadership. However, as we initiate this study and probe deeper to gain

conceptual clarity, the results are baffling. The search for the right definition is

been age-old. According to Bass and Avolio (1997), a single specific definition

of leadership is a very complex task as literature and studies on this topic are

varied and there is no definition which is widely and universally accepted.

Some definitions describe leadership as an act of influence, some as a

process and yet others have looked at a person’s trait qualities.

Nel et al. (2004) define leadership as the process whereby one individual

influences others to willingly and enthusiastically direct their efforts and

abilities towards attaining defined group or organisational goals.

Cole (2005) defines Leadership as a dynamic process whereby one man

influences other to contribute voluntarily to the realization and attainment of

the goals objectives; aspiration of values of the group that is representing the

essence of Leadership is to help a group or an Organisation to attain

sustainable development and growth.

There are various styles to leading, such as transformational, transactional

and laissez-faire.

1.1 History of Leadership Styles

The widespread acceptance of leadership playing a vital role as a competitive

advantage for organisations (McCall, 1998; Petrick, Scherer, Brodzinski,

Quinn, & Ainina, 1999) has led to enormous amounts of spends in the field of

leadership development programmes and training (Avolio & Hannah, 2008). It

is important for the purpose of the study to trace the emergence of the theory.

3
The history of leadership theory started with an emphasis on traits—the notion

that it is the make-up of the leader that makes all the difference. This

approach dominated research up to the late 1940’s. But further researches

have proven that traits do not always predict leadership effectiveness, and so

researchers have shifted to look at the behavior or style of the leader. The

Romans wondered whether force or inspiration was more effective as a

motivator. Amongst the Athenian commanders opinion was divided: some

were against risking a battle, on the ground that the Athenian force was too

small to stand a chance of success; others – and amongst them Miltiades –

urged it. It seemed for a time as if the more fainthearted policy would be

adopted. As many passages in Herodotus make it clear, freedom for the

victorious aristocrats and plutocrats meant the freedom to rule over others.

This is when Miltiades urged the pole march Callimachus to cast his tie-

breaking vote in favour of engaging the enemy at Marathon…. “it is now in

your hands, Callimachus” he said, “either to enslave Athens, or to make her

free and to leave behind you for all future generations a memory more

glorious than even Harmodius and Aristogeiton left…. if we fight and win, then

this city of ours may well grow to pre-eminence amongst all the cities of

Greece….” Miltiades’ words prevailed…In the battle of Marathon some 6400

Persians were killed; the losses of the Athenians were 192. (Herodotus, 363-

365) The language was typical. The enormously influential Simonides wrote

….men died in the battle “ to leave to their children their city prospering in

freedom”. Thus, the Battle of Marathon as recorded by the ancient historian

Herodotus (1954/400 B.C.E), fought in the fifth century BCE, provides an

4
early record of leadership exemplified by the general Miltiades who displayed

the qualities of charisma and inspirational motivation.

Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) have associated these two constructs with the

concept of Transformational Leadership, identified in Western scholarly

literature over 2,000 years later. These constructs, in association with those of

intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Bass, 1998), form the

basis for a leadership style which, while apparently efficacious for the 8

ancient Greeks, has been proposed as the optimum style to effect the radical

changes needed in 21st century organizations.

Fisher (1985) writes, “Leadership is probably the most written about social

phenomenon of all time” (p.168), and laments that it is still not well understood

due to its complexity, defined by the number of variables associated with the

concept of leadership, variables that encompass the entire social process.

Transformational Leadership

The term ‘transformational leadership’ was first coined by J.V. Downton in

Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in a Revolutionary Process

(1973).Transformational Leadership, proposed by Burns and extended by

Bass and associates, has been conceived as a more complete model of

leadership than that advocated by the trait, style, contingency, or exchange

theorists. Burns (1978) first clearly distinguished between leaders who were

oriented to exchange and those who were oriented to change, the latter

identified as Transformational Leaders. Transformational Leadership,

because of the components of idealized influence, inspiration, intellectual

stimulation and individualized consideration, has been suggested as the

5
optimum style for managing change. Bass, Waldman, Avolio, and Bebb

(1987) discovered that leaders scoring higher on Transformational Leadership

factors have followers who display greater levels of transformational

behaviors. The model of transformational leadership and its key components

are explained in the figure below.

Figure 1.1 : Model of Transformational Leadership

Source:http://www.managementstudyguide.com/transformational-

leadership.htm extracted on August 19, 2014

Transactional Leadership

The locus of the relationship is on an exchange. Each party to the exchange

recognizes the value of the exchange as well as the value of the relationship,

but these bargainers have no reason to remain together subsequent to the

exchange. There is nothing enduring about their relationship; no actual

engagement has occurred. That is, transactional leaders expect certain work

6
behaviors from their subordinates who are compensated for these behaviors

by both monetary and nonmonetary rewards.

Bass (1998) has more fully developed the concept of transactional leadership,

identifying three levels. The first depends on positive contingent reward, a

“reasonably effective” (p. 6) leadership style where the leader and follower

agree on specific behaviors which are duly rewarded after satisfactory

performance. The two lower levels of transactional leadership, management

by exception and laissez-faire leadership, Bass (1998) believes are the two

most ineffective types. The management by exception leader or manager only

intervenes after a task has been incorrectly performed to rectify the problem.

Laissez faire leadership

Laissez-faire leadership, also known as delegative leadership, is a type of

leadership style in which leaders are hands-off and allow group members to

make the decisions. This style of leadership implies that someone in the

position of a leader does not fulfil leadership responsibilities and practically

does not engage or involve in any meaningful transactions whatsoever. This

leader does little or nothing to affect either the followers or the outcomes of

their behaviors. Passive or avoidant leadership describes the leaders who

avoid getting involved in the work progress and decision making. They would

not like to clarify agreements and expectations of work for the followers. Goals

and standards of tasks are not clearly presented for the followers. This

leadership style consists of passive management-by-exception leadership and

are seen as withdrawn and uninvolved. Leaders who display passive

management-by-exception will not interfere into problem solving until

followers suffer from certain serious deviations or wrongs.

7
1.2 The concept of Commitment

Organisational commitment is defined as the degree of identification and

involvement that individuals have with their organisation’s mission, values and

goals (Mowday et al., 1999). Organisational commitment is a multidimensional

construct that comprises affective commitment, normative commitment and

continuance commitment.

Allen and Meyer (1997) define affective commitment as the employee’s

emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the

organisation. Continuance component is defined as commitment that is based

on the costs that the employee associates with leaving the organisation, while

normative component is defined as the employee’s feelings of obligation to

remain with the organisation.

Stallworth (2003) considers the three types of commitment to be

psychological states in which employees experience in differing degrees and

varying strengths. Stredwick (2005) indicates that a number of researchers

use the level of commitment as a key reflection of organisational success from

a people management view. An employee’s commitment is a concern to all

organizations because it has been linked to reduced turnover, increased

knowledge sharing, increased organizational citizenship behaviors, higher

acceptance of organizational change, ethical behaviour and reduced

absenteeism. Generally, higher or lower levels of commitment have been

shown to be a major driver of employees staying with or leaving an

organization (Shaw et al., 1998).

8
Without commitment, employees are not prepared to develop their skills and

competencies, take on board the enhanced responsibilities for quality, work

organisation and problem solving, and ‘go the extra mile’ to come up with

improvements and innovations.

As organizations and their leaders have realized that, research on

organizational commitment has gained importance (Colbert and Kwon, 2000)

because of relationships between it and various measures of organizational

efficiency and effectiveness (Beck and Wilson, 2000).

Organizational commitment has been identified as a predictor of behaviour

within organizations. Secondly, the study showed that transformational

leadership training increases the affective organizational commitment to the

organization (Barling et al., 1996), so if the antecedent of commitment is

known then, the training programmer for enhancement of manager’s

organizational commitment of organization can be sketched.

1.3 The concept of Motivation

Helliegel et al. (2001) define employee motivation as “the force acting on or

within a person that causes the person to behave in a specific, goal-directed

manner". Success in this endeavour is essential in the quest to utilise the full

potential of employees so as to ensure quality products and services and

consequently the success of the new organisation as a whole.The imperative

need to discover, comprehend and implement employee motivation has

become a principal concern for organisations, managers and even first line

supervisors because employee motivation has been, and will be the deciding

9
factor in work performance, success or failure of an organisation (Samuel and

Chipunza,2009).

In this study, transformational leadership behavior, transactional leadership

behavior and laissez-faire leadership behavior of the heads of functions as

observed or perceived by their team members across locations, were used as

independent variables. In addition, the variables of age, level of education,

marital status, occupational status, salary, length of service and internal

promotions were used as independent variables to determine if they affect the

level of employee commitment and employee motivation among the

employees of the three selected organisations. The dependent variables were

the level of a) commitment and b) motivation of employees.

The Work Motivation Scale which has been used for this study was designed

as a self-report instrument to be used in career development, pre-

employment, human resources, vocational counselling, job development,

work adjustment, job satisfaction, job retention, and disability management. It

assists individuals in career development and planning by helping them

understand their work motives and values and apply that understanding to

their career choices and preferred work environment. The Work Motivation

Scale is a revision of the Work Orientation Values Survey (WOVS), published

in 2002.

Work motives are important determinants of actions, and values are the basis

of cognitive choices (McClelland, 1985). Work motivation and values

contribute to the occupational choices process (Vroom, 1964) and improve

one’s ability to predict behaviour (McClelland, 1985). While motives are seen

as hierarchical, changeable (Maslow, 1943), and acquirable (McClelland,

10
1965), human values are stable and enduring, give expression to human

needs, provide guidelines for making decisions, and help one choose

between alternatives (Rocheach, 1973). Early pioneers in the study of

personality, motivation, levels of aspiration (Lewin, 1935; Maslow, 1943,

1970), and career psychology (Super, 1957, 1970) recognized that motivation

and values play an important role in goal setting, job seeking and selection,

and performance.

Values, Occupational Choice, and Job Satisfaction

In their pioneering study of occupational choice, Ginzberg, Ginsburg, Axelrad,

and Herma (1951) investigated the role of values in the occupational decision-

making process. They theorized that in the exploratory stage of career

development, the individual makes a final attempt to link his occupational

choice to values (Ginzberg et al., 1951, p. 189). They concluded that the

clarification of values and goals is an essential part of the occupational choice

process and subsequently affects job satisfaction (Ginzberg et al., 1951, p.

222). Evidence continues to support the relationship of work values to job

satisfaction (Chaves, 2001; Dibble, 1997). In presenting their conceptual

model, Brown and Crace (1996) state, “Making choices that coincide with

values is essential to satisfaction” (p. 215).

Work Orientation and Work Values

Super (1957, p. 299) had earlier suggested that there are both intrinsic and

extrinsic work orientations/values. He also stated that intrinsic values are

inherent in the work itself, whereas extrinsic values are generally associated

with the rewards, outcomes, and results of work. Super devised a work

11
orientation continuum (task versus pleasure) and suggested that some values

have both intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics, such as the value ‘helping

others’.

Work Values and the Development of Vocational Behaviours

Super (1970) brought in the aspect of values in future studies of the

occupational choice process. The relationship of extrinsic values and gender

to occupational choice behaviour was also reported by Brady and Brown

(1973). Thus, values play a key role in occupational choice and career

development from an early age.

The Work Motivation Scale consists of eight values measures, or constructs,

that fall under four work motive categories: Earnings and Benefits and

Working Conditions are clustered under Survival and Safety Motives, Co-

worker Relations and Supervisor Relations fall under Affiliation Motives, Task

Orientation and Managing Others fall under Self-Esteem Motives, and Mission

Orientation and Success Orientation fall under Fulfilment Motives. The 2008

revision was named the Work Motivation Scale and also included Success

Orientation. Following are the operational definitions of the motives and

values:

Fulfilment Motives: The need for work that provides the individual with

opportunities to reach their maximum potential. Creativity, curiosity, foresight,

and competence are attributes that are often observed in individuals with high

fulfilment motives. Fulfilment motives are comprised of the following work

value constructs:

12
Success Orientation: Individuals scoring high on this construct are motivated

toward accomplishing career goals and reaching their full potential through

their work. Passionate about their work, they are willing to endure periods of

hardship to be successful.

Mission Orientation: Individuals scoring high on this construct are goal-

oriented, they see the big picture and tend to be less concerned with details.

They recognize how their current work fits into and contributes to the overall

direction of the organization.

Self-Esteem Motives: The need for achievement, responsibility, and

challenging and meaningful work tasks. Links between leadership and

achievement are usually present for individuals with high self-esteem motives.

Self-esteem motives are comprised of the following work value constructs:

Managing Others: Individuals scoring high on this construct value

opportunities to direct and supervise the work of others. They willingly take

responsibility for worker performance and the productivity of a work unit,

department, or work function.

Task Orientation: Individuals scoring high on this construct are oriented

toward completing tasks. Planning their work, making the most of resources,

and maintaining their focus are important to them. They may hesitate to

perform functions outside of those tied to a specific job description.

Affiliation Motives: The need for the acceptance and support of co-workers

and supervisors. Cooperation and collaboration toward meeting work goals

are sought by individuals with high affiliation motives. Affiliation motives are

comprised of the following work value constructs:

13
Supervisor Relations: Individuals scoring high on this construct feel that

cooperating and relating to their supervisor are important. They strive to meet

their supervisor’s expectations and highly appreciate their supervisor’s

recognition and support.

Co-worker Relations: Individuals scoring high on this construct feel that

relating to peers is important. They prefer to be actively involved in employee

related organizations at work and outside of work. They highly value

collaboration and teamwork.

Survival and Safety Motives: The need for employment with an adequate

livable wage and a safe and secure work environment. The need for favorable

benefits packages is also valued by individuals with high survival and safety

motives.

1.4 Leadership in Indian Corporates

Post Independence, this country has seen rapid growth in its industrial

horizon, especially in the past two decades. Quite a few Indian companies

have experienced impressive growth and have spread their wings globally

and come across as a formidable power in that particular sector. But there

has been a daunting side effect as well, manifesting itself in a nationwide

crisis in leadership. As per the Strategic Human Resources and Talent

Management : Predictions for 2012 - Driving Organizational Performance

amidst an Imbalanced Global Workforce by Josh Bersin, Bersin & Associates

Research Report, “2011 has been one of the most tumultuous times in recent

economic history. Not only has the global recession continued, but the

14
disparity between the fast-growing emerging economies, and the slower-

growing U.S. and European economies grew. Our research shows that nearly

every major business is trying to globalize its operations, and move talent and

business toward areas of growth while, and at the same time, improving the

engagement, retention and performance of the workforce everywhere else.”

Indian companies, slowly but steadily, are moving their focus on developing

leadership pipeline. They are investing in developing the next generation of

executives who have a huge power to influence the workforce under their

direct and indirect supervision. In a 2010 study by Harvard Business

Publishing, an overwhelming 88 percent of top Indian companies cited “gaps

in [their] leadership practice” as their top challenge in coming years. The 2012

Manpower Group Talent Shortage Survey, a global survey of employers,

reported that 48 percent of respondents based in India had difficulty finding

qualified candidates for their senior managerial positions. This report was

significant since it emphasized the need to enhance leadership capabilities

and inculcate appropriate leadership styles in the current leadership pool in

organisations. This study to ascertain how different leadership styles impact

commitment and motivation hence gains a lot of importance in the current

corporate context. It attempts to provide suggestions for the mantra ‘If new

leaders cannot be hired, grow existing potential’. The supply-demand gap in

leadership pipeline becomes evident in the illustration provided by Booz &

Company in 2012.

15
Figure 1.2

Source : Booz & Company analysis, 2012

Several underlying causes have contributed to this breakdown in India’s

corporate leadership pipeline. Understanding these factors can reveal the

opportunities that today’s senior executives can use to set things right. It can

also provide helpful insight to executives in other emerging economies, many

16
of whose companies are also suffering from a senior executive talent

shortage.

Nandan Nilekani points out in his book Imagining India: The Idea of a

Renewed Nation (Penguin, 2009) that India lacks the educational institutions it

needs, from the earliest years to the post-college level. Thus, even though

thousands of Indian university graduates enter the workforce every year, they

are often not “industry ready” or equipped in the skills of global business. This

has contributed to a dearth of high-potential candidates and a growing talent

war for those few with desirable skill sets.

Young talent needs grooming, development and supervision. Generally, in the

wake of Indian business reaching worldwide, the lack of managers capable of

providing this guidance and being influencers, has been more acutely felt. As

the founding executives who built these thriving businesses, are now

approaching retirement, there is a need felt for the second level which can

propel the business ahead with a vision. As per latest researches conducted

in the field of management, the country’s economy is growing at a faster pace

than the rate at which the leadership pipeline is maturing. A decade of rapid

expansion and exponential growth has left companies in deep need of talent

that is in short supply. The B-schools has equipped the young generation with

theory and practical knowledge, but the hands-on leadership exposure has

not been imparted in the current curriculum structure.

Over the last couple of decades the traditional model of decision-making in

Indian corporates has also undergone considerable change. From the earlier

times when corner office made all key decisions and the respective function

heads were responsible for managing their silos, the corporates have come a

17
long way. That top-down model definitely worked, it had its own advantages,

command and control ensured a smooth operating structure. But then they

have acknowledged the need for creativity, incubating ideas, questioning the

status quo. There is a more participative approach now, which appeals to the

younger generation more, brings out the best in them and more importantly,

‘involves’ them in decision making.

As per the report published by Booz and Company in 2012, this leadership

challenge manifests itself on three levels. First, there is a quantity deficit:

Many Indian companies simply find it difficult to fill all their available positions

with qualified applicants. At senior levels, the no of positions available tend to

outnumber the qualified professionals. Second, an experience deficit

aggravates the problem: Today’s senior and middle managers have not had

sufficiently broad or well-developed careers. There has been enough

investment on enhancing their functional skills, but people management area

is a lesser focussed-one. Finally, the talent war adds complexity: Competition

over high-quality executive talent is intensifying, and companies are willing to

pay exorbitant sum of money to the deserving person. From a talent

acquisition perspective, these three gaps pose the most significant challenges

to the future growth of their companies.

India’s young, growing population, its rapid economic and even social

progress, and its changing business models are the key reasons for the

leadership deficit. But there is also another key contributing factor. For ages,

Indian business leaders have focused on developing technology rather than

people. This technology focus has surely helped India progress and compete

against world powers, but lack of focus on people development has created a

18
gap. Today organisations have quality technical experts, but struggle to

convert them into business leaders. Indian companies have prioritized

achieving technical excellence, hiring engineers who have been trained to

pursue innovation—but not to manage people and lead organizations.

Irrespective of the sector, this is evident in Indian companies.

When it comes to hiring new talent and especially from the reputed B-schools,

Many Indian companies struggle with the strategy of integration and on-

boarding. The expectation is that these high-potential new recruits will excel in

people management positions, even before they are sufficiently integrated

into the broader workforce. This thinking is flawed, since without the adequate

exposure to people management, they sometimes tend to alienate long-term

valued employees from the mainstream. In the absence of a connect between

both generations, it is lose-lose for the corporate. In due course of time, to

respect the growth aspirations of functional specialists, promotions happen

but such professionals may not have had the opportunity to develop a broader

perspective or set of skills. Rapidly growing industries, such as those driven

by the rise of digital media, often rely on relatively young and inexperienced

managers to take on senior positions. By and large, these individuals have not

yet developed a leader’s perspective. But each of these firms has had to draw

upon the company’s existing pool of players to build its senior team. The

growth of that talent pool has not kept pace with those of the brands. The

ultimate result of this lack of qualified successors is that employees working

under their direct supervision become demotivated and demoralised.

Many Indian executives recognize the challenges, but are unsure what steps

to take to overcome them. First and foremost, they need to take a fresh,

19
holistic look at their leadership development practices. Their goal should be to

develop a sustainable leadership pipeline throughout the organizational

pyramid: a well-rounded leadership team to complement the required skills at

the top, a team of successors right behind them, a strong bench of high-

potential individuals identified and developed in the middle, and a cadre of

young, industry-ready talent. This leadership team would be entrusted with

the job of creating an engaged and committed workforce. Developing

leadership capabilities requires them to know ‘self’, be aware of strengths and

weaknesses and be knowledgeable on the Johari window front and to be

willing to go in for continuous self-development as they gain experience.

However, it must be noted that, the lack of a leadership pipeline is not a

uniquely Indian phenomenon. Most of the world’s organizations have taken

the time to identify high-potential employees; even that exercise of

identification is a long-drawn process with involvement from the higher

echelons of management, and uses latest management tools and techniques.

Very few of these organisations had high-potential nurturing programs

focusing on all-round development of functional skills, knowledge of business

and people. But the uniqueness in India lies in the sheer availability of raw

talent, which is to a large extent, unutilised and under-developed. Talent

management systems need to be redesigned to focus on potential as much

as on performance and objective measures must be put in place to gauge

leadership potential, measured against specific criteria

20
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

21
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Leadership

Leadership is vital in any organisation. It involves defining the direction of a

team and communicating it to people, motivating, inspiring and empowering

them to contribute to achieving organisational success. Leadership requires

being strategically focused and applying behavioural techniques to build

commitment and attain the best work from your people. The ingredients of

effective leadership are complex and are widely agreed to depend on the

specific leadership situation, considering the difficulty of tasks, the degree of a

leader's authority and the maturity and capabilities of subordinates.

Leadership skills often take time to learn, because they are multi-faceted,

behavioural and context dependent.

Becoming an effective leader is challenging to many new managers, but

offers the rewards of successfully orientating peoples work to be most

effective and achieving excellence in team performance. An understanding of

the principles of strategic thinking, direction setting, communications and

motivation provides a springboard for developing skills and an effective

management style to suit your personality and leadership situations.

Successful leaders in business often demonstrate the following attributes;

 An attitude of positivity, reliability and pro-activeness

 clear vision of business goals

 a firm commitment towards meeting defined goals

22
  an ability to effectively communicate their vision

 commitment to their team and to their organisation

 skilfulness in planning and developing strategies

 a focus on motivation and setting clear directions

 the adaptability to engage with the views and needs of team members

 an ability to inspire employees to meet goals

 commitment to the happiness and wellbeing of their team

 honesty and openness with their team

Leadership is a universal human phenomenon. The study of Leadership is not

a new phenomenon, but it is an ancient art. The old civilizations of Egypt and

Rome showed examples of leadership practices. Regardless of the culture,

leadership occurs universally among all people (Bass, 1981). From ancient to

modern times, scholars, military generals, politicians, and more casual

observers have been interested in leadership. Leadership styles have been

studied extensively; perspectives on leadership have been written and

revised. Despite all these efforts, the issue of leadership effectiveness is still

far from settled (Gordon, 1982).

Even though the word leadership has been used since the beginning of the

19th century (Stogdill, 1974), there continues to be the absence of a

comprehensive approach to assess cause and effect of successful leadership

(Taylor and Rosenbach, 1989). Burns (1978) described this situation by

asserting that .Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood

phenomena on earth. (p.2).

23
In fact, the concept of leadership has been defined by various scholars in

almost as many ways. Stogdill (1974) noted this ambiguity when he observed

that .there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are

persons who have attempted to define the concept. (p.7). This proliferation of

definitions for leadership is primarily due to the complexity and elusiveness of

the concept.

Lassey (1976) described this complexity by observing that .there is no clear-

cut agreement on the meaning of Leadership for all circumstances. (p.15). In

an attempt to resolve the discrepancy of definitions, Chemers (1997)

developed what he believed to be an umbrella definition of Leadership that

would earn the acceptance of a majority of theorists and researchers.

Chemer‘s definition describes leadership as a process of social influence in

which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in the

accomplishment of common task..

In the literature, leadership has been a subject of interest since the 18th

century. However according to Chemers (1997), leadership had not been

scientifically studied until the early 20th century .Bass (1981) contended that

early theorists attempted to identify leadership through a theoretical approach.

He continued with this analysis to suggest that researchers failed to develop

sufficient theories because they could not consider the interactions between

individuals and situational variables. Bass compared early researchers on

leadership to their recent counter parts, concluding that the former tried to

develop comprehensive theories with theoretical bases and not on empirical

research.

24
In considering the differences between a manager and leader, many scholars

agree to differences, but widely disagree on what the differences are. Schon

(1986) argued that leadership and management are not synonymous terms. It

is possible, Schon argued, to be a leader without being a manager and also to

be a manager without being a leader. According to Schon (1986), managers

are generally expected not only top manage, but also to lead. He suggested

that they should be criticized if they fail to do both. Davis and Newstrom

(1985) viewed leadership as a part of management. They argued that

managers are concerned with planning and organizing activities while leaders

are involved in influencing others to enthusiastically pursue defined objectives

(p. 158). Davis and Newstorm (1985) suggested that excellent managers are

also expected to exhibit strong leadership qualities. In this same vein Battern

(1989) distinguished between a manager and a leader by saying that

managers push and direct while leaders pull and expect. Bass (1985) argued

that leadership is not only management nor is management only leadership.

Finally, Hunt (1991) asserted that the difference between a manager and a

leader is very similar to the transformational/transactional leadership

differences which will be discussed in detail in subsequent sections.

2.1 Theories and Background of Leadership

In studying leadership, scholars and theorists have developed many different

theories and approaches in their attempts to explain leadership. It has been

noted that until the 20th century, research on leadership was not based on

scientific inquiry (Chemers, 1997).The following sections include a review of

the most popular theories and approaches to leadership.

25
The Great Man Theory

Early research on leadership attempted to identify those traits which

differentiated great persons in history from the general masses (Stogdill,

1974). The concern of 18th and 19th century philosophers focused on great

men rather than on situations (Spotts,1964).The Great Man Theory assumes

that leaders have unique qualities not found amongst masses. It also

assumes that leaders are born, not made. (Kolb et al., p.239). This theoretical

perspective is considered to be the simplest, oldest, and most widely held

notion of effective leadership. The theory ignores the past achievements of an

organization and magnifies the greatness of executives in the organization. In

other words, the theory implies that the success of an organization depends

entirely on the greatness of its executives. According to this theory, it could be

assumed that history was shaped solely through the efforts of great men such

as Moses, Churchill, and Lenin( Bass ,1981).

In his study of 14 nations over a long period of time, Woods (1913) mentioned

the influence of the man in the making of a nation. He postulated that the man

shaped the nation in accordance with his abilities. The Great Man Theory, like

others, is not without weaknesses. Among other critics, Smith (1964) criticized

the theory in several ways. First, he asserted that great leaders do not have

universal traits in common and the application of those traits also happen in

myriad ways. Second, he asserted that different traits are demanded and

valued by different societies. For time immemorial, corporations have been

enriched by such diverse traits of leaders. Smith argued further that in the

same society, different organizations demand different traits and that within an

organization different department would demand different traits.

26
Trait Theory

During the first half of the 20th century, trait theory was considered to be the

dominant theory of leadership (Chemers, 1997; Gordon, 1981).The trait

approach sought to determine the personal, psychological, and physical traits

of strong leaders.

The theory held that if leaders were endowed with superior traits or

characteristics that differentiated them from their followers, it should be

possible for these traits or characteristics to be isolated (Bass, 1981).

In a classic review of the literature on leadership, Stogdill (1948) reviewed 124

studies of leadership traits. The purpose of the review was to examine the

relationship between the traits approach and effective leadership. As a result,

Stogdill found that there were some characteristics (intelligence, physical,

social background, personality and task-related characteristics) that could be

used to distinguish leaders from non-leaders. His results revealed little or no

link between other characteristics and effective leaders. They also led to

Stogdill to the realization of the importance of situational variables in

determining effective leadership. In general, Stogdill‘s conclusion did not

support the study of trait theory as the sole approach to leadership research.

He concluded that:

A person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some

combination of traits, but the pattern of personal characteristics of the leader

must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities, and

goals of the followers. Thus, leadership must be conceived in terms of the

interaction of variables which are in constant flux and change. The

27
persistence of individual patterns of human behaviour in the face of constant

situational change appears to be the primary obstacle encountered not only in

the practice of leadership, but in the selection and placement of leaders. (pp.

63-64).

The work of Stogdill and other researchers weakened the argument that trait

theory is a complete explanation of leadership. Hollander and Julian (1969)

also criticized trait theory because of its failure to determine the most

important traits that could be associated with effective leadership. In their

argument, they also posited that leadership effectiveness is not totally

dependent on personality factors and that many other factors, including

situational factors, are also important. Gordon (1981) summarized numerous

studies that placed emphasis on leadership traits, citing their inability to totally

explain leadership success. Goulder (1950) reduced the downfall of the trait

approach to two key factors. First, leadership traits that were common to all

good leaders could not be identified. Secondly, it could not be documented

that leaders possess a set of characteristics that are not also possessed by

followers.

The numerous shortcomings of the trait approach led many researchers to try

to find a better explanation of leadership ability (Griffin, 1990). Consequently,

in the early 1950s, researchers had changed their focus from studying the

personal characteristics of leaders to the study of leader‘s observable

behaviours (Schermerhorn et al.,1982). Even so; this shift in the focus of

research did not lead to the complete demise of the trait theory school. The

theory is still considered and applied in research in the 1990s (Bryman, 1996).

28
Behavioural Theory

During the 1950s, once researchers observed that the trait theory was not an

adequate approach to explain leadership effectiveness, they started to focus

on behavioural traits of leaders. Specifically, they began to focus on what the

leader does and how he or she does it. (Ivancevich et al.,1977, p. 277). This

approach assumed that successful leaders with a particular style of behaviour

were expected to be fruitful for leading persons and groups toward the

achievement of specific goals, which consequently led to high productivity and

morale (Ansari, 1990). The behavioural approach simply aimed to identify

certain kinds of behaviours that leader‘s exhibit and to determine the effects of

such behaviours on subordinates. A composite of these behaviours is referred

to as leadership style. Ultimately, researchers were able to isolate two

contrasting styles of the behaviours of leaders, variously called initiating

structure versus consideration, autocratic versus democratic, task-oriented

versus socio-emotional, or production-cantered versus employee- centred(

Trice et al., 1993).

Robbins (1994) observed that behavioural style was the focus of a number of

studies in the decade of the 1950s. The following sections include reviews of

the more popular studies that were conducted at Ohio State University and

the University of Michigan. The Managerial Grid developed by Blake and

Mouton is also included.

The Ohio State University Studies

By the late 1940s, some of the most widely known studies had been

conducted by researchers at Ohio State University (OSU). The purpose of

29
their studies was to determine the types of behaviours leaders display and to

determine the effects of leadership style on work-group performance and

satisfaction (Fleishman, 1957). At the beginning, researchers developed a list

of more than 1,000 leadership behaviours.

By using statistical analyses, this list was eventually narrowed into two

categories, initiating structure and consideration (Robbins, 1994).Initiating

structure refers to the behaviour that is concerned with defining and

organizing the work, work relationships and goals. Consideration refers to the

behaviour that is concerned with mutual trust, respect, and rapport between

the leader and his subordinates. A leader of the consideration category was

described as one who frequently takes care of the needs of subordinates. A

leader of the consideration category was described as one who frequently

takes care of the needs of subordinates. A leader of the consideration

category was described as one who frequently takes care of the needs of

subordinates.

A leader in the initiating category was described as one who was frequently

concerned with structure, task, and routine (Reitz, 1981). In these studies of

the behaviours of leaders, researchers at OSU could not adequately identify

the most effective leadership style. Moreover, the belief that a high

consideration and a high initiating structure lead to effective leadership could

not be proved true in all studies. The results varied, and no single style

emerged as the best.

As a result, this approach also received much criticism from researchers in

the field. However, despite obvious weaknesses, the importance of these

efforts should not be diminished. The contributions of OSU provided

30
significant building blocks in the evolution of a theory that allowed for

describing the behaviours of leaders. Indeed, these studies served as the

foundation upon which later research was built (Ivancevich et al., 1977).

University of Michigan Studies

At the same time that the OSU researchers were conducting studies in

leadership, other studies on the same topic were in progress at the University

of Michigan (UM). The studies at UM sought to identify styles of leadership

that resulted in increased work-group performance and satisfaction. Similar to

OSU, the UM‘s researchers developed two distinct styles of leadership

labelled as production-centred and employee-centered leadership styles

(Ansari, 1990).

The Michigan studies revealed that leaders with a production-centered

leadership style emphasized close supervision, legitimate and coercive

power, routine, and performance. This style was viewed as similar to the OSU

dimension of initiating structure. Leaders with an employee-centered

leadership style were described as more concerned about their subordinates

as people. These leaders recognized the needs of followers, such as welfare,

advancement, and growth. Similarly, the OSU dimension of consideration

described like behaviours (Ivancevich et al., 1977).University of Michigan

researchers concluded that the employee-oriented leadership style would lead

to higher productivity and higher job satisfaction and that the production-

oriented leadership style would lead to lower productivity and lower job

satisfaction (Robbins,1994). As with their precursors, these studies were not

above criticism. From these studies, another branch of leadership research

emerged-situational theories.

31
Managerial Grid

Another influential behavioural approach to leadership/management is the

Managerial Grid developed by Blake and Mouton (1964).

Figure 2.1 : The Managerial Grid : Blake and Mouton

Source : The New Managerial Grid, Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, Houston:

Gulf Publishing Company,1978, 11

This model focuses on task (production) and people orientations of managers,

and combinations between the two extremes. This grid is acknowledged as a

balanced one denoting dimensions of managerial responsibility. A grid with

32
concern for production on the horizontal axis and concern for people on the

vertical axis plots five basic management/leadership styles. The first number

refers to a leader's production or task orientation and the second, to people or

employee orientation. It was proposed that Task Management = Team

Management‘ - a high concern for both employees and production - is the

most effective type of leadership behaviour.

Situational Leadership Style Theories

In the 1960s, behavioural theories were found to be insufficient approaches

for studying leadership (Ivancevich et al., 1977). By this time, researchers had

come to recognize that situational factors such as characteristics of leaders

and subordinates, the nature of the task, and group characteristics must be

considered in the study of leadership effectiveness (Ansari, 1990). The

implication was that the determination of successful leadership behaviour

depended on the situation (Schermerhorn et al.,1982). Situational or

contingency theories held that there was no universal leadership behaviour

that could be applied to all situations. The current review will highlight the

main contingency theories: Fiedler‘s Contingency Theory, Path-Goal Theory,

and the Vroom-Yetton Model.

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory

The first comprehensive contingency leadership theory was developed by

Fred Fiedler. The basic tenet of the theory is that group effectiveness is

dependent upon the proper match between the leader‘s personality or style

and the demands of the situation. The model further suggested that task-

oriented and employee-oriented were the two major styles of leadership. To

33
determine whether the leader was task-oriented or employee oriented, Fiedler

developed an instrument called the Least-Preferred Co-worker (LPC)

Questionnaire (Fiedler, 1967). To arrive at an LPC score, the leader is asked

to think of the person with whom he or she has worked least well in

accomplishing some task, using a series of bipolar adjectives rated on an 8-

point scale (e.g., friendly-unfriendly, pleasant-unpleasant). A high LPC leader

who describes his least preferred co-worker in relatively positive concepts is

people-motivated. A low LPC leader who uses relatively negative concepts is

task-motivated (Siegel & Lane, 1982). According to Fiedler, leaders who are

characterized as task-oriented will be effective in favourable and unfavourable

situations. Also, Fiedler assumes that employee-oriented leaders will be more

effective in situations of moderate favourability than in situations at either

extreme. Favourableness was defined by Fiedler as the degree to which the

situation enabled the leader to exert influence over his group. According to

this definition, situational favourableness consists of three elements: (1)

affective leader-member relations, which refers to the degree of personal

relationship between the leader and group members; (2) task structure, which

refers to the extent to which the task requirements are clear and spelled out;

and (3) leader position power, which refers to the degree to which the leader

has authority to reward or to punish followers (Fiedler, 1967). Bryman (1996)

pointed out that Fiedler viewed these elements as changeable and viewed a

person‘s personality as an unchangeable factor. Therefore, the theory

resolved that the work situation must be changed to fit the leader rather than

the opposite.

34
Although many researchers considered the work of Fiedler as a major

contribution to leadership studies, the theory faced criticism (Behling &

Schriesheim, 1976).For one thing, the validity of the model was questioned.

The inconsistency between the results and the model was noted (Bryman,

1986).

Path-Goal Theory

Path- Goal theory is a contingency model of leadership developed by Robert

House and based on the works of the expectancy theory of motivation and on

the work of the OSU group. This theory was promoted as an approach that

could explain how a leader might successfully enhance the satisfaction and

performance of his subordinates. The term path-goal is used to indicate the

role of a leader in making an effective link between the follower‘s personal

goals and the work goals (House, 1971).

The theory was built upon two propositions. The first proposition was that the

behaviour of the leader would be acceptable and satisfying to subordinates to

the extent that the subordinates perceived it as either an immediate source of

satisfaction or as an instrumental source to future satisfaction. The second

proposition was that the behaviour of the leader would be motivational to the

extent that (a) it made the satisfaction of subordinates contingent upon

effective performance and (b) that it complemented the work environment of

subordinates by providing guidance, clear direction, support, and reward for

effective performance. For the purpose of testing these propositions, House

devised four types of leader behaviour: (a) directive, (b) supportive, (c)

35
achievement-oriented, and (d) participative. According to House, the use of

any of these types of leadership would be situation-dependent.

The Vroom –Yetton Model

Vroom and Yetton (1973) developed a model that was designed to help a

leader through a rational process to choose an appropriate leadership style

that fits with a given situation. The basic premise of the model is that the

degree to which the leader should share decision- making power with

subordinates depends on the situation. The model identified five leadership

styles, each of which reflects a behavioural option for the leader:

AI: The leader makes the decision alone.

AII: The leader asks for information from subordinates but makes the decision

alone. Subordinates may or may not be informed about the situation.

CI: The leader shares the situation with the individual. The leader asks

subordinates for information and evaluation, but the leader alone makes the

decision.

CII: The leader and subordinates meet as a group to discuss the situation, but

the leader makes the decision.

GII: The leader and subordinates meet as a group to discuss the situation,

and the group (which includes the leader) makes the decision.

Vroom and Yetton (1973) argued that the ultimate effectiveness of decisions

could be judged on the following factors: (1) the quality or rationality of the

decision, (2) the acceptance of the decision by employees, and (3) the

amount of time required to make the decision. The model has been criticized

as complex and cumbersome (Field, 1979). However, the work of Vroom and

36
Yetton has been supported by some researchers and considered as a useful

approach of leadership (Landy, 1985; Schermerhorn, Jr., 1982).

There is also a strong linkage of Transformational Leadership to Maslow’s

hierarchy of Needs. Transformational Leadership would fit into the higher

levels, as it requires a high level of authenticity, self-esteem and self

actualization to successfully be a Transformational Leader. Ideals are higher

in Maslow's Hierarchy, which does imply that lower concerns such as health

and security must be reasonably safe before people will pay serious attention

to the higher possibilities.

Figure 2.2 : Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Source : www.wikipedia.org

Using social and spiritual values as a motivational lever is very powerful as

they are both hard to deny and also give people an uplifting sense of being

connected.

37
2.2 Recent Theories of Leadership Styles

A new theory of leadership emerged in the 1970s. Transactional and

Transformational leadership styles were first introduced by Burns (1978). A

few years later, Bass (1985) expanded the theory and came up with the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The full range of leadership

models that was introduced by Avolio and Bass (1991) gave more

advancement to the theory. This theoretical model included three styles of

leadership: (a) transactional, (b) transformational, and (c) Laissez- Faire.

According to Hartog et al. (1997), Bass‘s theory or the new leadership

approach .integrates ideas from trait, style, and contingency approaches of

leadership and also incorporates and builds on work of sociologists such as

Weber (1947) and political scientists such as Burns (1978).(P.19).The three

styles of leadership mentioned above are essential elements in this research

and are discussed in greater detail below.

Transactional and Transformational leadership Styles

In distinguishing between transactional and transformational leadership.

Burns (1978) noted that transactional leadership refers to a type of leadership

that is based on an exchange relationship between leader and follower. Burns

felt that this exchange could take different economic, political, or

psychological forms. Such leadership, he argued, does not bring leaders and

followers together to pursue higher purposes. According to Bass (1990),

transactional focus on the clarification of task requirements and the

specification of contingent rewards. Transformational leaders interact with

their followers in such a way that both leader and followers raise each other to

38
higher levels of motivation and morality (Burns, 1978).In Leadership and

Performance beyond Expectations, Bass (1985) expanded the theory of

transactional and transformational leadership. While Burns (1978) had

focused on the application of the theory in political setting, Bass (1985) was

concerned with its application to business organisations. According to Bass

(1985), transformational leaders are those who motivate followers to do more

than originally was expected. That could be achieved, Bass argued, through

anyone of the following steps: (1) increasing followers awareness and

consciousness of the importance of designated outcomes and the steps that

lead to these outcomes, (2) encouraging followers to transcend their own self

interests, and (3) expanding or altering followers needs and wants according

to Maslow‘s Hierarchy of Needs .In distinguishing between the Burns and

Bass theories of transformational leadership, Carlson and Perrewe (1995)

stated that: “The main difference between these two theories was that Burns

restricts this type of leadership only to leaders who appeal to positive moral

values. On the other hand, Bass argues that a transformational leader is one

who increases commitment regardless of the final effect on the follower.

Regardless, when transformational leadership is enacted, members of

organisations no longer seek merely self-interest, but that which is beneficial

to the organisation as a whole.”(p.832)

Fiedler and House (1988) proposed that transformational theories seek to

address the actions of leaders that cause followers to change their values,

needs, goals, and aspirations. In making the distinction between transactional

and transformational leadership forms, Burns (1978) viewed these leadership

forms as independent dimensions. In other words, Burns (1978) viewed

39
Transactional and Transformational forms of leadership as polar constructs

while Bass (1985) viewed them as complementary constructs. Bass viewed

successful leaders as both transactional and transformational who differ in

degrees. In his conclusion, Bass expressed the notion that .to be transactional

is the easy way out; to be transformational is the more difficult path to pursue.

Transactional behaviours involve structuring performance environment to

assist subordinates in achieving organizational objectives and receiving

rewards, while transformational behaviours focus on creating changes in

followers` values, self-perceptions, and psychological needs (Fein et al,

2010). Generally speaking, studies conducted on transactional and

transformational leadership have added important value into the nature of

leadership effectiveness.

As a pointer for differentiation, transactional leadership is a process in which

the relationship leader-follower is reduced to simple exchange of a certain

quantity of work for an adequate price. Contrary to this, transformational

leadership is far more complex process, the realization of which requires more

visionary and more inspiring figures (Bowditch and Buono, 1990).

Different empirical studies have been conducted to support the effects of

transformational leaders‘ behaviours. A previous study showed that

transformational leadership is positively related to employee satisfaction and

to job performance (Bass, 1995). Ozaralli (2003) found that transformational

leadership contributes to the prediction of subordinates‘ self-reported

empowerment. Transformational leadership enhances organizational

citizenship behaviours (Koh et al, 1995) and employees‘ commitment (Barling

et al, 1996). In addition, transformational leadership mediates the relationship

40
between leaders‘ emotional intelligence and group cohesiveness (Wang and

Huang, 2009).

Transactional Leadership Style Dimensions

Bass (1989) suggested that transactional leadership involves two distinct

dimensions:

(1) the use of contingent rewards, which implies that leaders reward followers

in exchange for attaining the specified performance levels; and (2)

management by exception (MBE), which has the dimensions of Active and

Passive. In Active MBE, leaders monitor their follower‘s performances and

take corrective actions as necessary. In Passive MBE, leaders do not

intervene until mistakes or problems occur, then leaders take corrective

actions.

Transformational Leadership Style Dimensions

In 1995, a new version of the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

was developed to measure transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire

styles of leadership. For this version, Bass and Avolio (1995) listed five

dimensions that refer to transformational leadership characteristics. The term

‘transformational leadership‘ was first coined by Downton, and then emerged

as an important approach to leadership research by Burns. Based on these

early works, several theories of transformational leadership were generated to

advance this new leadership concept. These works broadened the traditional

concept of leadership as a relationship of economic exchange that offers

rewards or compensation for a desired behaviour by viewing leadership as a

change process and by exploring the impact of leader behaviour on followers‘

41
values, beliefs and higher-order needs. Specifically, Bass described

transformational leadership as leader behaviours that stimulate and inspire

followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes by raising the level of motivation

and morality in both themselves and their followers. Transformational leaders

are effective in promoting organizational commitment by aligning goals and

values of the follower, the group, the leader, and the organization. Its strong,

positive effects on followers‘ attributes and commitment will then motivate

followers to reach their fullest potential and exceed expected performance.

Bass and his colleagues further conceptualized transformational leadership

into four components: idealized influence; inspirational motivation; intellectual

stimulation; and individualized consideration. Each of the components helps

build followers‘ commitment in different ways. The following texts discuss

these components and their impact on followers‘ organization commitment in

detail.

 Idealized influence, also called charisma, describes transformational

leaders who behave as role models for their followers. Followers

usually perceive these leaders as having extraordinary capability,

persistence and determination, as well as high standards of moral and

ethical conduct. They deeply admire, respect and trust these leaders,

and thus identify with leaders‘ goals, interests and values.

 Inspirational motivation occurs when leaders motivate and inspire

those around them by providing challenges and meaning to their work.

They provide visions of what is possible and how to attain these goals.

More specifically, these leaders get followers involved in envisioning

the future, and then they promote positive expectations about what

42
 needs to be done and demonstrate commitment to the shared vision.

With this dimension, leaders are able to promote followers‘ emotional

commitment and excitement to a mission.

 Intellectual stimulation encourages followers to be creative and

innovative. In practice, transformational leaders help others to think

about old problems in new ways, and to continuously question and

develop their own beliefs, assumptions and values. These leaders also

jointly work with their followers to deal with problems in innovative

ways. The pride in actions of all those involved and joint success in

overcoming obstacles will reinforce organizational commitment of

followers.

 Individualized consideration means understanding and sharing others‘

concern and developmental needs, and treating each individual

follower uniquely. Leaders act as coaches and advisors to not only

identify and satisfy each individual follower‘s current needs, but also to

attempt to expand and elevate the needs in order to assist followers

become fully actualized. By emphasizing on followers‘ personal career

needs and providing them with a sense of increased competence to

carry out duties, leaders could further enhance followers‘ commitment.

Transformational leaders have charisma, inspiration and intellectual

simulation, inspiration and intellectual simulation (Conger, 1999). Charisma

generates the pride, faith and respect that leaders encourage their workers to

have in themselves, their leaders and their technological organization, while

inspiration is the ability to motivate followers through communication of high-

technological expectations (Garcia-Morales, Matias-Reche and Hurtado-

43
Torres, 2008). Intellectual simulation refers to the leaders‘ behaviour that

leads to promoting employees' intelligence, knowledge and learning so that

they can be innovative.

