A Study of The Impact of Leadership Styles On Employee Motivation and Commitment An Empirical Study of Selected Organisations in Corpor
A Study of The Impact of Leadership Styles On Employee Motivation and Commitment An Empirical Study of Selected Organisations in Corpor
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
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.
Date:
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis titledA 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
Signature of the
Head of the Department
Signature of Guide
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am grateful to the Almighty, who has blessed me with the fulfilment of a longcherished 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
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter no
Subsection
Preliminary
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Title
Page no
Declaration
Certificate
Acknowledgement
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
Executive Summary
Introduction
History of Leadership Styles
The Concept of Commitment
The Concept of Motivation
Leadership in Indian Corporates
Review Of Literature
Theories and Background of
Leadership
Recent theories of Leadership
Styles
Employee Commitment
Employee Motivation
Employee Commitment within
Corporate Sector
Employee Motivation within
Corporate Sector
Employee Retention in Corporate
Sector
Gap in Research
Corporate sector in India
Structure of Corporates The
Organisational Framework
Corporate Sector Oil and
Petroleum
Corporate Sector Fast Moving
Consumer Goods
Leadership in Oil and Petroleum
sector
Leadership in FMCG sector
Objectives, Hypothesis And
Research Methodology
Statement of Research Problem
Research Questions
Scope of the Study
Purpose of the Study
Objectives
i
ii
iii
v
viii
x
xii
xiii
1
3
8
9
14
21
25
38
47
63
65
66
68
77
78
82
96
99
101
104
113
114
115
115
116
116
v
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.3
5
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
6
6.1
6.2
7.1
7.2
7.3
Statement of Hypothesis
Research Methodology
Sampling Design
Data Processing
Limitations of the Study
117
118
Research Findings
Introduction
Pilot Study Report
Results - Description of
Respondents Characteristics in
Pilot Study
Testing the Hypotheses
Main Study Report
Results - Description of
Respondents Characteristics in
Main Research Study
Testing the Hypothesis of the
Main Research Study
Conclusion
Discussions And Conclusions
Discussion
Conclusion
Recommendations and
Suggestions
Recommendations
Suggestions
Scope for Further Studies
Bibliography
Annexure I - Questionnaires
Annexure II Tables and Graphs
137
138
138
140
123
135
150
160
161
168
238
241
242
251
254
255
260
263
266
296
308
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Description
no
4.1
City-wise Distribution of Respondents
4.2
Acceptable levels of Cronbach alpha coefficient
5.3.1 (i) For Pilot Study - Frequency Distribution by Age
(ii) Frequency distribution by Educational
Qualification
(iii) Frequency distribution by Marital Status
(iv) Frequency distribution by Occupational status
(v) Frequency distribution by Compensation
(vi) Frequency distribution by Length of service
(vii) Frequency distribution by Gender
(viii) Frequency distribution by Internal Promotion
5.3.2 (i) Data on Education of Managers as filled by
Respondents
(ii) Data on Gender of Managers as filled by
Respondents
(iii) Descriptive Statistics of Managers as filled by
Respondents
5.4
(i)Reliability statistics of Leadership styles and
Employee Commitment
(ii) Correlation of Transformational, Transactional
and Laissez faire leadership styles and
Employee Commitment
(iii)Reliability statistics of Leadership styles and
Work Motivation
(iv) Correlation of Transformational, Transactional
and Laissez faire leadership styles and Work
Motivation
5.6
(i) For Main Research - Frequency Distribution of
by Age
(ii) Frequency distribution by Education
(iii) Frequency distribution by Marital Status
(iv) Frequency distribution by Occupational status
(v) Frequency distribution by Compensation
(vi) Frequency distribution by Length of service
(vii) Frequency distribution by Gender
(viii) Frequency distribution by Internal Promotion
5.7.1 (i) Reliability Transformational Style
(ii) Reliability Transactional Style
(iii) Reliability Laissez faire Style
(iv) Reliability Work Motivation
(v) Reliability Organisational Commitment
Page
no
119
133
140
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
149
150
153
154
158
158
161
162
163
164
164
165
167
167
169
171
172
174
175
vii
5.7.2
5.7.3
177
183
197
201
204
207
211
215
219
222
224
225
227
228
230
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
No.
Description
Page no
1.1
1.2
16
analysis
2.1
32
2.2
37
2.3
47
3.1
Role of a Manager
103
3.2
Zinger Model
109
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
APM
LPC
Least-Preferred Co-worker
MBEP
Management-by-exception leadership
OC
Organisational Commitment
UM
University of Michigan
OSU
WMS
WOVS
MLQ
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 worlds 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 persons 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, selfperpetuating, 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
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 organisations 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 employees
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 employees 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 asthe 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
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
with
individual
considerations,
inspirations,
intellectually
1978:
Developed
the
theory
of
transformational
leadership.
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
xviii
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.
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
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
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
Cities
No of Respondents
Mumbai
146
Navi Mumbai
65
Kolkata
50
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
xxiv
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?
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)
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. Cronbachs Alpha
coefficients were reported as follows: 0.806 for the Organizational
Commitment
Questionnaire,
0.891
for
the
MLQ
Leadership
Style
xxvii
xxviii
Distribution of Respondents
Sl no
Cities
No of Respondents
Mumbai
146
Navi Mumbai
65
Kolkata
50
Delhi
65
TOTAL
326
xxix
Leadership
Style
vs
Transactional
Leadership
Status:Occupational
status
of
the
employees
of
the
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 individuals behaviours and consequently
drive
performance, in
organizations.Organizationalbehaviour
is
largely
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.
others
They
the
should
direction
to
be
follow,
good
coaches
mainly
by
as
walking
well,
the
showing
talk
and
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,
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 leaderfollower 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 cooperative 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
xxxix
xl
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
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 worlds economic & political order. In a situation of turbulence, the one
key factor that can make a difference, through foresight and dexterity, is
as
Transformational
Leaders.
Transformational
Leadership,
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
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
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 managers
organizational commitment of organization can be sketched.
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 decisionmaking 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, Coworker 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
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
14
disparity between the fast-growing emerging economies, and the slowergrowing 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
16
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: Todays 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.
Indias 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
20
CHAPTER 2
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;
the adaptability to engage with the views and needs of team members
23
24
25
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, Stogdills 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
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 leaders 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
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: Fiedlers Contingency Theory, Path-Goal Theory,
and the Vroom-Yetton Model.
Fiedlers 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 leaders personality or style
and the demands of the situation. The model further suggested that taskoriented and employee-oriented were the two major styles of leadership. To
33
34
35
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
38
studies
conducted
on
transactional and
Transformational
leadership
enhances
organizational
41
Transformational
leaders
have
charisma,
inspiration
and
intellectual
into
new,
high-performance
patterns.
The
presence
of
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
leaders 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
Active,
MBE-P:
Management-By-Exception:
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
48
The
influence
of
personal
characteristics
on
organisational
the
attitudinal,
behavioural
and
normative
aspects
of
side-bet
theory,
introduced
the
dimension
of
continuance
54
in
the
different
multi-dimensional
conceptualizations
of
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 employees
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 Beckers (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
employees perception of the loss he/she would suffer if they were to leave
the organisation. They explain that continuance commitment involves
awareness on the employees part of the costs associated with leaving the
organisation. This then forms the employees 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 organisations 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 individuals
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 employees 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 OReilly, Chatman, Caldwell (1991) are some of the few
who have attempted to differentiate normative commitment from the other
commitments of the employees 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
organisations 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. Steers view was that the
antecedents of commitment were the three categories of personal
characteristics, role-related characteristics, and work experiences. Mowday et
60
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
supervisory
span
of
control,
span
of
subordination,
to
be
positively
related
to
employee
participation,
63
64
of
high
performance
work
practices
on
corporate
financial
66
68
69
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
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
can
contribute
to
effective
performance
management
and
74
Retention
Connection's
model
concentrates
on
applied
75
76
the smallest portion of the retention equation, they are still an important
one.
77
CHAPTER 3
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
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.
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
inertiathe 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
86
company
include
production,
purchasing,
marketing,
87
90
of
matrix
structural
arrangements.
Besides
the
can
be
seen
as
taking
any
of
the
aforementioned
93
Restructuring
Industry consolidationcreating huge global corporations through joint
ventures, mergers, alliances, and other kinds of inter-organizational
cooperative effortshas 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
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 twentyfirst century. Properly handled, restructuringparticularly away from the
traditional vertical modelcan 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 organizations
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
ii.
iii.
iv.
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 talentretention mechanism in organizations.Under such circumstances, the issues
of employee engagement, motivation and talent management and retention
are important as never before.
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
FMCGs 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
101
economy.
But
organisations
are
social
constructions
Planning
Organising
Controlling
Henri Fayol :
The role of a
manager
Commanding
Co-ordinating
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
105
106
Public sector leaders are less optimistic and they go behind thoughtful
approach.
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
108
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
110
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.
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.
111
Experience Well-Being : Ultimately work should contribute to employee wellbeing. An organizations results are dependent upon the health and
productivity of individual employees.
112
CHAPTER 4
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.
115
extended to other states of India and even globally, since all these
organisations have a significant global presence.
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
117
118
Cities
No of Respondents
Mumbai
146
Navi Mumbai
65
Kolkata
50
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
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?
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)
121
122
123
No of respondents
Mumbai
146
Navi Mumbai
65
Kolkata
50
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
125
commitment
of
employees
was
measured using
the
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 Alderfers 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
128
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),
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 2029 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 respondents
career in a particular institute. The first category indicated the period ranging
from 0-2 years, the second category indicated the period ranging from 36years, 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 Cronbachs Alpha coefficient
Alpha coefficient
Implied reliability
below .60
Unacceptable
Undesirable
minimally acceptable
Respectable
very good
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. Cronbachs 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
134
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 respondents 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.
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), fulltime 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
139
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
140
21-30
12
24.0
24.0
24.0
31-40
21
42.0
42.0
66.0
41-50
14
28.0
28.0
94.0
> 50
6.0
6.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
Valid
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 3140 years and the lowest number of respondents (6%) is in the Above 50
years 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
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
BSc / BE /
12
24.0
24.0
24.0
16
32.0
32.0
56.0
22
44.0
44.0
100.0
50
100.0
100.0
BCom / BA
MA / MCom /
MSc / ME /
MCA
Valid
Master Degree
/ MBA / MMS
Total
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 Masters 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
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Married
41
82.0
82.0
82.0
Single
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
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Operational
11
22.0
22.0
22.0
20
40.0
40.0
62.0
13
26.0
26.0
88.0
12.0
12.0
100.0
50
100.0
100.0
Executive
Middle
manager
Valid
Senior
Manager
Senior
Executive
Total
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
Compensation (INR)
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
2,00,000 and
1
2.0
2.0
2.0
18
36.0