Transformational leader raises aspiration and shifts people and organizational

systems into new, high-performance patterns. The presence of

transformational leadership is reflected in followers who are enthusiastic

about the leader and her or his ideas (Schermerhorn, 2008). Furthermore,

transformational leaders inspire their followers to think more than their own

aims and interests and to focus on greater team, organizational, national, and

also global objectives (Jandaghi et al, 2009).

While transactional and transformational leaders were described as active

leaders (Yammarino & Bass, 1990), laissez- faire leaders were viewed as

inactive. Laissez- faire leaders are characterized by avoiding responsibility

and decision–making.

Although such a style under certain conditions (for example, with a group of

scientists or college professors) will be effective (Sutermeister, 1969;

Williams, 1978), it was thought that this particular style of leadership

indicated, in fact, the absence of leadership. Therefore, this type of leadership

was considered to be an inappropriate way to lead (Hartlog et al., 1997).

Laissez-Faire Leadership Style

While transactional and transformational leaders were described as active

leaders (Yammarino & Bass, 1990), laissez-faire leaders were viewed as

inactive. Laissez-faire leaders are characterized by avoiding responsibility and

decision–making.

44
Although such a style under certain conditions (for example, with a group of

scientists or college professors) will be effective (Sutermeister, 1969;

Williams, 1978), it was thought that this particular style of leadership

indicated, in fact, the absence of leadership. Therefore, this type of leadership

was considered to be an inappropriate way to lead (Hartlog et al., 1997).

Summary of Leadership Style Theories

Since the 18th century, leadership has been a subject of interest. However,

the field of leadership had not been scientifically studied until the early 20th

century. Early research on leadership attempted to identify leadership through

a theoretical approach. The Great Man Theory assumes that leaders are

endowed with unique qualities not to be found among the masses. The trait

theory, which was considered to be the dominate theory of leadership during

the first half of the 20th century, sought to determine the personal,

psychological, and physical traits of strong leaders. During the 1950s, the

theoretical approach was abandoned due to its inability to explain leadership

effectiveness. As a result, the behavioural theory represented by the studies

of Ohio State University and the University of Michigan had taken place. The

behavioural approach simply aimed to identify certain kinds of behaviours that

leader‘s exhibit and to determine the effects of such behaviours on

subordinates. In the 1960s, leadership researchers focused their attention on

the situational factors and their effects on leadership effectiveness. Situational

or contingency theories held that there was no universal leadership behaviour

that could be applied to all situations. The full range of leadership that

included three styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) is a

recent development in the field. This approach integrated ideas from trait,

45
behavioural, and situational theories and built on these. Transformational

leaders inspire followers to rise above self-interest for the greater good of the

group and to do more than originally was expected. Transactional leaders

focus on the clarification of task requirements and the specification of

contingent rewards.

Theoretical Framework on Leadership Style

The broad fields of this research are Transformational and Transactional

leadership. The transformational leadership has five dimensions or factors

that build the subject and transactional leadership has 3 dimensions or factors

that build the subject .(The five factors of transformational leadership styles

are: Idealized influence {attributes and behaviours}, inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation, encourage innovative thinking and individualized

consideration). (The three factors of transactional leadership are: MBE-A:

Management-By-Exception: Active, MBE-P: Management-By-Exception:

Passive and CR: Contingent Reward).

The dependent variable .employee commitment. relies on the factors of

transformational and transactional leadership, which are the independent

variables in the Research Study. In today‘s competitive world, it is difficult for

organization to compete or even to survive without satisfying the most valued

asset of the organization and deriving commitment of the employees towards

their Leader and organization. Since yet more emphasis has been given to

the outcome of transformational and transactional leadership and less to the

demographic variables which plays the role of another set of independent

variables. Hence, investigation of subordinate‘s commitment with the leader

46
and in turn towards the organization from the perspectives of these two

leadership styles is central to this research.

Figure 2.3 : The Leadership Challenge Model

Source: Best selling book, The Leadership Challenge, by James M. Kouzes

and Barry Z. Posner

2.3 Employee Commitment

No organizations in today‘s competitive world can perform at peak levels

unless each employee is committed to the organisation‘s objectives and work

as an effective team member. It is no longer good enough to have employees

who come to work faithfully every day and do their jobs independently.

Employees now have to think like entrepreneurs while working in teams, and

have to prove their worth. However they also want to be a part of successful

organisation which provides a good income and the opportunity for

development and secured employment.

In today‘s workplace, employees face more ambiguity in their daily activities

and decreased job security (Bergmann, Lester, De Meuse and Grahn, 2000).

With no assurance of continued employment, workers have now raised their

47
expectations in other areas. For instance, the employees expect employer to

demonstrate their commitment in terms of pleasant working conditions,

access to training and development, provision of a safe working environment

and a balance between work and employee‘s commitment outside the

workplace.

Organizations are faced with ever increasing competition and as they prepare

for new challenges, one of the key components of survival is maintaining and

upgrading the organization‘s ability to use human resources effectively and

efficiently. According to Katz (1964), employee behaviour essential for

organizational effectiveness includes employee‘s (1) entering and remaining

with the organisation, (2) carrying out specific role requirements and (3)

engaging in innovative and spontaneous activity that goes beyond role

prescriptions. The appointment of good workers is thus critical, but of even

greater significance is the organisation‘s ability to create a committed

workforce.

Hence the need for managers to understand the concept of commitment –

what it is how it operates, and most importantly, which behaviours are

displayed by employees committed to the organisation?

The importance of employee commitment is quite evident if one considers

prior research into the relationship between commitment and job satisfaction

(Bateman and Organ, 1983), trust in and loyalty to the leader (Deluga, 1994)

and perception of supervisor‘s fairness (Nierhoff & Moorman 1993). It is an

important concept in the management and behavioural sciences. It is

concerned with the relationship between an organization and its employees.

48
The importance of organizational commitment of employees refers to its

presumed relationship with important organizational outcomes such as

turnover, absenteeism, and performance (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982).

Committed employees are expected to identify with and to feel loyal toward

their organization; to feel the importance of the agency‘s values, goals, and

mission; and also to feel that their job responsibilities are compatible with their

personal values and ethics (Romzak, 1990).

It has been reported that .Organizational commitment should be of great

interest to managers, because employees with strong commitment tend to be

highly productive and loyal, while those with low levels tend to be disengaged

and are prone to attrite, absent frequently, fall prey to stress-induced health

issues and other psychological workplace problems. In addition to all of this,

committed employees are thought to act without basing their actions on any

calculation of what they have invested.

Committed employees are also thought to believe that the values they share

with the organization will provide them with a sense of personal satisfaction

(Romzek,1990). Buchanan (1974a) viewed commitment as .no less than a

precondition for successful social organization. (p.340). In general, for both

individuals and agencies, employee commitment is believed to be a positive

factor (Romzek, 1990).

Many authors associate the development of organisational commitment with

variables such as the personal characteristics of the employee, organisational

characteristics and work characteristics (Mowday et al.,1979; Nijhof et al.,

1992). The influence of personal characteristics on organisational

commitment has been extensively studied with the focus on demographic

49
variables such as age, gender, occupational status, length of service, salary,

internal promotion period, marital status, educational level (Nijhof et al .,1992).

The organisational characteristics that have been studied include leadership

and management style and various Demographic details. In our attempt to

understand organisational commitment, we need to understand how these

various variables fit together and lead to the development of organisational

commitment.

In the literature, there is no universal definition of organizational commitment

of employees. Researchers with different theoretical perspectives have

defined the concept of employee commitment in various ways. Buchanan

(1974b) observed that there is little consensus about the definition of

commitment or its measurement.

Morrow (1983) reviewed the literature on commitment that has been written

since 1965 and found more than 25 employee commitment concepts and

measures. Grouping these concepts and measures, Morrow discerned five

distinct types: commitment to work, the organization, the job, the career, and

the union. The present study was concerned with only commitment to the

organization.

Organizational researchers agree that a consensus has not yet been reached

over the definition of organizational commitment of employees (Scholl, 1981;

Benkhoff, 1997a; Mowday 1998; Suliman and Isles, 2000a, 2000b; Zangaro,

2001). Scholl (1981) indicates that the way employee commitment is defined

depends on the approach to commitment that one is adhering to. Accordingly

employee commitment is defined either as an employee attitude or as force

that binds an employee to an organization. According to Suliman and Isles

50
(2000a), there are currently four main approaches to the conceptualization

and exploring organizational commitment. There is the attitudinal approach,

the behavioural approach, the normative approach and the multi-dimensional

approach.

Mowday et al. (1979) pointed out that most researchers‘ defined

organizational commitment in terms of either a behavioural perspective or an

attitudinal perspective.

Alpander (1990) distinguished between the attitudinal and behavioural

approaches to commitment and described how commitment has been viewed

differently from the two perspectives. The former, Alpander (1990) argued,

views commitment as an internal state, but the latter views it as .the state of

being bound to the organization by personal investment. (p.53). Mowday et al.

(1982) proposed that a cyclical relationship exists between the two types in

which commitment attitudes lead to committing behaviours which, in turn,

reinforce commitment attitudes. An important observation is that, throughout

the literature, commitment has been viewed as a more active and positive

attitude toward the organization from both perspectives (Johnston et al.,

1990).This study focused on employee commitment as an attitude.

The attitudinal approach views commitment largely as an employee attitude or

more specifically as a set of behavioural intentions. The most widely accepted

attitudinal conceptualization of organizational commitment is that by Porter

and his colleagues who define organizational commitment is the relative

strength of an individual‘s identification with and involvement in a particular

organization (Mowday et al.,1979).They mention three characteristics of

employee commitment: (1) a strong belief in and acceptance of the

51
organization‘s goals and values, (2) A willingness to exert a considerable

effort on behalf of the organization and (3) a strong intent or desire to remain

with the organization. Within this approach, the factors associated with

commitment include positive work experiences; personal characteristics and

job characteristics while the outcomes include increased performance,

reduced absenteeism and reduced employee turnover.

The second approach refers to organizational commitment of employee‘s

behaviour (Suliman and Isles, 2000b; Zangaro, 2001). The focus of research

according to the behavioural approach is on the overt manifestations of

commitment. The Behavioural approach emphasizes the view that an

employee continues his/her employment with an organization because

investments such as time spent in the organization, friendships formed within

the organization and pension benefits, tie the employee to the organization.

Thus an employee becomes committed to an organization because of sunk

costs. that is too costly to lose. Becker‘s (1960) side bet theory forms the

foundation of this approach. According to him employee commitment is

continued association with an organization that occurs because of an

employee‘s decision after evaluating the costs of leaving the organization. He

emphasizes that this commitment only happens once the employee has

recognised the cost associated with discontinuing his association with the

organization. In a similar vein, Kanter (1968) defined organizational

commitment as profit. associated with continued participation and a .cost.

associated with leaving. That is, an employee stands to either profit or lose

depending on whether he/she chooses to remain with the organization.

Whereas the attitudinal approach uses the concept of commitment to explain

52
performance and membership, the behavioural school uses the concept of

.investments. as .a force that ties employees to organizations., to explain

organizational commitment (Scholl, 1981).

The Normative approach is the third approach, which argues that congruency

between employee goals and values and organizational aims make the

employee feel obligated to his/her organization (Becker, Randall, & Reigel

1995).From this point of view, organizational commitment has been defined

as .the totality of internalized normative pressures to act in a way which meets

organizational goals and interests. (Weiner, 1982).

The last approach, the multidimensional approach, is relatively new. It

assumes that organizational commitment is more complex that emotional

attachment, perceived costs or moral obligations. This approach suggests that

organizational commitment develops because of the interaction of all these

three components. Several studies according to Suliman and Isles (2000b)

have contributed to this new conceptualization of organizational commitment.

They credit Kelman (1958) as the earliest contributor to the multidimensional

approach. Elman lay down the foundation for the multidimensional approach

when he linked compliance, identification and internalisation to attitudinal

change. Another earlier contributor is Etzioni (1961) who, as cited by Zangaro

(2001), describe organizational commitment in terms of three dimensions;

moral involvement, calculative involvement and alimentative involvement, with

each of these dimensions representing an individual‘s response to

organizational powers. Moral involvement is defined as a positive orientation

based on an employee‘s internalisation and identification with organisational

goals.

53
Calculative involvement is defined as either a negative or a positive

orientation of low intensity that develops due to an employee receiving

inducements from the organization that match his/her contributions. Alienative

involvement on the other hand is described as a negative attachment to the

organization. In this situation, individuals perceive a lack of control or of the

ability to change their environment and therefore remain in the organization

only because they feel they have no other options. Etzioni‘s three dimensions

incorporate the attitudinal, behavioural and normative aspects of

organizational commitments of employees. O‘Reilly and Chatman (1986) also

support the notion that organizational commitment should be seen as the

multi-dimensional construct. They developed their multi-dimensional approach

based on the assumption that commitment represents an attitude toward the

organization, and the fact that various mechanisms can lead to attitudes

development of attitudes. Taking Kelman‘s (1958) work as their basis, they

argue that commitment could take three distinct forms that they called

compliance, identification and internalisation. They believed that compliance

would occur when attitudes and corresponding behaviours are adopted in

order to gain specific rewards.

Identification would occur when an individual accepts influence to establish or

maintain a satisfying relationship. Lastly, internalization would occur when the

attitudes and behaviours that one is encouraged to adopt are congruent with

one‘s own values.

The most popular multi-dimensional approach to employee commitment is

that of Meyer and his colleagues. In 1984, Meyer and Allen, based on

Becker‘s side-bet theory, introduced the dimension of continuance

54
commitment to the already existing dimension of affective commitment. As a

result, organizational commitment of employees was regarded as a bi-

dimensional concept that included an attitudinal aspect as well as behavioural

aspect. In 1990 Allen and Meyer added a third component, normative

commitment to their two dimensions of organizational commitment. They

proposed that commitment as a psychological attachment may take the

following three forms: the affective, continuance and normative forms.

Meyer and Allen (1984) defined affective commitment as .an employee‘s

emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the

organization, continuance commitment as .commitment based on the costs

that employees associate with leaving the organization., and normative

commitment as .an employee‘s feelings of obligation to remain with the

organization.. Each of these three dimensions represents a possible

description of an individual‘s attachment to an organization.

Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) have pointed out that there are differences in

the dimensions, forms or components of commitment that have been

described in the different multi-dimensional conceptualizations of

organizational commitment. They attribute these differences to the different

motives and strategies involved in the development of these multidimensional

frameworks. These included attempts to account for empirical findings (Angle

& Perry 1981), distinguished among earlier one dimensional

conceptualizations (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Jaros, Koehler & Sincich, 1993),

ground commitment within an established theoretical context (O‘ Reilly and

Chatman, 1986), or some combination of these (Mayer & Schoorman 1992).

55
Mowday et al. (1979) pointed out that most researchers defined employee

commitment in terms of either a behavioural perspective or an attitudinal

perspective.

Alpander (1990) distinguished between the attitudinal and behavioural

approaches to commitment and described how commitment has been viewed

differently from the two perspectives. Mowday et al. (1982) proposed that a

cyclical relationship exists between the two types in which commitment

attitudes lead to committing behaviours which, in turn, reinforce commitment

attitudes. An important observation is that, throughout the literature,

commitment has been viewed as a more active and positive attitude toward

the organization from both perspectives (Johnston et al., 1990). This study

focused on employee commitment as an attitude.

Organisational commitment researchers can be divided into two major camps,

those who view organizational commitment as an attitude and those who view

it as behaviour (Meyer & Allen 1991; Jaros et al., 1993). Meyer and Allen

(1991) regard attitudinal commitment as the way people feel and think about

their organisations, while behavioural commitment reflects the way individuals

have become locked into the organisation. The attitudinal approach regards

commitment as an employee attitude that reflects the nature and quality of the

linkage between an employee and an organisation (Meyer and Allen, 1991).

Dimensions of Employee Commitment

Among the proponents of attitudinal approach, researchers have started to

view employee commitment as a multi dimensional concept that has different

factors associated with it, outcomes and implications for human resources

56
management (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Meyer and his colleagues (Allen and

Meyer, 1990; Meyer and Allen, 1991; Meyer and Allen 1997; Meyer and

Herscovitch, 2001) have been at the forefront of the multi-dimensional

approach. Their three component model of organisational commitment

incorporates affective, continuance, and normative as the three dimensions of

organisational commitment.

Affective Commitment

Allen and Meyer (1990) refer to affective commitment as the employee‘s

emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the

organisation. Affective commitment involves three aspects: (1) the formation

of an emotional attachment to an organization, (2) identification with, (3) and

the desire to maintain organisational membership. Allen and Meyer (1990)

argue that an individual will develop emotional attachment when he/she

identifies with the goals of the organisation and is willing to assist the

organisation in achieving these goals. They further explain that identification

with an organisation happens when the employees own values are congruent

with the organisational values and the employee is able to internalise the

values and goals of the organisation. With this, there is a psychological

identification with and a pride of association with the organisation.

Jaros et al. (1993) suggest that affective commitment is the most widely

discussed form of psychological attachment to an employing organisation.

This could probably be because affective commitment is associated with

desirable organisational outcome.

57
Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) report that affective commitment has been

found to correlate with a wide range of outcomes such as turnover,

absenteeism, job performance and organisational citizenship behaviour.

Continuance Commitment

The next dimension of employee commitment is continuance commitment

(Allen and Meyer, 1990) which is based on Becker‘s (1960) side bet theory.

The theory speaks of that as an individual remains in the employment of an

organisation for longer periods; they accumulate an investment, which

becomes costly to lose the longer the individual is attached to the

organisation. These investments includes time, job, efforts, organisational

specific skills that might not be transferable or greater cost of leaving the

organisation that discourage them from seeking alternative employment, work

friendships and political deals.

Allen and Meyer (1990) describe continuance commitment as a form of

psychological attachment to an employing organisation that reflects the

employee‘s perception of the loss he/she would suffer if they were to leave

the organisation. They explain that continuance commitment involves

awareness on the employee‘s part of the costs associated with leaving the

organisation. This then forms the employee‘s primary link to the organisation

and his/her decision to remain with the organisation is an effort to retain the

benefits accrued.

Romzek (1990) describes this type of attachment as a transactional

attachment. He argues that employees calculate their investment in the

organisation based on what they have put into the organisation and what they

58
stand to gain if they remain with the organisation. For example, an individual

might choose not to change employers because of the time and money tied

up in an organisation‘s retirement plan. Such an employee would feel that

he/she stands to lose too much if he/she were to leave the organisation. In

addition to the fear of losing investments, individuals develop continuance

commitment because of a perceived lack of alternatives. Allen and Meyer

(1990) and Meyer and Allen (1991) argue that such an individual‘s

commitment to the organisation would be based on his/her perceptions of

employment options outside the organisation. This occurs when an employee

starts to believe that his/her skills are not marketable or that he does not have

the skill required to complete for the positions in the field. Such an employee

would feel tied to the organisation. People who work in environments where

the skills and training they get are very industry specific can possibly develop

such commitment. As a result, the employee feels compelled to commit to the

organisation because of the monetary, social, psychological and other costs

associated with leaving the organisation. Unlike affective commitment which

involves emotional attachment, continuance commitment reflects a calculation

of the costs of leaving versus the benefits of staying.

Normative Commitment

The third dimension of employee‘s commitment in an organization is

normative commitment, which reflects a feeling of obligation to continue

employment. Employees with a high level of Normative Commitment feel they

ought to remain with the organisation (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Researchers

have overlooked this view of employee commitment as relatively few studies

explicitly address normative commitment. Randall and Cote (1990) Allen and

59
Meyer (1990) and O‘Reilly, Chatman, Caldwell (1991) are some of the few

who have attempted to differentiate normative commitment from the other

commitments of the employee‘s organisational commitment.

Randall and Cote regard normative commitment in terms of the moral

obligation the employee develops after the organisation has invested in

him/her. They argue that when an employee starts to feel that the

organisation has spent either too much time or money developing and training

him/her, such an employee might feel an obligation to stay with the

organisation. For example, an employee whose organisation paid his tuition

while he/she is improving qualifications might believe that he or she can

reimburse the organisation by continuing to work for it. In general normative

commitment is most likely when individuals find it difficult to reciprocate the

organisation‘s investment in them.

Antecedents of Employee Commitment

The concept of employee commitment has been conceptualized and

measured in different ways by many researchers. Many researchers on the

topic of employee commitment have used many different variables as

possible antecedents of commitment and have assigned these variables to

categories (Mowday et al., 1982).

Steers (1977) proposed a dichotomy that he believed explains antecedents

and outcomes of organisational commitment. The argument associated with

antecedents was built heavily on previous research. Steer‘s view was that the

antecedents of commitment were the three categories of personal

characteristics, role-related characteristics, and work experiences. Mowday et

60
al. (1982), in their review of empirical studies conducted on the topic of

organisational commitment, found that most of the studies of this nature were

correlation. Mowday et al., extended the model proposed by Steers (1977)

and came up with another model.

Personal Characteristics

Many studies were concerned with the effects of various personal

characteristics on employee commitment (Angle Perry, 1981; Hrebiniak, 1974;

Mowday et al., 1982).

The effects of age, educational level, tenure, gender, race, and other

personality factors on the level of organizational commitment of employees

were examined in such studies. For example, various researchers have found

a positive impact of age and tenure on the level of commitment. The logic

behind this, positive relationship is that when the individual gets older and

remains with an organization longer, the individual‘s opportunities for

alternative employment tend to decrease, thereby enhancing the employee‘s

commitment to the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1984; Mowday et al., 1982).

In contrast to age and tenure, education has been found to be inversely

related to commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday et al., 1982; Steers,

1977). It can be assumed that employees with higher levels of education may

have higher expectations which makes it difficult for an organization to meet

such expectations and results in less committed employees (Steers,1977).

Marital status and gender also have effects upon organizational commitment

of employees.

61
Kawakubo (1987) and Lincoln & Kalleberg (1990) argued that marital status

was found to be a significant factor in employee commitment. According to

Kawakubo, it was found that married and separated persons were committed

to organizations more than were single persons. The logic behind that could

be that married and separated persons have more responsibilities than single

persons (Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990).With respect to gender, Angle and Perry

(1981) and Mathieu and Zajac (1990) found that females were more strongly

committed to their organizations than were males.

Role Related Characteristics

Mowday et al. (1982) were concerned with the relationship between job

characteristics and commitment: job scope or challenge, role conflict, and role

ambiguity. They indicated that increased job scope would lead to an increase

in commitment. Regarding role conflict and role ambiguity, Mowday et al.

reported that where there is role ambiguity and role conflict, and role

ambiguity. They indicated that increased job scope would lead to an increase

in commitment. Regarding role conflict and role ambiguity, Mowday et al.

reported that where there is role ambiguity and role conflict, employee

commitment tended to decrease. Austin and Gammon (1983) reviewed the

literature on the work experiences of academic administrators and the link to

employee commitment. They found that compensation is critical to

commitment. They stated that if administrators feel that they are not valued for

their contributions and are not rewarded to at least some reasonable degree,

their commitment may be threatened. (p.61). Occupational status has also

been identified as a significant factor in occupational commitment. Wiener and

Vardi (1980) found that employees who occupy managerial positions tend to

62
be more committed to their organizations than those who do not occupy

managerial positions. They contended that this is due to the difference in

prestige and pay among the two groups.

Structural Characteristics

Within the body of literature on organizational commitment of employees,

researchers have investigated the influence of structural characteristics on

commitment. Stevens et al. (1978) found that organization size, span of

control, union, presence, and centralization of authority were not related to

commitment. Later, Morris and Steers (1980) conducted a study to determine

what effects of structural characteristics such as formalization, functional

dependence, supervisory span of control, span of subordination,

decentralization, and work group size had on commitment. They found

commitment to be positively related to employee participation,

decentralization, functional dependence, and formalization. When individuals

participate at every level in the organization, their ego involvement is

enhanced which eventually leads to increased commitment. Employees who

experience greater decentralization, greater dependence on the work of

others, and greater formality of written rules and procedures were reported to

be more committed to their organizations than employees experiencing these

factors to a lesser degree (Mowday et al., 1982).

2.4 Employee Motivation

Motivation : Technically the word motivation can be traced back to the Latin

word “mover” which means “to move”. Motivation is a subroutine which begins

63
with a physiological or psychological defect or want or need that start a

manner of acting that is planned to accomplish a goal or objective.

Robbins (2007) has emphasized that employee motivation is “The process

that accounts for an individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence of effort

toward attaining a goal” .Luthans (2005), on the other hand, fells that it is

“Desires wants wishes aims goals needs drives motives and incentives”.

Bartol & Martin (1994) hypothesized that it is “The forces that energize

behavior, gives direction to behavior, and underlines the tendency to persist”.

Williams (2009) argued that motivation is “The set of forces that initiates,

directs and makes people persist in their efforts to accomplish a goal”. Osborn

(2008) attributed motivation to internal factors, referring it to “forces within an

individual that account for the level, direction, and persistence of effort

expended at work”. ” George & Jones (2008) pointed to the element of

psychology by terming motivation as the sum total of “The psychological

forces that determine the direction of a person’s behavior in an organization, a

person’s level of effort, and a person’s level of persistence. Greenberg &

Baron (2009) brought in the process element by defining motivation as ’the

set of processes that arouse direct, and maintain human behavior toward

attaining some goals”. Motivation has some micro conception of some words;

but there is a commonality in every definition like Efforts element which

describes the density or drive.

Furthermore, motivation is linked to job success, productivity, and goal

achievement (Locke, 1970; McClelland, 1985; Miner, Smith & Bracker, 1989),

and work values can influence job satisfaction (Chaves, 2001; Dibble, 1997).

64
Work motivation and work values continue to be the focus of assessment

development and research in the fields of counseling, applied psychology,

and organizational studies (Brady,2002; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Miner,

2005; Reis, 2004). Influenced by motivational theory research published since

the introduction of the Work Orientation and Values Survey (WOVS) in 2002,

the 2008 revision now includes the following motive clusters: Survival and

Safety Motives, Affiliation iDirections for Administering and Interpreting the

Work Motivation Scale Motives, Self-Esteem Motives, and Fulfilment Motives.

These motives have traditionally been presented as hierarchical (Maslow,

1943, 1970); however, Bagozzi, Bergami, and Leone (2003) proposed that the

motive network is a “weak hierarchy” and that the relationship schema may

not always be vertical but could be horizontal, unidirectional, bi-directional, or

even circular.

2.5 Employee Commitment within Corporate sector

From the analysis of various studies, it can be seen that the development of

commitment is dependent on several personal and organisational factors such

as Leadership, management policies and practices, Organizational Culture. In

the corporate sector, commitment of employees is closely associated with the

culture prevalent in the organisation. Hofsted (2001) narrates that for the

ultimate interpretation and adaptation of organizational culture, it is a

prerequisite to understand local traditions, management practices and human

resource development. Employee Commitment is feeling of emotional

attachment with the organisation and the job. It is a unique kind of loyalty,

identification, and involvement. In the corporate setting, such loyalty involves

feelings of attachment, which develops as individuals share values in common

65
with other members of the group. Employee commitment is a factor which is

given attention for efficiency and performance both in the public and private

sector. Bennett and Durkin (2000) stated that the negative effects associated

with a lack of employee commitment include absenteeism and turnover. As

suggested by Drucker (1999), organizations are now evolving toward

structures in which rank means responsibility but not authority, and where the

supervisor’s job is not to command, but to persuade. Hence, in order to be

effective, it is critical for managers to influence their subordinates, peers, and

superiors to assist and support their proposals, plans, and to motivate them to

carry out with their decisions (Blickle, 2003).

2.6 Employee Motivation within Corporate sector

Irrespective of the industry, motivation of employees is affected by variables

like organizational rewards, career development opportunities, supervisory

support, and promotion. In the current Indian corporate context, turnover

intentions depend the nature of organization practices and these practices

enhance the personal goals and motivate the work force and reduce turnover.

Huselid (1995) investigated the impact of human resource management

practices on turnover, productivity and corporate finance performance. The

impact of high performance work practices on corporate financial

performances influence the employee turnover and its productivity. Bloch

(2004) investigated the effect of job satisfaction on employee motivation and

turnover intensions. The data collected showed the effect of variables

(physical environment, task design, reward and reinforcement, supervisory

support and coaching, social norms and organizational culture) on job

66
satisfaction, employee motivation and turnover intentions. He defined

summarised job satisfaction results increased motivation and reduce turnover

intentions.

It is also assumed that the intrinsic and extrinsic compensation instrument has

a direct positive relation with motivation, improved employee morale,

employee engagement and productivity. In the Indian corporate context,

employee-friendly policies have a positive impact on job motivation. Also,

variables like procedural justice, organizational policies, autonomy, feedback,

goal clarity, supervisory relationship, organizational citizenship behavior

impact on organization commitment and reduce turnover. P Doody (2007)

investigated the impact of high involvement work system on employee

turnover and organization performance. The data established the effect of

high involvement in work system to improve productivity.

In the corporate sector which predominantly has employees’ with high

aspirations, training is a major element to create more motivated employees

and establish productive workforce with the help of employee investment,

reciprocity, identification and alternative employment options. HR to a great

extent, controls organization factors that merit promotion, pay and loyalty

through HRM policies. The other factors which affect employee motivation are

health benefit, base pay and life/ work balance, autonomy, growth, esteem,

belongingness, career opportunities and climate.

Cernea (1975) investigated the role of individual motivation and labor turnover

under socialism in industrial sector. He found out the effect of nine Variables

(higher wages, residence, better regime, intrusting work, less physical effort,

better working conditions, furthering education, better social service, and

67
strained relation with work group) employee motivation on turnover. He found

the most significant factors and attributes of motivation on employee turnover

are higher wages, residence, better regime, intrusting work, less physical

effort, better working conditions, furthering education, better social service,

and strained relation with work group.

2.7 Employee Retention in Corporate sector

Before the economic liberalisation policy of the Congress Government (1991)

in India, the scenario in Organizations were completely different from that

which exists now in terms of stability of workforce as opportunities were very

few at that time comparatively. In the early 50’s and 60s, more Government

Organizations/semi-government Organizations and very few private players

existed. People who entered the job market remained with one employer for a

very long time, sometimes for the duration of their working life. If they

changed jobs it was usually a major career and life decision and someone

who made many and frequent job changes was looked at as an incompetent

person not able to survive anywhere, struggling to make both ends meet. In

the 70’s and later, external mobility increased dramatically posing a great

threat to the Organizations. The HR leadership of the Organizations found

themselves with a new phenomenon to consider, the employee turnover.

According to Get Les McKeon, employee retention is defined as "A systematic

effort by employers to create and foster an environment that encourages

current employees to remain employed by having policies and practices in

place that address their diverse needs. The costs associated with turnover

may include lost customers, business and damaged morale. In addition, there

68
are the hard costs of time spent in screening, verifying credentials,

references, interviewing, hiring and training the new employee just to get back

to where you started.”

Also of concern are the costs of employee turnover (including hiring costs &

productivity loss). Replacement costs usually are two and a half times the

salary of the individual. Therefore, employee retention is effort by a business

to maintain a working environment which supports current staff in remaining

with the company.

Boxall, Macky and Rasmussen (2003) have conducted a study of retention

variables for New Zealand employees in which they state that the variables

are multidimensional. These include interesting work, which was rated as the

strongest factor in attracting and retaining employees in both public and

private sector organisations. The research outcome showed that employees

expect management to make personnel decisions based on merit and also

demonstrated that extrinsic rewards (such as pay, promotion & job security)

play a role in both employee retention and turnover management. The

research further suggested that management lent support to the idea of good

relationships with co-employees and supervisors.

Lockwood and Anari (1997) concluded the following factors as crucial

retention strategies for IT professionals in the USA and U.K. In order of their

importance, the study revealed money (base salary plus bonus and stock

options); the chance to learn new skills (i.e. those that the market values); the

reputation of the organization in technology; and working conditions (e.g.

physical, colleagues & boss, casual dress) as some of the important factors.

69
Among retention strategies that were particularly successful in maintaining a

low turnover rate, one of the solutions suggested was an increase in salary.

According to Samuel and Chipunza (2009), the main purpose of retention is to

prevent the loss of competent employees from leaving the organisation as this

could have adverse effect on productivity and profitability. However, retention

practices have become a daunting and highly challenging task for managers

and Human Resources (HR) practitioners in a hostile economic environment.

One of the traditional ways of managing employee retention and turnover is

through organisational reward system.

William and Werther (1996) explain reward as what employees receive in

exchange for their contributions to the organisation. This reward could come

in form of salary, promotion, bonuses and other incentives. When the reward

system is effectively managed, it helps in achieving organizations corporate

objectives, and maintains and retains a productive workforce. A number of

factors have been articulated in order to explain the reason employees leave

one organisation for another, or in some cases, leave the country.

Empirical studies by Kinnear and Sutherland, (2001) and by Meudell and

Rodham, (1998) and also studies by Maertz and Griffeth( 2004) have,

revealed that extrinsic factors such as competitive salary, good interpersonal

relationships, friendly working environment, and job security were cited by

employees as key motivational variables that influenced their retention in the

organisations. The implication of this therefore is that management should not

rely only on intrinsic variables to influence employee retention; rather, a

combination of both intrinsic and extrinsic variables should be considered as

an effective retention strategy.

70
Stauss etal (2001) have suggested a more detailed and recent definition for

the concept of retention which is customer liking, identification, commitment,

trust, readiness to recommend, and repurchase intentions, with the first four

being emotional-cognitive retention constructs, and the last two being

behavioral intentions.

A study done by Fitzenz (1990) has indicated that retention is driven by

following key factors, which ought to be managed congruently: organizational

culture strategy, pay and benefits philosophy, and career development

systems.

According to Morgan and Hunt (1994), organizations often look beyond the

concept of satisfaction to developing trust and ensure long term relationships

with their employees. Further, this suggestion is based on the principle that

once trust is built into a relationship, the probability of either party ending the

relationship decreases because of high termination costs.

Numerous studies by Anderson and Sullivan (1993);Rucci et al (1998), Bansal

explain the importance of high employees involvement and how it could

enhance their retention.

According to Gopinath and Becker (2000), effective communications improve

employee identification with their agency and build openness and trust

culture. Increasingly, organizations provide information on values, mission,

strategies, competitive performance, and changes that may affect employees’

enthusiasm. Many companies are working to provide information that

communication, through the most credible sources (e.g., CEO and top

management strategies) on a timely and consistent basis. In the absence of

71
this, it is possible that employees will no longer have the sense of

organization loyalty towards the organization. Increasing number of

organizational mergers and acquisitions have left employees feeling

displeased from the companies that they work and they are haunted by

concerns of overall job security. As a result, employees are now making

strategic career moves to guarantee employment that satisfy their need for

security. On the other hand, employers have a need to keep their stuff from

leaving or going to work for other companies. This is true because of the great

expenses associated with hiring and retraining new employees.

Employee Retention has gained importance in recent years, particularly as

part of talent management programs, and its relevance can be seen so much

that the HR practitioner who integrates it into a talent program may grow

bewildered by the huge volume of research about it. Employee retention is

more than just keeping employees on the job. It is also about sustaining

employees, primarily by enhancing their job satisfaction.

Workplaces everywhere are struggling with employee engagement. Engaged

workers are more productive, perform better, motivate others and, perhaps

most importantly – stay. So it is also no surprise that in a labor market such as

India where attrition rates of 20-30% are normal and 50% in industries such

as ITES not unheard of, serious questions about engagement are being

asked. Moreover voluntary turnover has now increased drastically, as the

Indian market is opened to foreign players as well. Besides this, the

government is also encouraging entrepreneurship, so there are many

domestic players also entering the Indian market. This situation has resulted

in stiff competition for competent workforce. Poaching and job-hopping has

72
become the order of the day. As the Organization began to feel the impact of

the rise of voluntary employee turnover, employee retention strategies

emerged. Earlier studies on retention mostly focussed on analysing the

causes for employees leaving the Organization, aiming at controlling attrition,

and it was found that the causes varied from one Organization to the other.

Later studies on employee retention focused on factors that influenced the

employees to stay back in the Organization, to concentrate on those factors

that hold back the employees. Last decade witnessed studies on

attitude/behavioural changes of employees towards work and work

relationships, as it was believed to predict turnover.

The issue boils down to couple of key drivers of attrition in India:

1. The generational factor is formidable. Indian millennials are no different

from those elsewhere – they just have more opportunities in their buoyant

market at present. Young Indians are looking to fast-track their learning

experiences and their seniority, and job-hopping appears to be a good way to

achieve both. A 2012 survey by Catalyst shows that 78% young Indians

aspire to senior executive and/or CEO roles, and they’re very impatient about

getting there.

2. The management carries major blame for high turnover. Many employees

are passively unimpressed by or actively disenchanted with their managers. In

a market where higher pay remains the number one motivator for job change,

one survey of Indian organizations attributes 48% of turnover to poor

relationships between employees and their supervisors. A study by Right

Management of over 4,000 employees in 28 Indian companies similarly found

that 53% were dissatisfied with their immediate manager.

73
Models on Employee Retention

There are two important models on employee retention, one of them is a)

Zinger Model and the other is 2) ERC’s Retention Model. A brief explanation

of these models is follows:

Zinger Model: Employee retention is the art and science of engaging people

in authentic and recognized connections to strategy, roles, performance,

organization,

community, relationship, customers, development, energy, and well-being as

companies leverage, sustain, and transform their work connections into

results.

According to the Zinger Model, employee retention is directed towards

achieving results of the organization that the department, team, or individual

wants to achieve. To achieve results, companies need to craft a strategy to

get there .A central key of employee retention is connection. In some cases

connection is synonymous with engagement. Engagement is not a one-time

survey measure or a steady state. To engage is to fully experience and

contribute to the dynamic elements of work.

Employee retention must be authentic and retention of competent employee

requires powerful recognitions. A role is a set of behaviors, rights and

obligations at work companies must guard against too many roles or role

overload while also fully being in the roles that contribute to results,

relationships, and engagement. This model emphasizes that employee

retention can contribute to effective performance management and

74
performance demonstrates company‘s engagement while engagement and

retention can help companies excel at performance.

Good employee retention should foster star performers. The employee should

also align with the organization so as to build up the esteem of the

organization and there should not be a disconnect between employee and

organization. Companies want employees to serve their customers and this is

a very strong relationships between employee engagement and employee

retention. Effective Employee retention helps to serve customers a lot. The

model comments that employees should experience both personal and

professional development through work ranging from courses to plum projects

and learning to develop their own strengths, value, visibility, and engagement.

Powerful retention involves complete synchronization of all four quadrants of

physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, and organizational energy. Work should

contribute to employee well-being. Employees need to both engage in and

experience healthy well-being. An organization’s results are dependent upon

the health and productivity of individual employees.

ERC's Retention Model

Employee Retention Connection's model concentrates on applied

organizational experience indicating three primary drivers of employee

retention.

1. Work can be made stimulating by giving variety of assignments,

autonomy to make decisions, resources and support provided to do

good work, opportunity to learn, feedback on result and understanding

the significance of one's personal contributions.

75
 2. Motivational Leadership also helps retain employees therefore leaders

should champion change and must be open to new ideas. They should

inspire a shared vision of organization direction, develop the

capabilities of others and become a model for behaviors that reflects

organization values.

3. Companies should recognize and reward a job that is done well and

should reinforce desired behaviours and create an emphasis and focus

on recognition. They should celebrate successes in order to build self-

esteem and enhance camaraderie and team work.

The Three Rs of Employee Retention

Employee retention consists of 3 R’s which helps in retaining effective

employees. To keep effective employees and keep satisfaction high, each of

the three Rs of employee retention is important.

1. Respect is esteem, special regard, or particular consideration given to

people. As the pyramid shows, respect is the foundation of keeping

your employees. Recognition and rewards will have little effect if you

don’t respect employees.

2. Recognition is defined as “special notice or attention” and “the act of

perceiving clearly.” Many problems with retention and morale occur

because management is not paying attention to people’s needs and

reactions.

3. Rewards are the extra perks that a company offers beyond the basics

of respect and recognition that makes it worth people’s while to work

hard, to care, to go beyond the call of duty. While rewards represent

76
 the smallest portion of the retention equation, they are still an important

one.

2.8 Gap in Research

Past research, historical data, books in the library, catalogues, databases,

Internet, were widely accessed to arrive at the gaps in literature. The intensive

review of literature reveals that there is no dearth of researches focussed on

the subject of employee commitment and leadership style. Though less in

number but there are also studies on the impact of leadership style on

employee motivation and employee loyalty as well. However it is very rare to

come across studies which have been conducted on the impact of leadership

style on commitment and motivation and in the FMCG and Oil and Petroleum

sectors. Therefore the intention of the researcher is to find out how far the

leadership styles become parameters impacting employee motivation and

commitment in selected sectors like these. The results of the study would

equip the organisational leadership to determine which styles to adopt so that

the employees are more committed and motivated and hence have a much

better engagement and connect with the organisation. Adoption of the

appropriate style will help induce trust and loyalty for the organisation.

77
 CHAPTER 3

CORPORATE SECTOR IN INDIA

78
 CHAPTER 3

CORPORATE SECTOR IN INDIA

The Indian corporate sector has two main components, namely, the

government owned and privately owned companies. The size of both the

components, in terms of both numbers and capital, has grown fast,

particularly since beginning of the 'seventies. Government companies are

mainly in the basic, heavy and capital intensive industries whereas the private

sector is predominantly in industries which cater to the consumer markets

directly. It is due to such a basic difference that while the government sector

accounts for nearly two-thirds of the productive industrial capital, its share in

the net value added is less than one-third. The opposite is true of the private

sector. The differing nature of the activities undertaken by the two sectors is

also reflected in the pattern of industrial activities of the two sectors.

Being government owned enterprises, the choice of investment, location,

pricing, employment and all other important policies are centrally decided.

These have to be in conformity with the macro and socio-economic objectives

- which are multiple and sometimes even self-contradictory. The logic of

industry specialisation to harness economies of scale and adoption of new

technologies to cut down costs of production do not appear to be a strong

point with most of the Big Business Houses in India. The diversity is

impressive and specialisation, the least significant. To illustrate: the Birlas are

in jute, textiles, sanitaryware, cement, steel, plastics, dairy, newspaper

industry, shipping, automobiles, electricals, tea, sugar, chemicals and

fertilizers. Similarly, one has only to glance through the list of new products in

79
which even an industrial House like that of the Tatas, which by popular

perception is associated with steel, trucks, power generation and other high

technology areas is now having a hold in such low technology areas like

hotels, paints, cosmetics, toiletries and garments besides trading in a variety

of consumer goods. Examples can be multiplied to bring home the point that

growth in concentration of the productive resources in the Indian private

corporate sector has not been accompanied by industry specialisation; which

could reap economies of scale or could help achieve technological

breakthroughs by undertaking worthwhile R & D activities. Even in the use of

non-sophisticated technologies, the corporate sector in India has largely

depended on imported technologies. There is a fairly good number of private

sector companies which have shown unique performance in growth as well as

profitability. A study was conducted to present the mechanism of fast

emergence of massive conglomerates, generally known as Business Houses

in India. The four clearly identifiable factors responsible for the rapid

expansion in the numbers and the size of Big Business House phenomenon

are:

(a) The system of inter-corporate investments;

(b) The wide participation of public sector financial institutions in the risk

capital;

(c) The growing inter-locking and business collaborations of Transnational

Corporations and large private companies; and

(d) The entry of state level corporations in establishing 'joint sector' projects in

which the obtaining of industrial licences, foreign collaborations, financial and

80
other infrastructural support is organised by the State Governments but the

management is left to the private co-promoter/private company which in larger

projects happens to be an associate company of one or the other Big

Business Houses.

The above four factors have been the major contributors. But, one should in

no way discount the role of a variety of economic policies in their true content

and implementation than the original intentions and the changed nature of

public concerns -- irrespective of the reasons which might have been

responsible for the new idiom and the socio-economic environment.

There are also success stories of the private entrepreneurs or Companies

under Large House managements having a sound and profitable track record

of financial performance. It is not uncommon to come across nation-wide

publicity campaigns showing the annual rate of return on investments as high

as 70 per cent or more by some of the Big Business controlled companies.

There are certainly a few 'blue chips' in the Indian share market. The fast

expanding companies -- an interesting aspect of the Indian private sector's

high growth -- have among them those enterprises who have been at the 'zero

level' of tax obligations.

A few policy alternatives with regard to the Indian private corporate sector

may be put forth for discussion. The basic assumptions underlying this are:

a) The large private corporate sector has acquired a significant place in the

Indian economy;

b) Because of its size and place in the Indian economic system any distortions

in the sector would have high economic costs;

81
c) If one goes by the extent of direct and indirect share in the equity in

individual companies as also in the privately managed and controlled House

companies, public sector financial institutions taken together are the single

largest shareholders. In fact the macro picture would reveal that the share of

the public sector financial institutions is a multiple of the net risk borne by

those who happen to enjoy management control;

d) The old and traditional systems of control and managements need to

reform their structures and bring in more rational system of social

accountability than what has so far been true;

e) There is a need for the investment pattern to be governed by national plan

priorities than by considerations of the effective market demand;

f) There is a need to review the very logic, merits and demerits of the

traditional family based business House concept;

g) That there is a need to have more critical investigations and empirical

verification in the process of public policy evolution.

3.1 Structure of Corporates – The Organisational Framework

Organizational structure refers to the way that an organization arranges

people and jobs so that its work can be performed and its goals can be met.

When a work group is very small, and face-to-face communication is frequent,

formal structure may be unnecessary, but in a larger organization decisions

have to be made about the delegation of various tasks. Thus, procedures are

established that assign responsibilities for various functions. It is these

decisions that determine the organizational structure. In an organization of

any size or complexity, employees' responsibilities typically are defined by

82
what they do, who they report to, and for managers, who reports to them.

Over time these definitions are assigned to positions in the organization rather

than to specific individuals. The relationships among these positions are

illustrated graphically in an organizational chart. The best organizational

structure for any organization depends on many factors including the work it

does; its size in terms of employees, revenue, and the geographic dispersion

of its facilities; and the range of its businesses (the degree to which it is

diversified across markets). In many ways, business structures mirror Indian

society. Both are extremely hierarchical in nature, where people have an

allotted position which they do not attempt to overturn.

Many MNC's try to introduce a flatter, more egalitarian structure to their Indian

subsidiary in order to align it with other offices in the group. This may prove

difficult in a country where hierarchy is unquestioningly accepted.

Development of the Traditional Organisational Structure

Understanding the historical context from which some of today's dominant

organizational structures have developed helps to explain why some

structures are the way they are. It is food for thought as to why the still

operational steel mills such as U.S. Steel and Bethlehem Steel structured

using vertical hierarchies, why are newer steel mini-mills such as Chaparral

Steel structured more horizontally, capitalizing on the innovativeness of their

employees. Part of the reason is that organizational structure has a certain

inertia—the idea borrowed from physics and chemistry that something in

motion tends to continue on that same path. Changing an organization's

structure is a daunting managerial task, and the immensity of such a project is

83
at least partly responsible for why organizational structures change

infrequently.

At the beginning of the twentieth century the United States business sector

was thriving. Industry was shifting from job-shop manufacturing to mass

production, and thinkers like Frederick Taylor in the United States and Henri

Fayol in France studied the new systems and developed principles to

determine how to structure organizations for the greatest efficiency and

productivity, which in their view was very much like a machine. Even before

this, German sociologist and engineer Max Weber had concluded that when

societies embrace capitalism, bureaucracy is the inevitable result. Yet,

because his writings were not translated into English until 1949, Weber's work

had little influence on American management practice until the middle of the

twentieth century.

Management thought during this period did match Weber's ideas of

bureaucracy, where power is ascribed to positions rather than to the

individuals holding those positions. It also was influenced by Taylor's scientific

management, or the “one best way” to accomplish a task using scientifically-

determined studies of time and motion. Fayol's ideas of invoking unity

significantly influenced, within the chain-of-command, authority, discipline,

task specialization, and other aspects of organizational power and job

separation. This created the context for vertically-structured organizations

characterized by distinct job classifications and top-down authority structures,

or what became known as the traditional or classical organizational structure.

Job specialization, a hierarchical reporting structure through a tightly-knit

chain-of-command, and the subordination of individual interests to the

84
superordinate goals of the organization combined to result in organizations

arranged by functional departments with order and discipline maintained by

rules, regulations, and standard operating procedures. This classical view, or

bureaucratic structure, of organizations was the dominant pattern, as small

organizations grew increasingly larger during the economic boom that

occurred from the 1900s until the Great Depression of the 1930s. Henry

Ford's plants were typical of this growth, as the emerging Ford Motor

Company grew into the largest U.S. automaker by the 1920s.

The Great Depression temporarily stifled U.S. economic growth, but

organizations that survived emerged with their vertically-oriented, bureaucratic

structures intact as public attention shifted to World War II. Post-war

rebuilding reignited economic growth, powering organizations that survived

the Great Depression toward increasing size in terms of sales revenue,

employees, and geographic dispersion. Along with increasing growth,

however, came increasing complexity. Problems in U.S. business structures

became apparent and new ideas began to appear. Studies of employee

motivation raised questions about the traditional model. The “one best way” to

do a job gradually disappeared as the dominant logic. It was replaced by

concerns that traditional organizational structures might prevent, rather than

help, promote creativity and innovation—both of which were necessary as the

century wore on and pressures to compete globally mounted.

Different Organisational Structures

There are multiple structural variations that organizations can take on, but

there are a few basic principles that apply and a small number of common

patterns. The structure of every organization is unique in some respect, but all

85
organizational structures are consciously designed to enable the organization

to accomplish its work. Typically, the structure of an organization evolves as

the organization grows and changes over time.

Researchers generally identify four basic decisions that managers have to

make as they develop an organizational structure, although they may not be

explicitly aware of these decisions.

1. Division of labor. The organization's work must be divided into specific

jobs.

2. Departmentalization. Unless the organization is very small, the jobs

must be grouped in some way.

3. Span of control. The number of people and jobs that are to be grouped

together must be decided, which is related to the number of people that

are to be managed by one person.

4. Authority. The way decision-making authority is to be distributed must

be determined.

In making each of these design decisions, a range of choices are possible. At

one end of the spectrum, jobs are highly specialized with employees

performing a narrow range of activities; while at the other end of the spectrum

employees perform a variety of tasks. In traditional bureaucratic structures,

there is a tendency to increase task specialization as the organization grows

larger. In grouping jobs into departments, the manager must decide the basis

on which to group them. The most common basis, at least until the last few

decades, was by function. For example, all accounting jobs in the organization

86
can be grouped into an accounting department, all engineers can be grouped

into an engineering department, and so on.

The size of the groupings also can range from small to large depending on the

number of people the managers supervise. The degree to which authority is

distributed throughout the organization can vary as well, but traditionally

structured organizations typically vest final decision-making authority by those

highest in the vertically structured hierarchy. Even as pressures to include

employees in decision-making increased during the 1950s and 1960s, top

management usually made final decisions. The traditional model of

organizational structure is thus characterized by high job specialization,

functional departments, narrow spans of control, and centralized authority.

Such a structure has been referred to as traditional, classical, bureaucratic,

formal, mechanistic, or command and control. A structure formed by choices

at the opposite end of the spectrum for each design decision is called

unstructured, informal or organic.

Functional Break-ups of Organisations

Many organizations group jobs in various ways in different parts of the

organization, but the basis that is used at the highest level plays a

fundamental role in shaping the organization. There are four commonly used

bases: functional, geographic, product, and customer/market.

Functional Departmentalization : Every organization of a given type must

perform certain jobs in order to do its work. For example, key functions of a

manufacturing company include production, purchasing, marketing,

accounting, and personnel. The functions of a hospital include surgery,

87
psychiatry, nursing, housekeeping, and billing. Using such functions as the

basis for structuring the organization may, in some instances, have the

advantage of efficiency. Grouping jobs that require the same knowledge,

skills, and resources allows them to be done efficiently and promotes the

development of greater expertise. A disadvantage of functional groupings is

that people with the same skills and knowledge may develop a narrow

departmental focus and have difficulty appreciating any other view of what is

important to the organization; in this case, organizational goals may be

sacrificed in favor of departmental goals. In addition, coordination of work

across functional boundaries can become a difficult management challenge,

especially as the organization grows in size and spreads to multiple

geographical locations.

Geographic Departmentalization : Organizations that are spread over a

wide area may find advantages in organizing along geographic lines so that

all the activities performed in a region are managed together. In a large

organization, simple physical separation makes centralized coordination more

difficult. Also, important characteristics of a region may make it advantageous

to promote a local focus. For example, marketing a product in Western

Europe may have different requirements than marketing the same product in

Southeast Asia. Companies that market products globally sometimes adopt a

geographic structure. In addition, experience gained in a regional division is

often excellent training for management at higher levels.

Product Departmentalization : Large, diversified companies are often

organized according to product. All the activities necessary to produce and

market a product or group of similar products are grouped together. In such

88
an arrangement, the top manager of the product group typically has

considerable autonomy over the operation. The advantage of this type of

structure is that the personnel in the group can focus on the particular needs

of their product line and become experts in its development, production, and

distribution. A disadvantage, at least in terms of larger organizations, is the

duplication of resources. Each product group requires most of the functional

areas such as finance, marketing, production, and other functions. The top

leadership of the organization must decide how much redundancy it can

afford.

Customer / Market Departmentalization : An organization may find it

advantageous to organize according to the types of customers it serves. For

example, a distribution company that sells to consumers, government clients,

large businesses, and small businesses may decide to base its primary

divisions on these different markets. Its personnel can then become proficient

in meeting the needs of these different customers. In the same way, an

organization that provides services such as accounting or consulting may

group its personnel according to these types of customers. Figure 1 depicts

an organization grouped by customers and markets.

Traditional Organisation Structure

The traditional approach is the vertically-arranged organizational structure that

came to dominate in the first half of the twentieth century. This traditional

model is easily represented in a graphical form by an organizational chart. It is

a hierarchical or pyramidal structure with a president or other executive at the

top, a small number of vice presidents or senior managers under the

president, and several layers of management below this, with the majority of

89
employees at the bottom of the pyramid. The number of management layers

depends largely on the size of the organization. The jobs in the traditional

organizational structure usually are grouped by function into departments

such as accounting, sales, human resources, and so on.

Matrix Organisational Structure

Some organizations find that none of the aforementioned structures meet their

needs. One approach that attempts to overcome the inadequacies is the

matrix structure, which is the combination of two or more different structures.

Functional departmentalization commonly is combined with product groups on

a project basis. For example, a product group wants to develop a new

addition to its line; for this project, it obtains personnel from functional

departments such as research, engineering, production, and marketing.

These personnel then work under the manager of the product group for the

duration of the project, which can vary greatly. These personnel are

responsible to two managers.

One advantage of a matrix structure is that it facilitates the use of highly

specialized staff and equipment. Rather than duplicating functions as would

be done in a simple product department structure, resources are shared as

needed. In some cases, highly specialized staff may divide their time among

more than one project. In addition, maintaining functional departments

promotes functional expertise, while at the same time working in project

groups with experts from other functions fosters cross-fertilization of ideas.

The disadvantages of a matrix organization arise from the dual reporting

structure. The organization's top management must take particular care to

90
establish proper procedures for the development of projects and to keep

communication channels clear so that potential conflicts do not arise and

hinder organizational functioning. In theory at least, top management is

responsible for arbitrating such conflicts, but in practice power struggles

between the functional and product manager can prevent successful

implementation of matrix structural arrangements. Besides the

product/function matrix, other bases can be related in a matrix. Large

multinational corporations that use a matrix structure most commonly combine

product groups with geographic units. Product managers have global

responsibility for the development, manufacturing, and distribution of their own

product or service line, while managers of geographic regions have

responsibility for the success of the business in their regions.

Strategic Business Units

As corporations become very large they often restructure as a means of

revitalizing the organization. Growth of a business often is accompanied by a

growth in bureaucracy, as positions are created to facilitate developing needs

or opportunities. Continued changes in the organization or in the external

business environment may make this bureaucracy a hindrance rather than a

help, not simply because of the size or complexity of the organization but due

to a sluggish bureaucratic way of thinking. One approach to encourage new

ways of thinking and acting is to reorganize parts of the company into largely

autonomous groups, called strategic business units (SBUs). Such units

generally are set up like separate companies, with full profit and loss

responsibility invested in the top management of the unit—often the president

of the unit and/or a senior vice president of the larger corporation. This

91
manager is responsible to the top management of the corporation. This

arrangement can be seen as taking any of the aforementioned

departmentalization schemes one step further. The SBUs might be based on

product lines, geographic markets, or other differentiating factors. Figure 4

depicts SBUs organized by geographic area.

Emerging Trends in Organisational Structure

Except for the matrix organization, all the structures described above focus on

the vertical organization; that is, who reports to whom, who has responsibility

and authority for what parts of the organization, and so on. Such vertical

integration is sometimes necessary, but may be a hindrance in rapidly

changing environments. A detailed organizational chart of a large corporation

structured on the traditional model would show many layers of managers;

decision-making flows vertically up and down the layers, but mostly

downward. In general terms, this is an issue of interdependence.

In any organization, the different people and functions do not operate

completely independently. To a greater or lesser degree, all parts of the

organization need each other. Important developments in organizational

design in the last few decades of the twentieth century and the early part of

the twenty-first century have been attempts to understand the nature of

interdependence and improve the functioning of organizations in respect to

this factor. One approach is to flatten the organization, to develop the

horizontal connections and de-emphasize vertical reporting relationships. At

times, this involves simply eliminating layers of middle management. For

example, some Japanese companies—even very large manufacturing firms—

have only four levels of management: top management, plant management,

92
department management, and section management. Some U.S. companies

also have drastically reduced the number of managers as part of a downsizing

strategy; not just to reduce salary expense, but also to streamline the

organization in order to improve communication and decision-making.

In a virtual sense, technology is another means of flattening the organization.

The use of computer networks and software designed to facilitate group work

within an organization can speed communications and decision-making. Even

more effective is the use of intranets to make company information readily

accessible throughout the organization. The rapid rise of such technology has

made virtual organizations and boundary-less organizations possible, where

managers, technicians, suppliers, distributors, and customers connect digitally

rather than physically.

A different perspective on the issue of interdependence can be seen by

comparing the organic model of organization with the mechanistic model. The

traditional, mechanistic structure is characterized as highly complex because

of its emphasis on job specialization, highly formalized emphasis on definite

procedures and protocols, and centralized authority and accountability. Yet,

despite the advantages of coordination that these structures present, they

may hinder tasks that are interdependent. In contrast, the organic model of

organization is relatively simple because it de-emphasizes job specialization,

is relatively informal, and decentralizes authority. Decision-making and goal-

setting processes are shared at all levels, and communication ideally flows

more freely throughout the organization.

93
Restructuring

Industry consolidation—creating huge global corporations through joint

ventures, mergers, alliances, and other kinds of inter-organizational

cooperative efforts—has become increasingly important in the twenty-first

century. Among organizations of all sizes, concepts such as agile

manufacturing, just-in-time inventory management, and ambidextrous

organizations are impacting managers' thinking about their organizational

structure. Indeed, few leaders were likely to blindly implement the traditional

hierarchical structure common in the first half of the twentieth century. The

early twenty-first century has been dominated by the thinking that changing

organizational structures, while still a monumental managerial challenge, can

be a necessary condition for competitive success. As the authors of Designing

Organizations to Create Value (2003) write, “a poor design can lead to lost

profits and even result in the failure of the institution.”

Indeed, corporate restructuring has become a popular response to financial

difficulties in the twenty-first century. However, there are dangers to following

the path of reorganization. Removing layers of bureaucracy to cut costs is

tempting, but it can often be the case that removed layers of management

creep back into the organization. It can also be difficult to reshape an

organization with a strong organizational culture, as many well-established

firms have. Further, reorganization may not be an appropriate response to

trouble. According to a 2008 article in the Harvard Business Review, “in

efforts to improve performance, most organizations go right to structural

measures because moving lines around the org chart seems the most

obvious solution and the changes are visible and concrete.” However, the

94
article notes, such changes are generally only short-term and “Several years

later, companies usually end up in the same place they started.”

Whatever the potential dangers, structural reorganization is likely to remain a

popular corporate strategy in the fast-paced global environment of the twenty-

first century. Properly handled, restructuring—particularly away from the

traditional vertical model—can increase competitiveness and reorient the

organizational culture and behaviors to enhance productivity and profits. Even

with the attendant dangers, restructuring is a tempting path. As the authors of

Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture (2006) note, “The failure

rate of most planned organizational change initiatives is dramatic,” but

“organizations that are not in the business of change and transition are

generally viewed as recalcitrant.”

Structure of Organisations in the Study

A very high percentage (82%) of respondents are in operations and middle

management. There is a stable organizational design which formally creates

system of task and authority to control activities for achievement of

organizational goals. Middle management layers and frontline management

layers are prevalent in most of the organizational design. Jones (2001) says

that “organizational design has important implication for an organization’s

ability to deal with contingencies, achieve a competitive advantage, effectively

manage diversity, and increase its efficiency and ability to innovate new

goods and services.” There are career progression policies, command and

control mechanism and standard operating procedures within the

organizations. The Organizations are agile, flexible to change structures to

respond to changing needs of business. Though in varying degrees but there

95
are routes for personal and professional development. Some of the

organisations over a period of time have tried to introduce a flatter, more

egalitarian structure in order to align it with other offices in the group.

By and large, all the organisations had the following guidelines :

i. Defined rules, procedures, recruitment and promotional policies etc

ii. Decentralization in working and grievance redressal system

iii. Transparency and availability of correct/unambiguous information

iv. Adequate Budget allocation, utilization and financial practices

3.2 Corporate sector - Oil and Petroleum segment

India is the fifth largest energy consumer and amongst the largest oil importer

country in the world. Like many other industries, Indian petroleum industry has

been strictly regulated since independence in 1947. Until 2002, petro-retailing

was the monopolistic business of government regulated petroleum

companies. The role of petroleum companies was just to sell and distribute

petroleum products to the end users. The government had set an objective

that the state owned petroleum companies popularly referred to as public

sector OMCs carry out business with social objective. Therefore competition

was not allowed among them by government. Also, the prices of most

petroleum products were fixed under the Administered Pricing Mechanism

(APM) by Government of India. Under the APM, product prices were directly

administered by government based on an opaque and complex "cost of

operating capital plus" formula. Until few years ago, petro retailing in India

was a staid, even boring business (IBEF, 2004). The petro retailing scenario

has suddenly changed when government declared that it would opt out of

96
regulating the OMCs and the petrol market in India. In April 2002, Indian

government deregulated the oil sector and abolished the APM which

controlled the price of petroleum products and allowed private sector

companies to set up their petro retail outlets to market petroleum products at

the market-determined prices (Clarke Kieran, 2010). New regime opened

doors for private sector players. The entry of private sector players in the

Indian market witnessed the forces of marketing and competition in petro

retailing.

Davar R. (2007) observed that the policy shift sparked a rush for opening the

petro retail outlets, as both private and public sector companies wished to

position themselves to sell to the nation's growing and increasing mobile

middle class. Old players i.e. public sector OMCs found themselves amidst

cut throat competition. The newly entered private players started retailing of

petroleum products with more professional and aggressive approach. They

also adopted skilled marketing practices. The public sector OMCs did not

have marketing strength but they had an advantage of vast experience,

understanding and knowledge of the Indian petro retail market and its

operations. Their most important strength was extensive distribution network

covering all important locations in India. The competition with private sector

players forced public sector OMCs to convert their business from 'very low

involvement commodity' into 'high involvement brands'.

Both private and public sector players are now focusing their efforts to

increase their market share. They are trying to understand the consumer

needs and accordingly adopting different retail marketing practices like

branding, positioning, advertising, sales promotions, delivery of services, etc.

97
The petrol retail outlets are quickly getting converted into multi-facility centers

with change in signage's, logos and canopies, clean floors, channel music,

lightings, attendants with uniform, convenience stores, ATMs (Automatic

Teller Machines), internet browsing facilities, video parlors, entertainment,

supermarkets, auto/truck repair services and promotion schemes. The public

sector OMCs are working towards delivering a new experience to the Indian

consumers. New and attractive petro retail outlet designs, use of credit cards,

lady attendants and carwashes have become an essential part of the

petroleum retailing makeup, especially in big cities and urban areas in India.

Compared to the challenging global economic environment that was

witnessed in 2012-13, the year 2013-14 brought in a sense of optimism as it

unfolded. The world economy prepared for a more positive financial outlook in

the coming years with the Euro Zone seeming to come out of recession and

registering positive growth in the second quarter of 2013 and US too showing

signs of strengthening of the economy. However, overall, the year 2013-14

was as challenging as 2012-13, with the global economy growing by 3 per

cent in 2013, compared to 3.2 per cent in 2012 and 4 per cent in 2011.

Talent shortage is now a critical challenge for the oil and gas industry at both

India and global level. The challenges are largely due to variations in

employment within the industry. The significant variation in employment

figures for the industry is a result of the intrinsic boom and bust cycles that

have afflicted the industry. Globally, companies have struggled to recruit,

retain and develop sufficient manpower to sustain operations. Manpower

deficits are leading to project delays and cost overruns, and this problem is

more serious in the upstream sector.

98
As per the E&Y report “HR Challenges in the Indian Oil and Gas sector”, it is

estimated that in the next five years, around 7% of the current workforce will

leave the oil and gas sector in India. A study of total attrition by level reveals

that the upstream oil and gas sector is faced with significant attrition at the

middle-management level, while other sub-sectors are facing this challenge at

junior-management levels. Middle-management attrition is due to various

international opportunities available for employees with more than ten years of

experience.

The lack of career opportunities and extreme working conditions are other

primary reasons for employee attrition. In the downstream (refining and

petrochemical) and marketing sectors, around 75% 6 of attrition is expected at

the junior-management level, indicating the absence of a robust talent-

retention mechanism in organizations.Under such circumstances, the issues

of employee engagement, motivation and talent management and retention

are important as never before.

3.3 Corporate sector - Fast Moving Consumer Goods

Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) are popularly named as consumer

packaged goods. Items in this category include all consumables (other than

groceries/pulses) people buy at regular intervals. The most common in the list

are toilet soaps, detergents, shampoos, toothpaste, shaving products, food

and beverage, personal care, pharmaceuticals, plastic goods, paper and

stationery, household accessories and extends to certain electronic goods.

These items are meant for daily of frequent consumption and have a high

return.

99
The Indian FMCG sector is the fourth largest in the Indian economy and has a

market size of $13.1 billion. This industry primarily includes the production,

distribution and marketing of consumer packaged goods, that is those

categories of products which are consumed at regular intervals. The sector is

growing at rapid pace with well-established distribution networks and intense

competition between the organized and unorganized segments. It has a

strong and competitive MNC presence across the entire value chain. The

FMCG’s promising market includes middle class and the rural segments of

the Indian population, and gives brand makers the opportunity to convert them

to branded products.

A well-established distribution network spread across six million retail outlets,

low penetration levels, low operating costs and intense competition between

the organized and unorganized segments are key characteristics of this

sector. At present, urban India accounts for 66% of total FMCG consumption,

with rural India accounting for the remaining 34%. However, rural India

accounts for more than 40% consumption in major FMCG categories such as

personal care, fabric care, and hot beverages. In urban areas, home and

personal care category, including skin care, household care and feminine

hygiene, will keep growing at relatively attractive rates. Within the foods

segment, it is estimated that processed foods, bakery, and dairy are long-term

growth categories in both rural and urban areas. The growing incline of rural

and semi-urban folks for FMCG products will be mainly responsible for the

growth in this sector, as manufacturers will have to deepen their concentration

for higher sales volumes. A rapid urbanization, increase in demands,

presence of large number of young population, a large number of

100
opportunities is available in the FMCG sector. The bottomline is that Indian

market is changing rapidly and is showing unprecedented consumer business

opportunity.

India, Asia’s third largest economy, saw a downtrend in consumer spending in

2012 due to financial crisis. During 2012, the overall slowdown in the

economy has begun to affect the FMCG sector with companies posting

deceleration in volume growth in the recent quarterly results. Discretionary

spending has been hit severely due to the ongoing slowdown. Over a period

of time, growth came in from rural dwellers that are expected to see a rise in

disposable incomes due to the direct cash transfer scheme, while urban

consumers continued to be affected by the macroeconomic environment.

3.4 Leadership in Oil & Petroleum sector

Management is about achieving results and managers work in different ways

to achieve many diverse and often specific objectives. Theorists have tried to

identify the functions and processes that all managers carry out. The oil and

petroleum industry contains many layers of management within many types of

organisation. The managers in the higher levels have more seniority than

those further down. Everything from geological exploration, drilling, technical

and scientific support, human resources, finance, maintenance, welding,

sales, logistics, safety and emergency planning falls within management

responsibilities. The effective public sector leaders who are a part of the Oil

and Petroleum sector, usually depend upon transformational leadership

behaviour. As per the views of Boyne (2002), public sector organizations are

said to be more bureaucratic which means a clear division of responsibility

101
and hence more role clarity for employees as well as managers.

Venkatapathy (1990) concluded that Public sector organizations are

considered to be more cautious, rigid and less innovative due to its

organizational design, strictness to rules and strategic considerations. As per

the classical administrative theory, organisations are logical, functional, bland,

impersonal, passionless entities that operate according to neutral rules of

efficiency and economy. But organisations are social constructions

characterised by ownership, membership, control and language. Social power

is manifested through the exertion and ability of members and other

stakeholders as they generate and maintain their position and relationships.

These matters are human and illustrate human frailty, skill, ability, learning

capacity, opportunism and willingness to engage, control over passions and

self-centredness or altruism and virtue, ingenuity and disingenuousness.

Hence the management of organisations also require different elements.

As propagated by Henri Fayol, an early theorist, management had the

following elements:

 Planning : looking ahead, consulting with others, setting objectives for

staff

 Organising : arranging people and things so that objectives can be

achieved

 Commanding : giving instructions to workers

 Coordinating : bringing activities together into a common approach

 Controlling : measuring what is happening and adjusting activities to

achieve goals

102
Fayol analyzed management from level of top management downward and

had a broad vision of a managerial role as mentioned above.

Figure 3.1: Role of a Manager : Henry Fayol

Planning

Organising Controlling

Henri Fayol :
The role of a
manager

Commanding Co-ordinating

Source: H. Fayol: General and Industrial Management, IEEE Press, New

York,1984.

The skills and aptitudes of oil and gas employees must be appropriate for

their job roles at every level:

 Technical and scientific skills are needed in drilling and exploration to

manage complex equipment and processes.

 People management skills are needed in managing staff.

 Practical skills are needed in production operations, mechanical

installation, electrical plant maintenance and instrumentation and

control systems.

The Learning wing creates a learning supply chain to stimulate the movement

of people within the industry and ensure they have the right learning, skills,

103
competence, attitudes and behaviours to work safely and effectively.

Leadership differs from management. Leadership encompasses the skills and

qualities needed to inspire others to achieve goals. Leaders can see the heart

of a problem and suggest (sometimes unusual) solutions; they have a positive

self image; they tend to be creative; they are often experts in a field and can

sense change and respond accordingly. Many managers are also leaders, but

people in the oil and gas industry are encouraged to show leadership at every

level. The industry has an inclusive and involving culture so that even the

newest Trainee Instrument Technician may spot a better way of doing

something and will be able to influence positive change.

3.5 Leadership in FMCG sector

Over the past three to four years, the global economy has gone through a

tumultuous change and the looming threat of a “double dip” and “triple dip”

recession. The environment that organizations are operating in today is one

characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. The Indian

economy has also not remained insulated from the economic turmoil that the

world is going through – many industries have seen slowdown and

organizational decision-making is today marked by cautiousness.

Think global, act local. It’s a phrase often heard around environmental issues,

but in reality it’s exactly the challenge facing the world’s leading FMCG

companies. These companies are focused on:

 translating global brands for each local market

 managing relationships with multiple local retailers, all of whom are

competing with one another.

104
To do this, it takes a special type of culture, a complex organizational

structure and effective leadership. There are certain reasons which show that

the private sector does not infect or lose its customers while the public sector

does (Wood, 2008). As per the views of Boyne (2002), public sector

organizations are said to be more bureaucratic which means a clear division

of responsibility and hence more role clarity for employees as well as

managers. Venkatapathy (1990) concluded that Public sector organizations

are considered to be more cautious, rigid and less innovative due to its

organizational design, strictness to rules and strategic considerations. These

may explain broadly why a research by Hansen and Villadsen (2010) shows

that leaders in private sector are more inclined towards directive style.

FMCG sector, where one of the organisations in the study has been based,

registered gains of just 33% on the BSE FMCG Index last year. The economic

growth would impact large proportions of the population thus leading to more

money in the hands of the consumer. Changes in demographic composition of

the population and thus the market would also continue to impact the FMCG

industry. In this context, the job of Leadership becomes vital to the growth and

sustenance of the FMCG organisations.

Major Leadership challenges in FMCG sector India are as follows :

1. Managing Knowledge Workers – This is typically the kind of people who do

not follow the principles of management for the traditional group. This boils

down to higher educational qualifications, taking up responsibilities at a lesser

age and experience, high bargaining power due to the knowledge and skills in

hand, high demand for the knowledge workers, and techno suaveness. The

105
clear shift is seen in terms of organization career commitment to

individualized career management.

2. Competence of Line Managers and HR : As it is more and more accepted

that lot of success of organizations depend on the human capital, this boils to

recruiting the best, managing the best and retaining the best. Clearly HR and

Line managers have a role in this process. Organisations today focus a lot on

developing competent HR professionals who are sound in HR management

practices with strong business knowledge.

3. Developing Leadership - Though leadership is discussed on the basis of

traits and certain qualities, at an organizational level it is more based on

knowledge. The challenge is to develop individuals who have performance

potential on basis of past record and knowledge based expertise in to

business leaders by imparting them with the necessary "soft skills".

4. Managing Change - Business environment in India is volatile. There is

boom in terms of opportunities brought forward by globalization. The global

nature of FMCG businesses makes it imperative to instil a performance

culture that inspires employees at all levels.

However this is also leading to many interventions in terms of restructuring,

turnaround, mergers, downsizing, etc. Research has clearly shown that the

success of these interventions is heavily dependent on managing the people

issues in the process. Hence Leadership in this sector is focussed on the

people processes which support staff through the frequent and necessary

mergers, acquisitions and restructures in FMCG companies, attracting and

106
retaining talent, motivating and incentivizing your salesforce and developing a

global mindset and culture.

Leadership Style in Public and Private Sector

Leadership style is the behavior pattern used by a leader to resolve the

organizational issues (Lewin, LIippit, & White, 1939). To differentiate the

leadership style of public and private sector, Hudson (2009) used its Business

Attitudes Questionnaire (BAQ) to analyze the personality characteristics of

1,185 senior leaders in Europe. Among these leaders, 485 were selected from

private and 700 from public sector. The results were compared to over 64000

people all over the globe. His key findings were as follows:

 Public sector leaders are long term strategy oriented.

 Private sector leaders desire quick results.

 Public sector leaders believe in control and command.

 Private sector leaders trust their subordinates.

 Public sector leaders are less optimistic and they go behind thoughtful

approach.

 Women leaders in public sector are out spoken.

 Young leaders in private sector avail more opportunities for personal

development.

Major findings of this study include that private sector leadership style is not

the benchmark for public sector. It varies from organization to organization

and certain factors will determine particular traits. It was further suggested

that mutual exchange of leaders may extremely be useful for both the sectors,

especially for learning point of view.

107
Many excellent commercial business leaders have made wonderful

contributions not only to their company, but also to the health of the economy

and the wellbeing of each one of us” (O’Breien, 2004). Voon, Ngui, & Ayob

stated that style of leaders can be the basis of organizational success

because the target achievement can only be made by taking up suitable

leadership style which affects the job satisfaction, commitment and

productivity in the public sector. According to Brooks (2007) “leaders do not

often evidence the current skill sets that are required of them and this is more

acute in the public sector”. Kim (2005) says public sector employees have

certain positive attributes which contribute to organizational performance;

however, individual-level factors may affect organizational performance.

As we hurl ahead at an increasing pace in the area of technology, we are

unfortunately facing an increased shortage of highly skilled employees and

employee retention is a concern. There are a great number of employment

opportunities for talented professionals. The higher skilled the employees, the

greater the demand for their services. The cost to replace an employee is

becoming more documented and the news is not good for employers. It costs

a great deal to replace an employee. Irrespective of sector, a widely

acknowledged model of engaging employees for higher productivity is as

follows :

108
 Figure 3.2 : The Zinger Model

Source : http://www.davidzinger.com/zinger-model/ extracted on 26-09-2014

The 14 employee engagement elements for each element of David Zinger’s

model are as follows:

Achieve results : Employee Engagement is directed towards achieving

results. The first key of the model begins with the results the organization,

department, team, or individual wants to achieve. The key question for this

part of the model is whether the corporate knows what it wants achieve and

how will it know when the objective is achieved.

Craft strategy : A strategy needs to be crafted to reach the goal. The key

question here is whether it is known how the results will be achieved and if

109
everyone knows the organization’s intentions and plans, is the strategy

engaging and whether there is enough employee engagement to fulfill the

strategy.

Connect : A central key of employee engagement is connection. In some

ways connection is synonymous with engagement and it denotes how well are

employees connected to the other elements of engagement ranging from their

organization to genuine happiness.

Authentic : Employee engagement must be authentic. It is important for

organisations to transcend superficial relationships, community or happiness

towards engagement that is heartfelt, powerful engagement that is real and

robust.

Recognition : Potent employee engagement requires powerful recognition. It

is important to let the employees know the importance of what they are doing

and how their work connects to results.

Engage : Engagement is not a one-time survey measure or a steady state but

to fully experience and contribute to the dynamic elements of work.

Enliven work roles : A role is a set of behaviors, rights and obligations at

work. The organization must be careful to guard employees against too many

roles or role overload while also fully being in the roles that contribute to

results, relationships, and engagement.

110
Excel at performance : Engagement for results can contribute to effective

performance management. Performance demonstrates engagement while

engagement can help excel at performance. Good employee engagement

should foster star performers.

Esteem organization : This is all about finding out if the employees are

proud to work for their organization and equally proud to recommend their

organization and be constant brand ambassadors.

Foster community : The essence of work is relationships and community.

Organizations that do not transform themselves into communities are in

danger of becoming obsolete or ignored.

Serve customers : This point is about finding out if the employees feel

served by the organization and management so much so that they in turn

offer the same level of service to the external and internal customers.

Develop career : Work should offer benefits back to employees. Employees

should experience both personal and professional development through work

ranging from courses and learning to developing their own strengths, value,

visibility, and engagement.

Leverage energies : The raw material of engagement is energy. Powerful

engagement involves mastery of physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, and

organizational energy. Energy not time is the vital resource for engaged

working.

111
Experience Well-Being : Ultimately work should contribute to employee well-

being. An organization’s results are dependent upon the health and

productivity of individual employees.

The topic of leadership styles affecting different employee related parameters

now becoming increasingly important and the awareness of the same is also

increasing. This awareness is very crucial for the organizational effectiveness.

Organizations will find it tough to maintain their growth and effectiveness

unless their human resources are complementary to their operations. The

modern world is far more competitive and volatile than ever before causing

organizations to gain competitive advantage whenever and wherever possible

in today’s globalized world. Organizational survival and success depends on

how organisations and their senior leaders respond to these challenges. For

this, organizations have to effectively evolve internal capabilities for

enhancing speed, quality, learning and building employee competencies. Just

like capabilities need to develop, similarly for better productivity employee

commitment needs to be more and it is possible only when the culture breeds

professionals who are inherently motivated. Capability has to be supported by

commitment which comes through desire to excel, can-do attitude towards

work, co-operation, involvement. The culture of organisations also create an

awareness of what is ideal and desirable. Organizations are not static

systems but keep evolving and developing, forced by the dynamic

environment.

112
 CHAPTER 4

OBJECTIVES, HYPOTHESIS AND RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY

113
 CHAPTER 4

OBJECTIVES, HYPOTHESIS AND RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY

4.1 Statement of Research Problem

This study is designed to assess the impact of leadership styles on a)

employee commitment and b) motivation, with reference to demographics like

age, education, marital status, occupational status, income, length of service,

gender and career progression. In this study the independent variable would

be Leadership Style, at the levels of transformational, transactional, and

laissez-faire. The dependent variables would be employee Motivation and

Commitment, with levels of commitment being normative, continuance and

affective.

The selected organisations have long recognised human capital as a

competitive advantage. Thus, for the organisational vision to become a reality,

its leadership relies on employees to execute strategic objectives. The

employees’ knowledge, experience, skills, expertise, the ability to collectively

innovate and their decision making processes is key to the growth.

Despite the importance of the subjects of leadership and employee

commitment and motivation, the researcher did not find any study that

determined the relationship between these variables in the corporate setting.

Therefore the researcher focussed on these three areas – leadership styles,

employee commitment, employee motivation. The research also investigated

the relationship between these variables and determined the effects of

114
selected demographic variables upon the levels of commitment and the levels

of motivation.

4.2 Research Questions

1. To what extent are the employees committed to their organisations ?

2. What are the effects of the manager’s leadership styles on employee

motivation ?

3. What are the effects of the manager’s leadership styles on employee

commitment ?

4. Is there a difference in the level of commitment among employees on

the basis of demographic and job related variables ?

5. Is there a difference in the level of motivation among employees on the

basis of demographic and job related variables ?

4.3 Scope of the Study

The study is currently restricted to the level of permanent full-time

employees of support functions and operations, in the western, eastern

and northern states, of selected organisations in FMCG, Oil and Petroleum

segment, who are exposed to management researches and studies of

similar kinds. The premise was that confirmed employees have spent

significant amount of time in the organisation and are equally affected by

some basic processes which could influence their perspectives on

commitment and motivation. The study could also be extended to the non-

management category of employees at the lower grades, where they could

judge the leadership styles of supervisors managing them. It could also be

115
extended to other states of India and even globally, since all these

organisations have a significant global presence.

4.4 Purpose of the Study

The results of the study would equip the organisational leadership to

determine which styles to adopt so that the employees are more

committed and motivated and hence have a much better engagement and

connect with the organisation. Adoption of the appropriate style will help

induce trust and loyalty for the organisation. This, in turn, will help

organisations deal better with the challenge of employee retention in the

fast growing corporate world.

4.5 Objectives

1. To assess the impact of relationship between Transformational

Leadership Styles and level of Employee Commitment

2. To assess the impact of relationship between Transactional

Leadership Styles and level of Employee Commitment

3. To assess the impact of relationship between Laissez Faire

Leadership Styles and level of Employee Commitment

4. To assess the impact of relationship between Transformational

Leadership Styles and Employee Motivation

5. To assess the impact of relationship between Transactional

Leadership Styles and Employee Motivation

6. To assess the impact of relationship between Laissez Faire

Leadership Styles and level of Employee Motivation

116
4.6 Statement of Hypotheses

The following hypotheses would be tested :

H01 : There is no significant relation between Transformational leadership style

and Employee Commitment

H11 : There is a significant relation between Transformational leadership style

and Employee Commitment

H02 : There is no significant relation between Transactional leadership style

and Employee Commitment

H12 : There is a significant relation between Transactional leadership style and

Employee Commitment

H03 : There is no significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style

and Employee Commitment

H13: There is a significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style and

Employee Commitment

H04 : There is no significant relation between Transformational leadership style

and Employee Motivation

H14 : There is a significant relation between Transformational leadership style

and Employee Motivation

H05 : There is no significant relation between Transactional leadership style

and Employee Motivation

H15 : There is a significant relation between Transactional leadership style and

Employee Motivation

117
H06 : There is no significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style

and Employee Motivation

H16 : There is a significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style and

Employee Motivation

4.7 Research Methodology

Sampling Design:

This study was conducted in Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Kolkata & Delhi. The

targeted population for the study was the confirmed (not on probation), full-

time employees from support functions and Operations, who are exposed to

management studies and researches of similar kinds.

Sample size:

The size of the population is 650. The margin of error has been considered as

4% and the desired confidence interval is 95%.

Sample Size: According to formula – SS = Z2 * (P) * (1 – p) / C2

Where –Z = Z value (e.g., 1.96 for 95% confidence), P = Percentage picking

a choice, expressed as decimal (.5 used for sample size needed)

C = Confidence interval expressed as decimal (e.g., .04 = + 4)

Total Population is about 650 for the targeted group. Hence total number of

sample is 295.

Based on the population, sample size was estimated to be around 300 and

hence 450 questionnaires were distributed on email and through the HR

function. About 326 were considered since they were duly filled up.

118
Figure 4.1 : Distribution of Respondents

Sl no Cities No of Respondents

1 Mumbai 146

2 Navi Mumbai 65

3 Kolkata 50

4 Delhi 65

TOTAL 326

This formula is the one used by Krejcie & Morgan in their 1970 article

“Determining Sample Size for Research Activities” (Educational and

Psychological Measurement, #30, pp. 607-610).

For the final study, reliability tests were performed to assess the internal

consistency of each measure.

Based on the population, 85 questionnaires were distributed on email and

through the HR function. About 50 were considered to be valid since they

were duly filled up. Hence 50 questionnaires were processed for further

research findings.For the pilot study, reliability tests were performed to assess

the internal consistency of each measure.

119
Primary data source :

Primary sources used allowed the researcher to form reasoned conclusions,

base conclusions on evidence, and connect primary sources to the context in

which they were created, synthesizing information from multiple sources.

"Primary sources originate in the time period that historians are studying.

They vary a great deal. They may include personal memoirs, government

documents, transcripts of legal proceedings, oral histories and traditions,

archaeological and biological evidence, and visual sources like paintings and

photographs. "(Storey, William Kelleher. Writing History: A guide for Students.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999, p.18).

Descriptive Survey :

The survey includes correlational research and survey research, yielding

quantitative information that was summarized through statistical analyses.

Review of literature and other available information from various published

and unpublished reports of these organisations, data on these industry

segments available in the public domain, journals, and periodicals, books,

newspapers, etc. (including databases like EBSCO, Pro-quest, and others).

Field Survey:

Research Tool:

The research instrument used for collecting primary data was Questionnaire,

which is the most widely used data collection methods in evaluation research.

The Questionnaires used for the final data collection were close ended

questionnaires. Questionnaires helped gather information on attitudes,

opinions, behaviors, facts, and other information.

120
In the final step, reliability of the questionnaire using a pilot test was carried

out. Reliability refers to random error in measurement. Reliability indicates the

accuracy or precision of the measuring instrument (Norland, 1990). The pilot

test attempted to answer the question, does the questionnaire consistently

measure whatever it measures?

To assess reliability of knowledge questions, test-retest or split-half is

appropriate. Data collected from pilot test was analyzed using SPSS

(Statistical Package for Social Sciences). A reliability coefficient (alpha) of .70

or higher was considered acceptable reliability.

A questionnaire with four parts was used for different variables of the study :

1. Part A for Demographic details

2. Part B for Employee Commitment

3. Part C for Leadership Styles -

(i) Transformational; (ii) Transactional; (iii) Laissez-Faire

4. Part D for Employee Motivation

Part A : Employee Demographics

This part contains statements concerning general information about the

participant and helps us understand the demographics of the respondents

who took the survey. The questionnaire aims to find out for respondents the

Age, Educational background, Marital status, Occupation, Monthly gross

compensation, Length of Service, Gender and the time when he/she got

promoted last.

121
Part B : Employee Commitment

This part of the questionnaire provides the Researcher with information on the

employee’s state of mind and attitude pertaining to his/her work area and

sense of alignment and loyalty to the organisation.

Part C : Leadership Styles

The first section of this part of the questionnaire deals with background

information about the manager available/observable to the employee. The

second section has questions which help establish the leadership style of the

Head of Function (or the person the respondent reports to), as he/she

employee perceives/observes it.

Part D : Work Motivation

This part of the questionnaire provides the Researcher with information about

how the employee feels about the job.

Pilot Study:

A total of 85 questionnaires were distributed among the confirmed, full-time

employees in four locations. The population was the predefined set of

potential respondents (elements) in a geographical area. The potential

respondents were the group of team members working for a manager in that

organisation. Out of 85, 50 respondents’ instruments were analysed. The final

questionnaire had been moderated based on the pilot study.

For the pilot study, reliability tests were performed to assess the internal

consistency of each measure. Cronbach‘s Alpha coefficients were reported as

follows: 0.806 for the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, 0.891 for the

122
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), 0.834 for the Employee

Motivation Questionnaire.

Data Collection for the Main Research Study

Data Collection began after the approval was acquired from the dissertation

committee headed by Dr.R.Gopal (Director of the Department of Business

Management).

4.8 Data Processing

The survey technique was used to collect data from the respondents and

understand and predict some aspects of the behavior of the population of

interest. In the process of sampling, selection has been done from a bigger

group (the sampling population) to become the basis of estimating or

predicting the prevalence of an unknown piece of information, situation or

outcome regarding the bigger group.

The population is not the entire population of a given geographical area of a

given organisation, but the predefined set of potential respondents (elements)

in a geographical area. The research design is Descriptive, which, as

Zikmund (2003) explained, provides answers to “who, what, when, where, and

how” questions, and Causal.

Based on the population, sample size was estimated to be around 300 and

hence 450 questionnaires were distributed on email and through the HR

function within six - eight months. About 326 were considered since they were

duly filled up.

123
Appropriate questionnaire with four parts were developed to collect the

responses.

The researcher secured permission from the Heads of HR functions of each

of the organisations before conducting the data collection by distributing the

questionnaire among the employees of the departments. The questionnaire

was validated and the reliability of the questionnaire was measured too. Each

questionnaire included a cover letter containing statements assuring the

respondent of anonymity and confidentiality. The letter also included clear and

specific directions to fill up the instrument of the study.

To help solicit the sample and prevent management intervention, the

researcher distributed and collected the entire questionnaire herself. The

organisations helped the researcher by providing her the necessary

information needed in the data collection. The researcher also explained the

purpose and benefit of the study and encouraged the respondents to

complete the questionnaire.

Before distributing any questionnaire, the researcher met with the

Heads/Director of the departments of the selected organisations and

explained the distribution and collection plan. To obtain a high response rate

and more accurate results, the researcher requested that each department

head himself/herself distributed the questionnaire to all the employees. It

should be noted that a small percentage of the targeted population did not

participate in the study for various reason. For example, the employees who

were on vacation or participating in training or MDP programmes outside the

organisation were absent during the study. In addition a few employees

refused to participate and answer the questionnaire. However, the researcher

124
took utmost care to ensure that the confidentiality of responses was

maintained and the commitment was communicated to employees aptly. The

decision to base the study on the following cities was arrived at after

discussion with the respective function heads of the organisations where the

survey took place.

Given below is the distribution of the data collected from different cities of

India in tabular form:

City-wise Distribution of Respondents :

Sl no Cities No of respondents

1 Mumbai 146

2 Navi Mumbai 65

3 Kolkata 50

4 Delhi 65

TOTAL 326

The responses observed from each of the items in the instrument used for

primary data collection were scored and tabulated into a master sheet. The

statistical tools included co-relation, regression techniques, multiple

regression, ANOVA, descriptive statistics have been applied to draw logical

conclusion. The analysis was done using Statistical Package of Social

Sciences (SPSS). The analysed data were finally interpreted to draw the

conclusions and reported with the objective of the study in view.

125
Organizational Commitment of Employees

Organizational commitment of employees was measured using the

organisational commitment questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Porter and his

associates in 1974.This instrument was designed to measure the relative

.strength of an individual‘s identification with and involvement in a particular

organisation.

According to this definition, organizational commitment could be characterized

by at least three factors:

1. a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization‘s goals and

values;

2. a willingness to invest considerable effort on behalf of the organization;

3. a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization (Mowday et

al.1982).

The Employee Commitment Questionnaire consists of 15 items, and each

item was measured on a seven point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). To reduce response bias, six items (item

3,7,9,11,12 and 15) in the instrument were negatively phrased and reverse

scored. To arrive at a summary indicator of employee commitment, scores for

all items were summed and divided by 15. The higher the score, the greater

the individual‘s commitment to the organization. Past researches confirmed

that the questionnaire showed sufficient validity and reliability. Many

researchers suggested using the OCQ. For example, Morrow (1983)

supported the use of the OCQ and argued that the questionnaire has received

substantial support regarding its reliability and validity. Mowday et al. (1979)

126
conducted a study using the OCQ. Their results showed a consistently high

coefficient alpha, ranging from .82 to .93. They added that the questionnaire

has demonstrated good psychometric properties and has been widely used by

researchers. It has been used in at least 100 published studies, of which 17

were international in scope (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).

Reliability has been defined as a matter of whether a particular technique,

applied repeatedly to the same object, would yield the same result each time.

Validity refers to the extent to which an empirical measure adequately reflects

the real meaning of the concept under consideration.