36.0
38.0
21
42.0
42.0
80.0
10
20.0
20.0
100.0
50
100.0
100.0
Above
1,00,000Valid
1,99,000
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
Total
Table indicates that the majority of respondents (42%) falls within INR 51,00099,000 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
21-30
10.0
10.0
94.0
> 30
6.0
6.0
100.0
50
100.0
100.0
Valid
Total
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
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Male
41
82.0
82.0
82.0
Female
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 respondents
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 36years, 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
of years
Valid
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
16.0
16.0
20.0
10.0
10.0
30.0
10
20.0
20.0
50.0
2.0
2.0
52.0
18.0
18.0
70.0
4.0
4.0
74.0
8.0
8.0
82.0
11
2.0
2.0
84.0
NA
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
6.0
6.0
12.0
43
86.0
86.0
98.0
Doctorate
2.0
2.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
BA
MA / MCom / MSc /
Valid
ME / MCA
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Male
47
94.0
94.0
94.0
Female
6.0
6.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
149
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Age
50
24
53
38.04
8.405
50
.00
36.00
14.2490
9.13018
50
.00
8.00
3.1300
1.78088
50
35
57
45.50
6.072
Length of
Service
Years of working
with current
Manager
Age of Manager
150
0 - Not at all
1 - Once in a while
2 - Sometimes
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
152
0.862
0.891
29
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
**
(0-4)
Transformational Style
Pearson
**
**
.485
.395
-.398
.000
.005
.004
50
50
50
.845
-.732
.000
.000
50
50
-.496
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Score (1-7)
Employee Commitment
Correlations (Pearsons R)
50
Pearson
**
.485
**
**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
50
Pearson
50
**
**
.395
.845
.005
.000
50
50
**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
50
50
154
Pearson
**
**
**
-.398
-.732
-.496
.004
.000
.000
50
50
50
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
50
Employee
Commitment
Total Score
(15 - 105)
Leadership
Style Total
Score
(0 116)
Mean
Std. Deviation
41
78.3171
3.65677
.57109
73.0000
6.48074
2.16025
Male
41
81.3902
10.92904
1.70683
Female
77.5556
11.18158
3.72719
Male
Female
Df
Sig. (2-tailed)
2.380
9.148
.041
.949
48
.347
-.426
48
.672
(0 - 116)
(10 - 70)
155
156
157
N of Items
Items
.834
.834
10
N of Items
Items
.862
.891
29
Total Score
Pearson
Correlation
(1-7)
Motivation
Work
Sig. (2tailed)
.277
.051
Transactional Style
(0-4)
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Work Motivation
Total Score (1-7)
Employee
Commitment Total
Score (1-7)
Correlations (Pearsons R)
.602**
.329*
-.585**
.000
.020
.000
158
Style (0-4)
Style (0-4)
Style (0-4)
Transformational
50
50
50
50
50
Pearson
Correlation
.485**
.602**
.845**
-.732**
Sig. (2tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
50
50
50
50
50
.395**
.329*
.845**
-.496**
.005
.020
.000
50
50
50
50
50
-.398**
-.585**
-.732**
-.496**
.004
.000
.000
.000
50
50
50
50
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
.000
50
159
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 employees 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.
Frequency
Percent
Group
Valid
Cumulative
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
> = 50
40
12.3
12.3
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Valid
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
Employee
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
BSc / BE /
82
25.2
25.2
25.2
78
23.9
23.9
49.1
166
50.9
50.9
100.0
326
100.0
100.0
BCom / BA
MA / MCom /
MSc / ME /
Valid
MCA
Master
Degree
MBA / MMS
Total
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
Frequency
Percent
Status
Valid
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Married
258
79.1
79.1
79.1
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
154
47.2
47.2
70.2
Executive
Middle
Manager
163
Senior
Valid
69
21.2
21.2
91.4
28
8.6
8.6
100.0
326
100.0
100.0
Manager
Senior
Executive
Total
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
Salary (INR)
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
2,00,000
17
5.2
5.2
5.2
121
37.1
37.1
42.3
128
39.3
39.3
81.6
and Above
1,00,0001,99,000
Valid
51,00099,000
164
35,00060
18.4
18.4
326
100.0
100.0
100.0
50,000
Total
The Table indicates 128 respondents get a monthly salary between 51,00099,000 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 1,00,0001,99,000 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
Service
Valid
Cumulative
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
21-25
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
Valid
166
Gender
Table 5.6(vii) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Gender
Gender
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Male
250
76.7
76.7
76.7
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
Span (Years)
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
> 10
1.5
1.5
84.0
Valid
167
Not
Promoted/Not
52
16.0
16.0
326
100.0
100.0
100.0
Applicable
Total
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.
highly
satisfactory.
Reliability
of
individual
leadership
styles
.959
N of Items
15
.827
15.954
.024
N of Items
.882
Variance
Maximum
.055
Maximum /
Minimum
Minimum
.602
Range
Mean
Inter-Item
Correlations
15
169
Item-Total Statistics
LS1
LS2
LS3
LS4
LS5
LS6
LS7
LS8
LS9
LS13
LS14
LS15
LS16
LS17
LS18
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
44.55
44.40
44.54
44.21
44.28
44.34
44.24
44.35
44.54
44.33
44.44
44.60
44.21
44.27
44.58
Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
92.402
93.588
91.031
104.828
95.680
98.015
93.840
95.403
96.495
96.891
97.417
95.546
96.824
95.187
97.524
Corrected
Item - Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.845
.793
.900
.364
.744
.756
.885
.794
.765
.706
.725
.760
.795
.836
.741
.861
.787
.900
.612
.801
.776
.869
.762
.739
.766
.778
.805
.810
.884
.875
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
.954
.956
.953
.962
.957
.956
.954
.956
.956
.957
.957
.956
.956
.955
.957
Split-half Reliability
Reliability Statistics
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Total N of Items
Correlation Between Forms
Spearman-Brown Coefficient
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient
Equal Length
Unequal Length
.940
8a
.889
7b
15
.938
.968
.968
.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 Cronbachs 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
N of Items
.869
.876
.736
N of Items
.820
Variance
Maximum
.084
Maximum /
Minimum
Minimum
.468
Range
Mean
Inter-Item
Correlations
9.780
.030
Item-Total Statistics
LS10
LS12
LS19
LS20
LS21
LS22
LS23
LS24
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
22.07
22.25
22.44
22.47
22.20
22.26
22.23
22.66
Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
20.020
20.972
18.764
19.432
18.134
19.418
19.207
19.899
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.638
.573
.700
.682
.774
.655
.635
.411
.641
.567
.621
.654
.676
.722
.719
.355
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
.852
.859
.844
.847
.835
.849
.852
.883
171
Split-half Reliability
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
.827
4a
.687
4b
8
.782
.878
.878
.873
Total N of Items
Correlation Between Forms
Equal Length
Unequal Length
Spearman-Brown Coefficient
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient
Inter-Item
Correlations
.561
.153
.798
.645
N of Items
N of Items
Variance
Maximum /
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Mean
.870
Summary Item Statistics
Range
Cronbach's Alpha
5.223
.039
Item-Total Statistics
LS25
LS26
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
4.86
5.20
Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
17.871
15.805
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.398
.806
.357
.724
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
.909
.822
172
LS27
5.42
LS28
5.62
LS29
5.49
LS30
5.59
Split-half Reliability
15.697
18.913
16.109
18.342
.786
.687
.852
.639
.737
.557
.795
.657
.826
.851
.816
.854
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
.726
3a
.785
3b
6
.831
.907
.907
.899
Total N of Items
Correlation Between Forms
Equal Length
Unequal Length
Spearman-Brown Coefficient
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient
a. The items are: LS25, LS27, LS29
b. The items are: LS26, LS28, LS30
This research found the average Cronbachs 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
transactional leadership,
respectively.