Employee Motivation

Work Motivation scale with 10 items was used to provide the researcher with

information about how the respondents felt about their jobs. The questionnaire

highlighted the dimensions of job satisfaction, sense of accomplishment, work

environment and recognition. It contains 10 evaluative statements about the

respondents’ job. Nine of these were designed to cover aspects of ‘Existence,

Relatedness and Growth’ from Alderfer’s ERG model. A tenth item was added

on job satisfaction since it is considered to play a key role in motivation.

Ten 7-point scales cover dimensions of discretion (freedom to choose, what,

when and how activities are carried out, job demands (control vs lack of

control over speed of activity), as well as variety, degree of physical and

mental effort, social contact and use of particular skills and abilities. The

results of past study done by George Shouksmith, Department of Psychology,

Massey University, as recorded in ‘ A Construct Validation of A Scale for

Measuring Work Motivation’, New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 1989, 18,

127
76-81, offer a clear construct validation of the Work Motivation Scale, as a

general motivation measure which reflects Alderfer’s (1972) ERG model.

Three factors assess separately the extent to which a job meets worker’s

material needs, provides positive interpersonal support and offers potential for

development, growth and actualization.

Leadership Styles

Leadership styles were measured using the latest version of the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Form -5x-short) developed by Bass and

Avolio (1995). This questionnaire (MLQ), which has been tested and revised

over the years, is often used to measure transformational, transactional and

Laissez-faire Leadership style. The central thesis of the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire is derived from Bass‘s (1985) augmentation theory of

transactional and transformational leadership. According to Bass and Avolio

(1990), transformational leadership is a leadership style that strives to elevate

the desires of individual followers for achievement and self-development,

while also promoting the development of the group and organization. Further,

transformational leadership .goes beyond exchanging inducements for

desired performance by developing, intellectually stimulating, and inspiring

followers to transcend their own self-interests for higher collective purpose,

mission, or vision.(Howell & Avolio,1993,p.891). With regard to transactional

and laissez-faire leadership styles, Burns (1978) viewed transactional as a

type of leadership based on an exchange process between leaders and

followers. Laissez-faire leadership represents a style used by leaders who try

to avoid responsibility and decision-making (Bass, 1997).

128
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire consists of 142 statements about the

behaviour of the leader. There are two forms of the MLQ -- the Leader Form,

which is completed by the leader themselves, and the Rater Form, which is

completed by the leaders associates. As the Leader form would naturally

contain a bias, the Rater form is considered to be the more important of the

two. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire has been used in the

evaluation of leaders in corporate and public organizations, as well as the

military.

There are several other tools in existence, although few as prevalent or

comprehensive as the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. They are:

 Transformational Leadership Behaviour Inventory (TLI) -- Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990)

 Leader Assessment Inventory (LAI) - Warner Burke (1994)

 Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ) - Alimo-Metcalfe and

Alban-Metcalfe (2001)

 Global Transformational Leadership scale (GTL) - Carless, Wearing

and Mann( 2000)

 Follower Belief Questionnaire and the Attributes of Leader Behaviour

Questionnaire - Behling and McFillan (1996)

 CK scale - Conger and Kanungo (1988)

 Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) - Kouzes and Posner (1998)

 15 item rating scale - Rafferty and Griffin (2004)

Although the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is one of the most

widespread tools for measuring Transformational Leadership, it would make

129
sense that as the development of this field continues, the use of several tools

to measure effectiveness would be wise.

In the present study, employees were asked to rate their immediate

supervisors basis their managerial traits. The questionnaires for measurement

were taken into account as per the applicability. Therefore, the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire rater form (5x-short) was used to measure the

transformational, transactional and Laissez-faire leadership style as perceived

by the employees. The current study included only 29 items of Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire. The scales related to Transformational Leadership

were idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behaviour),

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration.

Contingent rewards, management exception (active), management by

exception (passive), were associated with Transactional Leadership scales.

The remaining two scales indicated laissez –faire leadership and satisfaction

with leader. While all the leadership style scale has four items, satisfaction

with the leader scale has only two items. Each item was rated on a Five point

frequency scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently, if not always). The

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire scores are the average score from the

items on the scale. The score can be derived by summing the items and

dividing by the number of items that make up the scale.

The validity and reliability of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire have

been empirically established. Based on the results of nine studies conducted

on various organizations and using the experimental form of the MLQ (5X),

the questionnaire showed a satisfactory level of internal consistency. This was

checked both during the pilot test and the final survey. Further, the reliability

130
for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from .74 to .94

(Bass & Avolio, 1995) and exceeded the standard reliability cut-off of .70

recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). In general, the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (5x-Short) appears to be an adequate test with

good construct validity, adequate reliability, and a good research base. This

has been proved in ample researches conclusively in the field of leadership

and the results have been used widely by subsequent researchers all the

world over.

Demographic Variables

Age

This variable was measured by asking the respondent to choose the category

for his age range. Four categories were included. The first category was 20-

29 years, the second category was 30-39 years, the third category was 40-49

years and the fourth category was 50 years and above.

Level of Education

Level of education was measured by asking the respondent to select the

category that indicated his educational level. There were four categories,

ranging from graduation through various streams (BA/BCom/BSc/BE), Master

Degree (MA/MCom/MSc/ME), Master Degree (MBA/MMS) to a Doctorate

degree.

Marital Status

Marital status was measured by asking the respondents to mark the category

that described their status. Married and Single were the categories to choose

from.

131
Occupational Level

This variable was measured by asking the respondent to select the category

that indicated his occupational position. The occupational level scale

consisted of four categories. The first category included the operational

executives, the second category included the middle managers, the third

category included the senior managers and the fourth category included the

senior executives.

Compensation

Compensation (gross monthly income) was measured by asking the

respondents to select the category that reflected their salary range. The first

category included salaries between INR 35,000-50,000, the second category

included salaries ranging from INR 51,000-99,000, the third category included

salaries from INR 1,00,000-1,99,000 and the fourth category included salaries

of INR 2,00,000 and above.

Length of Service

Length of service was measured by asking the respondents to select the

category that indicated the number of years of their employment in the

organisations they were currently in service.

Gender

Gender was measured by asking the respondents to select the category that

indicated the male and female status of the respondents. The first category

(coded 1) included the male and the second category (coded 2) included the

female. According to the gender indicated by the respondents, data was fed

into the SPSS system.

132
Internal Promotion

Internal promotion was measured by asking the respondents to select the

category that reflected the tenure since their last promotion. The period of the

internal promotion of the respondents were broken into three categories which

indicated the promotion taken place within the time span of the respondent‘s

career in a particular institute. The first category indicated the period ranging

from 0-2 years, the second category indicated the period ranging from 3-

6years, the third category included the period ranging from 7-10 years.

Reliability of the Study Instrument

Most psychological societies (e.g., British Psychological Society) and

academics (e.g., Devellis, 1991) suggest that an acceptable level of reliability

for psychometric tests is as follows :

Table 4.2 : Acceptable levels of Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient

Alpha coefficient Implied reliability

below .60 Unacceptable

between .60 and .65 Undesirable

between .65 and .70 minimally acceptable

between .70 and .80 Respectable

between .80 and .90 very good

much above .90 consider shortening the scale

(DeVellis, 1991, p.85)

133
Reference:

DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage

Publications.

In this pilot study, reliability tests were performed to assess the internal

consistency of each measure. Cronbach‘s Alpha coefficients were reported as

follows: 0.806 for the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, 0.891 for the

Multi-factor Leadership Style Questionnaire, 0.834 for the Employee

Motivation Questionnaire.

Data Analysis Tools

To analyze the collected data and test the expectations and hypotheses, the

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS: Version 20) was used.

A number of Statistical tools were used. These included descriptive statistics

to describe different characteristics of the respondents. Simple individual

regression analysis was utilized to analyze the relationships between the

dependent variable (organizational commitment) and each of the selected

independent variables. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine

the magnitude of the relationship between the dependent variable

(organizational commitment) and all the independent variables used in the

study. Correlational statistics were used to describe and explore the

relationships between all the variables used in the study. Finally, one way

analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to test the differences in the

level of organizational commitment among groups on the basis of the

employee‘s demographic details such as age, educational qualifications,

134
marital status, occupational status, monthly compensation, length of service,

gender, internal promotion.

Interpretation and Report Writing:

The analysed data were finally interpreted to draw the conclusions and

reported with the objective of the study in view.

4.9 Limitations of the Study

This study has some potential limitations. It may be noted that a causality

relation cannot be inferred due to the cross-sectional nature of the data,

although, it is one of the most-used methods in applied and field psychological

research (especially in organizations, Spector, 1994). Future investigations,

then, should adopt an experimental or longitudinal design. The data used in

the study were acquired using the same questionnaire and this procedure

might have led to common method bias that might have inflated the

relationship among factors. A second one is represented by the fact that the

criteria variables have been assessed by self-report measures, which may

reflect participants' perceptions rather than objective realities.

The second limitation is about the duration which is limited and short. A longer

duration would have given the researcher time to study a broader cross-

section of employees in corporate sector. Along with three dimensions of

leadership, namely transformational, transactional and laissez-faire, the study

could have explored charismatic style of leadership as well, to give it a well-

rounded character. Also, some funding would have enabled the researcher to

travel extensively and interview corporate employees, even globally, to get a

better insight on the topic of study. The study could then also have a higher

135
coverage to include other functions, like sales, business development,

marketing.

The aspect of culture in different parts of India and its impact on the leader-

follower relationship has not been explored here. The relation cannot be

inferred due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, although, it is one of the

most-used methods in applied and field psychological research (especially in

organizations, Spector, 1994). Culture affects behaviour patterns, but that

would have called for a study in itself and hence not covered here.

The aspect of culture is of paramount importance since it has been concluded

from past studies that even in a complex system, one person could make a

vast difference, contributing to reduction of turnover and better retention of

direct staff. Taylor (2004) reported that “leaders and their skill in building a

climate of retention, a culture that speaks to employees in a way that

encourages them to stay, will be an organization’s best defense against

unwanted turnover. Leaders are the secret weapon in keeping valued talent

longer glued to the organisation. Leadership is believed to be a critical

success factor in the culture change movement.

136
 CHAPTER 5

RESEARCH FINDINGS

137
 CHAPTER 5

RESEARCH FINDINGS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the results of the study. It is divided into four sections.

The first section includes the pilot study report. The second section includes a

description of the respondent‘s characteristics of the main research study.

The third section contains statistical results of the correlation analyses of the

items in the three instruments used, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ) Rater Form (5x-Short) developed by Bass and Avolio (1995), the

Employee Commitment Questionnaire (ECQ) developed by Porter and his

associates (1974) and the Work Motivation Scale. Also, the third section

includes the range, mean, median, and standard deviation of all the scales

used in the current study. Results of the expectations and hypotheses testing

and the complete regression model are presented in the fourth section.

5.2 Pilot Study Report

A total of 85 questionnaires were distributed among the confirmed, full-time

employees in four locations. The population was the predefined set of

potential respondents (elements) in a geographical area. The potential

respondents were the group of team members working for a manager in that

organisation. 50 respondents’ questionnaires were analysed since they were

duly filled up and valid. The final questionnaire had been moderated based on

138
the pilot study. The reliability test of the questionnaires was made and was

found to be good and in line with the accepted norms for research studies.

Population and Sample Selection of Pilot Study:

This study was conducted in Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Kolkata & Delhi. The

targeted population for the study was the confirmed (not on probation), full-

time employees from support functions and Operations, who are exposed to

management studies and researches of similar kinds.

Data Collection:

Data Collection began after the approval has been acquired from the

Dissertation Committee, headed by Dr.R.Gopal (Director and Head of the

Department of Business Management, Padmashree Dr.D.Y. Patil University).

In areas where the study was conducted, the researcher took permission from

the Heads of HR functions, before conducting the data collection by

distributing the questionnaire among the employees. The questionnaire was

validated and the reliability of the questionnaire was measured too.

The questionnaires included a cover letter containing statements assuring the

respondent of anonymity and confidentiality. The letter also included clear and

specific directions to fill up the instrument of the study.

Measurement of the Data

The questionnaires used in this study were four separate sets to measure the

variables and test the hypotheses. They were meant to be filled up by the

subordinate employees working under the leadership of the

supervisor/Head/Director of the department.

139
The first part included eight questions regarding demographic backgrounds

about the respondents such as age, education, marital status, occupational

status, compensation, length of services, gender, internal promotion. The

second part was composed of items concerning leadership styles (29 items).

The third part of the instrument dealt with organisational commitment (15

items). The fourth part dealt with the Work Motivation Scale (10 items).

5.3 Description of Respondents’ Characteristics for Pilot

Study

The questionnaire used for this study included 8 items concerning the

respondents’ characteristics. They were asked about their age, education,

marital status, occupational status, compensation (monthly income), and

length of services, gender, and internal promotion.

Demographic Variables

Age

This variable was measured by asking the respondent to choose the category

for his age range. Four categories were included. The first category was 20-

29 years, the second category was 30-39 years, the third category was 40-49

years and the fourth category was 50 years and above.

Table 5.3.1(i) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Age

Age Group-wise breakup of respondents (Years)

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

140
 21-30 12 24.0 24.0 24.0

31-40 21 42.0 42.0 66.0

Valid
41-50 14 28.0 28.0 94.0

> 50 3 6.0 6.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

The age range of the respondents are 21-50 years and above. 12

respondents are between the ages 21-30, 21 respondents are between the

ages 31-40, 14 respondents are between the ages 41-50, 3 respondents are

above 50 years of age.

It indicates that the plurality of the respondents (42%) is between the age 31-

40 years and the lowest number of respondents (6%) is in the Above 50

year’s category. It also reveals that 24% respondents are between the ages

21-30, 28% respondents are between the ages 41-50.

Level of Education

Level of education was measured by asking the respondent to select the

category that indicated his educational level. There were four categories,

ranging from graduation through various streams (BA/BCom/BSc/BE), Master

Degree (MA/MCom/MSc/ME), Master Degree (MBA/MMS) to a Doctorate

degree. The educational categories were decided based on the profile of

employees in these organisations. The following categories were considered

to encompass the educational qualifications of all employees in the

organisations surveyed.

141
Table 5.3.1(ii) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Education

Education Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

BSc / BE /
12 24.0 24.0 24.0
BCom / BA

MA / MCom /

MSc / ME / 16 32.0 32.0 56.0

MCA
Valid

Master Degree
22 44.0 44.0 100.0
/ MBA / MMS

Total 50 100.0 100.0

It shows that the education range is from Bachelor degree to Master degree.

There are 22 employees with MBA/MMS degrees, 16 employees with Masters

degree in other faculties and 12 are with Bachelor degree in other faculties.

The table also indicates that 44% of the academic faculties are with

MBA/MMS and 32% are with Master’s degree in other faculties.

Marital Status

Marital status was measured by asking the respondents to mark the category

that described their status. Married and Single were the categories to choose

from. Based on the responses of employees data was coded for tabulation in

SPSS.

142
Table 5.3.1(iii) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Marital Status

Marital Status

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Married 41 82.0 82.0 82.0

Valid
Single 9 18.0 18.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

It shows that there are 41 employees who are married and 9 are single.

Hence the plurality of respondents (82%) is married and only 18% are single.

Occupational Level

This variable was measured by asking the respondent to select the category

that indicated his occupational position. The occupational level scale

consisted of four categories. The first category included the operational

executives, the second category included the middle managers, the third

category included the senior managers and the fourth category included the

senior executives. The operational executives were typically the front end and

backend who would be the first rung in the corporate ladder, the middle

managers would have a span of control encompassing these operational

executives, senior managers would typically be function heads and senior

executives would be responsible for entire business of a region or zone. All

the organisations studied had a broad categorisation of this sort.

143
Table 5.3.1(iv) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Occupational

status

Occupation Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Operational
11 22.0 22.0 22.0
Executive

Middle
20 40.0 40.0 62.0
manager

Valid Senior
13 26.0 26.0 88.0
Manager

Senior
6 12.0 12.0 100.0
Executive

Total 50 100.0 100.0

The pluralities of respondents (40%) are in the middle level category that is

the middle managers, followed by 26% of respondents who are senior

managers; 22% are Operational executives and 12% are the senior

executives.

Compensation

Compensation (monthly income) was measured by asking the respondents to

select the category that reflected their salary range in categories. The first

category included salaries between INR 35,000-50,000, the second category

included salaries ranging from INR 51,000-99,000, the third category included

144
salaries from INR 1,00,000-1,99,000 and the fourth category included salaries

of INR 2,00,000 and above.

Table 5.3.1(v) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Gross Monthly

Compensation (in INR)

Monthly Gross Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Compensation (INR) Percent Percent

2,00,000 and
1 2.0 2.0 2.0
Above

1,00,000-
18 36.0 36.0 38.0
Valid 1,99,000

51,000-
21 42.0 42.0 80.0
99,000

35,000-
10 20.0 20.0 100.0
50,000

Total 50 100.0 100.0

Table indicates that the majority of respondents (42%) falls within INR 51,000-

99,000 per month, 36% falls within INR 1,00,000-1,99,000, 20% falls within

INR 35,000-50,000, 2% falls within INR 2,00,000 and Above. The

compensation had different breakups for different cadres and accordingly the

net income would vary, but due to the sensitive nature of this datapoint,

further exploration has been avoided.

145
Length of Service

Length of service was measured by asking the respondents to select the

category that indicated the number of years of their employment in the

organisations they were currently in service.

Table 5.3.1(vi) : Frequency distribution by Length of Service

Length of Service (Years)

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

0-10 13 26.0 26.0 26.0

11-20 29 58.0 58.0 84.0

Valid
21-30 5 10.0 10.0 94.0

> 30 3 6.0 6.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

This shows that 13 respondents have served from 0-10 years in their

corporate career, 29 respondents have served from 11-20 years, 5

respondents have served from 21-30 years, 3 respondents have served for

more than 30 years in their corporate career.

The table indicates that the plurality of respondents (58%) are in the 11-20

years’ service category. 26% are in the 0-10 years, 10% are in the 21-30

years, 6% are in the more than 30 years of service category. This meant that

146
the majority of response came from employees who are quite acclimatised to

the organisation.

Gender

Gender was measured by asking the respondents to select the category that

indicated their male and female status. The first category (coded 1) included

the male and the second category (coded 2) included the female.

Table 5.3.1(vii) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Gender

Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Male 41 82.0 82.0 82.0

Valid
Female 9 18.0 18.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

The Table shows that 41% of the respondents are male employees and 9% of

the respondents are females.

Internal Promotion

Internal promotion was measured by asking the respondents to select the

category that reflected the tenure since their last promotion. The period of the

internal promotion of the respondents were broken into three categories which

indicated the promotion taken place within the time span of the respondent‘s

career in a particular institute. The first category indicated the period ranging

147
from 0-2 years, the second category indicated the period ranging from 3-

6years, the third category included the period ranging from 7-10 years.

Table 5.3.1(viii) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Internal

Promotion

In number Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent
of years

0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0

1 1 2.0 2.0 4.0

2 8 16.0 16.0 20.0

3 5 10.0 10.0 30.0

4 10 20.0 20.0 50.0

5 1 2.0 2.0 52.0

6 9 18.0 18.0 70.0

Valid

7 2 4.0 4.0 74.0

8 4 8.0 8.0 82.0

11 1 2.0 2.0 84.0

NA 8 16.0 16.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

148
The respondents were also asked to fill up data pertaining to their managers

and the data distribution is as follows:

Table 5.3.2(i) : Data on Education of Managers as filled by Respondents

Qualifications of Manager

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

BSc / BE / BCom /
3 6.0 6.0 6.0
BA

MA / MCom / MSc /
3 6.0 6.0 12.0
ME / MCA
Valid

Master Degree / MBA

43 86.0 86.0 98.0
/ MMS

Doctorate 1 2.0 2.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

Table 5.3.2(ii) : Data on Gender of Managers as filled by Respondents

Gender of Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Manager
Percent Percent

Male 47 94.0 94.0 94.0

Valid Female 3 6.0 6.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

149
Table 5.3.2(iii) : Descriptive Statistics as filled by Respondents

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Standard

Deviation

Age 50 24 53 38.04 8.405

Length of
50 .00 36.00 14.2490 9.13018
Service

Years of working

with current 50 .00 8.00 3.1300 1.78088

Manager

Age of Manager 50 35 57 45.50 6.072

5.4 Testing the Hypotheses

The Hypotheses of this study addressed the field of Leadership,

Organizational Commitment and Employee Motivation. In the current study

there were 6 hypothesis tested. To test this hypothesis, some appropriate

statistical tools such as frequency analysis, Analysis of variance (ANOVA),

and Pearson‘s correlation techniques are used.

In this study, for the Pilot Testing, a total of 75 questionnaires were distributed

to employees working with different supervisors in different departments, out

of which 50 were completed. Data was collected through survey

150
questionnaires from subordinates comprising white-collar employees who are

currently reporting to middle and senior level managers.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), 3rd edition (Bass & Avolio,

2004), was adapted and used to measure supervisors' leadership styles and

behaviors. The MLQ model was modified into a five-component scale to

facilitate coding and data interpretation. The MLQ with 29 items, comprises a

5 point Likert scale and the respondents were instructed to mark the most

suitable answer. The scale ranges from 0 to 4 as follows:

 0 - Not at all

 1 - Once in a while

 2 - Sometimes

 3 - Fairly often, and

 4 - Frequently if not always

Employee Commitment scale with 15 items, used to measure employee

commitment to the organisation, highlighted the dimensions of loyalty to the

organisation, supervisor, dedication, oneness with the organisation, alignment

with the employment brand and internalization of organisational values.

The commitment model was modified into a seven-component scale to

facilitate coding and data interpretation, as follows :

 1 – Strongly Disagree

 2 – Disagree

 3 – Somewhat disagree

 4 – Neutral

 5 – Somewhat agree

151
  6 – Agree

 7 – Strongly Agree

Work Motivation scale with 10 items was used to provide the researcher with

information about how the respondents felt about their jobs. The questionnaire

highlighted the dimensions of job satisfaction, sense of accomplishment, work

environment and recognition.

The Work Motivation model was modified into a seven-component scale to

facilitate coding and data interpretation, as follows:

 1 – Strongly Disagree

 2 – Disagree

 3 – Somewhat disagree

 4 – Neutral

 5 – Somewhat agree

 6 – Agree

 7 – Strongly Agree

As to the demographic items, they are based on previous theoretical and

empirical studies. For the purpose of data collection, each participant received

an email package including a survey questionnaire with four parts of

exploratory questions – a) demographics b) employee commitment c)

leadership style d) employee motivation respectively, instructions for surveys.

In essence, each respondent was required to assess and testify as to how

frequently the behaviours described by each of the statements are exhibited

by their leader.

152
Confidentiality was strictly maintained for all respondents. Participants were

discouraged from discussing their answers with colleagues or others in order

lest the likelihood of independent observation reduces. All the documents

collected from the participants were destroyed after this study. SPSS was

used to explore the relationships between the dependent and independent

variables the validity was established through suitable statistical means.

Correlation analysis was explored and reliability of the individual scales was

checked.

Table 5.4(i) : Reliability Statistics : Leadership style and Employee

Commitment

Reliability Statistics for Leadership Styles

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on N of Items

Standardized Items

0.862 0.891 29

Reliability Statistics for Employee Commitment

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on N of Items

Standardized Items

0.713 0.806 15

Reliability of all scales was found to be very good as per the established

measures. Even compared to previous researches done in the field of

Leadership, the reliability scales were strong and hence the researcher

moved ahead with the study.

153
Research Findings

Table 5.4(ii) : Correlation of Transformational, Transactional and Laissez

faire styles with Employee Commitment

Correlations (Pearson’s R)

Transactional Style (0-4)

Laissez Faire Style (0-4)

Employee Commitment

Transformational Style
Total Score (1-7)

(0-4)
Employee Commitment Total

Pearson
** ** **
1 .485 .395 -.398
Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .005 .004

Score (1-7)

N 50 50 50 50

Pearson
Transformational Style (0-4)

** ** **
.485 1 .845 -.732
Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 50 50 50 50

Pearson
Transactional Style (0-4)

** ** **
.395 .845 1 -.496
Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .000 .000

N 50 50 50 50

154
 Pearson
** ** **

Laissez Fairre Style (0-4)

-.398 -.732 -.496 1
Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .000 .000

N 50 50 50 50

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

41 78.3171 3.65677 .57109

Employee Male
Commitment
Total Score
9 73.0000 6.48074 2.16025
(15 - 105) Female

Male 41 81.3902 10.92904 1.70683

Leadership
Style Total
Score (0 -
Female 9 77.5556 11.18158 3.72719
116)

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

T Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Employee Commitment Total Score (15 -

2.380 9.148 .041
105)

Leadership Style Total Score (0 - 116) .949 48 .347

Work Motivation Total Score (10 - 70) -.426 48 .672

155
Hypothesis 1: The Transformational Leadership style of the supervisors

has a positive impact on the level of Organizational commitment of

employees.

As shown in the tables above, the Pearson‘s correlation, indicated that there

was a positive relationship between the transformational leadership style and

organizational commitment of employees at a significant level (level of

confidence at .05). These results were consistent with the hypotheses

therefore the hypotheses was accepted.

Co-relation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Hypotheses 2: The transactional leadership style of the supervisors has

a positive impact on the level of Organizational commitment of

employees.

As shown in tables above, concerning the relationship between transactional

leadership style and organizational commitment level of employees. The

Pearson correlation result demonstrated that the relationship between the two

variables are positive and significant also (level of confidence at.05).The

results were consistent with the hypotheses therefore the hypotheses was

supported.

Hypotheses 3: The laissez-faire leadership style of supervisors has a

negative impact on the level of Organizational commitment of

employees.

The results of the correlation analyses revealed that Laissez – Faire

Leadership style has a negative impact on the level of Organizational

156
commitment of employees but statistically it is not significant. The results were

consistent with the hypotheses therefore the hypotheses was supported.

A majority of the 50 respondents (82%) are males and the findings indicate

that there is a significant difference in employee commitment between male

and female employees (P=0.041). About 44% are management degree

holders, 32% have Master’s degree and the rest are Graduates mostly in

Engineering.

As the Table indicates, co-relation between Transformational Leadership

styles and employee commitment is positive and the score is 0.485. Co-

relation between transactional style and employee commitment is also

positive and the score is 0.395. Respondents do not maximally differentiate

between transformational leadership behaviours in their evaluations, a

different pattern is found for the transactional part of the MLQ. The

transactional leadership scales are less related to each other which means

that transformational style of leadership is more effective than

transactional leadership style in bringing in the element of commitment

in employees.

The following three factors are often found: contingent reward, active

management-by-exception, and passive management-by-exception (Hater &

Bass, 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1993).

Laissez-faire style, on the other hand, has a negative co-relation with

motivation. This means that employees are not satisfied under laissez-faire

leadership. All the co-relations are highly significant and reliability scores are

strong for all scales. The results and implications of this study provided

157
recommendations to increase the supervisor's leadership skills in order to

improve employee's commitment.

Table 5.4(iii) : Reliability Statistics of Leadership styles and Work

Motivation

Reliability Statistics for Work Motivation Scale

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized N of Items

Items

.834 .834 10

Reliability Statistics for Leadership Styles

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized N of Items

Items

.862 .891 29

Table 5.4(iv) : Correlation of Transformational, Transactional and

Laissez faire styles with Work Motivation

Correlations (Pearson’s R)
Laissez Fairre Style
Transactional Style
Commitment Total

Total Score (1-7)

Transformational
Work Motivation
Score (1-7)

Style (0-4)
Employee

(0-4)

(0-4)
Total Score

Pearson
Motivation

.277 1 .602** .329* -.585**

Correlation
Work

(1-7)

Sig. (2-
.051 .000 .020 .000
tailed)

158
 N 50 50 50 50 50

Transformational
Pearson
.485** .602** 1 .845** -.732**
Correlation
Style (0-4) Sig. (2-
.000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N 50 50 50 50 50
Pearson
.395** .329* .845** 1 -.496**
Laissez Fairre Transactional

Correlation
Style (0-4)

Sig. (2-
.005 .020 .000 .000
tailed)
N 50 50 50 50 50
Pearson
-.398** -.585** -.732** -.496** 1
Correlation
Style (0-4)

Sig. (2-
.004 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N 50 50 50 50 50

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Hypothesis 4: The Transformational Leadership style of the supervisors

has a positive impact on the level of motivation of employees.

As shown in the table above, the Pearson‘s correlation, indicated that there

was a positive relationship between the transformational leadership style and

employee motivation at a significant level (level of confidence at .05). These

results were consistent with the hypotheses therefore the hypotheses was

accepted.

Co-relation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Hypotheses 5: The transactional leadership style of the supervisors has

a positive impact on the level of motivation of employees.

159
As shown in the table above, concerning the relationship between

transactional leadership style and motivation level of employees, the Pearson

correlation result demonstrated that the relationship between the two

variables are positive and significant (level of confidence at .05). The results

were consistent with the hypotheses therefore the hypotheses was supported.

Hypotheses 6: The laissez-faire leadership style of supervisors has a

negative impact on the level of motivation of employees.

The results of the correlation analyses revealed that Laissez – Faire

Leadership style has a negative impact on the level of employee motivation

but statistically it is not significant.

5.5 Main Study Report

The questionnaires used in this main research study were four separate sets

to measure the variables and test the hypotheses. They were meant to be

filled up by the subordinate employees working under the leadership of the

supervisor/Head/Director of the department.

The first part included eight questions regarding demographic backgrounds of

the respondents. The questionnaire aims to find out for respondents the Age,

Educational background, Marital status, Occupation, Monthly gross

compensation, Length of Service, Gender and the time when he/she got

promoted last. The second part, i.e., Employee Commitment Questionnaire

provides the Researcher with information on the employee’s state of mind and

attitude pertaining to his/her work area and sense of alignment and loyalty to

the organisation. The third part on Leadership Styles has questions which

help establish the leadership style of the Head of Function (or the person you

160
report to), as the employee perceives/observes it. The fourth part on Work

Motivation provides the Researcher with information about how the employee

feels about the job.

A total of 450 questionnaires were distributed among the confirmed, full-time

employees in four locations. The population was the predefined set of

potential respondents in a given geographical area. The potential respondents

were the group of team members working for a manager in that organisation

in that location.

5.6 Description of Respondents’ Characteristics of the Main

Research Study

Frequency Distribution of Demographic Factors

Table 5.6(i) : Frequency distribution and percentages by Age

Age Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Group Percent Percent

(Years)

20-29 74 22.7 22.7 22.7

30-39 82 25.2 25.2 47.9

40-49 130 39.9 39.9 87.7

Valid
> = 50 40 12.3 12.3 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

The age range of the respondents was from 20 to 50 years and above. 74

respondents are in the age group 20-29 years, 82 respondents are in the age

161
group 30-39 years, 130 respondents are in the 40-49 years category and 40

respondents were more than 50 years of age.

It indicates that the plurality of respondents (39.9%) were between the ages of

40 and 49, and the lowest numbers of respondents (12.3%) were aged 50 or

above. It also reveals that 25.2% 0f the respondents were between the ages

of 30 and 39 and 22.7% are in 20-29 years.

Education

Table 5.6(ii) : Frequency distribution of the respondents by Education.

Education of Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Employee Percent Percent

BSc / BE /
82 25.2 25.2 25.2
BCom / BA

MA / MCom /

MSc / ME / 78 23.9 23.9 49.1

Valid MCA

Master

Degree / 166 50.9 50.9 100.0

MBA / MMS

Total 326 100.0 100.0

It shows that there are 166 employees with their master degree in MBA/MMS

and 82 with BA/BCom/BSc /BE, 78 with MA/MCom/MSc /ME/MCA.

162
The table also indicates that the plurality of respondents is 50.9% of

employees who have an MBA degree and 25.2% are with BSc /BE/BCom/BA.

Marital Status

Table 5.6(iii) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Marital status.

Marital Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Status Percent Percent

Married 258 79.1 79.1 79.1

Valid
Single 68 20.9 20.9 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

It shows that 258 of the respondents were married and 68 of the respondents

were un-married. In other words, it states that 79.1% of the population from

whom the data were collected are married, 20.9% are single.

Occupational Status

Table 5.6(iv) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Occupation

Occupation Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Operational
75 23.0 23.0 23.0
Executive

Middle
154 47.2 47.2 70.2
Manager

163
 Senior
69 21.2 21.2 91.4
Valid Manager

Senior
28 8.6 8.6 100.0
Executive

Total 326 100.0 100.0

This shows that 154 respondents belong to the category of middle managers,

75 were operational executives, 69 of them were senior managers and 28 of

them were senior executives. In other words, the pluralities of respondents

(47.2%) are in the middle managerial category, followed by 23% of

respondents who are operational executives, 21.2% are senior managers and

8.6% belong to the Senior Executive category.

Compensation (Gross Monthly Income)

Table 5.6 (v) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Compensation

Gross Monthly Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Salary (INR)
Percent Percent

2,00,000
17 5.2 5.2 5.2
and Above

1,00,000-
121 37.1 37.1 42.3
1,99,000

Valid 51,000-
128 39.3 39.3 81.6
99,000

164
 35,000-
60 18.4 18.4 100.0
50,000

Total 326 100.0 100.0

The Table indicates 128 respondents get a monthly salary between 51,000-

99,000 per month, 121 respondents get within 1,00,000-1,99,000 per month

as their salary, 60 respondents get a salary within 35,000-50,000 per month,

and only 17 respondents get salary more than 2,00,000 per month. It shows

the plurality of respondents (39.3%) falls in high income group that is INR

51,000-99,000 per month, 37.1% of the respondents falls within 1,00,000-

1,99,000 per month, 18.4% falls within the earning of 35,000-50,000 per

month and a very low percentage of 5.2% falls in 2,00,000 lacs and above.

Length of Service

Respondents were asked to report how long they worked in their corporate

career. They were asked to select the category that indicates the number of

years they had spent working. The length of service of a professional greatly

determines how the response would be towards organisational parameters.

Table 5.6(vi) : Frequency distribution by Length of Service

Length of Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Service Percent Percent

(Years)

< 5 Years 66 20.2 20.2 20.2

5-10 34 10.4 10.4 30.7

165
 11-15 95 29.1 29.1 59.8

16-20 82 25.2 25.2 85.0

Valid
21-25 5 1.5 1.5 86.5

26-30 25 7.7 7.7 94.2

> 30 19 5.8 5.8 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

As shown in the table, 66 respondents have a work experience of upto 5

years, 34 respondents have worked between 5-10 years, 95 respondents

have worked between 11-15 years, 82 respondents have worked between 16-

20 years, 5 respondents have worked between 21-25 years, 25 respondents

have worked between 26-30 years and 19 respondents have worked for more

than 30 years.

In other words, 20.2% of respondents have been employed up to 5 years in

the organisations considered for the study, 10.4% of the respondents have

worked for 5-10 years. 29.1% have worked for 11-15 years. 25.2% have

worked for 16-20 years, 1.5% only have worked for 21-25 years, 7.7% have

worked for 26-30 years, 5.8% have worked for more than 30 years. Tenure of

service is known to be a significant determinant for the responses of an

employee towards leadership and organisational parameters.

166
Gender

Table 5.6(vii) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Gender

Gender Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Male 250 76.7 76.7 76.7

Valid
Female 76 23.3 23.3 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

This shows that out of the 326 respondents’ data analysed for the study, 250

were males and 76 were females. In other words, 76.7% of the respondents

are males and 23.3. % of the respondents are females.

Internal Promotion

Table 5.6(viii) : Frequency distribution by internal promotion

Promoted Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Span (Years) Percent Percent

0-2 76 23.3 23.3 23.3

3-6 160 49.1 49.1 72.4

7-10 33 10.1 10.1 82.5

Valid
> 10 5 1.5 1.5 84.0

167
 Not

Promoted/Not 52 16.0 16.0 100.0

Applicable

Total 326 100.0 100.0

This shows that 76 employees had got a promotion within 0-2 years, 160

employees within 3-6years, 33 employees within 7-10 years of service, 5

employees were in more than 10 years category. 52 employees had either

never been promoted or the question was not applicable in their case.

In other words, 23.3% of the employees have experienced internal promotion

within a period of 0-2 years in their pursued employment, 49.1% have

experienced internal promotion within the time span of 3-6 years, 10.1% have

experienced internal promotion within the time span of 7-10 years, 1.5% more

than 10 years, 16% were in the category of not promoted / not applicable.

5.7 Testing the Hypotheses of the Main Research Study

The research addressed the field of Leadership, Employee Commitment and

Employee Motivation. This section deals with testing these hypotheses. In the

current study, there were 6 hypotheses tested. To test these expectations and

hypotheses, some appropriate statistical tools such as frequency analysis,

Correlation Analysis, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and simple individual

regression techniques were used.

In this study, a total of 450 questionnaires were distributed to employees

working with different supervisors in different departments, out of which 326

were duly filled up, meeting all criteria. Data was collected through survey

168
questionnaires from subordinates comprising of white-collar employees who

are currently reporting to middle and senior level managers in the selected

organisations in corporate sector.

Research Findings

Reliability of Scales

As established in prior researches and confirmed by psychological societies

(eg British Psychological Society) and academics (eg Devellis, 1991), an

acceptable level of reliability for psychometric tests is 0.70 and above.

This was considered during all the surveys carried out and the results

interpreted thereafter.

In this study, reliability tests were performed to assess the internal

consistency of each measure and Cronbach’s alpha co-efficient was found to

be highly satisfactory. Reliability of individual leadership styles –

transformational, transactional and laissez-faire, was tested as well.

Table 5.7.1 (i) : Reliability – Transformational Style

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on N of Items

Standardized Items
.959 .958 15

Summary Item Statistics

Maximum /

N of Items
Maximum
Minimum

Minimum

Variance
Range
Mean
Correlations
Inter-Item

.602 .055 .882 .827 15.954 .024 15

169
Item-Total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

Mean if Variance Item - Total Multiple Alpha if
Item if Item Correlation Correlation Item
Deleted Deleted Deleted
LS1 44.55 92.402 .845 .861 .954
LS2 44.40 93.588 .793 .787 .956
LS3 44.54 91.031 .900 .900 .953
LS4 44.21 104.828 .364 .612 .962
LS5 44.28 95.680 .744 .801 .957
LS6 44.34 98.015 .756 .776 .956
LS7 44.24 93.840 .885 .869 .954
LS8 44.35 95.403 .794 .762 .956
LS9 44.54 96.495 .765 .739 .956
LS13 44.33 96.891 .706 .766 .957
LS14 44.44 97.417 .725 .778 .957
LS15 44.60 95.546 .760 .805 .956
LS16 44.21 96.824 .795 .810 .956
LS17 44.27 95.187 .836 .884 .955
LS18 44.58 97.524 .741 .875 .957

Split-half Reliability

Reliability Statistics

Value .940
Part 1 N of Items 8a
Cronbach's Alpha
Value .889
Part 2 N of Items 7b
Total N of Items 15
Correlation Between Forms .938
Equal Length .968
Spearman-Brown Coefficient Unequal Length .968
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .951

a. The items are: LS1, LS3, LS5, LS7, LS9, LS14, LS16, LS18

b. The items are: LS2, LS4, LS6, LS8, LS13, LS15, LS17.

170
This research found the average Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the

Transformational style in the MLQ instrument to be 0.959, which is very good.

Table 5.7.1 (ii) : Reliability – Transactional Style

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based N of Items

on Standardized Items
.869 .876 8

Summary Item Statistics

Maximum /

N of Items
Maximum
Minimum

Minimum

Variance
Range
Mean
Correlations
Inter-Item

.468 .084 .820 .736 9.780 .030 8

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

Mean if Variance Item-Total Multiple Alpha if
Item if Item Correlation Correlation Item
Deleted Deleted Deleted
LS10 22.07 20.020 .638 .641 .852
LS12 22.25 20.972 .573 .567 .859
LS19 22.44 18.764 .700 .621 .844
LS20 22.47 19.432 .682 .654 .847
LS21 22.20 18.134 .774 .676 .835
LS22 22.26 19.418 .655 .722 .849
LS23 22.23 19.207 .635 .719 .852
LS24 22.66 19.899 .411 .355 .883

171
Split-half Reliability

Value .827
Part 1 N of Items 4a
Cronbach's Alpha
Value .687
Part 2 N of Items 4b
Total N of Items 8
Correlation Between Forms .782
Equal Length .878
Spearman-Brown Coefficient Unequal Length .878
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .873

s found the average Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the

Transactional style in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire to be 0.869,

which is very good.

Table 5.7.1 (iii) : Reliability – Laissez faire Style

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on N of Items

Standardized Items
.870 .885 6
Summary Item Statistics
Maximum /

N of Items
Maximum
Minimum

Minimum

Variance
Range
Mean
Correlations
Inter-Item

.561 .153 .798 .645 5.223 .039 6

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

Mean if Variance Item-Total Multiple Alpha if
Item if Item Correlation Correlation Item
Deleted Deleted Deleted
LS25 4.86 17.871 .398 .357 .909
LS26 5.20 15.805 .806 .724 .822

172
 LS27 5.42 15.697 .786 .737 .826
LS28 5.62 18.913 .687 .557 .851
LS29 5.49 16.109 .852 .795 .816
LS30 5.59 18.342 .639 .657 .854
Split-half Reliability

Value .726
Part 1 N of Items 3a
Cronbach's Alpha
Value .785
Part 2 N of Items 3b
Total N of Items 6
Correlation Between Forms .831
Equal Length .907
Spearman-Brown Coefficient Unequal Length .907
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .899

a. The items are: LS25, LS27, LS29

b. The items are: LS26, LS28, LS30

This research found the average Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the

Laissez faire style in the MLQ instrument to be 0.885, which is very good.

Therefore for the purposes of this research, the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire instrument is deemed to be a reliable measure of

transformational leadership, transactional leadership and laissez-faire

leadership. The average Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient obtained for

the MLQ does substantiate the reliability of the MLQ. According to Bass and

Avolio (1997) and Whitelaw (2001), the MLQ is valid and reliable and has

been used extensively worldwide. A recent study conducted by Hayward et al

(2004) also produced Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of 0.771 and

0.691 for transformational and transactional leadership, respectively.

However, research conducted by Botha (2001), in South Africa, yielded

Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of 0.926, 0.372 and 0.660 for

transformational, transitional and laissez-faire leadership, respectively. The

173
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of this research support the reliability

findings of Ackerman et al (2000) and Hayward et al (2004). Additionally, this

research’s average Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the MLQ

supports the findings of authors such as Bass and Avolio (1997), Ackerman et

al (2000) and Whitelaw (2001).

Table 5.7.1(iv) : Reliability – Work Motivation

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on N of Items

Standardized Items
.853 .854 10

Summary Item Statistics

/ Minimum

N of Items
Maximum

Maximum
Minimum

Variance
Range
Mean
Correlations
Inter-Item

.370 -.115 .672 .787 -5.840 .043 10

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if
Item Item Correlation Correlation Item
Deleted Deleted Deleted
WMS1 48.72 40.603 .690 .626 .828
WMS2 48.60 39.219 .765 .726 .820
WMS3 49.50 39.734 .603 .639 .835
WMS4 49.04 40.740 .705 .624 .827
WMS5 48.46 42.772 .482 .576 .845
WMS6 48.83 45.558 .259 .478 .864
WMS7 48.89 44.538 .320 .335 .859
WMS8 48.64 40.409 .608 .644 .834

174
Split-half Reliability

Reliability Statistics

Value .649
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 5a
Value .762
Part 2
N of Items 5b
Total N of Items 10
Correlation Between Forms .858
Equal Length .924
Spearman-Brown Coefficient Unequal Length .924
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .921
a. The items are: WMS1, WMS3, WMS5, WMS7, WMS9

b. The items are: WMS2, WMS4, WMS6, WMS8, WMS10

This research found the average Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the Work

Motivation Scale to be 0.854, which is quite good. Therefore, for this research, the

Work Motivation Scale is a reliable measure of motivation.

Table 5.7.1(v) : Reliability – Organisational Commitment

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on N of Items

Standardized Items
.796 .850 15

Summary Item Statistics

Maximum /

N of Items
Maximum
Minimum

Minimum

Variance
Range
Mean
Correlations
Inter-Item

.274 -.217 .696 .913 -3.201 .056 15

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

if Item Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item

175
 Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
ECQ1 77.66 87.703 .301 .543 .793
ECQ2 77.94 81.929 .681 .754 .774
rECQ3 77.81 74.704 .632 .670 .765
ECQ4 79.27 83.679 .122 .398 .823
ECQ5 78.37 77.783 .676 .628 .767
ECQ6 77.76 82.486 .621 .576 .777
rECQ7 79.57 84.886 .286 .660 .793
ECQ8 78.75 73.737 .573 .785 .769
rECQ9 79.16 83.232 .175 .598 .812
ECQ10 78.08 80.864 .512 .729 .778
ECQ11 79.05 89.930 -.018 .436 .825
ECQ12 78.63 80.130 .510 .690 .778
ECQ13 77.47 83.155 .527 .566 .780
ECQ14 78.40 79.448 .697 .696 .769
ECQ15 78.21 75.089 .732 .839 .760
Split-half Reliability

Reliability Statistics

Value .602
Part 1 N of Items 8a
Cronbach's Alpha
Value .694
Part 2 N of Items 7b
Total N of Items 15
Correlation Between Forms .712
Equal Length .832
Spearman-Brown Coefficient Unequal Length .832
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .832
a. The items are: ECQ1, rECQ3, ECQ5, rECQ7, rECQ9, ECQ11, ECQ13,
ECQ15
b. The items are: ECQ2, ECQ4, ECQ6, ECQ8, ECQ10, ECQ12, ECQ14
This research found the average Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the

Organisational Commitment Questionnaire to be 0.850, which is good. Therefore,

for this research, the OCQ instrument is a reliable measure of affective

commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. Several studies

have been conducted to examine the reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient).

176
Once the reliability of all scales were tested and found to be satisfactory,

Correlations were done and the tables below show the findings.

Statistical Results

In order to examine the validity of using regression techniques in this study,

the correlations among the independent variables were computed.