.853
N of Items
10
.787
-5.840
.043
N of Items
.672
Variance
Maximum
-.115
Maximum
/ Minimum
Minimum
.370
Range
Mean
Inter-Item
Correlations
10
Item-Total Statistics
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item
Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
WMS1
WMS2
48.72
48.60
40.603
39.219
.690
.765
.626
.726
.828
.820
WMS3
WMS4
WMS5
WMS6
WMS7
WMS8
49.50
49.04
48.46
48.83
48.89
48.64
39.734
40.740
42.772
45.558
44.538
40.409
.603
.705
.482
.259
.320
.608
.639
.624
.576
.478
.335
.644
.835
.827
.845
.864
.859
.834
174
Split-half Reliability
Reliability Statistics
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
.649
5a
.762
5b
10
Total N of Items
Correlation Between Forms
.858
Equal Length
Unequal Length
Spearman-Brown Coefficient
.924
.924
.921
N of Items
Standardized Items
.796
.850
15
.696
.913
-3.201
.056
N of Items
Variance
Minimum
Maximum /
-.217
Range
Minimum
.274
Maximum
Mean
Correlations
Inter-Item
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
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
Total N of Items
Correlation Between Forms
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
.602
8a
.694
7b
15
.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 Cronbachs 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 (Cronbachs 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
Commitment
Total
Score (1-7)
Score (1-7)
Pearson
**
**
.313
.555
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Builds Trust
Pearson
Acts with Integrity
**
.660
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Inspires Others
**
.301
**
**
.335
.616
.000
.000
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
177
Pearson
Encourages
Innovation
326
326
**
**
.400
.563
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
**
.268
.430
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Thinking
Pearson
Coaches People
**
**
.273
.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
.116
.189
Sig. (1-tailed)
.018
.000
326
326
Correlation
Rewards
Pearson
Achievement
**
**
.237
.316
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
178
Pearson
Contingent
Rewards
**
.413
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Monitors Mistakes
**
Involvement
**
.411
.449
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Avoids
**
.357
**
**
-.177
-.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.001
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
**
(0-4)
(0-4)
Transactional Style
Style (0-4)
Transformational
Correlations
**
.918
.736
-.565
.000
.000
.000
Correlation
Builds
Sig. (1-tailed)
179
Trust
Pearson
Acts
326
**
326
**
326
**
.827
.562
-.570
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
with
Integrity
Pearson
Inspires
Others
Innovation
**
**
.746
-.546
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Encourages
**
.919
**
**
**
.832
.775
-.435
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
**
**
.925
.806
-.623
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Thinking
Pearson
Coaches
**
**
**
.938
.813
-.626
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
People
180
Pearson
**
**
**
.571
.764
-.234
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Rewards
Pearson
**
**
**
.782
.833
-.486
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Achievement
Pearson
**
**
**
.725
.842
-.338
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Contingent
Rewards
Pearson
Monitors
Mistakes
**
involvement
**
.815
-.317
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Avoids
**
.634
**
**
**
-.630
-.447
1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
181
Correlations
Employee
Commitment Total
Score (1-7)
Score (1-7)
Pearson
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Style (0-4)
**
.600
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Transactional
**
.342
**
**
.373
.445
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
**
-.177
-.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.001
.000
326
326
Correlation
Laissez faire
Style (0-4)
182
and
organizational
commitment
correlate
negatively
and
Variables
Variables
Entered
Removed
Acts with
1
Method
Integrity
183
Monitors
.
Mistakes
Rewards
.
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
Thinking
.
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
Avoids
.
Involvement
Encourages
Innovation
Inspires Others
Builds Trust
.
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
250.479
Sig. F Change
.436
df2
.53460
df1
.434
F Change
.436
Change Statistics
R Square Change
Adjusted R Square
.660a
R Square
Model
Model Summary
324
.000
184
.498
.495
.50533
.062
39.616
323
.000
.539
.535
.48460
.042
29.230
322
.000
.559
.554
.47487
.020
14.328
321
.000
.764
.584
.577
.46203
.025
19.083
320
.000
.604
.597
.45147
.020
16.144
319
.000
.609
.601
.44915
.005
4.315
318
.039
.621
.611
.44320
.011
9.597
317
.002
.705
.734
.748
.777
.781
.788
185
ANOVAa
Sum
Model
of
Df
Squares
Mean
Sig.
250.479
.000
159.974
.000
125.714
.000
101.770
.000
89.819
.000
81.082
.000
Square
Regression
71.585
71.585
Residual
92.597
324
.286
Total
164.182
325
Regression
81.702
40.851
Residual
82.481
323
.255
Total
164.182
325
Regression
88.566
29.522
Residual
75.617
322
.235
Total
164.182
325
Regression
91.797
22.949
Residual
72.386
321
.226
Total
164.182
325
Regression
95.871
19.174
Residual
68.312
320
.213
Total
164.182
325
Regression
99.161
16.527
Residual
65.021
319
.204
186
Total
164.182
325
Regression
100.032
14.290
Residual
64.151
318
.202
Total
164.182
325
Regression
101.917
12.740
Residual
62.266
317
.196
Total
164.182
325
70.837
.000
64.858
.000
187
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
Std.
Sig.
40.045
.000
15.827
.000
26.356
.000
Beta
Error
(Constant)
3.941
.098
.469
.030
3.384
.128
.409
.030
.575
13.800
.000
.239
.038
.262
6.294
.000
3.634
.131
27.634
.000
.469
.031
.660
15.371
.000
.303
.038
.332
7.908
.000
-.210
.039
-.240
-5.406
.000
28.453
.000
14.607
.000
1
Acts with
.660
Integrity
(Constant)
Acts with
Integrity
2
Monitors
Mistakes
(Constant)
Acts with
3
Integrity
Monitors
Mistakes
Rewards
(Constant)
3.696
.130
.560
.038
.787
188
Monitors Mistakes
.359
.040
.393
8.895
.000
Rewards
-.162
.040
-.185
-4.035
.000
Thinking
-.212
.056
-.238
-3.785
.000
(Constant)
4.243
.178
23.857
.000
.519
.038
.731
13.528
.000
Monitors Mistakes
.352
.039
.386
8.957
.000
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
.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
Avoids Involvement
-.199
.041
-.228
-4.805
.000
Encourages Innovation
.249
.062
.272
4.018
.000
(Constant)
4.130
.179
23.040
.000
189
.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
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
.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
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
Excluded Variablesa
Model
Beta In
Sig.
Partial
Correlation
Collinearity
Statistics
Tolerance
.019b
.247
.805
.014
.307
.241b
3.489
.001
.191
.354
.280b
5.833
.000
.309
.684
-.097b
-1.620
.106
-.090
.479
.060b
1.021
.308
.057
.496
Rewards
-.132b
-2.865
.004
-.157
.801
Achievement
-.118b
-2.287
.023
-.126
.648
.093b
1.917
.056
.106
.727
.262b
6.294
.000
.331
.895
-.181b
-3.643
.000
-.199
.676
-.318c
-3.832
.000
-.209
.217
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Thinking
Coaches
People
1
Contingent
Rewards
Monitors
Mistakes
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
191
Inspires
-.009c
-.114
.909
-.006
.230
.130c
1.856
.064
.103
.315
-.319c
-5.215
.000
-.279
.385
-.172c
-2.640
.009
-.146
.359
Rewards
-.240c
-5.406
.000
-.288
.725
Achievement
-.229c
-4.595
.000
-.248
.591
-.093c
-1.693
.091
-.094
.511
-.134c
-2.778
.006
-.153
.656
-.318c
-3.832
.000
-.209
.217
-.009c
-.114
.909
-.006
.230
.130c
1.856
.064
.103
.315
Thinking
-.319c
-5.215
.000
-.279
.385
Coaches
-.172c
-2.640
.009
-.146
.359
Others
Encourages
Innovation
2
Thinking
Coaches
People
Contingent
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
192
People
Rewards
-.240c
-5.406
.000
-.288
.725
Achievement
-.229c
-4.595
.000
-.248
.591
-.093c
-1.693
.091
-.094
.511
-.134c
-2.778
.006
-.153
.656
-.248d
-3.041
.003
-.167
.210
.056d
.698
.486
.039
.225
.122d
1.811
.071
.101
.315
-.238d
-3.785
.000
-.207
.347
-.085d
-1.304
.193
-.073
.333
-.117d
-1.981
.048
-.110
.408
.097d
1.524
.129
.085
.351
-.113d
-2.433
.016
-.135
.651
Contingent
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Thinking
Coaches
People
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
193
Builds Trust
Inspires
-.141e
-1.576
.116
-.088
.170
.196e
2.335
.020
.129
.193
.243e
3.493
.001
.192
.274
.125e
1.482
.139
.083
.193
.084e
1.009
.314
.056
.198
.132e
2.108
.036
.117
.344
-.212e
-4.368
.000
-.237
.555
-.132f
-1.518
.130
-.085
.170
.209f
2.561
.011
.142
.193
.272f
4.018
.000
.219
.272
.056f
.669
.504
.037
.185
.082f
1.018
.309
.057
.198
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Coaches
People
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
6
Coaches
People
Achievement
194
Contingent
.147f
2.406
.017
.133
.343
-.164g
-1.920
.056
-.107
.169
.167g
2.077
.039
.116
.189
-.031g
-.369
.712
-.021
.173
.072g
.911
.363
.051
.198
.097g
1.574
.117
.088
.326
-.287h
-3.098
.002
-.171
.140
-.002h
-.025
.980
-.001
.168
.075h
.952
.342
.053
.198
.116h
1.880
.061
.105
.320
.021i
.242
.809
.014
.167
Achievement
.068i
.868
.386
.049
.198
Contingent
.110i
1.804
.072
.101
.319
Rewards
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Coaches
7
People
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Builds Trust
Coaches
People
7
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Coaches
People
195
Rewards
Rewards,
Thinking,
Avoids
Involvement,
Encourages
Innovation
h. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors
Mistakes,
Rewards,
Thinking,
Avoids
Involvement,
Encourages
Rewards,
Thinking,
Avoids
Involvement,
Encourages
Mean
Std.
Std.
95% Confidence
Dev.
Error
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
<5
66
5.0273
.47573
.05856
4.9103
5.1442
3.93
5.60
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
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
32
Total
6
<5
66
5.5091
.63190
.07778
5.3537
5.6644
4.40
6.20
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
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
32
Total
3.20
7.00
197
ANOVA
Sum of
Df
Mean
Squares
Employee
Between
Commitment
Groups
Sig.
34.398
.000
8.325
.000
Square
39.843
9.961
92.952
321
.290
132.795
325
15.432
3.858
148.751
321
.463
164.182
325
Total Score
Within
(1-7)
Groups
Total
Work
Between
Motivation
Groups
Total Score
Within
(1-7)
Groups
Total
Post Hoc Tests
Multiple Comparisons
Bound
Interval
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
Sig.