Table 5.7.1(vi): Inter correlations among the Leadership Styles and a)

Employee Commitment Measure and b) Work Motivation

Correlations

Employee Work Motivation Total

Commitment Total Score (1-7)

Score (1-7)

Pearson
** **
.313 .555
Correlation

Builds Trust Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.301 .660
Correlation
Acts with Integrity

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.335 .616
Correlation
Inspires Others

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

177
 N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.400 .563
Correlation
Encourages

Innovation
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.268 .430
Correlation

Thinking Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.273 .499
Correlation
Coaches People

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
* **
.116 .189
Correlation

Rewards Sig. (1-tailed) .018 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.237 .316
Correlation
Achievement

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

178
 Pearson
** **
.357 .413
Correlation
Contingent

Rewards
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.411 .449
Correlation
Monitors Mistakes

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
-.177 -.499
Correlation
Avoids

Involvement
Sig. (1-tailed) .001 .000

N 326 326

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)

Correlations
Transactional Style

Laissez Faire Style

Transformational

Style (0-4)

(0-4)

(0-4)

Pearson
** ** **
.918 .736 -.565
Correlation

Builds Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

179
Trust
N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.827 .562 -.570
Acts
Correlation
with

Integrity Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.919 .746 -.546
Correlation
Inspires

Others
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.832 .775 -.435
Correlation
Encourages

Innovation
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.925 .806 -.623
Correlation
Thinking
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.938 .813 -.626
Coaches
Correlation
People
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

180
 Pearson
** ** **
.571 .764 -.234
Correlation
Rewards
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.782 .833 -.486
Correlation
Achievement
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.725 .842 -.338
Correlation
Contingent

Rewards Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.634 .815 -.317
Correlation
Monitors

Mistakes
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
-.630 -.447 1.000
Correlation
Avoids

involvement
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

181
Correlations

Employee Work Motivation Total

Commitment Total Score (1-7)

Score (1-7)

Pearson
** **
.342 .600
Correlation
Transformational

Style (0-4)
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.373 .445
Correlation
Transactional

Style (0-4)
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
-.177 -.499
Correlation
Laissez faire

Style (0-4) Sig. (1-tailed) .001 .000

N 326 326

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

Correlation analysis among all the sub-scales of Multi-Factor Leadership

Questionnaire and a) Organizational commitment scale and b) Work

Motivation scale, were performed. The results are presented in the tables

above. As might be expected, the correlations provide support for the validity

of the measures of work motivation, organizational commitment, transactional

leadership, transformational leadership, and laissez – faire leadership.

182
Transactional leadership, transformational leadership correlate positively and

significantly with work motivation and organizational commitment, and work

motivation and organizational commitment correlate negatively and

significantly with laissez – faire leadership.

It is clear from the table that the correlation between the transactional and

transformational scale is high and significant at .01 level. This finding was

consistent with previous studies. According to Bass and Avolio (1995), highly

positive correlations between the transformational scales and transactional

leadership were expected. Bass and Avolio (1995) mentioned three reasons

for this phenomenon. They noted:

First both transactional and transformational leadership represent active,

positive forms of leadership. Second, leaders have been shown in repeated

investigation to be both transactional and transformational. Third, as Shamir

(1995) argues, the consistent honouring of transactional agreements builds

trust, dependability, and perceptions of consistency with leaders by followers,

which are each a basis for transformational leadership. (p.11) Overall, the

results suggested that the data were appropriate for regression techniques.

Table 5.7.1(vii): Regression Analysis – Leadership Style on Work

Motivation

Variables Entered / Removeda

Model Variables Variables Method

Entered Removed

Acts with Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

1 .
Integrity .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

183
 Monitors Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=
2 .
Mistakes .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

3 Rewards .
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

4 Thinking .
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

Avoids Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

5 .
Involvement .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

Encourages Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

.
6 Innovation .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

7 Inspires Others .
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

8 Builds Trust .
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

Model Summary

Change Statistics
Std. Error of the Estimate
Adjusted R Square

R Square Change

Sig. F Change
F Change
R Square
Model

df1

df2
R

1 .660a .436 .434 .53460 .436 250.479 1 324 .000

184
 b
2 .705 .498 .495 .50533 .062 39.616 1 323 .000

c
3 .734 .539 .535 .48460 .042 29.230 1 322 .000

d
4 .748 .559 .554 .47487 .020 14.328 1 321 .000

e
5 .764 .584 .577 .46203 .025 19.083 1 320 .000

f
6 .777 .604 .597 .45147 .020 16.144 1 319 .000

g
7 .781 .609 .601 .44915 .005 4.315 1 318 .039

h
8 .788 .621 .611 .44320 .011 9.597 1 317 .002

a. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity

b. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes

c. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards

d. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking

e. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement

f. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation

g. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation, Inspires Others

h. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation, Inspires Others,

Builds Trust

185
ANOVAa

Sum of Df Mean F Sig.

Model
Squares Square

b
Regression 71.585 1 71.585 250.479 .000

Residual 92.597 324 .286

1

Total 164.182 325

c
Regression 81.702 2 40.851 159.974 .000

Residual 82.481 323 .255

2

Total 164.182 325

d
Regression 88.566 3 29.522 125.714 .000

Residual 75.617 322 .235

3

Total 164.182 325

e
Regression 91.797 4 22.949 101.770 .000

Residual 72.386 321 .226

4

Total 164.182 325

f
Regression 95.871 5 19.174 89.819 .000

Residual 68.312 320 .213

5

Total 164.182 325

g
Regression 99.161 6 16.527 81.082 .000

Residual 65.021 319 .204

186
 6
Total 164.182 325

h
Regression 100.032 7 14.290 70.837 .000

Residual 64.151 318 .202

7

Total 164.182 325

i
Regression 101.917 8 12.740 64.858 .000

Residual 62.266 317 .196

8

Total 164.182 325

a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity

c. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes

d. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards

e. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking

f. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement

g. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation

h. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation, Inspires Others

i. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation, Inspires Others,

Builds Trust

187
Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Model T Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. Beta

Error

(Constant) 3.941 .098 40.045 .000

1
Acts with
.469 .030 .660 15.827 .000
Integrity

(Constant) 3.384 .128 26.356 .000

Acts with
.409 .030 .575 13.800 .000
Integrity
2

Monitors
.239 .038 .262 6.294 .000
Mistakes

(Constant) 3.634 .131 27.634 .000

Acts with
3 .469 .031 .660 15.371 .000
Integrity

Monitors
.303 .038 .332 7.908 .000
Mistakes

Rewards -.210 .039 -.240 -5.406 .000

(Constant) 3.696 .130 28.453 .000

Acts with Integrity .560 .038 .787 14.607 .000

188
 Monitors Mistakes .359 .040 .393 8.895 .000

4 Rewards -.162 .040 -.185 -4.035 .000

Thinking -.212 .056 -.238 -3.785 .000

(Constant) 4.243 .178 23.857 .000

Acts with Integrity .519 .038 .731 13.528 .000

Monitors Mistakes .352 .039 .386 8.957 .000

5 Rewards -.124 .040 -.142 -3.110 .002

Thinking -.311 .059 -.350 -5.273 .000

Avoids Involvement -.184 .042 -.212 -4.368 .000

(Constant) 4.227 .174 24.320 .000

Acts with Integrity .482 .039 .679 12.486 .000

Monitors Mistakes .213 .052 .234 4.123 .000

Rewards -.099 .040 -.113 -2.501 .013

Thinking -.401 .062 -.452 -6.489 .000

6 Avoids Involvement -.199 .041 -.228 -4.805 .000

Encourages Innovation .249 .062 .272 4.018 .000

(Constant) 4.130 .179 23.040 .000

189
 Acts with Integrity .426 .047 .599 9.058 .000

Monitors Mistakes .182 .054 .199 3.393 .001

Rewards -.102 .039 -.117 -2.594 .010

Thinking -.442 .065 -.498 -6.846 .000

7
Avoids Involvement -.201 .041 -.230 -4.877 .000

Encourages Innovation .232 .062 .252 3.715 .000

Inspires Others .178 .085 .167 2.077 .039

(Constant) 3.863 .197 19.633 .000

Acts with Integrity .491 .051 .691 9.641 .000

Monitors Mistakes .204 .053 .223 3.818 .000

Rewards -.098 .039 -.113 -2.531 .012

Thinking -.388 .066 -.437 -5.870 .000

8

Avoids Involvement -.200 .041 -.230 -4.922 .000

Encourages Innovation .238 .062 .259 3.868 .000

Inspires Others .297 .093 .280 3.199 .002

Builds Trust -.196 .063 -.287 -3.098 .002

a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

190
Excluded Variablesa

Model Collinearity
Beta In T Sig. Partial
Statistics
Correlation
Tolerance

Builds Trust .019b .247 .805 .014 .307

Inspires
.241b 3.489 .001 .191 .354
Others

Encourages
.280b 5.833 .000 .309 .684
Innovation

Thinking -.097b -1.620 .106 -.090 .479

Coaches
.060b 1.021 .308 .057 .496
People
1
Rewards -.132b -2.865 .004 -.157 .801

Achievement -.118b -2.287 .023 -.126 .648

Contingent
.093b 1.917 .056 .106 .727
Rewards

Monitors
.262b 6.294 .000 .331 .895
Mistakes

Avoids
-.181b -3.643 .000 -.199 .676
Involvement

Builds Trust -.318c -3.832 .000 -.209 .217

191
 Inspires
-.009c -.114 .909 -.006 .230
Others

Encourages
.130c 1.856 .064 .103 .315
Innovation

2
Thinking -.319c -5.215 .000 -.279 .385

Coaches
-.172c -2.640 .009 -.146 .359
People

Rewards -.240c -5.406 .000 -.288 .725

Achievement -.229c -4.595 .000 -.248 .591

Contingent
-.093c -1.693 .091 -.094 .511
Rewards

Avoids
-.134c -2.778 .006 -.153 .656
Involvement

Builds Trust -.318c -3.832 .000 -.209 .217

Inspires
-.009c -.114 .909 -.006 .230
Others

Encourages
.130c 1.856 .064 .103 .315
Innovation

Thinking -.319c -5.215 .000 -.279 .385

3 Coaches -.172c -2.640 .009 -.146 .359

192
 People

Rewards -.240c -5.406 .000 -.288 .725

Achievement -.229c -4.595 .000 -.248 .591

Contingent
-.093c -1.693 .091 -.094 .511
Rewards

Avoids
-.134c -2.778 .006 -.153 .656
Involvement

Builds Trust -.248d -3.041 .003 -.167 .210

Inspires
.056d .698 .486 .039 .225
Others

Encourages
.122d 1.811 .071 .101 .315
Innovation

Thinking -.238d -3.785 .000 -.207 .347

4 Coaches
-.085d -1.304 .193 -.073 .333
People

Achievement -.117d -1.981 .048 -.110 .408

Contingent
.097d 1.524 .129 .085 .351
Rewards

Avoids
-.113d -2.433 .016 -.135 .651
Involvement

193
 Builds Trust -.141e -1.576 .116 -.088 .170

Inspires
.196e 2.335 .020 .129 .193
Others

5 Encourages
.243e 3.493 .001 .192 .274
Innovation

Coaches
.125e 1.482 .139 .083 .193
People

Achievement .084e 1.009 .314 .056 .198

Contingent
.132e 2.108 .036 .117 .344
Rewards

Avoids
-.212e -4.368 .000 -.237 .555
Involvement

Builds Trust -.132f -1.518 .130 -.085 .170

Inspires
.209f 2.561 .011 .142 .193
Others

Encourages
.272f 4.018 .000 .219 .272
Innovation

6
Coaches
.056f .669 .504 .037 .185
People

Achievement .082f 1.018 .309 .057 .198

194
 Contingent
.147f 2.406 .017 .133 .343
Rewards

Builds Trust -.164g -1.920 .056 -.107 .169

Inspires
.167g 2.077 .039 .116 .189
Others

Coaches
7 -.031g -.369 .712 -.021 .173
People

Achievement .072g .911 .363 .051 .198

Contingent
.097g 1.574 .117 .088 .326
Rewards

Builds Trust -.287h -3.098 .002 -.171 .140

Coaches
-.002h -.025 .980 -.001 .168
People

7
Achievement .075h .952 .342 .053 .198

Contingent
.116h 1.880 .061 .105 .320
Rewards

Coaches
.021i .242 .809 .014 .167
People

Achievement .068i .868 .386 .049 .198

Contingent .110i 1.804 .072 .101 .319

195
 Rewards

a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes

d. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes, Rewards

e. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes, Rewards, Thinking

f. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes, Rewards, Thinking, Avoids Involvement

g. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes, Rewards, Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages

Innovation

h. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes, Rewards, Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages

Innovation, Inspires Others

i. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes, Rewards, Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages

Innovation, Inspires Others, Builds Trust

One way ANOVA test was carried out to test the differences in the level of

Organisational Commitment and Work Motivation among groups on the basis

of the employee’s demographic details such as age, education, marital status,

occupational status, monthly income, length of service, gender and internal

promotion

196
Table 5.7.2(i): ANOVA By Length of service

Descriptives (in Years)

N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Min Max

Dev. Error Interval for Mean

Lower Upper

Bound Bound

<5 66 5.0273 .47573 .05856 4.9103 5.1442 3.93 5.60

Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

5-10 34 5.2196 .76656 .13146 4.9521 5.4871 4.07 6.07

11-15 95 5.9249 .53803 .05520 5.8153 6.0345 4.93 6.67

16-20 82 5.7252 .47539 .05250 5.6207 5.8297 4.60 6.53

> 20 49 5.8000 .52705 .07529 5.6486 5.9514 4.13 6.47

32
Total 5.6006 .63922 .03540 5.5310 5.6703 3.93 6.67
6

<5 66 5.5091 .63190 .07778 5.3537 5.6644 4.40 6.20

Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

5-10 34 4.8735 .66756 .11449 4.6406 5.1065 4.10 6.20

11-15 95 5.6347 .76001 .07798 5.4799 5.7896 3.20 6.70

16-20 82 5.4061 .47150 .05207 5.3025 5.5097 4.70 7.00

> 20 49 5.3327 .86347 .12335 5.0846 5.5807 4.10 6.20

32
Total 5.4270 .71076 .03937 5.3496 5.5044 3.20 7.00
6

197
ANOVA

Sum of Df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square

Employee Between
39.843 4 9.961 34.398 .000
Commitment Groups

Total Score
Within
(1-7) 92.952 321 .290
Groups

Total 132.795 325

Work Between
15.432 4 3.858 8.325 .000
Motivation Groups

Total Score
Within
(1-7) 148.751 321 .463
Groups

Total 164.182 325

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Games-Howell
Service (Years)

Difference (I-J)
(J) Length of
(I) Length of

Confidence
Dependent

Std. Error
Variable

Interval
Service

Mean

95%
Sig.

Bound

Bound
Lower

Upper

198
 5-10 -.19234 .14392 .670 -.6007 .2161

*
11-15 -.89764 .08048 .000 -1.1199 -.6754

<5
*
16-20 -.69793 .07865 .000 -.9153 -.4806

*
> 20 -.77273 .09538 .000 -1.0379 -.5076

<5 .19234 .14392 .670 -.2161 .6007

*
11-15 -.70530 .14258 .000 -1.1104 -.3002

Employee 5-10
*
16-20 -.50560 .14156 .007 -.9082 -.1030
Commitment
*
Total Score > 20 -.58039 .15150 .003 -1.0079 -.1529

(1-7)
*
<5 .89764 .08048 .000 .6754 1.1199

*
5-10 .70530 .14258 .000 .3002 1.1104

11-15
16-20 .19971 .07618 .071 -.0103 .4097

> 20 .12491 .09336 .668 -.1345 .3843

*
<5 .69793 .07865 .000 .4806 .9153

16-20 *
5-10 .50560 .14156 .007 .1030 .9082

11-15 -.19971 .07618 .071 -.4097 .0103

> 20 -.07480 .09179 .925 -.3302 .1806

*
<5 .77273 .09538 .000 .5076 1.0379

*
5-10 .58039 .15150 .003 .1529 1.0079

11-15 -.12491 .09336 .668 -.3843 .1345

199
 > 20
16-20 .07480 .09179 .925 -.1806 .3302

*
5-10 .63556 .13841 .000 .2470 1.0242

11-15 -.12565 .11014 .785 -.4297 .1784

< 5 Years
16-20 .10299 .09360 .806 -.1563 .3623

> 20 .17644 .14583 .746 -.2301 .5830

*
<5 -.63556 .13841 .000 -1.0242 -.2470

*
11-15 -.76121 .13852 .000 -1.1497 -.3727

5-10 16-20 -.53257

*
.12577 .001 -.8892 -.1759

> 20 -.45912 .16829 .059 -.9288 .0106

<5 .12565 .11014 .785 -.1784 .4297

*
5-10 .76121 .13852 .000 .3727 1.1497

11-15
Work
16-20 .22864 .09376 .111 -.0301 .4873
Motivation

Total Score > 20 .30208 .14593 .242 -.1045 .7086

(1-7)
<5 -.10299 .09360 .806 -.3623 .1563

16-20
*
5-10 .53257 .12577 .001 .1759 .8892

11-15 -.22864 .09376 .111 -.4873 .0301

> 20 .07344 .13389 .982 -.3022 .4491

<5 -.17644 .14583 .746 -.5830 .2301

5-10 .45912 .16829 .059 -.0106 .9288

200
 > 20
11-15 -.30208 .14593 .242 -.7086 .1045

16-20 -.07344 .13389 .982 -.4491 .3022

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 5.7.2(ii): ANOVA By Age

Descriptives

Confidence

Interval for
Std. Error
Deviation

Mean
Mean

95%

Max
Std.

Min
N

Bound

Bound
Lower

Upper
20-29 74 4.9847 .50187 .05834 4.8684 5.1010 3.93 5.60
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

30-39 82 6.0211 .57577 .06358 5.8946 6.1476 4.27 6.67

40-49 130 5.6605 .51362 .04505 5.5714 5.7496 4.60 6.53

>= 50 40 5.6833 .51169 .08090 5.5197 5.8470 4.13 6.40

Total 326 5.6006 .63922 .03540 5.5310 5.6703 3.93 6.67

20-29 74 5.4000 .68186 .07926 5.2420 5.5580 4.20 6.20

Total Score (1-7)
Work Motivation

30-39 82 5.3549 .79910 .08825 5.1793 5.5305 3.20 6.70

40-49 130 5.5731 .58200 .05104 5.4721 5.6741 4.70 7.00

201
 >= 50 40 5.1500 .85485 .13516 4.8766 5.4234 4.10 6.10

Total 326 5.4270 .71076 .03937 5.3496 5.5044 3.20 7.00

ANOVA

Sum of Df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square

Between Groups 43.314 3 14.438 51.956 .000

Employee

Commitment
Within Groups 89.481 322 .278
Total Score

(1-7)
Total 132.795 325

Work Between Groups 6.324 3 2.108 4.300 .005

Motivation
Within Groups 157.859 322 .490
Total Score

(1-7) Total 164.182 325

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Games-Howell

Depende (I) Age (J) Age Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence

nt Group Group Diff. (I-J) Error Interval

Variable

Lower Upper

Bound Bound
mmi
ploy

Sco
tme

30-39 .08629 .000 -1.2606 -.8123

Em

Tot
Co

(1-
ee

-
7)
re
nt

al

202
 *
1.03645

20-29 *
40-49 -.67583 .07371 .000 -.8673 -.4844

*
>= 50 -.69865 .09975 .000 -.9605 -.4368

*
20-29 1.03645 .08629 .000 .8123 1.2606

*
40-49 .36063 .07792 .000 .1583 .5630

30-39
*
>= 50 .33780 .10290 .008 .0682 .6074

*
20-29 .67583 .07371 .000 .4844 .8673

*
30-393 -.36063 .07792 .000 -.5630 -.1583

40-49
>= 50 -.02282 .09260 .995 -.2670 .2213

20-29 .69865* .09975 .000 .4368 .9605

>= 50 30-39 -.33780

*
.10290 .008 -.6074 -.0682

40-49 .02282 .09260 .995 -.2213 .2670

30-39 .04512 .11862 .981 -.2630 .3532

Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

40-49 -.17308 .09428 .261 -.4184 .0722

20-29
>= 50 .25000 .15669 .388 -.1630 .6630

20-29 -.04512 .11862 .981 -.3532 .2630

30-39
40-49 -.21820 .10195 .146 -.4834 .0470

>= 50 .20488 .16142 .585 -.2195 .6293

20-29 .17308 .09428 .261 -.0722 .4184

203
 30-39 .21820 .10195 .146 -.0470 .4834
40-49

*
>= 50 .42308 .14448 .025 .0393 .8069

20-29 -.25000 .15669 .388 -.6630 .1630

30-39 -.20488 .16142 .585 -.6293 .2195

>= 50

*
40-49 -.42308 .14448 .025 -.8069 -.0393

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 5.7.2(iii) : ANOVA by Educational Qualification

Descriptives

N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Min Max

Dev. Error Interval for Mean

Lower Upper

Bound Bound
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

BSc /

BE /
82 5.4862 .61321 .06772 5.3514 5.6209 4.07 6.47
BCom /

BA

MA /

MCom /

MSc / 78 5.7812 .47639 .05394 5.6738 5.8886 4.93 6.40

ME /

MCA

204
 Master

Degree
166 5.5723 .70114 .05442 5.4648 5.6797 3.93 6.67
/ MBA /

MMS

Total 326 5.6006 .63922 .03540 5.5310 5.6703 3.93 6.67

BSc / BE

/ BCom / 82 5.6293 .52786 .05829 5.5133 5.7453 4.20 6.20

BA
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

MA /

MCom /

MSc / 78 5.5487 .52860 .05985 5.4295 5.6679 4.70 6.30

ME /

MCA

Master

Degree
166 5.2699 .82201 .06380 5.1439 5.3958 3.20 7.00
/ MBA /

MMS

Total 326 5.4270 .71076 .03937 5.3496 5.5044 3.20 7.00

ANOVA

Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square
Employee Commitment

Between Groups 3.751 2 1.875 4.694 .010

Total Score (1-7)

Within Groups 129.045 323 .400

Total 132.795 325

205
 Between Groups 8.608 2 4.304 8.936 .000

Work Motivation Total

Score (1-7)
Within Groups 155.574 323 .482

Total 164.182 325

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Games-Howell

Mean Difference
(J) Education of
(I) Education of

Confidence
Dependent

Employee

Employee

Std. Error
Variable

Interval
95%
(I-J)

Sig.

Bound

Bound
Lower

Upper
BSc / BE / BCom / BA

MA / MCom / MSc
*
-.29502 .08657 .002 -.4999 -.0901
/ ME / MCA
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

Master Degree /
-.08611 .08687 .583 -.2914 .1192
MBA / MMS
MA / MCom / MSc / ME

BSc / BE / BCom /
*
.29502 .08657 .002 .0901 .4999
BA

Master Degree /
*
.20891 .07662 .019 .0281 .3898
/ MCA

MBA / MMS
Master Degree / MBA /

BSc / BE / BCom /
.08611 .08687 .583 -.1192 .2914
BA

MA / MCom / MSc
*
-.20891 .07662 .019 -.3898 -.0281
MMS

/ ME / MCA

206
 BSc / BE / BCom / BA
MA / MCom / MSc
.08055 .08355 .601 -.1171 .2782
/ ME / MCA

Master Degree /
*
Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

.35939 .08642 .000 .1555 .5633

MA / MCom / MSc / ME MBA / MMS

BSc / BE / BCom /
-.08055 .08355 .601 -.2782 .1171
BA

Master Degree /
*
.27884 .08748 .005 .0724 .4853
/ MCA

MBA / MMS
Master Degree / MBA /

BSc / BE / BCom /
*
-.35939 .08642 .000 -.5633 -.1555
BA

MA / MCom / MSc
*
-.27884 .08748 .005 -.4853 -.0724
MMS

/ ME / MCA

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 5.7.2(iv) : ANOVA by Occupational status

Oneway ANOVA

Descriptives

N Mean Std. Std. Min Max

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Dev. Error

Lower Upper
Employee Commitment Total Score

Bound Bound

Operational
75 5.2276 .64915 .07496 5.0782 5.3769 4.13 6.47
Executive
(1-7)

Middle
154 5.5939 .65534 .05281 5.4896 5.6983 3.93 6.67
manager

Senior 69 5.8860 .49614 .05973 5.7668 6.0052 4.60 6.40

207
 Manager

Senior
28 5.9333 .00000 .00000 5.9333 5.9333 5.93 5.93
Executive

Total 326 5.6006 .63922 .03540 5.5310 5.6703 3.93 6.67

Operational
75 5.5560 .68027 .07855 5.3995 5.7125 4.10 6.30
Executive
Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

Middle
154 5.2792 .84022 .06771 5.1455 5.4130 3.20 7.00
manager

Senior
69 5.6681 .43471 .05233 5.5637 5.7725 5.10 6.30
Manager

Senior
28 5.3000 .00000 .00000 5.3000 5.3000 5.30 5.30
Executive

Total 326 5.4270 .71076 .03937 5.3496 5.5044 3.20 7.00

ANOVA

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 19.164 3 6.388 18.102 .000

Commitment Total

Within Groups 113.632 322 .353

Score (1-7)
Employee

Total 132.795 325

Between Groups 9.074 3 3.025 6.279 .000

Total Score (1-7)
Work Motivation

Within Groups 155.108 322 .482

Total 164.182 325

208
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Games-Howell

Confidence
Mean Difference (I-J)
Dependent Variable

Interval
95%
(J) Occupation
(I) Occupation

Std. Error

Bound

Bound
Lower

Upper
Sig.
*
Middle Manager -.36638 .09169 .001 -.6046 -.1281
Operational

Executive

*
Senior Manager -.65843 .09584 .000 -.9077 -.4092

*
Senior Executive -.70578 .07496 .000 -.9028 -.5088

Operational
*
.36638 .09169 .001 .1281 .6046
Middle Manager

Executive
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

*
Senior Manager -.29205 .07973 .002 -.4989 -.0852

*
Senior Executive -.33939 .05281 .000 -.4766 -.2022

Operational
*
.65843 .09584 .000 .4092 .9077
Senior Manager

Executive

*
Middle manager .29205 .07973 .002 .0852 .4989

Senior Executive -.04734 .05973 .858 -.2047 .1100

Operational
*
.70578 .07496 .000 .5088 .9028
Senior Executive

Executive

*
Middle manager .33939 .05281 .000 .2022 .4766

Senior Manager .04734 .05973 .858 -.1100 .2047

209
 Confidence
Mean Difference (I-J)
Dependent Variable

Interval
95%
(J) Occupation
(I) Occupation

Std. Error

Bound

Bound
Lower

Upper
Sig.
*
Middle Manager .27678 .10370 .041 .0078 .5457
Operational

Executive

Senior Manager -.11212 .09439 .636 -.3578 .1336

*
Senior Executive .25600 .07855 .009 .0495 .4625

Operational
*
-.27678 .10370 .041 -.5457 -.0078
Middle Manager

Executive
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

*
Senior Manager -.38890 .08557 .000 -.6105 -.1673

Senior Executive -.02078 .06771 .990 -.1966 .1551

Operational
.11212 .09439 .636 -.1336 .3578
Senior Manager

Executive

*
Middle manager .38890 .08557 .000 .1673 .6105

*
Senior Executive .36812 .05233 .000 .2303 .5059

Operational
*
-.25600 .07855 .009 -.4625 -.0495
Senior Executive

Executive

Middle manager .02078 .06771 .990 -.1551 .1966

*
Senior Manager -.36812 .05233 .000 -.5059 -.2303

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

210
Table 5.7.2(v): ANOVA by Monthly Compensation

Descriptives

INR Per Month N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Min Max

Dev Error Interval for Mean

Lower Upper

Bound Bound

2,00,000
17 4.7059 .48020 .11646 4.4590 4.9528 4.13 5.33
& Above
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

1,00,000-
121 5.4529 .68356 .06214 5.3299 5.5759 3.93 6.47
1,99,000

51,000-
128 5.7281 .52810 .04668 5.6358 5.8205 4.60 6.40
99,000

35,000-
60 5.8800 .49750 .06423 5.7515 6.0085 4.93 6.67
50,000

Total 326 5.6006 .63922 .03540 5.5310 5.6703 3.93 6.67

2,00,000
17 5.1059 .32494 .07881 4.9388 5.2730 4.60 5.50
& Above
Work Motivational Total Score (1-7)

1,00,000-
121 5.4273 .79015 .07183 5.2851 5.5695 3.20 6.30
1,99,000

51,000-
128 5.4086 .66830 .05907 5.2917 5.5255 4.10 6.30
99,000

35,000-
60 5.5567 .68948 .08901 5.3786 5.7348 4.70 7.00
50,000

Total 326 5.4270 .71076 .03937 5.3496 5.5044 3.20 7.00

211
ANOVA

Sum of Df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square
Employee Commitment

Between
23.014 3 7.671 22.501 .000
Total Score (1-7)

Groups

Within Groups 109.781 322 .341

Total 132.795 325

Between
Work Motivation Total

2.805 3 .935 1.866 .135

Groups
Score (1-7)

Within Groups 161.377 322 .501

Total 164.182 325

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Games-Howell

Dependent (I) (J) Mean Std. Sig 95% Confidence

Variable Monthly Monthly Diff (I-J) Error Interval

Salary Salary

1,00,000-
Employee Commitment Total

*
-.74701 .13201 .000 -1.1090 -.3850
1,99,000
Score (1-7)

51,000-
*
-1.02224 .12547 .000 -1.3713 -.6732
99,000
2,00,000

& Above
35,000-
*
-1.17412 .13300 .000 -1.5385 -.8098
50,000

212
 2,00,000
*
.74701 .13201 .000 .3850 1.1090
& Above

1,00,000 - 51,000-
*
-.27523 .07772 .003 -.4764 -.0741
1,99,000 99,000

35,000-
*
-.42711 .08937 .000 -.6592 -.1950
50,000

2,00,000
*
1.02224 .12547 .000 .6732 1.3713
& Above

51,00,000- 51,000-
*
.27523 .07772 .003 .0741 .4764
99,00,000 99,000

35,000-
-.15188 .07940 .228 -.3587 .0549
50,000

2,00,000
*
1.17412 .13300 .000 .8098 1.5385
& Above

35,000 – 51,000-
*
.42711 .08937 .000 .1950 .6592
50,000 99,000

35,000-
.15188 .07940 .228 -.0549 .3587
50,000

1,00,000-
Work Motivation Total Score

*
-.32139 .10663 .021 -.6050 -.0378
1,99,000

2,00,000 & 51,000-

(1-7)

*
-.30271 .09849 .020 -.5675 -.0380
Above 99,000

35,000-
*
-.45078 .11889 .002 -.7653 -.1362
50,000

213
 2,00,000
*
.32139 .10663 .021 .0378 .6050
& Above

1,00,000- 51,000-
.01868 .09300 .997 -.2220 .2593
1,99,000 99,000

35,000-
-.12939 .11438 .671 -.4270 .1682
50,000

2,00,000
*
.30271 .09849 .020 .0380 .5675
& Above

51,000- 1,00,000-
-.01868 .09300 .997 -.2593 .2220
99,000 1,99,000

35,000-
-.14807 .10683 .511 -.4267 .1305
50,000

1,00,000-
*
.45078 .11889 .002 .1362 .7653
1,99,000

35,000- 51,000-
.12939 .11438 .671 -.1682 .4270
50,000 99,000

51,000-
.14807 .10683 .511 -.1305 .4267
99,000

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

214
Table 5.7.2(vi): ANOVA by Length of Service

Descriptives

N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Min Max

Dev. Error Interval for Mean

Lower Upper

Bound Bound

< 5 Years 66 5.0273 .47573 .05856 4.9103 5.1442 3.93 5.60

Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

5-10 34 5.2196 .76656 .13146 4.9521 5.4871 4.07 6.07

11-15 95 5.9249 .53803 .05520 5.8153 6.0345 4.93 6.67

16-20 82 5.7252 .47539 .05250 5.6207 5.8297 4.60 6.53

> 20 49 5.8000 .52705 .07529 5.6486 5.9514 4.13 6.47

Total 326 5.6006 .63922 .03540 5.5310 5.6703 3.93 6.67

< 5 Years 66 5.5091 .63190 .07778 5.3537 5.6644 4.40 6.20

Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

5-10 34 4.8735 .66756 .11449 4.6406 5.1065 4.10 6.20

11-15 95 5.6347 .76001 .07798 5.4799 5.7896 3.20 6.70

16-20 82 5.4061 .47150 .05207 5.3025 5.5097 4.70 7.00

> 20 49 5.3327 .86347 .12335 5.0846 5.5807 4.10 6.20

Total 326 5.4270 .71076 .03937 5.3496 5.5044 3.20 7.00

215
ANOVA

Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square

Employee Between
39.843 4 9.961 34.398 .000
Commitment Groups

Total Score
Within
(1-7) 92.952 321 .290
Groups

Total 132.795 325

Work Between
15.432 4 3.858 8.325 .000
Motivation Groups

Total Score
Within
(1-7) 148.751 321 .463
Groups

Total 164.182 325

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Games-Howell

Depend (I) Length (J) Length Mean Diff. Std. Sig. 95% Confidence

ent of Service of Service (I-J) Error Interval

Variable
Lower Upper

Bound Bound
mmi
ploy

Sco
tme

5-10 -.19234 .14392 .670 -.6007 .2161

Em

Tot
Co

(1-
ee

re

7)
nt

al

216
 < 5 Years *
11-15 -.89764 .08048 .000 -1.1199 -.6754

*
16-20 -.69793 .07865 .000 -.9153 -.4806

*
> 20 -.77273 .09538 .000 -1.0379 -.5076

<5 .19234 .14392 .670 -.2161 .6007

*
11-15 -.70530 .14258 .000 -1.1104 -.3002

5-10
*
16-20 -.50560 .14156 .007 -.9082 -.1030

*
> 20 -.58039 .15150 .003 -1.0079 -.1529

*
<5 .89764 .08048 .000 .6754 1.1199

*
5-10 .70530 .14258 .000 .3002 1.1104

11-15
16-20 .19971 .07618 .071 -.0103 .4097

> 20 .12491 .09336 .668 -.1345 .3843

*
<5 .69793 .07865 .000 .4806 .9153

*
16-20 5-10 .50560 .14156 .007 .1030 .9082

11-15 -.19971 .07618 .071 -.4097 .0103

> 20 -.07480 .09179 .925 -.3302 .1806

*
<5 .77273 .09538 .000 .5076 1.0379

*
5-10 .58039 .15150 .003 .1529 1.0079

> 20
11-15 -.12491 .09336 .668 -.3843 .1345

16-20 .07480 .09179 .925 -.1806 .3302

*
Score (1-
Motivation

5-10 .63556 .13841 .000 .2470 1.0242

Work

Total

7)

11-15 -.12565 .11014 .785 -.4297 .1784

<5

217
 16-20 .10299 .09360 .806 -.1563 .3623

> 20 .17644 .14583 .746 -.2301 .5830

*
<5 -.63556 .13841 .000 -1.0242 -.2470

*
11-15 -.76121 .13852 .000 -1.1497 -.3727
5-10
*
16-20 -.53257 .12577 .001 -.8892 -.1759

> 20 -.45912 .16829 .059 -.9288 .0106

<5 .12565 .11014 .785 -.1784 .4297

*
5-10 .76121 .13852 .000 .3727 1.1497

11-15 16-20 .22864 .09376 .111 -.0301 .4873

> 20 .30208 .14593 .242 -.1045 .7086

<5 -.10299 .09360 .806 -.3623 .1563

*
16-20 5-10 .53257 .12577 .001 .1759 .8892

11-15 -.22864 .09376 .111 -.4873 .0301

> 20 .07344 .13389 .982 -.3022 .4491

<5 -.17644 .14583 .746 -.5830 .2301

5-10 .45912 .16829 .059 -.0106 .9288

>20
11-15 -.30208 .14593 .242 -.7086 .1045

16-20 -.07344 .13389 .982 -.4491 .3022

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

218
Table 5.7.2(vii) : ANOVA by Internal Promotion

Descriptives

Years N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Min Max

Dev. Error Interval for Mean

Lower Upper

Bound Bound

0-2 76 5.6851 .82218 .09431 5.4972 5.8730 3.93 6.53

Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

3-6 160 5.7358 .56082 .04434 5.6483 5.8234 4.13 6.67

>7 38 5.6825 .28849 .04680 5.5876 5.7773 5.33 5.93

Not Promoted /

Not Applicable

52 5.0013 .35998 .04992 4.9011 5.1015 4.13 5.47

Total 326 5.6006 .63922 .03540 5.5310 5.6703 3.93 6.67

0-2 76 5.3697 .68800 .07892 5.2125 5.5270 4.20 6.30

Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

3-6 160 5.5594 .75087 .05936 5.4421 5.6766 3.20 7.00

>7 38 4.9368 .53647 .08703 4.7605 5.1132 4.10 5.60

Not Promoted /

Not Applicable

52 5.4615 .56261 .07802 5.3049 5.6182 4.60 6.10

Total 326 5.4270 .71076 .03937 5.3496 5.5044 3.20 7.00

219
ANOVA

Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square

Between
Employee Commitment

22.401 3 7.467 21.779 .000

Total Score (1-7)

Groups

Within
110.395 322 .343
Groups

Total 132.795 325

Between
Work Motivation Total

12.245 3 4.082 8.650 .000

Groups
Score (1-7)

Within
151.938 322 .472
Groups

Total 164.182 325

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Games-Howell

Depend (I) (J) Promoted Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence

ent Promote Span Diff Error Interval

Variable d Span
(I-J)
Lower Upper

Bound Bound
Employee

Commitm

3-6 -.05075 .10421 .962 -.3226 .2211

Score (1-
ent Total

7)

>7 .00263 .10528 1.000 -.2723 .2775

220
 0-2 years
Not Promoted/
*
.68381 .10671 .000 .4054 .9622
Not Applicable

0-2 .05075 .10421 .962 -.2211 .3226

>7 .05338 .06447 .841 -.1147 .2215

3-6 years
Not Promoted/
*
.73455 .06677 .000 .5609 .9082
Not Applicable

0-2 years -.00263 .10528 1.000 -.2775 .2723

3-6 -.05338 .06447 .841 -.2215 .1147

> 7 years
Not Promoted/
*
.68117 .06843 .000 .5019 .8604
Not Applicable

*
0-2 years -.68381 .10671 .000 -.9622 -.4054
Not
*
Promoted 3-6 -.73455 .06677 .000 -.9082 -.5609

/ NA
*
>7 -.68117 .06843 .000 -.8604 -.5019

3-6 -.18964 .09875 .224 -.4460 .0667

*
>7 .43289 .11748 .002 .1255 .7403
Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

0-2 years
Not Promoted /
-.09180 .11097 .841 -.3809 .1973
Not Applicable

0-2 years .18964 .09875 .224 -.0667 .4460

*
>7 .62253 .10534 .000 .3458 .8993

3-6
Not Promoted /
.09784 .09804 .751 -.1577 .3534
Not Applicable

*
0-2 years -.43289 .11748 .002 -.7403 -.1255

221
 >7 *
3-6 -.62253 .10534 .000 -.8993 -.3458

Not Promoted /
*
-.52470 .11688 .000 -.8312 -.2182
Not Applicable

0-2 years .09180 .11097 .841 -.1973 .3809

Not

Promoted 3-6 -.09784 .09804 .751 -.3534 .1577

/ NA
*
>7 .52470 .11688 .000 .2182 .8312

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Mean Standard Deviation of all Variables

The Table below shows the range, mean and standard deviation of all the scales

used in this study. As shown in the table, the range indicates the lowest and

highest score for each variable. The mean represents the most common average

or measure of central tendency calculated by dividing the sum of the scores in a

set by the number of scores. Standard deviation (SD) as defined by Gall et al.

(1996) is a measure of the extent to which the scores in a distribution deviate

from their mean.

Table 5.7.3(i) : Mean Standard Deviation of all Variables

Descriptive Statistics

All in range of 0 to 4 N Min Max Mean Std. Dev.

Builds Trust 326 .00 4.00 3.0245 1.03746

Acts with Integrity 326 .00 4.00 3.1656 1.00008

Inspires Others 326 1.25 4.00 3.2163 .67026

Encourages Innovation 326 1.50 4.00 3.1779 .77396

222
Thinking 326 .00 4.50 3.1702 .80058

Coaches People 326 .80 4.00 3.1620 .74074

Rewards 326 .00 4.00 3.0399 .81237

Achievement 326 .00 4.00 3.2577 .68118

Contingent Rewards 326 .00 4.00 3.3160 .91224

Monitors Mistakes 326 .33 4.00 3.1278 .77945

Avoids Involvement 326 .00 3.67 1.0726 .81703

Descriptive Statistics

N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.

Employee Commitment Total

326 3.93 6.67 5.6006 .63922
Score (1-7)

Work Motivation Total Score (1-7) 326 3.20 7.00 5.4270 .71076

Descriptive Statistics

N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.

Transformational Style (0-4) 326 1.13 4.00 3.1708 .69899

Transactional Style (0-4) 326 1.00 4.00 3.1890 .62471

Laissez Fairre Style (0-4) 326 .00 3.67 1.0726 .81703

The Tables below show frequency distributions of 5 scales and also Mean,

Median, SD. The ranges of scores in each scale are given in parentheses.

223
Table 5.7.3 (ii) : Frequency Distribution of Employee Commitment Scale

Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

3.93 4 1.2 1.2 1.2

Valid 4.07 4 1.2 1.2 2.5

4.13 5 1.5 1.5 4.0

4.27 4 1.2 1.2 5.2

4.40 4 1.2 1.2 6.4

4.60 8 2.5 2.5 8.9

4.80 4 1.2 1.2 10.1

4.93 26 8.0 8.0 18.1

5.00 4 1.2 1.2 19.3

5.07 15 4.6 4.6 23.9

5.13 10 3.1 3.1 27.0

5.20 4 1.2 1.2 28.2

Valid
5.27 5 1.5 1.5 29.8

5.33 30 9.2 9.2 39.0

5.40 9 2.8 2.8 41.7

5.47 4 1.2 1.2 42.9

224
 5.60 10 3.1 3.1 46.0

5.67 9 2.8 2.8 48.8

5.80 8 2.5 2.5 51.2

5.87 10 3.1 3.1 54.3

5.93 61 18.7 18.7 73.0

6.00 4 1.2 1.2 74.2

6.07 19 5.8 5.8 80.1

6.20 5 1.5 1.5 81.6

6.27 4 1.2 1.2 82.8

6.33 5 1.5 1.5 84.4

6.40 39 12.0 12.0 96.3

6.47 4 1.2 1.2 97.5

6.53 4 1.2 1.2 98.8

6.67 4 1.2 1.2 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

Table 5.7.3 (iii): Frequency Distribution of Work Motivation Scale

Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

225
 Percent Percent

3.20 4 1.2 1.2 1.2

4.10 9 2.8 2.8 4.0

4.20 4 1.2 1.2 5.2

Valid
4.40 19 5.8 5.8 11.0

4.60 8 2.5 2.5 13.5

4.70 34 10.4 10.4 23.9

4.80 4 1.2 1.2 25.2

5.10 14 4.3 4.3 29.4

5.20 19 5.8 5.8 35.3

5.30 57 17.5 17.5 52.8

5.40 4 1.2 1.2 54.0

5.50 12 3.7 3.7 57.7

5.60 5 1.5 1.5 59.2

5.70 5 1.5 1.5 60.7

5.80 4 1.2 1.2 62.0

Valid

5.90 24 7.4 7.4 69.3

6.00 9 2.8 2.8 72.1

6.10 36 11.0 11.0 83.1

6.20 24 7.4 7.4 90.5

6.30 23 7.1 7.1 97.5

226
 6.70 4 1.2 1.2 98.8

7.00 4 1.2 1.2 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

Table 5.7.3(iv): Frequency Distribution of Transformational Leadership

Transformational Style (0-4)

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

1.13 4 1.2 1.2 1.2

1.93 23 7.1 7.1 8.3

2.00 24 7.4 7.4 15.6

2.27 6 1.8 1.8 17.5

2.33 4 1.2 1.2 18.7

2.40 4 1.2 1.2 19.9

2.53 5 1.5 1.5 21.5

2.60 4 1.2 1.2 22.7

Valid

2.67 5 1.5 1.5 24.2

2.80 10 3.1 3.1 27.3

2.87 15 4.6 4.6 31.9

3.07 4 1.2 1.2 33.1

3.13 14 4.3 4.3 37.4

227
 3.20 8 2.5 2.5 39.9

3.27 4 1.2 1.2 41.1

3.33 24 7.4 7.4 48.5

3.40 51 15.6 15.6 64.1

3.53 4 1.2 1.2 65.3

3.67 19 5.8 5.8 71.2

3.73 14 4.3 4.3 75.5

Valid
3.80 15 4.6 4.6 80.1

3.87 17 5.2 5.2 85.3

3.93 34 10.4 10.4 95.7

4.00 14 4.3 4.3 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

Table 5.7.3(v): Frequency Distribution of Transactional Leadership Scale

Transactional Style (0-4)

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

1.00 4 1.2 1.2 1.2

1.25 4 1.2 1.2 2.5

1.38 4 1.2 1.2 3.7

1.75 4 1.2 1.2 4.9

228
Valid 1.88 1 .3 .3 5.2

2.38 10 3.1 3.1 8.3

2.50 9 2.8 2.8 11.0

2.63 39 12.0 12.0 23.0

2.75 10 3.1 3.1 26.1

2.88 19 5.8 5.8 31.9

3.00 17 5.2 5.2 37.1

3.13 13 4.0 4.0 41.1

3.25 10 3.1 3.1 44.2

3.38 14 4.3 4.3 48.5

Valid

3.50 71 21.8 21.8 70.2

3.63 32 9.8 9.8 80.1

3.75 32 9.8 9.8 89.9

3.88 19 5.8 5.8 95.7

4.00 14 4.3 4.3 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

229
Table 5.7.3 (vi): Frequency Distribution of Laissez faire Leadership Scale

Laissez Fairre Style (0-4)

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

.00 40 12.3 12.3 12.3

Valid .17 4 1.2 1.2 13.5

.33 14 4.3 4.3 17.8

.50 15 4.6 4.6 22.4

.67 60 18.4 18.4 40.8

.83 25 7.7 7.7 48.5

1.00 61 18.7 18.7 67.2

1.17 9 2.8 2.8 69.9

1.33 23 7.1 7.1 77.0

Valid 1.50 10 3.1 3.1 80.1

1.83 20 6.1 6.1 86.2

2.00 4 1.2 1.2 87.4

2.33 4 1.2 1.2 88.7

2.50 10 3.1 3.1 91.7

2.83 23 7.1 7.1 98.8

3.67 4 1.2 1.2 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

230
Statistics

Employee Commitment Total Score

Work Motivation Total Score

Transformational Style

Transactional Style

Laissez Faire Style

(1-7)

(1-7)

(0-4)

(0-4)

(0-4)
N 326 326 326 326 326

Mean 5.6006 5.4270 3.1708 3.1890 1.0726

Median 5.8000 5.3000 3.4000 3.5000 1.0000

Std. Deviation .63922 .71076 .69899 .62471 .81703

Minimum 3.93 3.20 1.13 1.00 .00

Maximum 6.67 7.00 4.00 4.00 3.67

25 5.1333 4.8000 2.8000 2.7500 .6667

Percentiles 50 5.8000 5.3000 3.4000 3.5000 1.0000

75 6.0667 6.1000 3.7333 3.6250 1.3333

The higher the percentage score, the more transformational are the function

heads / supervisors and the lower the score, the less transformational are the

function heads / supervisors.