Std. Error
Difference (I-J)
Mean
Service
(J) Length of
Service (Years)
(I) Length of
Variable
Dependent
Games-Howell
198
5-10
-.19234
.14392
.670
-.6007
.2161
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
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
<5
Employee
5-10
Commitment
Total Score
(1-7)
11-15
16-20
16-20
.19971
.07618
.071
-.0103
.4097
> 20
.12491
.09336
.668
-.1345
.3843
<5
.69793
.07865
.000
.4806
.9153
5-10
.50560
.14156
.007
.1030
.9082
11-15
-.19971
.07618
.071
-.4097
.0103
> 20
-.07480
.09179
.925
-.3302
.1806
.09538
.000
.5076
1.0379
.58039
.15150
.003
.1529
1.0079
-.12491
.09336
.668
-.3843
.1345
<5
.77273
5-10
11-15
199
> 20
16-20
.07480
.09179
.925
-.1806
.3302
5-10
.63556
.13841
.000
.2470
1.0242
11-15
-.12565
.11014
.785
-.4297
.1784
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
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
16-20
.22864
.09376
.111
-.0301
.4873
> 20
.30208
.14593
.242
-.1045
.7086
<5
-.10299
.09360
.806
-.3623
.1563
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
< 5 Years
5-10
Work
11-15
Motivation
Total Score
(1-7)
16-20
200
> 20
11-15
-.30208
.14593
.242
-.7086
.1045
16-20
-.07344
.13389
.982
-.4491
.3022
Max
Mean
Bound
Min
Interval for
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
Std. Error
Deviation
4.9847
.50187
.05834
4.8684
5.1010
3.93
5.60
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
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
Std.
74
N
20-29
Mean
Descriptives
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
Squares
Sig.
Square
Between Groups
43.314
14.438
Within Groups
89.481
322
.278
Total
132.795
325
6.324
2.108
Within Groups
157.859
322
.490
Total
164.182
325
51.956
.000
4.300
.005
Employee
Commitment
Total Score
(1-7)
Between Groups
Work
Motivation
Total Score
(1-7)
(I) Age
(J) Age
Mean
Std.
nt
Group
Group
Diff. (I-J)
Error
Sig.
95%
Confidence
Interval
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
7)
-1.2606
(1-
.000
re
Sco
.08629
al
Tot
nt
30-39
tme
mmi
Co
ee
ploy
Em
Variable
-.8123
202
1.03645
20-29
.07371
.000
-.8673
-.4844
.09975
.000
-.9605
-.4368
40-49
-.67583
>= 50
-.69865
20-29
1.03645
.08629
.000
.8123
1.2606
40-49
.36063
.07792
.000
.1583
.5630
>= 50
.33780
.10290
.008
.0682
.6074
30-39
.07371
.000
.4844
.8673
-.36063
.07792
.000
-.5630
-.1583
-.02282
.09260
.995
-.2670
.2213
20-29
.69865*
.09975
.000
.4368
.9605
30-39
-.33780
.10290
.008
-.6074
-.0682
40-49
.02282
.09260
.995
-.2213
.2670
30-39
.04512
.11862
.981
-.2630
.3532
40-49
-.17308
.09428
.261
-.4184
.0722
>= 50
.25000
.15669
.388
-.1630
.6630
20-29
-.04512
.11862
.981
-.3532
.2630
40-49
-.21820
.10195
.146
-.4834
.0470
>= 50
.20488
.16142
.585
-.2195
.6293
20-29
.17308
.09428
.261
-.0722
.4184
20-29
.67583
30-393
>= 50
40-49
>= 50
20-29
30-39
203
40-49
>= 50
30-39
.21820
.10195
.146
-.0470
.4834
>= 50
.42308
.14448
.025
.0393
.8069
20-29
-.25000
.15669
.388
-.6630
.1630
30-39
-.20488
.16142
.585
-.6293
.2195
40-49
-.42308
.14448
.025
-.8069
-.0393
Mean
Std.
Std.
95%
Confidence
Dev.
Error
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
BSc /
BE /
82
5.4862
.61321
.06772
5.3514
5.6209
4.07
6.47
78
5.7812
.47639
.05394
5.6738
5.8886
4.93
6.40
BCom /
BA
MA /
MCom /
MSc /
ME /
MCA
204
Master
Degree
166
5.5723
.70114
.05442
5.4648
5.6797
3.93
6.67
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
82
5.6293
.52786
.05829
5.5133
5.7453
4.20
6.20
78
5.5487
.52860
.05985
5.4295
5.6679
4.70
6.30
166
5.2699
.82201
.06380
5.1439
5.3958
3.20
7.00
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
/ MBA /
MMS
Total
BSc / BE
/ BCom /
BA
MA /
MCom /
MSc /
ME /
MCA
Master
Degree
/ MBA /
MMS
Total
ANOVA
Sum of
df
Employee Commitment
Squares
Mean
Sig.
4.694
.010
Square
Between Groups
3.751
1.875
Within Groups
129.045
323
.400
Total
132.795
325
205
Score (1-7)
Between Groups
8.608
4.304
Within Groups
155.574
323
.482
Total
164.182
325
8.936
.000
BSc / BE / BCom /
-.29502
.08657
.002
-.4999
-.0901
-.08611
.08687
.583
-.2914
.1192
.29502
.08657
.002
.0901
.4999
.20891
.07662
.019
.0281
.3898
.08687
.583
-.1192
.2914
.07662
.019
-.3898
-.0281
Bound
Interval
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
Sig.
Std. Error
(I-J)
Mean Difference
Employee
(J) Education of
Employee
MA / MCom / MSc / ME
/ ME / MCA
Master Degree /
MBA / MMS
BA
/ MCA
Master Degree /
MBA / MMS
BSc / BE / BCom /
.08611
BA
MA / MCom / MSc
MMS
Variable
(I) Education of
BSc / BE / BCom / BA
MA / MCom / MSc
Dependent
Games-Howell
-.20891
/ ME / MCA
206
BSc / BE / BCom / BA
MA / MCom / MSc / ME
BSc / BE / BCom /
.08055
.08355
.601
-.1171
.2782
.08642
.000
.1555
.5633
-.08055
.08355
.601
-.2782
.1171
.08748
.005
.0724
.4853
/ ME / MCA
Master Degree /
.35939
MBA / MMS
BA
/ MCA
Master Degree /
.27884
MBA / MMS
BSc / BE / BCom /
-.35939
.08642
.000
-.5633
-.1555
-.27884
.08748
.005
-.4853
-.0724
BA
MA / MCom / MSc
MMS
MA / MCom / MSc
/ ME / MCA
Mean
Std.