231
According to their percentage scores, the function heads/supervisors were

characterized as follows:

Between 0 and 20 they were not transformational, between 21 and 40 they

were rarely transformational, between 41 and 60 they were little

transformational, between 61 and 80 they were fairly transformational and

between 81 and 100 the leaders were highly transformational.

The laissez – faire leadership scale consisted of four items with each item

having a score between one and five. Therefore, the range for this style was

between 4 and 20. The higher the score, the more laissez-faire function

heads/supervisors, and the lower the score the less laissez-faire the function

heads/supervisors.

The scale that measured commitment was made up of 15 statements. Each

statement had a score of between 1 and 7. Therefore, the range was between

15 and 105.The employees who had a score less than 33 were considered to

be less committed to the organisation. Those who had a score between 34-66

are moderately committed to the organisation, and the employees who had a

score above 66 were considered to be highly committed to the organisation.

The scale that measured motivation was made up of 10 statements. Each

statement had a score of between 1 and 7. Therefore, the range was between

10 and 70.The employees who had a score less than 25 were considered to

be less motivated about their work. Those who had a score between 26-45

are moderately motivated about their work, and the employees who had a

score above 46 were considered to be highly motivated about their work.

232
Correlations

Employee Work
Commitment Motivation Total
Total Score (1-7) Score (1-7)
** **
Builds Trust Pearson Correlation .313 .555
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 326 326
** **
Acts with Integrity Pearson Correlation .301 .660
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 326 326
** **
Inspires Others Pearson Correlation .335 .616
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 326 326
** **
Pearson Correlation .400 .563
Encourages
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
Innovation
N 326 326
** **
Thinking Pearson Correlation .268 .430
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 326 326
** **
Coaches People Pearson Correlation .273 .499
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 326 326
* **
Pearson Correlation .116 .189
Rewards Sig. (1-tailed) .018 .000
N 326 326
** **
Pearson Correlation .237 .316
Achievement Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 326 326
** **
Pearson Correlation .357 .413
Contingent
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
Rewards
N 326 326
** **
Pearson Correlation .411 .449
Monitors Mistakes Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 326 326
** **
Pearson Correlation -.177 -.499
Avoids
Sig. (1-tailed) .001 .000
Involvement
N 326 326

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

233
Correlations

Transformational Transactional Laissez

Style (0-4) Style (0-4) Faire Style
(0-4)
Builds Trust Pearson ** ** **
.918 .736 -.565
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Acts with Pearson ** ** **
.827 .562 -.570
Correlation
Integrity Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Inspires Pearson ** ** **
.919 .746 -.546
Correlation
Others Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Pearson ** ** **
.832 .775 -.435
Encourages Correlation
Innovation Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326

Thinking Pearson ** ** **
.925 .806 -.623
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Coaches Pearson ** ** **
.938 .813 -.626
Correlation
People Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Pearson ** ** **
.571 .764 -.234
Correlation
Rewards
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Pearson ** ** **
.782 .833 -.486
Correlation
Achievement
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Pearson ** ** **
.725 .842 -.338
Contingent Correlation
Rewards Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326

234
 Pearson ** ** **
.634 .815 -.317
Monitors Correlation
Mistakes Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Pearson ** ** **
-.630 -.447 1.000
Avoids Correlation
Involvement Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Correlations
Employee Work Motivation
Commitment Total Total Score
Score (1-7) (1-7)

Pearson ** **
.342 .600
Correlation
Transformational
Style (0-4) Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson ** **
.373 .445
Correlation
Transactional
Style (0-4) Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326
Pearson ** **
-.177 -.499
Correlation
Laissez Fairre
Style (0-4) Sig. (1-tailed) .001 .000

N 326 326

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Hypothesis 1: The Transformational Leadership style of the supervisors

has a positive impact on the level of Organizational commitment of

employees.

As shown in the tables above, the Pearson‘s correlation indicated that there

was a positive relationship between the transformational leadership style and

organizational commitment of employees at a significant level (level of

235
confidence at .05). These results were consistent with the hypotheses

therefore the hypotheses was accepted.

Co-relation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Hypotheses 2: The transactional leadership style of the supervisors has

a positive impact on the level of Organizational commitment of

employees.

As shown in tables above, concerning the relationship between transactional

leadership style and organizational commitment level of employees. The

Pearson correlation result demonstrated that the relationship between the two

variables is positive and significant also (level of confidence at.05).The results

were consistent with the hypotheses therefore the hypotheses was supported.

Hypotheses 3: The laissez-faire leadership style of supervisors has a

negative impact on the level of Organizational commitment of

employees.

To test these hypotheses correlations were conducted. The results of the

correlation analyses revealed that Laissez – Faire Leadership style has a

negative impact on the level of Organizational commitment of employees but

statistically it is not significant.

As the Table indicates, co-relation between Transformational Leadership

styles and employee commitment is positive and the score is 0.485. Co-

relation between transactional style and employee commitment is also

positive with score of 0.395. However, the degree of co-relation is less, which

means that transformational style of leadership motivates employees more

than transactional style. Laissez-faire style, on the other hand, has a negative

236
co-relation with motivation. This means that employees are not satisfied under

laissez-faire leadership. All the co-relations are highly significant and reliability

scores are strong for all scales. The results and implications of this study

provided recommendations to increase the supervisor's leadership skills in

order to improve employee's commitment.

Hypothesis 4: The Transformational Leadership style of the supervisors

has a positive impact on the level of motivation of employees.

As the table indicates, there was a positive relationship between the

transformational leadership style and employee motivation at a significant

level (level of confidence at .05). These results were consistent with the

hypotheses therefore the hypotheses was accepted.

Co-relation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Hypotheses 5: The transactional leadership style of the supervisors has

a positive impact on the level of motivation of employees.

As shown in table 8(ii-a), concerning the relationship between transactional

leadership style and motivation level of employees. The Pearson correlation

result demonstrated that the relationship between the two variables is positive

and significant also (level of confidence at.05).The results were consistent

with the hypotheses therefore the hypotheses was supported.

Hypotheses 6: The laissez-faire leadership style of supervisors has a

negative impact on the level of motivation of employees.

To test these hypotheses correlations were conducted. The results of the

correlation analyses revealed Laissez–Faire Leadership style has a negative

impact on the level of employee motivation but not statistically significant.

237
5.8 Conclusion

Leadership Styles and Employee Commitment

The empirical results of the research supported the hypotheses and led to

their acceptance. A significant positive linear relationship between

transformational leadership and employee commitment was found.

Furthermore, a significant, positive linear relationship between transactional

leadership and commitment was found. The results also indicated that there is

a significant, negative linear relationship between laissez-faire leadership

behaviour and affective commitment. These findings support the results of

other scholarly studies. Bass and Avolio (1994) stated that both

transformational and transactional leadership style enhance the level of

commitment to the organization among employees. The effects of both styles

on organizational commitment were consistent with Bass‘s augmentation

theory of leadership, which postulates that successful leaders are both

transformational and transactional. The results also indicated that

transformational leadership styles had a greater impact on the level of

organizational commitment of employees compared to transactional

leadership style. This could be attributed to two factors; first, the

transformational leadership focuses more on the human side of individuals

and second, the transformational leadership components may be more in

practice among the corporate sector. In relation to this, Carlson and Perrewe

(1995) stated that, when transformational leadership is enacted, members of

organization no longer seek merely self-interest, but that which is beneficial to

the organization as a whole.

238
Leadership Styles and Work Motivation

The results of the study clearly revealed that transformational leadership style

significantly impacts Employee Motivation. Even transactional style does, but

transformational style is more effective in comparison. Laissez-faire style, as

in case of commitment, has a negative relationship with motivation.

Judge and Piccolo (2004) found a positive relationship between contingent

reward and follower motivation, however negative relationship was found

between Management by exception (passive) with follower motivation and

also shows the negative relationship between laissez-faire leadership with

follower motivation. Barbuto (2005) researched on “Motivation and

Transactional, Charismatic, and Transformational Leadership” and analysed

data from 186 leaders and their 759 raters. Transactional leadership

(contingent reward, Management by Exception (active) and Management by

Exception (passive) have significant and positive relationship with intrinsic

motivation. Relationship of Transactional leadership and its components like

contingent reward, Management by exception active and management by

exception passive have significant and positive relationship with Extrinsic

motivation. Webb (2003) conducted a study on Presidents‟ Leadership

Behaviors Associated with Followers‟ and found that Laissez fair leadership

has significant and negative relationship with motivation toward extra effort. ©

Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

In general, Indian employees are motivated by social rewards, self-

actualization needs, compensation and improved working conditions. “It is

exceedingly important for a leader of any organization to communicate his or

her vision constantly to ensure that there is no doubt about the direction a

team is heading,” says Ken Blanchard, renowned management coach. As the

239
study indicates, for leaders to succeed in today’s fast changing business

environment, it is recommended that they adopt a transformational leadership

style rather than transactional or laissez-faire styles to enhance employees’

motivation consistently and efficiently; which will in turn generate higher

quality performance on the employees’ part and boost business performance.

The leaders should avoid any laissez-faire behavior and spend time coaching,

paying attention to employees’ abilities and needs, help them develop their

talent, and provide a supportive environment. This would help achieve higher

performance standard within the organization. They should also enhance their

knowledge about how their leading style influences their employees. They

should select the style best suited to the organizational goals and employees’

needs and desires. To ensure higher employee performance, they should act

as ethical role models and be accepted as such.

Another issue raised by the survey is that the leaders should encourage

employees to push the bar and challenge themselves with roles which utilise

their full potential, talent and creativity. This would align employees to the

organisational vision and make them more confident and eager to perform the

allocated tasks.

240
 CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

241
 CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter consolidates the findings and brings out the essence of the study

through conclusive thoughts, after a discussion. The discussion section

provides an explanation of the results and clarifies how they are related to the

literature. The second section is concerned with providing meaningful

conclusions derived from the study findings.

6.1 Discussion

The research questions for this study include the following:

Research Questions:

1. To what extent are the employees committed to their organisations?

2. What are the effects of the manager’s leadership styles on employee

motivation?

3. What are the effects of the manager’s leadership styles on employee

commitment?

4. Is there a difference in the level of commitment among employees on

the basis of demographic and job related variables?

5. Is there a difference in the level of motivation among employees on the

basis of demographic and job related variables?

To answer these questions, a thorough and detailed review of the literature on

leadership and employee a) Commitment and b) Motivation was conducted.

Based on the review of the literature, 6 hypotheses were derived and tested

by the researcher.

242
Before discussing the results of testing the hypotheses, some comments

should be made regarding the characteristics of the respondents. The findings

of this study indicated that a plurality of respondents were between the ages

of 40 and 49 (39.9%), held Master Degree/MBA/MMS (50.9%), among it

25.2% with graduation in BA / B.COM / BSc / B.E. and 23.9% with MA /

M.COM / M.E. / MSc, 79.1% were married, 47.2% were middle managers,

39.3% were in the middle income category, and 29.1% had worked between

11 and 15 years in corporate, 76.7% were of the male gender, 49.1% have

experienced internal promotions in their present organization within 3 and 6.

The relationships between the answers of the majority on the eight

demographic items are logically accepted.

The findings underline the importance of relationships between supervisors

and employees and the way the organization communicates; a finding

supported by similar studies which have shown supervision and

communication to be important factors in terms of employee motivation.

These findings are supported by earlier studies which also used Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire and the full range leadership development

behaviors in various organizations (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Bass 1985;

Jandaghi, Zarei Matin and Farjami 2002).

There is a positive association between individualized consideration and all

the employee motivation sub-variables. These results are consistent with

previous studies showing the significant positive influence of transformational

leadership factors on motivation and the significant negative influence of

laissez-faire leadership on subordinates’ motivation (Bass and Avolio 1994;

Loke, 2001; Bass 1998; Avolio 1999, Shim et al. 2002; Waldman et al 2001;

243
Lok and Crawford 1999; Howell and Avolio 1993). This finding is consistent

with some previous studies which found that delivering on the promise of a

contingent reward has a significant influence on employee motivation.

Rewarding and encouraging are consistently considered by commentators to

be one of the important motivators (Snape 1996; Erkutlu 2008).

The instruments used to determine the impact and the findings obtained,

clearly indicates that by providing adequate coaching, mentoring,

encouragement, supporting work environment, sense of respect and

confidence in employees’ ability, the leaders can increase employee

motivation.

The findings of this study revealed that the majority of employees of the

organisations researched were found to be committed to the organization,

while the remaining percentage were found either neutral or uncommitted.

These results were consistent with the hypothesis that the majority of the

employees were found to be highly committed to their organization. One

explanation of this result could be that the majority of the employees are well

paid and have family responsibility and are belonging to the male gender

category that positively affects their level of commitment to the organization.

Very high levels of education negatively affect the level of commitment of

employees. Steers (1977) argued that employees with higher levels of

education may have higher expectations which make it difficult for an

organization to meet such expectations and results in less committed

employees. Another explanation of this could be that private sector

employees are more committed to their organization than their counterparts in

the private sector. Buchanan (1974) also observed that public managers are

244
.less involved, less loyal, and display weaker identification with the aims of

their agencies than business executives. (p.345).

The results of the study showed that the majority of the employees observed

their Heads of the Departments as transformational and transactional. This

result was also consistent with what the study hypothesized.

However, there is a prevalence of transactional and transformational

leadership characteristics among the majority of function heads/supervisors.

The literature revealed that transactional leadership is a type of leadership

that is based on an exchange relationship between leader and follower. The

transactional leaders focus on the clarification of task requirements and the

specification of contingent rewards (Bass, 1990), whereas the

Transformational leaders transform the needs, aspirations, and values of

followers from a focus on self-interest to a focus on collective interest. They

practice trust building to create strong commitment to a common mission.

They generate emotion, energy, and excitement that cause followers to make

significant personal sacrifices in the interest of the mission, and to perform

above and beyond the call of duty. (Lussier /Achua, 2008).

Transformational leadership has been found to be positively related to

organizational commitment and work motivation. Also, as found from the

result of the study the commitment level is quite high among the employees.

Therefore the result confirms the earlier studies and definitions of

transformational leadership style too and also indicated that the majority of the

respondents viewed their heads as transformational. The result also shows

that the heads are not following Laissez –Faire Leadership style. The findings

confirm the earlier literature too that it describes a process of positive

245
influence that changes and transforms individuals, organizations, and

communities. Transformational leaders influence their constituencies to make

the shift from focus on self-interests to a focus on collective interests. They

understand the importance of trust building as a means to creating a high

commitment to mission-driven outcomes. Effective transformational leaders

use their charisma and power to inspire and motivate followers to trust and

follow their example. They generate excitement and energy by focusing on

the future (Lussier/Achua, 2008).

Transactional Leadership seeks to maintain stability within an organization

through regular economic and social exchanges that achieve specific goals

for both the leaders and their followers. Burns indicated that the transactional

leaders influence followers by transactions of exchange in which rewards

such as pay, promotions, or status are exchanged for work. Bass maintains

that transactional leadership revolves around the leader-follower exchange, in

which the leader rewards the follower for specific behaviours and performance

that meets with the leader‘s expectations, and punishes or criticizes behaviour

or performance that does not meet expectation.

Both transactional and transformational style works but better results are

achieved by transformational leaders than transactional. Despite these

differences, it is worth mentioning that effective leaders exhibit both

transactional and transformational leadership skills in appropriate situations. A

meta-analytic test of the relative validity of transformational and transactional

leadership styles revealed that both are valid approaches for achieving

organizational objectives,(B.M. Bass, B.J.Avolio, D.I.Jung,and Y.Berson,2003)

with transformational leadership showing the highest overall relations and

246
transactional or contingent reward leadership a close second.(T.Judge and

R.Piccolo,2004).

Consistent with what this study hypothesized, the results revealed that both

Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles had a positive impact

on the level of organizational commitment of employees. Further, it has been

found that the level of organizational commitment of employees was positively

related to the initiating and consideration structure behaviours(which are

similar to transactional and transformational leadership styles, respectively)of

their immediate managers (Morris & Sherman,1981).In other research, the

positive relationship between transformational leadership style and the level of

organizational commitment was emphasized(Bateman & Strasser,1984;Bycio

et al.,1995; Carlson & Perrewe,1995; Morris Sherman,1981). The effects of

both styles on organizational commitment were consistent with Bass‘s

augmentation theory of leadership. Bass‘s augmentation theory of leadership

postulates that successful leaders are both transformational and transactional.

Based on this theory, transformational and transactional leadership styles

should have positive effects on the level of organizational commitment of

employees and this is what this study demonstrated. The findings showed that

transformational and transactional leadership styles positively affected

organizational commitment. The results also indicated that transformational

leadership had a greater impact on the level of organizational commitment of

employees compared to transactional leadership. This could be attributed to

two factors; first, the transformational leadership focuses more on the human

side of individuals. In relation to this, Carlson and Perrewe (1995) stated that,

when transformational leadership is enacted, members of organizations no

247
longer seek merely self-interest, but that which is beneficial to the

organization as a whole.

The findings of this study revealed that there was a significant positive

relationship between the age of employees and their organizational

commitment level. An explanation of this finding could be that when

employees get older, their alternative employment opportunities become

limited. As a result, they are likely to develop more positive attitudes toward

their organization including organizational commitment. This finding was

consistent with the literature (Angle & Perry, 1981; Hrebiniak, 1974; Lee,

1971; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Mowday et al. (1982) and Meyer and Allen

(1984) indicated that when the individual gets older and remains with an

organization longer, the individual‘s opportunities for alternative employment

tend to decrease, thereby enhancing the employee‘s commitment to the

organization.

With respect to the relationship between education and the level of

organizational commitment of employees, the results demonstrated that there

was a positive relationship between the two variables but is not statistically

significant. To explain this relationship, we can say that more educated

employees often have higher expectations which may be met with in

academic institution, since the promotion is based on academic developments

and not only performance based. Though previous literature and research

study conducted in public organization in Saudi Arabia confirms that highly

qualified employees adversely affects employee‘s level of commitment toward

their organization (Faisal Homoud A-Ammaj, 2000). In relation to this,

248
Mowday et al.(1982),Steers (1977),Mathieu and Zajac (1990), and AL-

Kahtany (1998) found education to be inversely related to commitment.

As predicted, the results of this study showed that there was a significant and

positive relationship between the length of service of employees and

employee commitment. This finding was consistent with previous studies (AL-

Kahtany, 1998; Angle & Perry, 1981; Hrebiniak, 1974; Lee, 1971; Mathieu and

Zajac, 1990). One explanation for this finding can be that when employees

stay longer with an employer; their alternative employment opportunities

become limited. This positively affects the employee‘s attitudes toward the

employer and consequently enhances their organizational commitment. It may

also be that the longer one is in an organization, the more acclimated they

become to the norms and values that constitute part of the organizational

culture.

With regard to occupational status, the results indicated that occupational

status was positively related with employee commitment but is not statistically

significant. In other research, it has been found that a positive relationship

between occupational status and employee commitment exists (AL-Kahtany,

1998; Wiener & Vardi, 1980).

This positive relationship could be due to the fact that employees who occupy

top-level or heading the department have more pay and prestige. As a result,

employees tend to be more committed. Additionally, the results indicated that

there was a positive relationship between compensation and employee

commitment. And this effect was statistically significant at .05 levels; it was

significant at .10 levels. A logical explanation for such a relationship is that

pay or monthly income is one of the most important factors that assess

249
employee‘s attitudes toward their organization. This finding supports previous

research studies (AL-Kahtany, 198; Angle & Perry, 1983; Becker, 1960). This

result of this finding was statistically significant and was positively related to

employee commitment. This result is consistent with the literature (Kawakubo,

1987; Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990). To explain this, one may say that married

employees often have big responsibilities for their families which force them to

be more committed than others. For instance, it is more cost incurring and risk

taking for a married employee who has family responsibility upon him to leave

his employer without alternative employment or income than a single

employee. These responsibilities force married employees to be more

committed to their employing organizations.

In testing the hypothesis based on gender classification, the findings clearly

showed that there is a positive relation of both the gender with employee

commitment, but the result of the findings was not statistically significant. The

hypothesis demands that male gender will be more committed to their

organizations than their female counterparts. Gender, as a topic in

organizational commitment literature, has been approached from both the

gender-model and the job model (Aven, Parker, & McEvoy, 1993). The

gender approach to the study of women and organizational commitment was

described as one where the basic belief was that, "women accept family roles

as a chief source of their identity and fulfilment, leading to a different

orientation to work for men, for whom work is paramount" (Loscocco, 1990, p.

155).

In testing the final hypothesis, the findings clearly showed that employees

who had undergone internal promotion within 0-6 years are more committed

250
to their organization than the rest. The explanation of this could be the simple

psychology of employees’ ambition to be promoted keeps their commitment to

their employer. To summarize the result it could be suggested that the most

committed employee is the one who is older, educated, has a high monthly

income, has served the organization for a considerable period of time, is

married, male, and undergoes early promotions, and works under a leader

who is more of transformational, transactional too but less laissez-faire in

following the leadership styles with an expectation of their Leaders to be more

and more Transformational in nature.

6.2 Conclusion

For an organisation to progress, it is important to understand the factors that

influence organisational behaviour and employee psyche. This study was

concerned with some of the critical determinants of employee performance a)

how leadership style impacts commitment and b) how leadership style

impacts motivation. The literature revealed that both subjects were critical

determinants of organisational success, irrespective of whether it was public

or private. The organisations in the corporate sector were also chosen

accordingly. Based on the findings of the present study, the researcher

developed the following conclusions:

1. The findings of this study indicated that transactional and

transformational leadership styles positively impacted the level of

employee commitment. Additionally, the findings showed that the

organizational commitment of individuals was negatively affected by

the laissez-faire leadership style. Thus, in terms of organizational

251
 commitment, these results provide support for the cross-cultural

applicability of Bass‘s augmentation theory of leadership, which

postulates that successful leaders are both transformational and

transactional. Bass (1996) stated that although the model of

transformational or transactional leadership may have needs for

adjustments and fine-tuning as we move across cultures, particularly

into non-Western, overall, it holds up as having a lot of universal

potential.(p.754). Furthermore, consistent with Bass‘s theory that

stressed that successful leaders are more transformational, the

findings of this study demonstrated that the employees expect their

manager to be more transactional in nature while dealing their sub-

ordinates and confirmed that sub-ordinates of transformational leaders

were more committed to the organization than those who were under

transactional leaders.

2. The results revealed that the majority of the employees were found to

be committed to the organization.

3. The majority of the employees observed their leaders to exhibit

transformational and transactional characteristics, but expect their

Heads to whom they report to be more transformational in nature and

follow contingent reward as well as management by exception-active

when concerning transactional leadership. Management by exception –

passive was not accepted by the employees.

4. Consistent with early research studies, the demographic variables of

age, education, monthly income, marital status i.e., married employees

had significant positive impacts on employee commitment. The result

252
also shows that length of service, internal promotion, occupational

status are positively related to employee commitment but the statistical

results are not significant.

The result also shows that both male and female employees are

positively related to employee commitment but their statistical findings

showed no significant difference.

253
 CHAPTER 7

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

254
 CHAPTER 7

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

7.1 Recommendations

Indian employees are motivated by social rewards, self-actualization needs,

compensation, and improved working conditions. To reach the hearts and

minds of employees, leaders need to ‘walk-the-talk’, with an impelling vision.

“It is exceedingly important for a leader of any organization to communicate

his or her vision constantly to ensure that there is no doubt about the direction

a team is heading,” says Ken Blanchard, world-renowned management

coach. Hence some of the well-known employment brands known for their

leadership values, focus on employee engagement through commitment and

discretionary effort and on employee enablement, with optimized roles and a

supportive environment, leading to financial success, customer satisfaction

and employee performance—all to drive organizational performance.

Supervisors expect their followers to be loyal to them. The results of this study

provided insights into what employees need from their supervisors and what

kinds of leadership behaviors they prefer. This information could be used to

help develop strategies and meet the needs through leadership behavior

development. According to the results, some strategies for improving

supervisor's leadership and employee's loyalty could be suggested.

It indicated that transformational leadership behavior would improve

employees' higher loyalty to the supervisors and participative interaction. The

leaders or supervisors should be aware of what is important for the

255
subordinates and the organizations, and encourage the employees to see the

opportunities and challenges around them creatively. The supervisors should

have their own visions and development plans for followers, working groups

and organizations. The supervisors should have sense of innovation. And

also, they should encourage followers to seek more opportunities and

possibilities, not just achieve performance within expectations. Supervisors

should understand the values of the followers and try to build their business

strategies, plans, processes and practices. Respect for the individual is also

very important for building a positive relationship between leaders and

employees. Especially, employees prefer idealized attributes leadership

behaviors from their supervisors because it can increase their level of loyalty

toward the supervisor. Employees would like to be respected by co-workers

and supervisors. Therefore, the supervisors should act respected for good of

the working group and employees. They should connect with the working

group and the individuals beyond self-interest. A sense of confidence and

power for the workloads should be displayed.

Supervisor's passive or avoidant leadership style will decrease employee's

loyalty level. So attempts should be made by the supervisors to try and avoid

acting as this leadership style. Contrarily, expectations should also be clarified

and goals and standards to be achieved for the followers be provided. There

should not be a last minute rush to jump in when the problems become more

serious. When problems arise, there should be supervisory interventions as

soon as possible, responses to urgent questions should be immediate and

decision-making more prompt and precise. The fear of getting involved in

problem solving should be gotten rid of completely.

256
Regarding the results of correlation analysis, it indicated that transformational

leadership, transactional leadership and passive leadership all have

significant correlations with employee loyalty to supervisor. Transformational

leadership had strong and positive correlations with employee's general

loyalty to supervisor, and strong positive with all the five dimensions of loyalty

except extra effort for supervisor. The group of specific behaviors factors of

transformational leadership positively correlated with attachment to supervisor

and internalization of supervisor's values. Therefore, as mentioned before,

leaders or supervisors should be aware of the importance of transformational

leadership style and try to display it in practices.

Transactional leadership is also an effective leadership style. It had moderate

and positive correlations with employee's loyalty to supervisor, and positive

correlations with attachment to supervisor and internalization of supervisor's

values. Specifically, contingent reward and active management-by-exception

also had moderate correlations with attachment to supervisor and

internalization of supervisor's values. Therefore, equitable pay and benefits

are very important for the relationships between employees and supervisor.

Supervisors should establish incorporative and fair rewards exchanging

relationships with the employees. They should clarify expectations and offer

recognition when goals are achieved and provide exchanges for their efforts

when followers meet the expectations. In this way, the employees would feel

recognized for their work accomplishments, knowledge and skills, and then

have more sense of responsibility and more willingness of make efforts for

their job. And also, when deviances or mistakes happen during the work,

257
supervisors should pay attention on the errors and standards required, keep

track all the mistakes, and take right actions as soon as possible.

Passive or avoidant leadership had negative correlations with employee's

loyalty to supervisor, negative correlations with dedication to supervisor and

extra effort for supervisors. Specifically, the sub-factors of passive

management-by-exception and Laissez-faire were also negatively correlated

with dedication and extra effort to supervisors. It was obvious to see that

passive or avoidant leadership is not an effective leadership style. So

supervisors should try to avoid this style. Supervisors should not wait until the

mistakes become serious or avoid decision making. Contrarily, supervisors

should get involved with important issues.

Supervisors should enrich the knowledge about the perceptions of leaders'

behaviors and how these behaviors relate to employee loyalty, motivation and

job satisfaction. Based on the results of the current study, leadership

development programs could help leaders understand the relationships

between effective leadership styles and developing employee loyalty.

The organizations can develop certain training programs or mentoring by

professionals for the supervisors and leaders. Professionals and trainers can

use the results from the current study to develop training programs that

support leadership development. The organization can provide leadership

training program or interventions to improve supervisor's leadership. The

leadership training program can be designed based on employee needs and

organizational needs. Also, psychological interventions are needed to clarify

for the employees about the relationship with supervisors, and the impacts of

leadership styles on loyalty and satisfaction, including leader's daily practice,

258
leadership behaviors, and the importance of feedback. The organization and

supervisors should involve employees in decision making and leadership

improvement and provide training and teamwork facilitation. In addition,

policies and practices related to rewards or feedback system in the

organizations can be adjusted to meet employees' needs in order to improve

employee commitment and motivation.

Leaders should especially focus on motivators such as dimensions of

discretion (freedom to choose, what, when and how activities are carried out),

job demands (controls vs lack of control over speed of activity), as well as apt

use of skills and competencies. As the study indicates, for leaders to succeed

in today’s fast changing business environment, it is recommended that they

adopt a transformational leadership style rather than transactional or laissez-

faire styles to enhance employees’ motivation consistently and efficiently;

which will in turn generate higher quality performance on the employees’ part

and boost business performance.

The leaders should avoid any laissez-faire behavior and spend time instead

coaching, paying attention to employees’ abilities and needs, help them

develop their talent, and provide a supportive environment. This would help

achieve higher performance standard within the organization. They should

also enhance their knowledge about how their leading style influences their

employees. They should select the style best suited to the organizational

goals and employees’ needs and desires. To ensure higher employee

performance, they should act as ethical role models and be accepted as such.

Another issue raised by the survey is that the leaders should encourage

employees to push the bar and challenge themselves with roles which utilise

259
their full potential, talent and creativity. This would align employees to the

organisational vision and make them more confident and eager to perform the

allocated tasks.

The managerial skills that the leaders should continue to develop are

creativity, team orientation, respect, listening skills, aligning to shared

objectives, coaching, and employee recognition. The leaders should ensure

that the reward and recognition system is reliable, trusted and time-tested and

highlights important and meaningful employee performance.

In conclusion, as this survey shows, the ideal leadership style should be a mix

of transactional managerial abilities, with adequate incorporation of

transformational elements, such as idealized influence, inspirational

motivation, and intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and other

ingredients such as creativity, team orientation, appreciation of others,

coaching, and recognition.

7.2 Suggestions

The results of this study summarized effective strategies of improving

leadership skills which would positively impact supervisor-employee

relationship. It is believed that this study would have added value to the

literatures on supervisors’ leadership styles, especially in the oil company

settings since there were limited literatures done on similar setting. Past

studies have constantly reported that transformational leadership is more

effective, productive, innovative, and satisfying to followers as both parties

work towards the good of organization propelled by shared visions and values

as well as mutual trust and respect (Avolio and Bass, 1991; Fairholm, 1991;

260
Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubrahmaniam, 1996; Stevens, D’Intino and Victor,

1995). There is also a dimension of pseudo-transformational leaders who

would seek power and position even at the expense of their followers’

achievements, however this study did not imply the presence of any, in the

sample researched.

In a summary, according to the results of this current study, the companies

covered in the study should pay more attention to improving supervisors'

management and leadership skills and to monitoring the relationship between

supervisors and employees. Some strategies and managerial plans need to

be developed in those companies in order to increase the organizational

effectiveness further.

The characteristics of transformational leadership include increasing

confidence and motivation, channelizing the followers’ performance for

accomplishing organizational goals, sharing beliefs and benefits, and being

open to employee's feedback and suggestions. The supervisors, especially

the ones in senior leadership roles, should have their own vision and

development plans for team members, working groups and organizations.

They should motivate encourage followers to challenge themselves, move out

of comfort zone and explore the untapped potential. They should be good

coaches as well, showing others the direction to follow, mainly by walking the

talk and setting an example. Empathy and emotional intelligence also lay the

foundation for an effective leader-follower relationship. By being change

agents and visionaries and having the ability to deal with complexity,

ambiguity and uncertainty, they exercise a tremendous amount of willing

control on the performance of their followers. In some situations, transactional

261
leadership is also an effective leadership style, having moderate and positive

correlations with employee's commitment, and positive correlations with

attachment to supervisor and internalization of supervisor's values. To be

more effective, they should clarify expectations and offer rewards and

recognition when goals are achieved. Supervisor's passive or avoidant

leadership style always decreases employee's commitment and hence should

be avoided at any cost. When faced with a crisis situation, supervisors should

try to intervene and get into a problem-solving mode as soon as possible.

Leadership styles that encourage employee commitment are necessary in

order for an organization to successfully implement business strategies,

achieve goals, gain competitive advantage and optimize human capital.

The organizations can develop certain training programs to develop

leadership skills especially for managers who have a big span of control. Even

mentoring programs, sessions by executive coaches help senior leaders hone

their skills. Professionals and trainers can use the results from the current

study to develop leadership development training interventions, based on

organisational and individual needs. The organizational culture should be

such that employees are encouraged to get involved in decision making,

strategic thinking and futuristic planning. The reward and recognition system,

HR policies should all be geared towards creating a more positive working

environment, thereby increasing productivity. Such an enabling setup

automatically helps in employee retention. Volk and Lucas (1991)

demonstrated that leadership style was the only predictor of employee's

retention and explained 32% of the variance in turnover. Over a period of time

262
there have been other studies which have all indicated that ‘employees leave

the manager, not the organisation’.

7.3 Scope for Further Study

The study was restricted to the level of permanent full-time employees of

support functions and operations, in the western, eastern and northern states,

of selected organisations in FMCG, Oil and Petroleum segment, who are

exposed to management researches and studies of similar kinds. The

premise was that confirmed employees have spent significant amount of time

in the organisation and are equally affected by some basic processes which

could influence their perspectives on commitment and motivation. The study

could also be extended to the non-management category of employees at the

lower grades, where they could judge the leadership styles of supervisors

managing them. It could also be extended to other states of India and even

globally, since all these organisations have a significant global presence.

Future studies could focus on all organisations being in the same sector so

that some sectoral similarities and dis-similarities would emerge.

The variance of results depending on different geographies can be explored.

This would throw light on the impact that culture has on individuals and how

cultural factors influence the relationships between leadership styles and

employee performance, how to incorporate leadership development and

employee commitment in multicultural organizations with diverse social

background. It could improve productivity of organizations and employee

motivation. The issue of managing cultural diversity become more central.

The results of the current study were a little different from the previous

263
research, because some of the previous studies were conducted under

western cultural background and not in India. The leaders or supervisors in

organizations should be more aware of cultural differences than in the past

and should know more about other cultures and their nuances. Data could be

collected from both sides under western culture and Asian culture, which

would help realize the differences between employees' perceptions on

leadership.

The influences of gender and personality on the perception of leadership

behaviors were not investigated in this study, but they would influence the

relationships between leadership styles and employee loyalty. Investigating

the influence of gender differences on these variables may provide additional

information for leaders to adjust leadership behaviors in the work processes to

meet the needs of different demographic groups. So a recommendation is to

investigate the influence of demographic differences on the perception of

leadership behaviors in order to develop leadership training programs.

The instrument used for measurement of leadership styles was Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire. Future research could focus on whether this

instrument could be applicable on both collectivistic countries and

individualistic countries. In addition, the MLQ consists of rater form and leader

form. So perceptions on leadership styles and behaviors could be collected

from both sides of leaders and followers and in that case the supervisors'

leadership styles could be more subjective.

The current study examined how supervisor's leadership affected employee

commitment and job motivation. The low level of employee commitment and

motivation are attributed to supervisor's leadership style, but there are still

264
other factors that would affect employee commitment and motivation. Future

research could focus on other factors that might also affect employee's loyalty

level and retention. According to Herzberg'S motivation-hygiene theory,

factors that would lead to employee's dissatisfaction include supervision,

company policy, relationships with co-workers, work environments, and

rewards (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Factors that would lead to

employee motivation are his/her personal growth, achievement, recognition,

and responsibility (Herzberg et al., 1959). Supervision or supervisor's

leadership is just one of the causes that affect employee motivation and

commitment. Therefore, future research can be focused on this field.

A more detailed study can be carried out on the findings based on the

differences between public sector and private sector.

The results of the study would equip the organisational leadership to

determine which styles to adopt depending on the nature of business, so that

the employees are more committed and motivated and hence have a much

better engagement and connect with the organisation. Adoption of the

appropriate style will help induce trust and loyalty for the organisation. This, in

turn, will help organisations deal better with the challenge of employee

retention in the fast growing corporate world.

265
 CHAPTER 8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

266
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Adams, G. R. and Schvaneveldt, J. D. (1985). Understanding

Research Methods. New York: Longman.

2. Alderfer C. P. (1972). Existence, Relatedness and Growth : Human

Needs in Organisational Settings. New York : The Free Press

3. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. & Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2001) The development of a

new transformational leadership questionnaire. The Journal of

Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74, 1-27.

4. Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The Measurement and Antecedents

of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the

Organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, pg.1-18.

5. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Organizational commitment:

Evidence of career stage effect? Journal of Business Research, Vol-

26, Pg. 49-61.

6. Al-Kahtany, A. H. (1995). Dialectal ethnographic ‘cleansing’: ESL

students’ attitudes towards three varieties of English. Language and

Communication, 15, 165-180.

7. Alpander, G.G. (1990). Relationship between commitment to hospital

goals and job satisfaction: A case study of a nursing department.

Journal of Health Care Management Review, Vol-15, Pg 51-62.

8. Anderson, N., & King, N. (1993). Innovation in organizations.

9. Angel, H.L., & Perry, J.L. (1981). An Empirical Assessment of

Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness. Journal

of Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, pg. 1-14.

267
10. Angel, H.L., & Perry, J.L. (1983).Organizational Commitment:

Individual and Organizational Influences. Journal of Work and

Occupations.Vol-10, Pg 123-146.

11. Ansari, M.A. (1990). Managing People at Work: Leadership Styles and

Influence Strategy. Publisher: Sage Publication, New Delhi/London.

12. Aranya, N., Kushnir, T., & Valency, A. (1986). Organizational

commitment in a male-dominated profession. Journal of Human

Relations, Vol-39, Pg.433-448.

13. Austin, A.E., & Gammon, Z.F. (1983) Academic Workplace: New

Demands, Heightened Tensions. Journal of Higher Education

Research Report No.10.Wasington, DC: Association for the Study of

Higher Education.

14. Aven, F., Parker, B., & McEvoy, G. (1993). Gender and attitudinal

commitment to organizations: a meta-analysis. Journal of Business

Research, 26, 49-61.

15. Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (1991). The Full Range of Leadership

Development: Basic and advanced Manuals. Publisher: Bass, Avolio, &

Associates.

16. Avolio, B. J., & Hannah, S. T. (2008). Developmental readiness:

Accelerating leader development. Consulting Psychology Journal:

Practice and Research, 60, 331–347.

17. Bagozzi, R.P.; Bergami, M. & Leone, L. (2003). Hierarchical

representation of motives in goal setting. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 915–943.

268
18. Bansal, H. S. and Taylor, S.F. (1999), ``The service provider switching

model (SPSM): a model of consumer switching behaviour in the

service industry’’, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 200-

18.

19. Barbuto, J. E. (1997). Taking the charisma out of transformational

leadership. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 689- 697.

20. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of

transformational leadership training and attitudinal and financial

outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6),

827-832.

21. Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. (1998). Management. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

22. Baruch, Y. (1998). The Rise and fall of Organizational Commitment

and Human System Management, Vol-17, Pg 135-144.

23. Bass, B.M. (1981) Stogdill‘s Handbook of leadership: Revised and

expanded edition. New York: The Free Press.

24. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations.

Publisher: Free Press, New York.

25. Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill‘s handbook of leadership (3rd Ed.).

New York: Free Press.

26. Bass, B.M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into

transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S.Army Research

Institute for Behavioural and Social Sciences.

27. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990a).The implications of transactional and

transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational

269
 development. In W.A. Pasmore & W.Woodman (Eds.), Research in

Organizational Change and Development, Greenwich, CT: Jai Press,

Inc.Pg 231-272.

28. Bass, B.M. & Riggio, R.E. (2006).Transformational Leadership.

Publisher: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.

29. Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). MLQ Multi-factor Leadership

Questionnaire Manual. Publisher: Mind Garden, Palo Alto.

30. Bateman, T.S. & Strasser, S. (1984). A Longitudinal Analysis of the

Antecedents of Organizational Commitment. Academy of Management

Journal, vol.27, pg. 95-112.

31. Batten, J.D. (1989).Tough-Minded Leadership. New York: American

Management Association (AMACOM).

32. Bennet H, Durkin M (2000). The effects of organisational change on

employee psychological attachment: An exploratory study. J. Manage.

Psychol. 15: 126-147.

33. Blickle, G. 2003. Convergence of agents’ and targets’ reports on

intraorganizational influence attempts. European Journal of

Psychological, 19, 40-53.

34. Boyatzis, R.E. and Renio, A. (1989), “Research article; the impact of an

MBA on managerial abilities”, Journal of Management Development,

Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 66-77.

35. Brown, R. B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Clarifying the

concept and simplifying the existing construct typology. Journal of

Vocational Behaviour, Vol-49, Pg.230-251.

270
36. Becker, H.S. (1960) .Notes on the Concept of Commitment. American

Journal of Sociology, vol.66, pg. 32-40.

37. Beck, K, & Wilson, C (2000). Development of affective organizational

commitment: A cross-sequential examination of change with tenure.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(1), 114-136.

38. Behling, O. & Schriesheim, C. (1976).Organizational Behaviour:

Theory, research, and application. Boston: Allen and Bacon, Inc.

39. Benkhoff, B. (1997) Disentangling organizational Commitment.

Personnel Review, Vol-26, Pg.114-131.

40. Becker, T.E., Randall, D.M., & Reigel, C.D. (1995). The

Multidimensional view of Commitment and the Theory of Reasoned

Action: A Comparative Evaluation. Journal of Management, Vol21 (4),

Pg.616-639.

41. Bergman, Lester, De Meuse & Grahn, 2000. Integrating the three

domains of employees commitment: an exploratyr study, Journal of

Business & Industrial Marketing

42. Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1975).An overview of the grid. Training

and Development Journal, Vol-29(5), Pg 29-37.

43. Bloch Bakhsh (2004), Effects of Job Satisfaction on Employees

Motivation & Turn over Intentions, Journal of Managerial Sciences,

Volume II, Number 1

44. Bowditch, J. L. and Buono, A. F. (1990). A Primer on Organizational

Behaviour. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

45. Boxall P., Macky K. & Rasmussen E. (2003), ‘Labour turnover and

retention in New Zealand; the causes and consequences of leaving

271
 and staying with employers’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,

vol.41(2), pp.196-214.

46. Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What's the

difference?. Journal of Management Studies 39(1), 97–122.

47. Brady, R.P. & Welborn, L. (1976, March). Radical selfdirected

approaches to career/life planning: A forward look at non-occupational

career guidance. Program presented at the annual meeting of the Ohio

Personnel and Guidance Association, Columbus, OH.

48. Brookes, S. M. (2007). 360 degree leadership in the public sector:

developing an approach to collective leadership. Paper presented at

the University of Delaware 3rd Transantlatic Dialoque conference.

Newark, Delaware, USA.

49. Brown, D. & Crace, R.K. (1996). Values in life role choices and

outcomes: a conceptual model. The Career Development Quarterly,

44, 211–223.

50. Bryman, A. (1996). Leadership in Organization. In S.R.Clegg, C.Hardy,

& W.Nord,

51. Bryman, A. (1986).Leadership and Organizations. London: Routledge

& Kegan Paul. Buchanan, B. (1974a).Government Managers, Business

Executives, and Organizational Commitment. Public Administration

Review.Vol-34.Pg 339-347.

52. Brum, S. (2007).What Impact Does Training take over Employee

Commitment and Employee Turnover? Publisher: University of Rhode

Island, Kingston.

272
53. Buchanan, B. (1974b). Building Organizational Commitment: The

Socialization of Managers in Work Organizations. Journal of

Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.14, pg.346-355.

54. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. Publisher: Harper & Row, New York.

55. Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D., & Allen, J. (1995).Further assessments of

Bass‘s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational

leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol-80, Pg 468-478.

56. Cannella, Jr., A.A., & Monroe, M.J. (1997).Contrasting perspectives on

strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers.

Journal of Management, Vol-23, Pg 213-237.

57. Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J. & Mann, L. (2000). A Short Measure of

Transformational Leadership, Journal of Business and Psychology

14(3), 389–405.

58. Carlson, D.S., & Perrewe, P.L. (1995).Institutionalization of

Organizational Ethics through Transformational Leadership. Journal of

Business Ethics. Vol 14, Pg 829-838.

59. Cernea Mihail (1975), “individual labor and motivation turnover under

socialism”,acadmy of social and political sciences

60. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. and Rhodes, E. (1978), “Measuring the

efficiency of decision making units”, European Journal of Operational

Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 429-44.

61. Chaves, W.V. (2001). An empirical analysis of the effect of work-

related values and value congruence of job satisfaction, task

performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Dissertation

273
 Abstracts International, 62 (1-B), 584 (University Microfilms

International).

62. Chemers, M.M. (1997). An Integrative Theory of Leadership. Publisher:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.

63. Coetzee. (2005). Employee Commitment. Publisher: University of

Pretoria (Pty) Ltd., Hatfield.

64. Cole, G.A. (2005) Personnel and Human Resource Management.

London: ELST Publishers.

65. Colbert AE, Kwon IWG (2000). Factors related to the organizational

commitment of college and university auditors. J. Manager. Issues,

12(4): 484-501.

66. Conger, J. A. 1999, .Charismatic and Transformational Leadership in

Organizations: An Insider's Perspective on these Developing Streams

of Research.. The Leadership Quarterly, vol.10, no.2, pp. 145-179.

67. Davar, R. (2007) 'The Future of Fuel Retailing in India', Shell World,

http://www-

static.shell.com/static/aboutshell/downloads/swol/july_sept_2007/india_

retail/india_retail_en.pdf, pp.1-6.

68. Davis, & Newstorm, J.W. (1985).Human Behaviour at work:

Organizational Behaviour (7th Ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill Book

Company.

69. Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L., 1998., “Working Knowledge: How

Organizations Manage What They Know”, Harvard Business School

Press

274
70. Deluga, R. J. (1990). The effects of Transformational, Transactional

and Laissez Faire Leadership characteristic on Subordinate Influencing

Behaviour. Journal of Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol- 11(2),

Pg. 191-203

71. DeShon, R.P. & Gillespie, J.Z. (2005). A motivated action theory

account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1096–

1127.

72. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

73. Dibble, R.H. (1997). The influence of four work values factors on the

relationships between the work environment and job-related attitudes.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 57 (12-B). 7763 (University

Microfilms International).

74. Doody.P (2007), “High-Involvement Work Systems: Their Effect on

Employee Turnover and Organizational Performance in New Zealand

Organizations”

75. Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel Leadership : commitment and charisma

in a revolutionary process. New York : The Free Press

76. Drucker, P.F. 1999. The shape of things to come. In F. Hesselbein & P.

Cohen (Eds.). Leader to leader: Enduring insights on leadership from

the Drucker Foundation’s award-winning journal (pp. 109-120). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

77. Einstein, W. O. (1995). The challenge of leadership: A diagnostic

model of transformational leadership. The Journal of Applied

Management and Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 120-133.

275
78. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L.

(2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86, 42-51.

79. Erkutlu, H. (2008), Snape(1996) ; The impact of transformational

leadership on organizational and leadership effectiveness, Journal of

Management Development, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp.708-726.

80. Esposito, J. L. (2002 November). Interactive, multiple-method

questionnaire evaluation research: A case study. Paper presented at

the International Conference in Questionnaire Development,

Evaluation, and Testing (QDET) Methods. Charleston, SC.

81. Eztioni, A. (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations.

New York. Free Press.

82. Fairholm, G. W. (1991). Values leadership: Towards a new philosophy

of leadership. New York: Praeger.

83. Faisal Homoud Al-Ammaj, 2000. An investigation of leadership style

and organizational commitment among Saudi public employees. Thesis

(Ph. D.)--Mississippi State University. Department of Political Science.

84. Fein, E.,Tziner, A. and Vasiliu, C. 2010. “Age Cohort Effects, Gender,

and Romanian Leadership Preferences”, Journal of Management

Development, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 364-376.

85. Field, R. H. G. (1979). A critique of the Vroom-Yetton Contingency

Model of Leadership Behaviour. Academy of Management Review,

Vol-4, Pg.249-257.

86. Fiedler, F.E. (1976). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. Publisher:

McGraw-Hill, New York.

276
87. Fiedler, F. E., & House, R.J. (1988).Leadership theory and research: A

report of progress. In C.L Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.). International

Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chichester, New

York: John Wiley & Sons.

88. Fitz-enz, J (1990). Getting and Keeping Good Employees. In

Personnel. August, v67, n8, pp 25-29.

89. Fleishman, E., and Hunt, J., Eds., Current Developments in the Study

of Leadership. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973.

90. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker 1981 ‘Evaluating structural

equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error’.

Journal of Marketing Research 18: 19–50.

91. Gaertner S (2000). Structural determinants of job satisfaction and

organisational commitment in turnover models. Hum. Res. Manage.

Rev., 9: 479-493.

92. Garcia-Morales, V., Matias-Reche, F., & Hurtado-Torres, N. 2008.

Influence of transformational leadership on organizational innovation

and performance depending on the level of organizational learning in

the pharmaceutical sector. Journal of Organizational Change, 21(2):

188–212.

93. George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (2008). Organizational Behavior. New

Delhi: Pearson Publication.

94. Ginzberg, E.; Ginsburg, S.W.; Axelrad, S.; Herma, J.L. (1951).

Occupational choice: an approach to a general theory. New York:

Columbia University Press.

277
95. Gopal R., Ghose Chowdhury R. (2014). Leadership styles and

employee Motivation : An empirical investigation in a leading oil

company in India. IMPACT: International Journal of Research in

Business Management (IMPACT: IJRBM)

96. Gopinath, C. and Becker, T.E. (2000). ‘Communication, procedural

justice, and employee attitudes: relationships under conditions of

divestiture.’ In Journal of Management, v26, pp. 63-83.

97. Gordon, J.U., 2002, African leadership in the twentieth century: An

enduring experiment in democracy, University Press of America,

Lanham.

98. Goulder, Ed.Alvin W.,1950, Studies in Leadership: Leadership and

Democratic Action, Harper.

99. Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. (2009).Behavior in Organizations (9th ed.).

India: Pearson Prentice Hall Publication.

100. Gregersen, H. B. (1993). Multiple commitments at work and

extra role behaviour during three stages of organizational tenure.

Journal of Business Research, Vol-26, Pg.31-47.

101. Government of India, Planning Commission (2006), Towards

Faster and More Inclusive Growth: An Approach to 11th Five Year Plan

(2007-2012). Government of India Planning Commission, New Delhi,

available at: http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/

app11_16jan.pdf (accessed June 26, 2008). Government of India

(2002-2007), Tenth Five-year Plan: 2002-2007, Planning Commission,

New Delhi.

278
102. Griffin, Mark A. & Rafferty, Alannah E (1990). Dimensions of

transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The

Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354

103. Groves, R. M., (1987). Research on survey data quality. Public

Opinion Quarterly, 51, 156-172.

104. Guyot, J. F. (1962) Government bureaucrats are different. Public

Administration Review. 22(4), 195-202.

105. Hannah, S., & Gardner, W. (2005), Veritable authentic

leadership: emergence, functioning, and impact, in W. Gardner, B.

Avolio & F. Walumbwa (eds), Authentic Leadership Theory and

Practice: Origins, Effects and Development (pp. 3-41), Elsevier, Oxford

106. Hansen, J. R., & Villadsen, A. R. (2010). Comparing Public and

Private Managers' Leadership Styles: Understanding the Role of Job

Context. International Public Management Journal 13(3), 247-274.

107. Hartog, Dd. N., Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P.L. (1997).Journal of

Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol – 70, Pg.19-35.

Helliegel, D., Slocum, J. W., and Woodman, R. W. Organizational

Behavior, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN, 1992. Herzberg F,

Mausner B, Snyderman B (1999). The motivation to work. New York:

Wiley.

108. Hill, W. (1973). Leadership Style: Rigid or Flexible. Journal of

Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, Pg.35-47.

109. Hofstede, G. 1991. Management in a multicultural society.

Malaysian Management Review, 26, 3-12.

279
110. Hollander, E.B., & Julian, J.W. (1969).Contemporary trends in

the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, Pg.387-

397.

111. House, R. J. (1971). A Path-Goal Theory of Leader-

Effectiveness. Journal of Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol-16,

Pg.321-338.

112. Howell, J. M, & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational

leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control and support for

innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.

113. Hrebiniak, L. G. (1974). Effects of job level and participation on

employee attitudes and perception of influence. Academy of

Management Journal, 17. 649-662.

114. Hunt, J.G. (1991).Leadership: A new synthesis. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

115. Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource

management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–672.

116. Ivancevich, J.M., Szilagyi, Jr., A.D., & Wallace, Jr., M.J.

(1977).Organizational Behaviour and Performance. Goodyear

Publishing Company, Inc.

117. Jandaghi, Gh, Matin, H.Z., and Farjame, A. 2009. .Comparing

Transformational Leadership in Successful and Unsuccessful

Companies., International Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 4, no. 3, pp.

211-216.

280
118. Jaros, S.J., Jermier, J.M., Koehler, J.W. & Sincich, T. (1993).

Effects of Continuance, Affective, and Moral Commitment on the

withdraw process: An Evaluation. Academy of Management Journal,

Vol 36(5), 951-995.

119. J.E.Bono ad T.A. Judge (2004),‘ Personality and

Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis,.

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol89, Pg 901-911.

120. J. Leslie Mckeown, Retaining top employee, Tata McGraw Hill -

companies Inc, New York. Gratefully acknowledged.

121. Johnston, M. W., Parasuraman, A., Futrell, C. M., & Black, W. C.

(1990). A Longitudinal Assessment of the Impact of Selected

Organizational Influence's on Salespeople's Organizational

Commitment During Early Employment. Journal of Marketing

Research, 27 (August), 333-344.

122. Jones, G. R. (2001). Organizational theory: Text and cases (3rd

ed). London: Prentice Hall.

123. Judge and R. Piccolo (2004),.Transformational and

Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative

Validity,. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 89, Pg.755.

124. Kanter, R.M. (1968). Commitment and Social Organization: A

study of Commitment Mechanisms in Utopian Communities. Journal of

American Sociological View, Vol-33, Pg.449-517.

125. Kanter R (1999). Managing Change - The Human Dimension.

Boston, MA: Good measure.

281
126. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of

organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. (Original work published

1966)

127. Kim, S. (2005). Individual-level factors and organisational

performance in government organisations. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 245-261.

128. Kinnear, L. & Sutherland, M. 2001. Money is fine, but what is the

bottom –line? Journal of the South African Institute of people

management, 19(1): 15-18.

129. Kirkpatrick, S. & Locke, E. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of

three core charismatic leadership components on performance and

attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36-51

130. Krejcie & Morgan (1970). Determining Sample Size for

Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, #30,

pp. 607-610.

131. Kelman, H.C. (1958). Compliance, Identification, and

Internalization: Three Process of Attitude Change. Journal of Conflict

Resolution.Vol-2, Pg.51-60.

132. Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of

transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student

performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Development, 16,

319-333.

133. Kolb, D.A., Rubin, I. M., & Mclntyre, J. M. (1971).Organizational

Psychology: An Experiential Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

282
 Hall, Inc. Landy, F.J. (1985).Psychology of Work Behaviour.

Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

134. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge:

how to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations.

California: Jossey-Bass.

135. Landy, F. J. 1989. Psychology of work behavior. Pacific Grove,

CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

136. Lassey, W. (1976). Leadership and social change. California:

University Associates.

137. Lewin, K (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York :

Mcgraw-Hill

138. Lincoln J. R., Kalleberg A. L.(1990). Culture, control, and

commitment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

139. Lind B, Stevens J (2004). Match your merger integration

strategy and leadership style to your merger type. Strateg. Lead.,

32(4): 10-16.

140. Liou, K. T. (1995, Apr.) Professional Orientation and

Organizational Commitment among Public Employees: An Empirical

Study of Detention Workers. Journal of Public Administration Research

and Theory, Vol-5(2), Pg.231-247.

141. Lockwood, D. & Anari, A. 1999. Recruiting & retaining scarce

information technology talent: a focus group study, Industrial

Management & Data System, 99(6): 251-256.

142. Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (1999). The relationship between

commitment and organizational culture, subculture, leadership style

283
 and job satisfaction in organizational change and development.

Leadership & Organizational Development, 20(7), 365-377

143. Loscocco, K. A. (1990). Reactions to blue-collar work: A

comparison of women and men. Journal of Work and Occupations,

Vol-17, Pg.152-177.

144. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).

Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional

leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The

Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-

9843(96)90027-2

145. Lussier, R. N., and Achua, C. F. Leadership: Theory,

Application, Skill Development. (3rd ed.) Mason, Ohio: Thomson

Higher Education, 2007.

146. Luthans, et al. 2005. The psychological capital of Chinese

workers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Management and

Organization Review, 1: 247-269.

147. Maertz, C. P. & Griffeth, R. W. 2004. Eight motivational forces &

voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implications for

research, Journal of Management, 30(5): 667-683.

148. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY:

Harper. pp. 92.

149. Mathieu J. E., Zajac D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of

antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational

commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

284
150. McGregor, D (1960), Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw Hill,

New York.

151. McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values

determine what people do. American Psychologist, 40, 812-825.

152. Meudell, K. & Rodham, K. 1998. Money isn’t everything – or is

it? A preliminary research study into money as a motivator in the

licensed house sector, International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, 10(4): 128-132.

153. Meyer, J. & Allen. N.J, (1991). A Three Component

Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Journal of Human

Resource Management Review, Vol. I, Pg.61-89.

154. Meyer, J.P. & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the

Workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management

Review, Vol-11, Pg.299-326.

155. Meyer, R.C. & Schoorman, F.D. (1992).Predicting Participation

and Production Outcomes through a Two-Dimensional Model of

Organizational Commitment. Academy of Management Journal. Vol-

35(3), Pg.671-684.

156. Miner, J. B. (1986). Managerial role motivation training. Journal

of Management Psychology, 1, 25-30.

157. Morgan, R. M., and Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust

theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 20-38.

158. Morrow, Paula C. (1983), "Concept Redundancy in

Organizational Research: The Case of Work Commitment," Academy

of Management Journal, 8, 486-500.

285
159. Morris, J., and Sherman, J. (1981). Generalizability of an

organizational commitment model. Academy of Management Journal,

24(3), 512.

160. Mowday, R., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee-

Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism,

and Turnover. Publisher: Academic Press, New York.

161. Nel PS, Van Dyk PS, Haasbroek GD, Schultz HB, Sono TJ,

Werner A(2004). Human Resources Management (6th ed). New York:

Oxford University Press.

162. Niehoff, B. F & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of

the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational

citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527-556.

163. Nijhof, W. J., De Jong, M.J., & Beukhof, G (1998).Employee

Commitment in Changing Organizations: an Exploration. Journal of

European Industrial Training. Vol-22 (6), Pg.243-248.

164. Norland-Tilburg, E. V. (1990). Controlling error in evaluation

instruments. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 28(2). Available

athttp://www.joe.org/joe/1990summer/tt2.html

165. O'Reilly, C A. & Chatman, J, A. (19S6). Organizarional

commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance,

identification and internalization on prosocial behavior, Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71, 492-19V.

166. Osborn M 2008 Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In

Smith JA (ed) Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research

nd
methods, 2 edn. pp 53-80. London, Sage.

286
167. Osborn, Schermerhorn, & Hunt (2008).Organizational Behavior

(10thed.). USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

168. Ozaralli, N. 2003. .Effects of Transformational Leadership on

Empowerment and Team Effectiveness., Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, vol. 24, no.6, pp. 335-344.

169. Pavett C, Lau A (1983). Managerial work: The influence of

hierarchical level and functional specialty. Acad. Manage. J. 26: 170-

177.

170. Pfeffer J (1998). Seven practices of successful organizations.

Calif. Manage. Rev. 40: 96-123.

171. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B. Morrman, R. H. & Fetter, R.

(1990). Transformational Leader Behaviors and their Effects on

Follower’s Trust in Leader Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship

Behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

172. Porter, Lyman W., William J. Crampon, and Frank J. Smith 1976

"Organizational commitment and managerial turnover: A Iongitudinal

study." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15: 87-98.

173. Quinn, R.E.(1988). Beyond Rational Management: London:

Jossey Bass

174. Radhakrishna, R. B. Francisco, C. L., & Baggett. C. D. (2003).

An analysis of research designs used in agricultural and extension

education. Proceedings of the 30thNational Agricultural Education

Research Conference, 528-541.

287
175. Rafferty, A. E., Griffin M. A. (2004). Dimensions of

transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The

Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354

176. Rama B. Radhakrishna, Associate Professor, The Pennsylvania

State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. Tips for Developing

and Testing Questionnaires/Instruments

177. Randall, D. M. and Cote, J. A. (1991). `Interrelationships of work

commitment constructs', Work and Occupation, 18, 194-211.

178. Reis, S. (2004). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: The

theory of 16 basic desires. Review of General Psychology,8, 179–193.

179. Robbins, S.P. (1994). Essentials of Organizational Behaviour

(4th.Ed). Publisher: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Robbins, S.P.

(1994).Essentials of Organizational Behaviour (4th Ed.).Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

180. Rocheach, M. (1973): The nature of human values. New York:

Free Press

181. Reitz, H.J. (1981).Behaviour in Organizations (Rev.ed).

Homewood, IL: Richard D.Irwin, Inc.

182. Romzek, B.S. (1990) .Employee Investment and Commitment:

The ties that bind. Public Administration Review.Vol-50, Pg.374-382.

183. Rucci, A.J., Kirn, S.P. and Quinn, R.T. (1998), ``The employee –

customer profit chain at SEARS’’, Harvard Business Review, January-

February,pp. 82-97.

288
184. Samuel, M. O., & Chipunza, C. (2009). Employee retention and

turnover: using motivational variables as a panacea. African Journal of

Business Management, 3(8), 410-415.

185. Schermerhorn, Jr., J.R., Hunt, J.G., Osborn, R.N.

(1982).Managing Organizational Behaviour. New York: John Wiley &

Sons.

186. Schmoker, M. (2001). The results fieldbook: Practical strategies

from dramatically improved schools. Alexandria, VA: Association of

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

187. Scholl, R.W. (1981). Differentiating Commitment from

Expectancy as a Motivational Force. Academy of Management

Review.Vol-6, Pg.589-599.

188. Schon, D. A. (1984). Leadership as reflection in action. In T. J.

Sergiovanni & J. E. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational

culture (pp. 36-63). Urbana: University of Illinois

189. Shamir, B. (1992). Attribution of influence and charisma to the

leader: The romance of leadership revisited. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 22, 386–407

190. Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., Johnson, J. L., & Lockhart, D. E. 2005.

Turnover, social capital losses, and performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 48: 594-606.

191. Shim S., Lusch R. F., Goldsberry E. Leadership style profiles of

retail managers: personal, organizational and managerial

characteristics. International Journal of Retail & Distribution

Management 2002; Vol. 30, No. 4. 186-201p

289
192. Shouksmith, Geoge (1989). A Construct Validation of a Scale for

Measuring Work Motivation. New Zealand Journal of Psychology 1989,

18, 76-81

193. Siegel, L., & Lane, I.M. (1982).Personal and Organizational

Psychology Homewood, IL: Richard D.Irwin, Inc.

194. Smith, M. K. (1999) Born and Bred? Leadership, heart and

informal education, London: YMCA George Williams College/The Rank

Foundation.

195. Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB

research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 15, 385-392

196. Spotts, J.V. (1964).The problem of leadership: A look at some

recent findings of behavioural science research.

197. Stallworth LH (2003). Mentoring, organizational commitment and

intentions to leave public accounting. Manage. Audit. J., 18(5): 405-

418.

198. Stauss, B., Chojnacki, K., Decker, A., Hoffman, F. (2001),

"Retention effects of a customer club", International Journal of Service

Industry Management, Vol. 12 No.1, pp.7-19.

199. Steers, R.M. (1975). Antecedents and Outcome of

Organizational Commitment. Journal of Administrative Science

Quarterly, Vol. 22, pg .46-56.

200. Stevens, J. M., Beyer, J., & Trice, H. M. (1978). Assessing

personal, role, and organizational predictors of managerial

commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 21. 380-396.

290
201. Storey, William Kelleher. Writing History: A guide for Students.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999, p.18.

202. Stogdill, R.M. (1948).Personal factors associated with

leadership: A survey of the literature. The Journal of Psychology, Vol-

25, Pg.35-71.

203. Stredwick J (2005). An introduction to human resources

management. (2nd ed).Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann

Publishing.

204. Stum DL (1999). Maslow revisited: Building the employee

commitment pyramid. Strateg. Leadersh., 29(4): 4-9.

205. Suliman, A. M., & Iles, P. A. 1999. The multi-dimensional nature

of organizational commitment in a non-western context. Journal of

Management Development, 19: 71-82.

206. Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers: An introduction

to vocational development. New York: Harper & Brothers.

207. Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career

development. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career

choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice

(2nd ed., pp. 197-261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

208. Stredwick J (2005). An introduction to human resources

management. (2nd ed).Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann

Publishing.

209. Sutermeister, R.A. (1969). People and Productivity. New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Company.

291
210. Swanepoel B, Erasmus B, Van Wyk M, Scheck H (2000). South

African Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice. Kenwyn:

Juta.

211. Taylor, R.L., & Rosenbach, W.E. (1989).Leadership: Challenges

for today‘s manager. New York: Nichols Publishing. Orange, NJ:

Leadership Library of America.

212. Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J.M. (1993).The Cultures of Work

Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

213. T.Judge and R.Piccolo (2004), .Transformational and

Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative

Validity,. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 89, Pg.755.

214. UNESCO: India, updated August 2003 and Annual Report

2004/5, Ministry of Human Resource Development, India (overview). -

Newsletter, October-December 2005, International Institute for

Educational Planning.

215. UNESCO. Learning without Burden, NCERT, 1993, reprinted

2004. - Annual report 2004/5, Ministry of Human Resource

Development, India (annexes).

216. Venkatapathy, R. (1990). Perception of Top Management

Leadership Styles and Climate: A Study of Private and Public

Executives, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 25(3 ), 303-311.

217. Volk, M., & Lucas, M. (1991). Relationship of management style

and anticipated turnover. Dimensions of Critical Care, 10 (1),35-40.

218. Voon, M. L., Lo, M. C., Ngui, K. S. & Ayob, N. B. (2011). ‘The

influence of leadership styles on employees’ job satisfaction in public

292
 sector organizations in Malaysia’, International Journal of Business,

Management and Social Sciences, 2(1), 24-32.

219. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and Decision

Making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

220. Waldman, D.A., Bass, B.M., & Einstein, W.O. (1987).

Leadership and outcomes of performance appraisal. Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 60, 177-186.

221. Walumbwa & Lawler (2003). Leadership, Individual Differences,

and Work-related Attitudes: A Cross-Culture Investigation

222. Walton, R.E. (1985). From Control to Commitment in the

Workplace. Publisher: Harvard Business Review, Vol.63, pg.77-84.

223. Wang, and Huang, T. 2009. .The Relationship of

transformational Leadership with Group Cohesiveness and Emotional

Intelligence.. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, vol.37, no.3,

pp. 379-392.

224. Webb, K. S. (2003). Presidents‟ Leadership Behaviors

Associated with Followers‟ Job Satisfaction, Motivation toward extra

effort, and Presidential. Dissertation, University Of North Texas,

December, 2003. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531.

225. Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic

Organization {A. N. Henderson &T. Parsons, eds & trans). Glencoe, IL:

Free Press.

226. Wiener, Yoash (1982), “Commitment in Organizations: A

Normative View,” Academy of Management Review, 7 (3), 418–428.

293
 227. Williams, J. C. (1978).Human Behaviour in Organizations.

Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Co.

228. William B, Werther J (1996). Human Resource and Personnel

Management, 5th Edition, Mc Graw-Hill, New York

229. Woods, F.A. (1913). The influence of monarchs. New York:

Macmillan.

230. Yammarino, F. & Bass, B. 1990. Transformational Leadership

and Multiple Levels of Analysis. Human Relations, 43(10): 975-995.

231. Zangaro, G. A. (2001). Organizational commitment: A concept

analysis. Nursing Forum, 36 (2), 14-23.

232. Zeffane R (2003). Patterns of Organizational Commitment and

Perceived Management Style: A Comparison of Public and Private

Sector Employees. Hum. Relat., 47(8): 977-1010.

Web Sources :

 http://www.research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm

 http://www.joe.org/joe/2007february/tt2.php

 O’Brien, D. (2004). Leadership in the Public sector. Retrieved on

March, 10, 2012 from:

http://www.ashridge.org.uk/website/IC.nsf/wFARATT/Behind%20The%

20Screens:%20Leadership%20In%20The%20Public%20Sector/$file/B

ehindtheScreens.pdf

 Wood, J. (2008). Leadership in public and private sector. Retrieved on

Feburary 01, 2012 from

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/01/leadership-in-public-and

private-sectors/

294
Publications :

 Unlocking the DNA of the Adaptable Workforce : The Global Human

Capital Study 2008

 Nandan Nilekani, Imagining India: The Idea of a Renewed Nation

(Penguin, 2009)

 James MacGregor Burns, Transformational Leadership (2nd Edition)

 Steven Covey, 7 Habits of Highly Successful People.

 The Transformational Leadership Report © 2007

www.transformationalleadership.net

 Robert Quinn , Deep Change - Discovering the Leader Within

 Robert P. Brady, Work Motivation Scale

 Driving Organizational Performance amidst an Imbalanced Global

Workforce by Josh Bersin, Bersin & Associates Research Report, 2011

 Kim S. Cameron, Robert E. Quinn. Diagnosing and Changing

Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework

 Luthans, F. (2005).Organizational Behavior (10thed.).McGraw – Hill/

Irwin Publication.

 Taking the leadership leap: Developing an effective executive pipeline

for India’s future, by Viren Doshi, Gaurav Moda, Jai Sinha, and Anshu

Nahar

295
 ANNEXURE-I

QUESTIONNAIRES

296
ANNEXURE-I

QUESTIONNAIRES

PART-1

This part contains statements containing concerning general information

about the participant. Please read the following statements and check (If reply

is through e-mail then kindly state YES or NO) the category that best

describes your situation. (Name of Organisation:)

1) Age:

------------ Years

2) Education: (Type the qualification achieved for, eg. BA-MBA /MMS)

-----------BSc / BE / BCom / BA

-----------MA / MCom / MSc / ME / MCA

-----------Master Degree / MBA / MMS

----------Doctorate

3) Marital Status:

-----------Married

-----------Single

4) Occupational status

------------Operational Executive

-----------Middle manager

-----------Senior Manager

297
-----------Senior Executive

5) Monthly gross salary

---------- 2,00,000 and Above

----------1,00,000- 1,99,000

----------51,000- 99,000

---------35,000-50,000

6) Length of Service

----------- Years

7) Gender

----------Male

----------Female

8) Last promoted: -------- years back

PART-2

Employee Commitment Questionnaire

You are being asked to participate in a survey to provide the Researcher with

information that will help to improve the working environment for employees.

Participation in this survey is voluntary and confidentially is assured. No

individual data will be reported.

The following statements concern how you feel about the department /

function where you work. Please indicate the extent of your agreement or

disagreement with each statement by circling a number from 1 to 7.

298
If answering by way of e-mail then kindly RATE your answer by

choosing from 1-7, any number as per your rating, for e.g. “3‟ under the

column Rate. Please do not put your name on this questionnaire.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly

Disagree disagree agree Agree

Employee Commitment Questionnaire 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rate

1 I am willing to put a great deal of

effort beyond that normally

expected in order to help this

organization be successful

2 I talk high about this organization to

my friends as a great organization

to work for

3 I feel very little loyalty to this

organization

4 I would accept almost any type of

job assignment in order to keep

working for this organisation.

299
5 I find that my values and

organization‘s values are very

similar

6 I am proud to tell others that I am

part of this organization.

7 I could just as well be working for a

different organization as long as the

type of work was similar

8 This organization really inspires the

very best in me in the way of job

performance

9 It would take very little changes in

my present circumstances to cause

me to leave this organization

10 I am extremely glad that I choose

this organization to work for over

others ,I was considering at the

time I joined

11 There is too much to be gained by

sticking to this organization

indefinitely.

300
12 I find it easy to agree with this

organization‘s policies on important

matters relating to its Employees

13 I really care about the fate of this

organization.

14 For me, this is the best of all

possible organizations for which to

work.

15 Deciding to work for this

organization was a right decision

on my part.

301
PART-3

Leadership Styles

No of years working with the current Manager:

Age of Manager:

Educational qualification of Manager:

Gender of Manager:

This questionnaire is to describe the leadership style of your Head of Function

(or the person you report to), as you perceive/observe it. Please answer all

items on this sheet. If an item is irrelevant, or if you are unsure or do not know

the answer, leave the answer blank. Please answer this question

anonymously.

Thirty descriptive statements are listed on the following pages. Judge how

frequently each statement fits the person you are describing. Use the

following rating scale by circling your desired option for rating. If answering

by way of e-mail, then kindly rate your answer by stating the number

you prefer to rate your immediate leader to whom you report, for e.g.,

“4‟ under your rating column and state his/her designation in the blank

space provided in the table given below:

Not at all Once in a Sometimes Fairly often Frequently, if

while not always

0 1 2 3 4

302
Leadership style observed by you:

Your designation Your

rating

1 Instil pride in me for being associated with 0 1 2 3 4

him/her

2 Go beyond self-interest for the good of the

group

3 Act in ways that build others respect for

him/her

4 Display a sense of power and confidence

5 Talk about his/her most important values

and beliefs

6 Specify the importance of having a strong

sense of purpose

7 Consider the moral and ethical

consequences of decisions

8 Emphasize the importance of having a

collective sense of mission

9 Talks optimistically about the future

303
10 Talks enthusiastically about what needs to

be accomplished

12 Express confidence that goals will be

achieved

13 Seeks different perspectives when solving

problem

14 Suggest new ways of looking at how to

complete assignments

15 Spend time mentoring and coaching sub-

ordinates

16 Treat each team member as an individual

rather than just as a member of the group

17 Consider each person as having different

needs, abilities and aspirations from others

18 Help each person in the team to develop

their strengths

19 Discuss in specific terms who is responsible

for achieving performance targets

20 Make clear what one can expect to receive

when performance goals are achieved

304
21 Express satisfaction when expectations are

met

22 Focus attention on irregularities, mistakes,

exception and deviations from standards

23 Concentrate his/her full attention on dealing

with complaints and failures

24 Direct his/her attention towards failures to

meet standards

25 Fail to interfere until problems become

serious

26 Wait for things to go wrong before taking

action

27 Avoid getting involved when important

issues arise

He/she is absent when needed

29 Avoid making decisions

30 Delay responding to urgent questions

305
PART-4

Work Motivation

Your job …………………………………………….

You are being asked to participate in a survey to provide the Researcher with

information about how you feel about your job. Please indicate the extent of

your agreement or disagreement with each statement by circling a number

from 1 to 7.

If answering by way of e-mail then kindly RATE your answer by

choosing from 1-7 ,any number as per your rating, for e.g., ‘3’ under the

column Rate. Please do not put your name on this questionnaire.

Participation in this survey is voluntary and confidentially is assured. No

individual data will be reported.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly

Disagree disagree agree Agree

Work Motivation Scale : Your job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rate

1 Has managers and leaders who

are helpful and fair

2 Gives you status and prestige

3 Provides satisfactory material

306
 rewards

4 Allows you to reach and develop

your full potential

5 Means working in pleasant and

helpful environment

6 Is a secure one

7 Provides good physical working

conditions

8 Is a challenging and exciting job

9 Is one where your good work and

hard efforts are appreciated

10 Taken all round and considering

all its aspects, is a very good one

307
 ANNEXURE-II

Tables and Graphs

308
ANNEXURE-II

Tables and Graphs

Frequency Tables for Pilot Study

Table 5.3.1(i) : Frequency distribution by Age Group (in years)

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

21-30 12 24.0 24.0 24.0

31-40 21 42.0 42.0 66.0

Valid
41-50 14 28.0 28.0 94.0

> 50 3 6.0 6.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

Table 5.3.1(ii) : Frequency distribution by Education

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

BSc / BE /
12 24.0 24.0 24.0
BCom / BA
MA / MCom /
16 32.0 32.0 56.0
MSc / ME / MCA
Valid Master Degree /
22 44.0 44.0 100.0
MBA / MMS
Total 50 100.0 100.0

309
Table 5.3.1(iii) : Frequency distribution by Marital Status

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Married 41 82.0 82.0 82.0

Valid Single 9 18.0 18.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

Table 5.3.1(iv) : Frequency distribution by Occupation

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Operational
11 22.0 22.0 22.0
Executive
Middle
20 40.0 40.0 62.0
Manager
Valid Senior
13 26.0 26.0 88.0
Manager
Senior
6 12.0 12.0 100.0
Executive
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Table 5.3.1(v) : Frequency distribution by Compensation (Monthly gross)

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

2 lac and
1 2.0 2.0 2.0
above
Valid 1- 1.99 lac 18 36.0 36.0 38.0
51- 99k 21 42.0 42.0 80.0
35-50k 10 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

310
Table 5.3.1(vi) : Frequency distribution by Length of Service

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

0-10 13 26.0 26.0 26.0

11-20 29 58.0 58.0 84.0

21-30 5 10.0 10.0 94.0

Valid
> 30 3 6.0 6.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

Table 5.3.1(vii) : Frequency distribution by Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Male 41 82.0 82.0 82.0

Valid Female 9 18.0 18.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

Table 5.3.1(viii) : Frequency distribution by Internal Promotion

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0

1 1 2.0 2.0 4.0

2 8 16.0 16.0 20.0

311
 3 5 10.0 10.0 30.0

4 10 20.0 20.0 50.0

Valid 5 1 2.0 2.0 52.0

6 9 18.0 18.0 70.0

7 2 4.0 4.0 74.0

8 4 8.0 8.0 82.0

11 1 2.0 2.0 84.0

NA 8 16.0 16.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

Qualifications of Manager

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

BSc / BE /
3 6.0 6.0 6.0
BCom / BA

MA / MCom /
3 6.0 6.0 12.0
MSc / ME / MCA
Valid
Master Degree /
43 86.0 86.0 98.0
MBA / MMS

Doctorate 1 2.0 2.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Male 47 94.0 94.0 94.0

Valid Female 3 6.0 6.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

312
Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev.

Age 50 24 53 38.04 8.405

Length of Service 50 .00 36.00 14.2490 9.13018

Years of working
with current 50 .00 8.00 3.1300 1.78088
Manager

Age of Manager 50 35 57 45.50 6.072

Table 5.4(i) : Reliability Statistics : Leadership style and Employee

Commitment

Reliability Statistics for Leadership Styles

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on N of Items

Standardized Items

0.862 0.891 29

Reliability Statistics for Employee Commitment

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on N of Items

Standardized Items

0.713 0.806 15

Table 5.4(ii) : Correlation of Transformational, Transactional and Laissez

faire styles with Employee Commitment

Correlations (Pearson’s R)

313
 Transactional Style (0-4)

Laissez Faire Style (0-4)

Employee Commitment

Transformational Style
Total Score (1-7)

(0-4)
Employee Commitment Total

Pearson
** ** **
1 .485 .395 -.398
Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .005 .004

Score (1-7)

N 50 50 50 50

Pearson
Transformational Style (0-4)

** ** **
.485 1 .845 -.732
Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 50 50 50 50

Pearson
Transactional Style (0-4)

** ** **
.395 .845 1 -.496
Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .000 .000

N 50 50 50 50

Pearson
** ** **
Laissez Fairre Style (0-4)

-.398 -.732 -.496 1

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .000 .000

N 50 50 50 50

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

314
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

41 78.3171 3.65677 .57109

Employee Male
Commitment
Total Score
9 73.0000 6.48074 2.16025
(15 - 105) Female

Male 41 81.3902 10.92904 1.70683

Leadership
Style Total
Score (0 -
Female 9 77.5556 11.18158 3.72719
116)

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

T Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Employee Commitment Total Score (15 -

2.380 9.148 .041
105)

Leadership Style Total Score (0 - 116) .949 48 .347

Work Motivation Total Score (10 - 70) -.426 48 .672

Table 5.4(iii) : Reliability Statistics of Leadership styles and Work

Motivation

Reliability Statistics for Work Motivation Scale

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized N of Items

Items

.834 .834 10

315
Reliability Statistics for Leadership Styles

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized N of Items

Items

.862 .891 29

Table 5.4(iv) : Correlation of Transformational, Transactional and

Laissez faire styles with Work Motivation

Correlations (Pearson’s R)

Laissez Fairre Style

Transactional Style
Commitment Total

Total Score (1-7)

Transformational
Work Motivation
Score (1-7)

Style (0-4)
Employee

(0-4)

(0-4)
Total Score (1-7)

Pearson
Work Motivation

.277 1 .602** .329* -.585**

Correlation
Sig. (2-
.051 .000 .020 .000
tailed)
N 50 50 50 50 50
Transformational

Pearson
.485** .602** 1 .845** -.732**
Correlation
Style (0-4)

Sig. (2-
.000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N 50 50 50 50 50
Pearson
.395** .329* .845** 1 -.496**
Transactional

Correlation
Style (0-4)

Sig. (2-
.005 .020 .000 .000
tailed)
N 50 50 50 50 50
Pearson
Fair

Styl
sse

-.398** -.585** -.732** -.496**

Lai

(0-

1
4)
re

e
z

Correlation

316
 Sig. (2-
.004 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N 50 50 50 50 50

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Main Research Study

Frequency Distribution of Demographic Factors

Table 5.6(i) : Frequency distribution and percentages of the respondents

by Age.

Age (in Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Years) Percent Percent

20-29 74 22.7 22.7 22.7

30-39 82 25.2 25.2 47.9

40-49 130 39.9 39.9 87.7

Valid
> = 50 40 12.3 12.3 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

Education

Table 5.6(ii) Frequency distribution of the respondents by Education.

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

317
 BSc / BE /
82 25.2 25.2 25.2
BCom / BA

MA / MCom /

MSc / ME / 78 23.9 23.9 49.1

Valid MCA

Master

Degree / 166 50.9 50.9 100.0

MBA / MMS

Total 326 100.0 100.0

Table 5.6(iii) Frequency distribution of respondents by Marital status.

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Married 258 79.1 79.1 79.1

Valid
Single 68 20.9 20.9 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

Occupational Status

Table 5.6(iv) Frequency distribution of respondents by Occupation

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

318
 Operational
75 23.0 23.0 23.0
Executive

Middle
154 47.2 47.2 70.2
Manager

Valid Senior
69 21.2 21.2 91.4
Manager

Senior
28 8.6 8.6 100.0
Executive

Total 326 100.0 100.0

Table 5.6 (v) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Compensation.

Gross Monthly Salary (INR)

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

2,00,000
17 5.2 5.2 5.2
and Above

1,00,000-
121 37.1 37.1 42.3
1,99,000

Valid 51,000-
128 39.3 39.3 81.6
99,000

319
 35,000-
60 18.4 18.4 100.0
50,000

Total 326 100.0 100.0

Table 5.6(vi) Frequency distribution by Length of Service

Length of Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Service Percent Percent

(Years)

< 5 Years 66 20.2 20.2 20.2

5-10 34 10.4 10.4 30.7

11-15 95 29.1 29.1 59.8

16-20 82 25.2 25.2 85.0

Valid

21-25 5 1.5 1.5 86.5

26-30 25 7.7 7.7 94.2

> 30 19 5.8 5.8 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

320
Table 5.6(vii) shows frequency distribution of respondents by Gender.

Gender of Employee

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Male 250 76.7 76.7 76.7

Valid
Female 76 23.3 23.3 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

Table 5.6(viii) shows frequency distribution by internal promotion

Promoted Span (Years)

In no of Years Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

0-2 76 23.3 23.3 23.3

3-6 160 49.1 49.1 72.4

7-10 33 10.1 10.1 82.5

Valid
> 10 5 1.5 1.5 84.0

Not

Promoted/Not 52 16.0 16.0 100.0

Applicable

Total 326 100.0 100.0

321
Table 5.7.1 (i) : Reliability – Transformational Style

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on N of Items

Standardized Items
.959 .958 15

Summary Item Statistics

Maximum /

N of Items
Maximum
Minimum

Minimum

Variance
Range
Mean
Correlations
Inter-Item

.602 .055 .882 .827 15.954 .024 15

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

Mean if Variance Item - Total Multiple Alpha if
Item if Item Correlation Correlation Item
Deleted Deleted Deleted
LS1 44.55 92.402 .845 .861 .954
LS2 44.40 93.588 .793 .787 .956
LS3 44.54 91.031 .900 .900 .953
LS4 44.21 104.828 .364 .612 .962
LS5 44.28 95.680 .744 .801 .957
LS6 44.34 98.015 .756 .776 .956
LS7 44.24 93.840 .885 .869 .954
LS8 44.35 95.403 .794 .762 .956
LS9 44.54 96.495 .765 .739 .956
LS13 44.33 96.891 .706 .766 .957
LS14 44.44 97.417 .725 .778 .957
LS15 44.60 95.546 .760 .805 .956
LS16 44.21 96.824 .795 .810 .956
LS17 44.27 95.187 .836 .884 .955
LS18 44.58 97.524 .741 .875 .957

Split-half Reliability

322
Reliability Statistics

Value .940
Part 1 N of Items 8a
Cronbach's Alpha
Value .889
Part 2 N of Items 7b
Total N of Items 15
Correlation Between Forms .938
Equal Length .968
Spearman-Brown Coefficient Unequal Length .968
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .951

a. The items are: LS1, LS3, LS5, LS7, LS9, LS14, LS16, LS18

b. The items are: LS2, LS4, LS6, LS8, LS13, LS15, LS17.

This research found the average Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the

Transformational style in the MLQ instrument to be 0.959, which is very good.

Table 5.7.1 (ii) : Reliability – Transactional Style

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based N of Items

on Standardized Items
.869 .876 8

Summary Item Statistics

Maximum /

N of Items
Maximum
Minimum

Minimum

Variance
Range
Mean
Correlations
Inter-Item

.468 .084 .820 .736 9.780 .030 8

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

323
 Mean if Variance Item-Total Multiple Alpha if
Item if Item Correlation Correlation Item
Deleted Deleted Deleted
LS10 22.07 20.020 .638 .641 .852
LS12 22.25 20.972 .573 .567 .859
LS19 22.44 18.764 .700 .621 .844
LS20 22.47 19.432 .682 .654 .847
LS21 22.20 18.134 .774 .676 .835
LS22 22.26 19.418 .655 .722 .849
LS23 22.23 19.207 .635 .719 .852
LS24 22.66 19.899 .411 .355 .883
Split-half Reliability

Value .827
Part 1 N of Items 4a
Cronbach's Alpha
Value .687
Part 2 N of Items 4b
Total N of Items 8
Correlation Between Forms .782
Equal Length .878
Spearman-Brown Coefficient Unequal Length .878
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .873

Table 5.7.1 (iii) : Reliability – Laissez faire Style

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on N of Items

Standardized Items
.870 .885 6

Summary Item Statistics

Maximum /

N of Items
Maximum
Minimum

Minimum

Variance
Range
Mean
Correlations
Inter-Item

.561 .153 .798 .645 5.223 .039 6

Item-Total Statistics

324
 Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's
Mean if Variance Item-Total Multiple Alpha if
Item if Item Correlation Correlation Item
Deleted Deleted Deleted
LS25 4.86 17.871 .398 .357 .909
LS26 5.20 15.805 .806 .724 .822
LS27 5.42 15.697 .786 .737 .826
LS28 5.62 18.913 .687 .557 .851
LS29 5.49 16.109 .852 .795 .816
LS30 5.59 18.342 .639 .657 .854
Split-half Reliability

Value .726
Part 1 N of Items 3a
Cronbach's Alpha
Value .785
Part 2 N of Items 3b
Total N of Items 6
Correlation Between Forms .831
Equal Length .907
Spearman-Brown Coefficient Unequal Length .907
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .899

a. The items are: LS25, LS27, LS29

b. The items are: LS26, LS28, LS30

Table 5.7.1(iv) : Reliability – Work Motivation

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on N of Items

Standardized Items
.853 .854 10
Summary Item Statistics
/ Minimum

N of Items
Maximum

Maximum
Minimum

Variance
Range
Mean
Correlations
Inter-Item

.370 -.115 .672 .787 -5.840 .043 10

325
Item-Total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if
Item Item Correlation Correlation Item
Deleted Deleted Deleted
WMS1 48.72 40.603 .690 .626 .828
WMS2 48.60 39.219 .765 .726 .820
WMS3 49.50 39.734 .603 .639 .835
WMS4 49.04 40.740 .705 .624 .827
WMS5 48.46 42.772 .482 .576 .845
WMS6 48.83 45.558 .259 .478 .864
WMS7 48.89 44.538 .320 .335 .859
WMS8 48.64 40.409 .608 .644 .834

Split-half Reliability

Reliability Statistics

Value .649
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 5a
Value .762
Part 2
N of Items 5b
Total N of Items 10
Correlation Between Forms .858
Equal Length .924
Spearman-Brown Coefficient Unequal Length .924
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .921

a. The items are: WMS1, WMS3, WMS5, WMS7, WMS9

b. The items are: WMS2, WMS4, WMS6, WMS8, WMS10

Table 5.7.1(v) : Reliability – Organisational Commitment

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on N of Items

Standardized Items
.796 .850 15

Summary Item Statistics

326
 Maximum /

N of Items
Maximum
Minimum

Minimum

Variance
Range
Mean
Correlations
Inter-Item

.274 -.217 .696 .913 -3.201 .056 15

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

if Item Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
ECQ1 77.66 87.703 .301 .543 .793
ECQ2 77.94 81.929 .681 .754 .774
rECQ3 77.81 74.704 .632 .670 .765
ECQ4 79.27 83.679 .122 .398 .823
ECQ5 78.37 77.783 .676 .628 .767
ECQ6 77.76 82.486 .621 .576 .777
rECQ7 79.57 84.886 .286 .660 .793
ECQ8 78.75 73.737 .573 .785 .769
rECQ9 79.16 83.232 .175 .598 .812
ECQ10 78.08 80.864 .512 .729 .778
ECQ11 79.05 89.930 -.018 .436 .825
ECQ12 78.63 80.130 .510 .690 .778
ECQ13 77.47 83.155 .527 .566 .780
ECQ14 78.40 79.448 .697 .696 .769
ECQ15 78.21 75.089 .732 .839 .760
Split-half Reliability

Reliability Statistics

Value .602
Part 1 N of Items 8a
Cronbach's Alpha
Value .694
Part 2 N of Items 7b
Total N of Items 15
Correlation Between Forms .712
Equal Length .832
Spearman-Brown Coefficient Unequal Length .832
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .832

327
a. The items are: ECQ1, rECQ3, ECQ5, rECQ7, rECQ9, ECQ11, ECQ13,
ECQ15
b. The items are: ECQ2, ECQ4, ECQ6, ECQ8, ECQ10, ECQ12, ECQ14

Table 5.7.1(vi): Inter correlations among the Leadership Styles and a)

Employee Commitment Measure and b) Work Motivation

Correlations

Employee Work Motivation Total

Commitment Total Score (1-7)

Score (1-7)

Pearson
** **
.313 .555
Correlation

Builds Trust Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.301 .660
Correlation
Acts with Integrity

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.335 .616
Correlation
Inspires Others

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

** **
Pearson .400 .563

328
Encourages Correlation

Innovation

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.268 .430
Correlation

Thinking Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.273 .499
Correlation
Coaches People

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
* **
.116 .189
Correlation

Rewards Sig. (1-tailed) .018 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.237 .316
Correlation
Achievement

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.357 .413
Correlation
Contingent

329
 Rewards
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.411 .449
Correlation
Monitors Mistakes

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
-.177 -.499
Correlation
Avoids

Involvement
Sig. (1-tailed) .001 .000

N 326 326

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)

Correlations
Transactional Style

Laissez Faire Style

Transformational

Style (0-4)

(0-4)

(0-4)

Pearson
** ** **
.918 .736 -.565
Correlation

Builds Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

Trust
N 326 326 326

** ** **
Pearson .827 .562 -.570
Acts

330
 Correlation
with

Integrity Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.919 .746 -.546
Correlation
Inspires

Others
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.832 .775 -.435
Correlation
Encourages

Innovation
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.925 .806 -.623
Correlation
Thinking
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.938 .813 -.626
Coaches
Correlation
People
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.571 .764 -.234
Correlation
Rewards

331
 Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.782 .833 -.486
Correlation
Achievement
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.725 .842 -.338
Correlation
Contingent

Rewards Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
.634 .815 -.317
Correlation
Monitors

Mistakes
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

Pearson
** ** **
-.630 -.447 1.000
Correlation
Avoids

involvement
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 326 326 326

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

Correlations

332
 Employee Work Motivation Total

Commitment Total Score (1-7)

Score (1-7)

Pearson
** **
.342 .600
Correlation
Transformational

Style (0-4)
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
.373 .445
Correlation
Transactional

Style (0-4)
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson
** **
-.177 -.499
Correlation
Laissez faire

Style (0-4) Sig. (1-tailed) .001 .000

N 326 326

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

Table 5.7.1(vii): Regression Analysis – Leadership Style on Work

Motivation

Variables Entered / Removeda

Model Variables Variables Method

Entered Removed

333
 Acts with Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=
1 .
Integrity .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

Monitors Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

2 .
Mistakes .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

3 Rewards .
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

4 Thinking .
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

Avoids Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

5 .
Involvement .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

Encourages Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

.
6 Innovation .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

7 Inspires Others .
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

8 Builds Trust .
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

Model Summary
of the
ed R
Adjust
Mode

Squar

Squar

Estim

Change Statistics
Error
Std.

ate
R

e
Rl

334
 R Square Change

Sig. F Change
F Change

df1

df2
1 .660a .436 .434 .53460 .436 250.479 1 324 .000

b
2 .705 .498 .495 .50533 .062 39.616 1 323 .000

c
3 .734 .539 .535 .48460 .042 29.230 1 322 .000

d
4 .748 .559 .554 .47487 .020 14.328 1 321 .000

e
5 .764 .584 .577 .46203 .025 19.083 1 320 .000

f
6 .777 .604 .597 .45147 .020 16.144 1 319 .000

g
7 .781 .609 .601 .44915 .005 4.315 1 318 .039

h
8 .788 .621 .611 .44320 .011 9.597 1 317 .002

i. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity

j. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes

k. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards

l. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking

m. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement

n. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation

o. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation, Inspires Others

335
p. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation, Inspires Others,

Builds Trust

ANOVAa

Sum of Df Mean F Sig.