Std.
Dev.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
Operational
75
5.2276
.64915
.07496
5.0782
5.3769
4.13
6.47
154
5.5939
.65534
.05281
5.4896
5.6983
3.93
6.67
69
5.8860
.49614
.05973
5.7668
6.0052
4.60
6.40
Executive
Middle
manager
Senior
207
Manager
Senior
28
5.9333
.00000
.00000
5.9333
5.9333
5.93
5.93
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
75
5.5560
.68027
.07855
5.3995
5.7125
4.10
6.30
154
5.2792
.84022
.06771
5.1455
5.4130
3.20
7.00
69
5.6681
.43471
.05233
5.5637
5.7725
5.10
6.30
28
5.3000
.00000
.00000
5.3000
5.3000
5.30
5.30
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
Executive
Total
Operational
Executive
Middle
manager
Senior
Manager
Senior
Executive
Total
Work Motivation
Total Score (1-7)
Employee
Commitment Total
Score (1-7)
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
Sig.
Between Groups
19.164
6.388
18.102
.000
Within Groups
113.632
322
.353
Total
132.795
325
Between Groups
9.074
3.025
6.279
.000
Within Groups
155.108
322
.482
Total
164.182
325
208
Middle Manager
Senior Manager
Bound
Interval
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
-.36638
.09169
.001
-.6046
-.1281
Senior Manager
-.65843
.09584
.000
-.9077
-.4092
Senior Executive
-.70578
.07496
.000
-.9028
-.5088
.09169
.001
.1281
.6046
.36638
Executive
Senior Manager
-.29205
.07973
.002
-.4989
-.0852
Senior Executive
-.33939
.05281
.000
-.4766
-.2022
Operational
.65843
.09584
.000
.4092
.9077
Middle manager
.29205
.07973
.002
.0852
.4989
Senior Executive
-.04734
.05973
.858
-.2047
.1100
.70578
.07496
.000
.5088
.9028
Middle manager
.33939
.05281
.000
.2022
.4766
Senior Manager
.04734
.05973
.858
-.1100
.2047
Executive
Operational
Senior Executive
Sig.
Middle Manager
Operational
Std. Error
(J) Occupation
Executive
(I) Occupation
Operational
Dependent Variable
Games-Howell
Executive
209
Confidence
Lower
Bound
.10370
.041
.0078
.5457
Senior Manager
-.11212
.09439
.636
-.3578
.1336
Senior Executive
.25600
.07855
.009
.0495
.4625
Middle Manager
Bound
Upper
Std. Error
-.27678
.10370
.041
-.5457
-.0078
Senior Manager
-.38890
.08557
.000
-.6105
-.1673
Senior Executive
-.02078
.06771
.990
-.1966
.1551
.11212
.09439
.636
-.1336
.3578
Executive
Operational
Senior Manager
Operational
Interval
95%
Sig.
(J) Occupation
Executive
(I) Occupation
Operational
Dependent Variable
Middle Manager
Executive
Middle manager
.38890
.08557
.000
.1673
.6105
Senior Executive
.36812
.05233
.000
.2303
.5059
.07855
.009
-.4625
-.0495
.06771
.990
-.1551
.1966
.05233
.000
-.5059
-.2303
Senior Executive
Operational
-.25600
Executive
Middle manager
.02078
Senior Manager
-.36812
210
Mean
Std.
Std.
95%
Confidence
Dev
Error
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
2,00,000
17
4.7059
.48020
.11646
4.4590
4.9528
4.13
5.33
121
5.4529
.68356
.06214
5.3299
5.5759
3.93
6.47
128
5.7281
.52810
.04668
5.6358
5.8205
4.60
6.40
60
5.8800
.49750
.06423
5.7515
6.0085
4.93
6.67
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
17
5.1059
.32494
.07881
4.9388
5.2730
4.60
5.50
121
5.4273
.79015
.07183
5.2851
5.5695
3.20
6.30
128
5.4086
.66830
.05907
5.2917
5.5255
4.10
6.30
60
5.5567
.68948
.08901
5.3786
5.7348
4.70
7.00
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
& Above
1,00,0001,99,000
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
Total
2,00,000
& Above
1,00,0001,99,000
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
Total
211
ANOVA
Sum of
Df
Employee Commitment
Total Score (1-7)
Between
Squares
Between
Mean
Sig.
22.501
.000
1.866
.135
Square
23.014
7.671
Within Groups
109.781
322
.341
Total
132.795
325
2.805
.935
Within Groups
161.377
322
.501
Total
164.182
325
Groups
Groups
(J)
Mean
Std.
Variable
Monthly
Monthly
Diff (I-J)
Error
Salary
Salary
1,00,000-.74701
Sig
95% Confidence
Interval
.13201
.000
-1.1090
-.3850
1,99,000
Score (1-7)
Dependent
51,0002,00,000
& Above
-1.02224
.12547
.000
-1.3713
-.6732
-1.17412
.13300
.000
-1.5385
-.8098
99,000
35,00050,000
212
2,00,000
.13201
.000
.3850
1.1090
-.27523
.07772
.003
-.4764
-.0741
-.42711
.08937
.000
-.6592
-.1950
.12547
.000
.6732
1.3713
.07772
.003
.0741
.4764
-.15188
.07940
.228
-.3587
.0549
.13300
.000
.8098
1.5385
.08937
.000
.1950
.6592
.15188
.07940
.228
-.0549
.3587
.74701
& Above
1,00,000 1,99,000
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
2,00,000
1.02224
& Above
51,00,000-
51,000-
99,00,000
99,000
.27523
35,00050,000
2,00,000
1.17412
& Above
35,000
51,000.42711
50,000
99,000
35,000-
1,00,000-.32139
.10663
.021
-.6050
-.0378
-.30271
.09849
.020
-.5675
-.0380
-.45078
.11889
.002
-.7653
-.1362
1,99,000
(1-7)
50,000
2,00,000 &
Above
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
213
2,00,000
.10663
.021
.0378
.6050
.01868
.09300
.997
-.2220
.2593
-.12939
.11438
.671
-.4270
.1682
.09849
.020
.0380
.5675
-.01868
.09300
.997
-.2593
.2220
-.14807
.10683
.511
-.4267
.1305
.11889
.002
.1362
.7653
.12939
.11438
.671
-.1682
.4270
.14807
.10683
.511
-.1305
.4267
.32139
& Above
1,00,000-
51,000-
1,99,000
99,000
35,00050,000
2,00,000
.30271
& Above
51,000-
1,00,000-
99,000
1,99,000
35,00050,000
1,00,000.45078
1,99,000
35,000-
51,000-
50,000
99,000
51,00099,000
214
Mean
Std.