Model
Squares Square

b
Regression 71.585 1 71.585 250.479 .000

Residual 92.597 324 .286

1

Total 164.182 325

c
Regression 81.702 2 40.851 159.974 .000

Residual 82.481 323 .255

2

Total 164.182 325

d
Regression 88.566 3 29.522 125.714 .000

Residual 75.617 322 .235

3

Total 164.182 325

e
Regression 91.797 4 22.949 101.770 .000

Residual 72.386 321 .226

4

Total 164.182 325

f
Regression 95.871 5 19.174 89.819 .000

Residual 68.312 320 .213

336
 5
Total 164.182 325

g
Regression 99.161 6 16.527 81.082 .000

Residual 65.021 319 .204

6

Total 164.182 325

h
Regression 100.032 7 14.290 70.837 .000

Residual 64.151 318 .202

7

Total 164.182 325

i
Regression 101.917 8 12.740 64.858 .000

Residual 62.266 317 .196

8

Total 164.182 325

j. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

k. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity

l. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes

m. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards

n. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking

o. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement

p. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation

q. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation, Inspires Others

337
 r. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation, Inspires Others,

Builds Trust

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Model T Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. Beta

Error

(Constant) 3.941 .098 40.045 .000

1
Acts with
.469 .030 .660 15.827 .000
Integrity

(Constant) 3.384 .128 26.356 .000

Acts with
.409 .030 .575 13.800 .000
Integrity
2

Monitors
.239 .038 .262 6.294 .000
Mistakes

(Constant) 3.634 .131 27.634 .000

Acts with
3 .469 .031 .660 15.371 .000
Integrity

Monitors
.303 .038 .332 7.908 .000
Mistakes

338
 Rewards -.210 .039 -.240 -5.406 .000

(Constant) 3.696 .130 28.453 .000

Acts with Integrity .560 .038 .787 14.607 .000

Monitors Mistakes .359 .040 .393 8.895 .000

4
Rewards -.162 .040 -.185 -4.035 .000

Thinking -.212 .056 -.238 -3.785 .000

(Constant) 4.243 .178 23.857 .000

Acts with Integrity .519 .038 .731 13.528 .000

Monitors Mistakes .352 .039 .386 8.957 .000

5 Rewards -.124 .040 -.142 -3.110 .002

Thinking -.311 .059 -.350 -5.273 .000

Avoids Involvement -.184 .042 -.212 -4.368 .000

(Constant) 4.227 .174 24.320 .000

Acts with Integrity .482 .039 .679 12.486 .000

Monitors Mistakes .213 .052 .234 4.123 .000

Rewards -.099 .040 -.113 -2.501 .013

Thinking -.401 .062 -.452 -6.489 .000

339
 Avoids Involvement -.199 .041 -.228 -4.805 .000
6

Encourages Innovation .249 .062 .272 4.018 .000

(Constant) 4.130 .179 23.040 .000

Acts with Integrity .426 .047 .599 9.058 .000

Monitors Mistakes .182 .054 .199 3.393 .001

Rewards -.102 .039 -.117 -2.594 .010

Thinking -.442 .065 -.498 -6.846 .000

7

Avoids Involvement -.201 .041 -.230 -4.877 .000

Encourages Innovation .232 .062 .252 3.715 .000

Inspires Others .178 .085 .167 2.077 .039

(Constant) 3.863 .197 19.633 .000

Acts with Integrity .491 .051 .691 9.641 .000

Monitors Mistakes .204 .053 .223 3.818 .000

Rewards -.098 .039 -.113 -2.531 .012

Thinking -.388 .066 -.437 -5.870 .000

8

Avoids Involvement -.200 .041 -.230 -4.922 .000

Encourages Innovation .238 .062 .259 3.868 .000

340
 Inspires Others .297 .093 .280 3.199 .002

Builds Trust -.196 .063 -.287 -3.098 .002

a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

Excluded Variablesa

Model Collinearity
Beta In T Sig. Partial
Statistics
Correlation
Tolerance

Builds Trust .019b .247 .805 .014 .307

Inspires
.241b 3.489 .001 .191 .354
Others

Encourages
.280b 5.833 .000 .309 .684
Innovation

Thinking -.097b -1.620 .106 -.090 .479

Coaches
.060b 1.021 .308 .057 .496
People
1
Rewards -.132b -2.865 .004 -.157 .801

Achievement -.118b -2.287 .023 -.126 .648

Contingent
.093b 1.917 .056 .106 .727
Rewards

Monitors .262b 6.294 .000 .331 .895

341
 Mistakes

Avoids
-.181b -3.643 .000 -.199 .676
Involvement

Builds Trust -.318c -3.832 .000 -.209 .217

Inspires
-.009c -.114 .909 -.006 .230
Others

Encourages
.130c 1.856 .064 .103 .315
Innovation
2
Thinking -.319c -5.215 .000 -.279 .385

Coaches
-.172c -2.640 .009 -.146 .359
People

Rewards -.240c -5.406 .000 -.288 .725

Achievement -.229c -4.595 .000 -.248 .591

Contingent
-.093c -1.693 .091 -.094 .511
Rewards

Avoids
-.134c -2.778 .006 -.153 .656
Involvement

Builds Trust -.318c -3.832 .000 -.209 .217

Inspires
-.009c -.114 .909 -.006 .230
Others

342
 Encourages
.130c 1.856 .064 .103 .315
Innovation

Thinking -.319c -5.215 .000 -.279 .385

3 Coaches
-.172c -2.640 .009 -.146 .359
People

Rewards -.240c -5.406 .000 -.288 .725

Achievement -.229c -4.595 .000 -.248 .591

Contingent
-.093c -1.693 .091 -.094 .511
Rewards

Avoids
-.134c -2.778 .006 -.153 .656
Involvement

Builds Trust -.248d -3.041 .003 -.167 .210

Inspires
.056d .698 .486 .039 .225
Others

Encourages
.122d 1.811 .071 .101 .315
Innovation

Thinking -.238d -3.785 .000 -.207 .347

4 Coaches
-.085d -1.304 .193 -.073 .333
People

Achievement -.117d -1.981 .048 -.110 .408

343
 Contingent
.097d 1.524 .129 .085 .351
Rewards

Avoids
-.113d -2.433 .016 -.135 .651
Involvement

Builds Trust -.141e -1.576 .116 -.088 .170

Inspires
.196e 2.335 .020 .129 .193
Others

5 Encourages
.243e 3.493 .001 .192 .274
Innovation

Coaches
.125e 1.482 .139 .083 .193
People

Achievement .084e 1.009 .314 .056 .198

Contingent
.132e 2.108 .036 .117 .344
Rewards

Avoids
-.212e -4.368 .000 -.237 .555
Involvement

Builds Trust -.132f -1.518 .130 -.085 .170

Inspires
.209f 2.561 .011 .142 .193
Others

Encourages
.272f 4.018 .000 .219 .272
Innovation

344
6
Coaches
.056f .669 .504 .037 .185
People

Achievement .082f 1.018 .309 .057 .198

Contingent
.147f 2.406 .017 .133 .343
Rewards

Builds Trust -.164g -1.920 .056 -.107 .169

Inspires
.167g 2.077 .039 .116 .189
Others

Coaches
7 -.031g -.369 .712 -.021 .173
People

Achievement .072g .911 .363 .051 .198

Contingent
.097g 1.574 .117 .088 .326
Rewards

Builds Trust -.287h -3.098 .002 -.171 .140

Coaches
-.002h -.025 .980 -.001 .168
People

8
Achievement .075h .952 .342 .053 .198

Contingent
.116h 1.880 .061 .105 .320
Rewards

Coaches .021i .242 .809 .014 .167

345
 People

Achievement .068i .868 .386 .049 .198

Contingent
.110i 1.804 .072 .101 .319
Rewards

a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes

d. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes, Rewards

e. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes, Rewards, Thinking

f. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes, Rewards, Thinking, Avoids Involvement

g. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes, Rewards, Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages

Innovation

h. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes, Rewards, Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages

Innovation, Inspires Others

i. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes, Rewards, Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages

Innovation, Inspires Others, Builds Trust

346
Table 5.7.2(i): ANOVA By Length of service

Descriptives (in Years)

N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Min Max

Dev. Error Interval for Mean

Lower Upper

Bound Bound

<5 66 5.0273 .47573 .05856 4.9103 5.1442 3.93 5.60

Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

5-10 34 5.2196 .76656 .13146 4.9521 5.4871 4.07 6.07

11-15 95 5.9249 .53803 .05520 5.8153 6.0345 4.93 6.67

16-20 82 5.7252 .47539 .05250 5.6207 5.8297 4.60 6.53

> 20 49 5.8000 .52705 .07529 5.6486 5.9514 4.13 6.47

32
Total 5.6006 .63922 .03540 5.5310 5.6703 3.93 6.67
6

<5 66 5.5091 .63190 .07778 5.3537 5.6644 4.40 6.20

Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

5-10 34 4.8735 .66756 .11449 4.6406 5.1065 4.10 6.20

11-15 95 5.6347 .76001 .07798 5.4799 5.7896 3.20 6.70

16-20 82 5.4061 .47150 .05207 5.3025 5.5097 4.70 7.00

> 20 49 5.3327 .86347 .12335 5.0846 5.5807 4.10 6.20

32
Total 5.4270 .71076 .03937 5.3496 5.5044 3.20 7.00
6

347
ANOVA

Sum of Df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square

Employee Between
39.843 4 9.961 34.398 .000
Commitment Groups

Total Score
Within
(1-7) 92.952 321 .290
Groups

Total 132.795 325

Work Between
15.432 4 3.858 8.325 .000
Motivation Groups

Total Score
Within
(1-7) 148.751 321 .463
Groups

Total 164.182 325

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Games-Howell
Service (Years)

Difference (I-J)
(J) Length of
(I) Length of

Confidence
Dependent

Std. Error
Variable

Interval
Service

Mean

95%
Sig.

Bound

Bound
Lower

Upper

348
 5-10 -.19234 .14392 .670 -.6007 .2161

*
11-15 -.89764 .08048 .000 -1.1199 -.6754

<5
*
16-20 -.69793 .07865 .000 -.9153 -.4806

*
> 20 -.77273 .09538 .000 -1.0379 -.5076

<5 .19234 .14392 .670 -.2161 .6007

*
11-15 -.70530 .14258 .000 -1.1104 -.3002

Employee 5-10
*
16-20 -.50560 .14156 .007 -.9082 -.1030
Commitment
*
Total Score > 20 -.58039 .15150 .003 -1.0079 -.1529

(1-7)
*
<5 .89764 .08048 .000 .6754 1.1199

*
5-10 .70530 .14258 .000 .3002 1.1104

11-15
16-20 .19971 .07618 .071 -.0103 .4097

> 20 .12491 .09336 .668 -.1345 .3843

*
<5 .69793 .07865 .000 .4806 .9153

16-20 *
5-10 .50560 .14156 .007 .1030 .9082

11-15 -.19971 .07618 .071 -.4097 .0103

> 20 -.07480 .09179 .925 -.3302 .1806

*
<5 .77273 .09538 .000 .5076 1.0379

*
5-10 .58039 .15150 .003 .1529 1.0079

11-15 -.12491 .09336 .668 -.3843 .1345

349
 > 20
16-20 .07480 .09179 .925 -.1806 .3302

*
5-10 .63556 .13841 .000 .2470 1.0242

11-15 -.12565 .11014 .785 -.4297 .1784

< 5 Years
16-20 .10299 .09360 .806 -.1563 .3623

> 20 .17644 .14583 .746 -.2301 .5830

*
<5 -.63556 .13841 .000 -1.0242 -.2470

*
11-15 -.76121 .13852 .000 -1.1497 -.3727

5-10 16-20 -.53257

*
.12577 .001 -.8892 -.1759

> 20 -.45912 .16829 .059 -.9288 .0106

<5 .12565 .11014 .785 -.1784 .4297

*
5-10 .76121 .13852 .000 .3727 1.1497

11-15
Work
16-20 .22864 .09376 .111 -.0301 .4873
Motivation

Total Score > 20 .30208 .14593 .242 -.1045 .7086

(1-7)
<5 -.10299 .09360 .806 -.3623 .1563

16-20
*
5-10 .53257 .12577 .001 .1759 .8892

11-15 -.22864 .09376 .111 -.4873 .0301

> 20 .07344 .13389 .982 -.3022 .4491

<5 -.17644 .14583 .746 -.5830 .2301

5-10 .45912 .16829 .059 -.0106 .9288

350
 > 20
11-15 -.30208 .14593 .242 -.7086 .1045

16-20 -.07344 .13389 .982 -.4491 .3022

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 5.7.2(ii): ANOVA By Age

Descriptives

Confidence

Interval for
Std. Error
Deviation

Mean
Mean

95%

Max
Std.

Min
N

Bound

Bound
Lower

Upper
20-29 74 4.9847 .50187 .05834 4.8684 5.1010 3.93 5.60
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

30-39 82 6.0211 .57577 .06358 5.8946 6.1476 4.27 6.67

40-49 130 5.6605 .51362 .04505 5.5714 5.7496 4.60 6.53

>= 50 40 5.6833 .51169 .08090 5.5197 5.8470 4.13 6.40

Total 326 5.6006 .63922 .03540 5.5310 5.6703 3.93 6.67

Total Score

20-29 74 5.4000 .68186 .07926 5.2420 5.5580 4.20 6.20

Motivation
Work

(1-7)

30-39 82 5.3549 .79910 .08825 5.1793 5.5305 3.20 6.70

351
 40-49 130 5.5731 .58200 .05104 5.4721 5.6741 4.70 7.00

>= 50 40 5.1500 .85485 .13516 4.8766 5.4234 4.10 6.10

Total 326 5.4270 .71076 .03937 5.3496 5.5044 3.20 7.00

ANOVA

Sum of Df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square

Between Groups 43.314 3 14.438 51.956 .000

Employee

Commitment
Within Groups 89.481 322 .278
Total Score

(1-7)
Total 132.795 325

Work Between Groups 6.324 3 2.108 4.300 .005

Motivation
Within Groups 157.859 322 .490
Total Score

(1-7) Total 164.182 325

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Games-Howell

Dependent (I) Age (J) Age Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence

Variable Group Group Diff. (I-J) Error Interval

Lower Upper

Bound Bound
mmi
ploy

Sco
tme

30-39 .08629 .000 -1.2606 -.8123

Em

Tot
Co

(1-
ee

-
7)
re
nt

al

352
 *
1.03645

20-29 *
40-49 -.67583 .07371 .000 -.8673 -.4844

*
>= 50 -.69865 .09975 .000 -.9605 -.4368

*
20-29 1.03645 .08629 .000 .8123 1.2606

*
40-49 .36063 .07792 .000 .1583 .5630

30-39
*
>= 50 .33780 .10290 .008 .0682 .6074

*
20-29 .67583 .07371 .000 .4844 .8673

*
30-393 -.36063 .07792 .000 -.5630 -.1583

40-49
>= 50 -.02282 .09260 .995 -.2670 .2213

20-29 .69865* .09975 .000 .4368 .9605

>= 50 30-39 -.33780

*
.10290 .008 -.6074 -.0682

40-49 .02282 .09260 .995 -.2213 .2670

30-39 .04512 .11862 .981 -.2630 .3532

Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

40-49 -.17308 .09428 .261 -.4184 .0722

20-29
>= 50 .25000 .15669 .388 -.1630 .6630

20-29 -.04512 .11862 .981 -.3532 .2630

30-39
40-49 -.21820 .10195 .146 -.4834 .0470

>= 50 .20488 .16142 .585 -.2195 .6293

20-29 .17308 .09428 .261 -.0722 .4184

353
 30-39 .21820 .10195 .146 -.0470 .4834
40-49

*
>= 50 .42308 .14448 .025 .0393 .8069

20-29 -.25000 .15669 .388 -.6630 .1630

30-39 -.20488 .16142 .585 -.6293 .2195

>= 50

*
40-49 -.42308 .14448 .025 -.8069 -.0393

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 5.7.2(iii) : ANOVA by Educational Qualification

Descriptives

N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Min Max

Dev. Error Interval for Mean

Lower Upper

Bound Bound
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

BSc /

BE /
82 5.4862 .61321 .06772 5.3514 5.6209 4.07 6.47
BCom /

BA

MA /

MCom /

MSc / 78 5.7812 .47639 .05394 5.6738 5.8886 4.93 6.40

ME /

MCA

354
 Master

Degree
166 5.5723 .70114 .05442 5.4648 5.6797 3.93 6.67
/ MBA /

MMS

Total 326 5.6006 .63922 .03540 5.5310 5.6703 3.93 6.67

BSc / BE

/ BCom / 82 5.6293 .52786 .05829 5.5133 5.7453 4.20 6.20

BA
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

MA /

MCom /

MSc / 78 5.5487 .52860 .05985 5.4295 5.6679 4.70 6.30

ME /

MCA

Master

Degree
166 5.2699 .82201 .06380 5.1439 5.3958 3.20 7.00
/ MBA /

MMS

Total 326 5.4270 .71076 .03937 5.3496 5.5044 3.20 7.00

ANOVA

Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square
Employee Commitment

Between Groups 3.751 2 1.875 4.694 .010

Total Score (1-7)

Within Groups 129.045 323 .400

Total 132.795 325

355
 Between Groups 8.608 2 4.304 8.936 .000

Work Motivation Total

Score (1-7)
Within Groups 155.574 323 .482

Total 164.182 325

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Games-Howell

Mean Difference
(J) Education of
(I) Education of

Confidence
Dependent

Employee

Employee

Std. Error
Variable

Interval
95%
(I-J)

Sig.

Bound

Bound
Lower

Upper
BSc / BE / BCom / BA

MA / MCom / MSc
*
-.29502 .08657 .002 -.4999 -.0901
/ ME / MCA
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

Master Degree /
-.08611 .08687 .583 -.2914 .1192
MBA / MMS
MA / MCom / MSc / ME

BSc / BE / BCom /
*
.29502 .08657 .002 .0901 .4999
BA

Master Degree /
*
.20891 .07662 .019 .0281 .3898
/ MCA

MBA / MMS
Master Degree / MBA /

BSc / BE / BCom /
.08611 .08687 .583 -.1192 .2914
BA

MA / MCom / MSc
*
-.20891 .07662 .019 -.3898 -.0281
MMS

/ ME / MCA

356
 BSc / BE / BCom / BA
MA / MCom / MSc
.08055 .08355 .601 -.1171 .2782
/ ME / MCA

Master Degree /
*
.35939 .08642 .000 .1555 .5633
ork Motivation Total Score (1-7)

MA / MCom / MSc / ME MBA / MMS

BSc / BE / BCom /
-.08055 .08355 .601 -.2782 .1171
BA

Master Degree /
*
.27884 .08748 .005 .0724 .4853
/ MCA

MBA / MMS
Master Degree / MBA /

BSc / BE / BCom /
*
-.35939 .08642 .000 -.5633 -.1555
BA

MA / MCom / MSc
*
-.27884 .08748 .005 -.4853 -.0724
MMS

/ ME / MCA

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 5.7.2(iv) : ANOVA by Occupational status

Oneway ANOVA

Descriptives

N Mean Std. Std. Min Max

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Dev. Error

Lower Upper
Employee Commitment Total Score

Bound Bound

Operational
75 5.2276 .64915 .07496 5.0782 5.3769 4.13 6.47
Executive
(1-7)

Middle
154 5.5939 .65534 .05281 5.4896 5.6983 3.93 6.67
manager

Senior 69 5.8860 .49614 .05973 5.7668 6.0052 4.60 6.40

357
 Manager

Senior
28 5.9333 .00000 .00000 5.9333 5.9333 5.93 5.93
Executive

Total 326 5.6006 .63922 .03540 5.5310 5.6703 3.93 6.67

Operational
75 5.5560 .68027 .07855 5.3995 5.7125 4.10 6.30
Executive
Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

Middle
154 5.2792 .84022 .06771 5.1455 5.4130 3.20 7.00
manager

Senior
69 5.6681 .43471 .05233 5.5637 5.7725 5.10 6.30
Manager

Senior
28 5.3000 .00000 .00000 5.3000 5.3000 5.30 5.30
Executive

Total 326 5.4270 .71076 .03937 5.3496 5.5044 3.20 7.00

ANOVA

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 19.164 3 6.388 18.102 .000

Commitment Total

Within Groups 113.632 322 .353

Score (1-7)
Employee

Total 132.795 325

Between Groups 9.074 3 3.025 6.279 .000

Total Score (1-7)
Work Motivation

Within Groups 155.108 322 .482

Total 164.182 325

Post Hoc Tests

358
Multiple Comparisons

Games-Howell

Confidence
Mean Difference (I-J)
Dependent Variable

Interval
95%
(J) Occupation
(I) Occupation

Std. Error

Bound

Bound
Lower

Upper
Sig.
*
Middle Manager -.36638 .09169 .001 -.6046 -.1281
Operational

Executive

*
Senior Manager -.65843 .09584 .000 -.9077 -.4092

*
Senior Executive -.70578 .07496 .000 -.9028 -.5088

Operational
*
.36638 .09169 .001 .1281 .6046
Middle Manager

Executive
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

*
Senior Manager -.29205 .07973 .002 -.4989 -.0852

*
Senior Executive -.33939 .05281 .000 -.4766 -.2022

Operational
*
.65843 .09584 .000 .4092 .9077
Senior Manager

Executive

*
Middle manager .29205 .07973 .002 .0852 .4989

Senior Executive -.04734 .05973 .858 -.2047 .1100

Operational
*
.70578 .07496 .000 .5088 .9028
Senior Executive

Executive

*
Middle manager .33939 .05281 .000 .2022 .4766

Senior Manager .04734 .05973 .858 -.1100 .2047

359
 Confidence
Mean Difference (I-J)
Dependent Variable

Interval
95%
(J) Occupation
(I) Occupation

Std. Error

Bound

Bound
Lower

Upper
Sig.
*
Middle Manager .27678 .10370 .041 .0078 .5457
Operational

Executive

Senior Manager -.11212 .09439 .636 -.3578 .1336

*
Senior Executive .25600 .07855 .009 .0495 .4625

Operational
*
-.27678 .10370 .041 -.5457 -.0078
Middle Manager

Executive
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

*
Senior Manager -.38890 .08557 .000 -.6105 -.1673

Senior Executive -.02078 .06771 .990 -.1966 .1551

Operational
.11212 .09439 .636 -.1336 .3578
Senior Manager

Executive

*
Middle manager .38890 .08557 .000 .1673 .6105

*
Senior Executive .36812 .05233 .000 .2303 .5059

Operational
*
-.25600 .07855 .009 -.4625 -.0495
Senior Executive

Executive

Middle manager .02078 .06771 .990 -.1551 .1966

*
Senior Manager -.36812 .05233 .000 -.5059 -.2303

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 5.7.2(v): ANOVA by Monthly Compensation

Descriptives

360
INR Per Month N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Min Max

Dev Error Interval for Mean

Lower Upper

Bound Bound

2,00,000
17 4.7059 .48020 .11646 4.4590 4.9528 4.13 5.33
& Above
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

1,00,000-
121 5.4529 .68356 .06214 5.3299 5.5759 3.93 6.47
1,99,000

51,000-
128 5.7281 .52810 .04668 5.6358 5.8205 4.60 6.40
99,000

35,000-
60 5.8800 .49750 .06423 5.7515 6.0085 4.93 6.67
50,000

Total 326 5.6006 .63922 .03540 5.5310 5.6703 3.93 6.67

2,00,000
17 5.1059 .32494 .07881 4.9388 5.2730 4.60 5.50
& Above
Work Motivational Total Score (1-7)

1,00,000-
121 5.4273 .79015 .07183 5.2851 5.5695 3.20 6.30
1,99,000

51,000-
128 5.4086 .66830 .05907 5.2917 5.5255 4.10 6.30
99,000

35,000-
60 5.5567 .68948 .08901 5.3786 5.7348 4.70 7.00
50,000

Total 326 5.4270 .71076 .03937 5.3496 5.5044 3.20 7.00

ANOVA

361
 Sum of Df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square

Employee Commitment
Between
23.014 3 7.671 22.501 .000
Total Score (1-7)

Groups

Within Groups 109.781 322 .341

Total 132.795 325

Between
Work Motivation Total

2.805 3 .935 1.866 .135

Groups
Score (1-7)

Within Groups 161.377 322 .501

Total 164.182 325

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Games-Howell

Dependent (I) (J) Mean Std. Sig 95% Confidence

Variable Monthly Monthly Diff (I-J) Error Interval

Salary Salary

1,00,000-
Employee Commitment Total

*
-.74701 .13201 .000 -1.1090 -.3850
1,99,000
Score (1-7)

51,000-
*
-1.02224 .12547 .000 -1.3713 -.6732
99,000
2,00,000

& Above
35,000-
*
-1.17412 .13300 .000 -1.5385 -.8098
50,000

362
 2,00,000
*
.74701 .13201 .000 .3850 1.1090
& Above

1,00,000 - 51,000-
*
-.27523 .07772 .003 -.4764 -.0741
1,99,000 99,000

35,000-
*
-.42711 .08937 .000 -.6592 -.1950
50,000

2,00,000
*
1.02224 .12547 .000 .6732 1.3713
& Above

51,00,000- 51,000-
*
.27523 .07772 .003 .0741 .4764
99,00,000 99,000

35,000-
-.15188 .07940 .228 -.3587 .0549
50,000

2,00,000
*
1.17412 .13300 .000 .8098 1.5385
& Above

35,000 – 51,000-
*
.42711 .08937 .000 .1950 .6592
50,000 99,000

35,000-
.15188 .07940 .228 -.0549 .3587
50,000

1,00,000-
Work Motivation Total Score

*
-.32139 .10663 .021 -.6050 -.0378
1,99,000

2,00,000 & 51,000-

(1-7)

*
-.30271 .09849 .020 -.5675 -.0380
Above 99,000

35,000-
*
-.45078 .11889 .002 -.7653 -.1362
50,000

363
 2,00,000
*
.32139 .10663 .021 .0378 .6050
& Above

1,00,000- 51,000-
.01868 .09300 .997 -.2220 .2593
1,99,000 99,000

35,000-
-.12939 .11438 .671 -.4270 .1682
50,000

2,00,000
*
.30271 .09849 .020 .0380 .5675
& Above

51,000- 1,00,000-
-.01868 .09300 .997 -.2593 .2220
99,000 1,99,000

35,000-
-.14807 .10683 .511 -.4267 .1305
50,000

1,00,000-
*
.45078 .11889 .002 .1362 .7653
1,99,000

35,000- 51,000-
.12939 .11438 .671 -.1682 .4270
50,000 99,000

51,000-
.14807 .10683 .511 -.1305 .4267
99,000

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 5.7.2(vi): ANOVA by Length of Service

Descriptives

N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Min Max

Dev. Error Interval for Mean

Lower Upper

364
 Bound Bound

< 5 Years 66 5.0273 .47573 .05856 4.9103 5.1442 3.93 5.60

Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

5-10 34 5.2196 .76656 .13146 4.9521 5.4871 4.07 6.07

11-15 95 5.9249 .53803 .05520 5.8153 6.0345 4.93 6.67

16-20 82 5.7252 .47539 .05250 5.6207 5.8297 4.60 6.53

> 20 49 5.8000 .52705 .07529 5.6486 5.9514 4.13 6.47

Total 326 5.6006 .63922 .03540 5.5310 5.6703 3.93 6.67

< 5 Years 66 5.5091 .63190 .07778 5.3537 5.6644 4.40 6.20

Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

5-10 34 4.8735 .66756 .11449 4.6406 5.1065 4.10 6.20

11-15 95 5.6347 .76001 .07798 5.4799 5.7896 3.20 6.70

16-20 82 5.4061 .47150 .05207 5.3025 5.5097 4.70 7.00

> 20 49 5.3327 .86347 .12335 5.0846 5.5807 4.10 6.20

Total 326 5.4270 .71076 .03937 5.3496 5.5044 3.20 7.00

ANOVA

Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square

Employee Between
39.843 4 9.961 34.398 .000
Commitment Groups

365
Total Score Within
92.952 321 .290
(1-7) Groups

Total 132.795 325

Work Between
15.432 4 3.858 8.325 .000
Motivation Groups

Total Score
Within
(1-7) 148.751 321 .463
Groups

Total 164.182 325

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Games-Howell

Depend (I) Length (J) Length Mean Diff. Std. Sig. 95% Confidence

ent of Service of Service (I-J) Error Interval

Variable
Lower Upper

Bound Bound

5-10 -.19234 .14392 .670 -.6007 .2161

Employee Commitment Total Score

< 5 Years *
11-15 -.89764 .08048 .000 -1.1199 -.6754

*
16-20 -.69793 .07865 .000 -.9153 -.4806
(1-7)

*
> 20 -.77273 .09538 .000 -1.0379 -.5076

<5 .19234 .14392 .670 -.2161 .6007

*
11-15 -.70530 .14258 .000 -1.1104 -.3002

366
 5-10 *
16-20 -.50560 .14156 .007 -.9082 -.1030

*
> 20 -.58039 .15150 .003 -1.0079 -.1529

*
<5 .89764 .08048 .000 .6754 1.1199

*
5-10 .70530 .14258 .000 .3002 1.1104

11-15
16-20 .19971 .07618 .071 -.0103 .4097

> 20 .12491 .09336 .668 -.1345 .3843

*
<5 .69793 .07865 .000 .4806 .9153

*
16-20 5-10 .50560 .14156 .007 .1030 .9082

11-15 -.19971 .07618 .071 -.4097 .0103

> 20 -.07480 .09179 .925 -.3302 .1806

*
<5 .77273 .09538 .000 .5076 1.0379

*
5-10 .58039 .15150 .003 .1529 1.0079

> 20
11-15 -.12491 .09336 .668 -.3843 .1345

16-20 .07480 .09179 .925 -.1806 .3302

*
5-10 .63556 .13841 .000 .2470 1.0242
Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

11-15 -.12565 .11014 .785 -.4297 .1784

<5

16-20 .10299 .09360 .806 -.1563 .3623

> 20 .17644 .14583 .746 -.2301 .5830

*
<5 -.63556 .13841 .000 -1.0242 -.2470

*
11-15 -.76121 .13852 .000 -1.1497 -.3727
5-10
*
16-20 -.53257 .12577 .001 -.8892 -.1759

367
 > 20 -.45912 .16829 .059 -.9288 .0106

<5 .12565 .11014 .785 -.1784 .4297

*
5-10 .76121 .13852 .000 .3727 1.1497

11-15 16-20 .22864 .09376 .111 -.0301 .4873

> 20 .30208 .14593 .242 -.1045 .7086

<5 -.10299 .09360 .806 -.3623 .1563

*
16-20 5-10 .53257 .12577 .001 .1759 .8892

11-15 -.22864 .09376 .111 -.4873 .0301

> 20 .07344 .13389 .982 -.3022 .4491

<5 -.17644 .14583 .746 -.5830 .2301

5-10 .45912 .16829 .059 -.0106 .9288

>20
11-15 -.30208 .14593 .242 -.7086 .1045

16-20 -.07344 .13389 .982 -.4491 .3022

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 5.7.2(vii) : ANOVA by Internal Promotion

Descriptives

Years N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Min Max

Dev. Error Interval for Mean

Lower Upper

Bound Bound
mmi
ploy

Sco
tme

0-2 76 5.6851 .82218 .09431 5.4972 5.8730 3.93 6.53

Em

Tot
Co

(1-
ee

re

7)
nt

al

368
 3-6 160 5.7358 .56082 .04434 5.6483 5.8234 4.13 6.67

>7 38 5.6825 .28849 .04680 5.5876 5.7773 5.33 5.93

Not Promoted /

Not Applicable
52 5.0013 .35998 .04992 4.9011 5.1015 4.13 5.47

Total 326 5.6006 .63922 .03540 5.5310 5.6703 3.93 6.67

0-2 76 5.3697 .68800 .07892 5.2125 5.5270 4.20 6.30

Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

3-6 160 5.5594 .75087 .05936 5.4421 5.6766 3.20 7.00

>7 38 4.9368 .53647 .08703 4.7605 5.1132 4.10 5.60

Not Promoted /

Not Applicable

52 5.4615 .56261 .07802 5.3049 5.6182 4.60 6.10

Total 326 5.4270 .71076 .03937 5.3496 5.5044 3.20 7.00

ANOVA

Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square

Between
Employee Commitment

22.401 3 7.467 21.779 .000

Total Score (1-7)

Groups

Within
110.395 322 .343
Groups

Total 132.795 325

369
 Between

Work Motivation Total

12.245 3 4.082 8.650 .000
Groups

Score (1-7)
Within
151.938 322 .472
Groups

Total 164.182 325

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Games-Howell

Depende (I) (J) Promoted Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence

nt Promoted Span Diff Error Interval

Variable Span
(I-J)
Lower Upper

Bound Bound

3-6 -.05075 .10421 .962 -.3226 .2211

>7 .00263 .10528 1.000 -.2723 .2775

Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

0-2 years
Not Promoted/
*
.68381 .10671 .000 .4054 .9622
Not Applicable

0-2 .05075 .10421 .962 -.2211 .3226

>7 .05338 .06447 .841 -.1147 .2215

3-6 years
Not Promoted/
*
.73455 .06677 .000 .5609 .9082
Not Applicable

0-2 years -.00263 .10528 1.000 -.2775 .2723

3-6 -.05338 .06447 .841 -.2215 .1147

370
 > 7 years
Not Promoted/
*
.68117 .06843 .000 .5019 .8604
Not Applicable

*
0-2 years -.68381 .10671 .000 -.9622 -.4054
Not
*
Promoted 3-6 -.73455 .06677 .000 -.9082 -.5609

/ NA
*
>7 -.68117 .06843 .000 -.8604 -.5019

3-6 -.18964 .09875 .224 -.4460 .0667

*
>7 .43289 .11748 .002 .1255 .7403

0-2 years
Not Promoted /
-.09180 .11097 .841 -.3809 .1973
Not Applicable

0-2 years .18964 .09875 .224 -.0667 .4460

Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

*
>7 .62253 .10534 .000 .3458 .8993

3-6
Not Promoted /
.09784 .09804 .751 -.1577 .3534
Not Applicable

*
0-2 years -.43289 .11748 .002 -.7403 -.1255

*
>7 3-6 -.62253 .10534 .000 -.8993 -.3458

Not Promoted /
*
-.52470 .11688 .000 -.8312 -.2182
Not Applicable

0-2 years .09180 .11097 .841 -.1973 .3809

Not

Promoted 3-6 -.09784 .09804 .751 -.3534 .1577

/ NA
*
>7 .52470 .11688 .000 .2182 .8312

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

371
Table 5.7.3(i) : Mean Standard Deviation of all Variables

Descriptive Statistics

All in range of 0 to 4 N Min Max Mean Std. Dev.

Builds Trust 326 .00 4.00 3.0245 1.03746

Acts with Integrity 326 .00 4.00 3.1656 1.00008

Inspires Others 326 1.25 4.00 3.2163 .67026

Encourages Innovation 326 1.50 4.00 3.1779 .77396

Thinking 326 .00 4.50 3.1702 .80058

Coaches People 326 .80 4.00 3.1620 .74074

Rewards 326 .00 4.00 3.0399 .81237

Achievement 326 .00 4.00 3.2577 .68118

Contingent Rewards 326 .00 4.00 3.3160 .91224

Monitors Mistakes 326 .33 4.00 3.1278 .77945

Avoids Involvement 326 .00 3.67 1.0726 .81703

Descriptive Statistics

N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.

Employee Commitment Total

326 3.93 6.67 5.6006 .63922
Score (1-7)

Work Motivation Total Score (1-7) 326 3.20 7.00 5.4270 .71076

372
Descriptive Statistics

N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.

Transformational Style (0-4) 326 1.13 4.00 3.1708 .69899

Transactional Style (0-4) 326 1.00 4.00 3.1890 .62471

Laissez Fairre Style (0-4) 326 .00 3.67 1.0726 .81703

Table 5.7.3 (ii) : Frequency Distribution of Employee Commitment Scale

Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

3.93 4 1.2 1.2 1.2

Valid 4.07 4 1.2 1.2 2.5

4.13 5 1.5 1.5 4.0

4.27 4 1.2 1.2 5.2

4.40 4 1.2 1.2 6.4

4.60 8 2.5 2.5 8.9

4.80 4 1.2 1.2 10.1

4.93 26 8.0 8.0 18.1

5.00 4 1.2 1.2 19.3

5.07 15 4.6 4.6 23.9

373
 5.13 10 3.1 3.1 27.0

5.20 4 1.2 1.2 28.2

Valid
5.27 5 1.5 1.5 29.8

5.33 30 9.2 9.2 39.0

5.40 9 2.8 2.8 41.7

5.47 4 1.2 1.2 42.9

5.60 10 3.1 3.1 46.0

5.67 9 2.8 2.8 48.8

5.80 8 2.5 2.5 51.2

5.87 10 3.1 3.1 54.3

5.93 61 18.7 18.7 73.0

6.00 4 1.2 1.2 74.2

6.07 19 5.8 5.8 80.1

6.20 5 1.5 1.5 81.6

6.27 4 1.2 1.2 82.8

6.33 5 1.5 1.5 84.4

6.40 39 12.0 12.0 96.3

6.47 4 1.2 1.2 97.5

6.53 4 1.2 1.2 98.8

374
 6.67 4 1.2 1.2 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

Table 5.7.3 (iii): Frequency Distribution of Work Motivation Scale

Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

3.20 4 1.2 1.2 1.2

4.10 9 2.8 2.8 4.0

4.20 4 1.2 1.2 5.2

Valid
4.40 19 5.8 5.8 11.0

4.60 8 2.5 2.5 13.5

4.70 34 10.4 10.4 23.9

4.80 4 1.2 1.2 25.2

5.10 14 4.3 4.3 29.4

5.20 19 5.8 5.8 35.3

5.30 57 17.5 17.5 52.8

5.40 4 1.2 1.2 54.0

5.50 12 3.7 3.7 57.7

5.60 5 1.5 1.5 59.2

5.70 5 1.5 1.5 60.7

375
 5.80 4 1.2 1.2 62.0
Valid

5.90 24 7.4 7.4 69.3

6.00 9 2.8 2.8 72.1

6.10 36 11.0 11.0 83.1

6.20 24 7.4 7.4 90.5

6.30 23 7.1 7.1 97.5

6.70 4 1.2 1.2 98.8

7.00 4 1.2 1.2 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

Table 5.7.3(iv): Frequency Distribution of Transformational Leadership

Transformational Style (0-4)

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

1.13 4 1.2 1.2 1.2

1.93 23 7.1 7.1 8.3

2.00 24 7.4 7.4 15.6

2.27 6 1.8 1.8 17.5

2.33 4 1.2 1.2 18.7

2.40 4 1.2 1.2 19.9

2.53 5 1.5 1.5 21.5

376
 2.60 4 1.2 1.2 22.7

Valid 2.67 5 1.5 1.5 24.2

2.80 10 3.1 3.1 27.3

2.87 15 4.6 4.6 31.9

3.07 4 1.2 1.2 33.1

3.13 14 4.3 4.3 37.4

3.20 8 2.5 2.5 39.9

3.27 4 1.2 1.2 41.1

3.33 24 7.4 7.4 48.5

3.40 51 15.6 15.6 64.1

3.53 4 1.2 1.2 65.3

3.67 19 5.8 5.8 71.2

3.73 14 4.3 4.3 75.5

Valid
3.80 15 4.6 4.6 80.1

3.87 17 5.2 5.2 85.3

3.93 34 10.4 10.4 95.7

4.00 14 4.3 4.3 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

Table 5.7.3(v): Frequency Distribution of Transactional Leadership Scale

Transactional Style (0-4)

377
 Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

1.00 4 1.2 1.2 1.2

1.25 4 1.2 1.2 2.5

1.38 4 1.2 1.2 3.7

Valid 1.75 4 1.2 1.2 4.9

1.88 1 .3 .3 5.2

2.38 10 3.1 3.1 8.3

2.50 9 2.8 2.8 11.0

2.63 39 12.0 12.0 23.0

2.75 10 3.1 3.1 26.1

2.88 19 5.8 5.8 31.9

3.00 17 5.2 5.2 37.1

3.13 13 4.0 4.0 41.1

3.25 10 3.1 3.1 44.2

3.38 14 4.3 4.3 48.5

Valid

3.50 71 21.8 21.8 70.2

3.63 32 9.8 9.8 80.1

3.75 32 9.8 9.8 89.9

3.88 19 5.8 5.8 95.7

4.00 14 4.3 4.3 100.0

378
 Total 326 100.0 100.0

Table 5.7.3 (vi): Frequency Distribution of Laissez faire Leadership Scale

Laissez Faire Style (0-4)

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

.00 40 12.3 12.3 12.3

Valid .17 4 1.2 1.2 13.5

.33 14 4.3 4.3 17.8

.50 15 4.6 4.6 22.4

.67 60 18.4 18.4 40.8

.83 25 7.7 7.7 48.5

1.00 61 18.7 18.7 67.2

1.17 9 2.8 2.8 69.9

1.33 23 7.1 7.1 77.0

Valid 1.50 10 3.1 3.1 80.1

1.83 20 6.1 6.1 86.2

2.00 4 1.2 1.2 87.4

2.33 4 1.2 1.2 88.7

2.50 10 3.1 3.1 91.7

2.83 23 7.1 7.1 98.8

379
 3.67 4 1.2 1.2 100.0

Total 326 100.0 100.0

Statistics

Employee Commitment Total Score

Work Motivation Total Score

Transformational Style

Transactional Style

Laissez Faire Style

(1-7)

(1-7)

(0-4)

(0-4)

(0-4)
N 326 326 326 326 326

Mean 5.6006 5.4270 3.1708 3.1890 1.0726

Median 5.8000 5.3000 3.4000 3.5000 1.0000

Std. Deviation .63922 .71076 .69899 .62471 .81703

Minimum 3.93 3.20 1.13 1.00 .00

Maximum 6.67 7.00 4.00 4.00 3.67

25 5.1333 4.8000 2.8000 2.7500 .6667

Percentiles 50 5.8000 5.3000 3.4000 3.5000 1.0000

75 6.0667 6.1000 3.7333 3.6250 1.3333

380
Correlations

Employee Work
Commitment Motivation Total
Total Score (1-7) Score (1-7)
** **
Builds Trust Pearson Correlation .313 .555
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 326 326
** **
Acts with Integrity Pearson Correlation .301 .660
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 326 326
** **
Inspires Others Pearson Correlation .335 .616
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 326 326
** **
Pearson Correlation .400 .563
Encourages
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
Innovation
N 326 326
** **
Thinking Pearson Correlation .268 .430
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 326 326
** **
Coaches People Pearson Correlation .273 .499
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 326 326
* **
Pearson Correlation .116 .189
Rewards Sig. (1-tailed) .018 .000
N 326 326
** **
Pearson Correlation .237 .316
Achievement Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 326 326
** **
Pearson Correlation .357 .413
Contingent
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
Rewards
N 326 326
** **
Pearson Correlation .411 .449
Monitors Mistakes Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 326 326
** **
Pearson Correlation -.177 -.499
Avoids
Sig. (1-tailed) .001 .000
Involvement
N 326 326

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

381
Correlations

Transformational Transactional Laissez

Style (0-4) Style (0-4) Faire Style
(0-4)
Builds Trust Pearson ** ** **
.918 .736 -.565
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Acts with Pearson ** ** **
.827 .562 -.570
Correlation
Integrity Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Inspires Pearson ** ** **
.919 .746 -.546
Correlation
Others Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Pearson ** ** **
.832 .775 -.435
Encourages Correlation
Innovation Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326

Thinking Pearson ** ** **
.925 .806 -.623
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Coaches Pearson ** ** **
.938 .813 -.626
Correlation
People Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Pearson ** ** **
.571 .764 -.234
Correlation
Rewards
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Pearson ** ** **
.782 .833 -.486
Correlation
Achievement
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Pearson ** ** **
.725 .842 -.338
Contingent Correlation
Rewards Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326

382
 Pearson ** ** **
.634 .815 -.317
Monitors Correlation
Mistakes Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326
Pearson ** ** **
-.630 -.447 1.000
Avoids Correlation
Involvement Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 326 326 326

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Correlations
Employee Work Motivation
Commitment Total Total Score
Score (1-7) (1-7)

Pearson ** **
.342 .600
Correlation
Transformational
Style (0-4) Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326

Pearson ** **
.373 .445
Correlation
Transactional
Style (0-4) Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000

N 326 326
Pearson ** **
-.177 -.499
Correlation
Laissez Fairre
Style (0-4) Sig. (1-tailed) .001 .000

N 326 326

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

383