Std.
95%
Confidence
Dev.
Error
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
< 5 Years
66
5.0273
.47573
.05856
4.9103
5.1442
3.93
5.60
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
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
Squares
Employee
Between
Commitment
Groups
Sig.
Square
39.843
9.961
92.952
321
.290
132.795
325
15.432
3.858
148.751
321
.463
164.182
325
34.398
.000
8.325
.000
Total Score
Within
(1-7)
Groups
Total
Work
Between
Motivation
Groups
Total Score
Within
(1-7)
Groups
Total
Post Hoc Tests
Multiple Comparisons
Games-Howell
Depend
(I) Length
(J) Length
Mean Diff.
Std.
ent
of Service
of Service
(I-J)
Error
Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
.670
7)
re
.14392
(1-
Sco
al
-.19234
Tot
5-10
nt
tme
mmi
Co
ee
ploy
Em
Variable
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
-.6007
.2161
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
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
16-20
.19971
.07618
.071
-.0103
.4097
> 20
.12491
.09336
.668
-.1345
.3843
<5
.69793
.07865
.000
.4806
.9153
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
16-20
.07480
.09179
.925
-.1806
.3302
5-10
.63556
.13841
.000
.2470
1.0242
11-15
-.12565
.11014
.785
-.4297
.1784
5-10
11-15
16-20
7)
Score (1-
Total
Motivation
Work
> 20
<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
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
16-20
.22864
.09376
.111
-.0301
.4873
> 20
.30208
.14593
.242
-.1045
.7086
<5
-.10299
.09360
.806
-.3623
.1563
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
11-15
-.30208
.14593
.242
-.7086
.1045
16-20
-.07344
.13389
.982
-.4491
.3022
5-10
11-15
16-20
>20
218
Mean
Std.
Std.
95% Confidence
Dev.
Error
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
5.6851
.82218
.09431
5.4972
5.8730
3.93
6.53
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
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
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
52
5.4615
.56261
.07802
5.3049
5.6182
4.60
6.10
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
76
Not Promoted /
0-2
Not Promoted /
Years
Total
219
ANOVA
Sum of
df
Squares
Mean
Sig.
21.779
.000
8.650
.000
Square
Employee Commitment
Total Score (1-7)
Between
22.401
7.467
110.395
322
.343
132.795
325
12.245
4.082
151.938
322
.472
164.182
325
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Std.
ent
Promote
Span
Diff
Error
Variable
d Span
Sig.
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
-.05075
.10421
.962
-.3226
.2211
.00263
.10528
1.000
-.2723
.2775
7)
3-6
95% Confidence
Interval
(I-J)
Score (1-
ent Total
(J) Promoted
Commitm
(I)
Employee
Depend
>7
220
0-2 years
Not Promoted/
.10671
.000
.4054
.9622
0-2
.05075
.10421
.962
-.2211
.3226
>7
.05338
.06447
.841
-.1147
.2215
.06677
.000
.5609
.9082
0-2 years
-.00263
.10528
1.000
-.2775
.2723
3-6
-.05338
.06447
.841
-.2215
.1147
.06843
.000
.5019
.8604
.68381
Not Applicable
3-6 years
Not Promoted/
.73455
Not Applicable
> 7 years
Not Promoted/
.68117
Not Applicable
0-2 years
-.68381
.10671
.000
-.9622
-.4054
3-6
-.73455
.06677
.000
-.9082
-.5609
>7
-.68117
.06843
.000
-.8604
-.5019
3-6
-.18964
.09875
.224
-.4460
.0667
>7
.43289
.11748
.002
.1255
.7403
-.09180
.11097
.841
-.3809
.1973
0-2 years
.18964
.09875
.224
-.0667
.4460
>7
.62253
.10534
.000
.3458
.8993
.09784
.09804
.751
-.1577
.3534
.11748
.002
-.7403
-.1255
Not
Promoted
/ NA
0-2 years
Not Promoted /
Not Applicable
3-6
Not Promoted /
Not Applicable
0-2 years
-.43289
221
>7
3-6
-.62253
.10534
.000
-.8993
-.3458
-.52470
.11688
.000
-.8312
-.2182
Not Promoted /
Not Applicable
0-2 years
.09180
.11097
.841
-.1973
.3809
3-6
-.09784
.09804
.751
-.3534
.1577
>7
.52470
.11688
.000
.2182
.8312
Not
Promoted
/ NA
Min
Max
Mean
Std. Dev.
Builds Trust
326
.00
4.00
3.0245
1.03746
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.
326
3.93
6.67
5.6006
.63922
326
3.20
7.00
5.4270
.71076
Min.
Max.
Mean
Std. Dev.
326
1.13
4.00
3.1708
.69899
326
1.00
4.00
3.1890
.62471
326
.00
3.67
1.0726
.81703
Descriptive Statistics
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
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
3.93
1.2
1.2
1.2
4.07
1.2
1.2
2.5
4.13
1.5
1.5
4.0
4.27
1.2
1.2
5.2
4.40
1.2
1.2
6.4
4.60
2.5
2.5
8.9
4.80
1.2
1.2
10.1
4.93
26
8.0
8.0
18.1
5.00
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
1.2
1.2
28.2
5.27
1.5
1.5
29.8
5.33
30
9.2
9.2
39.0
5.40
2.8
2.8
41.7
5.47
1.2
1.2
42.9
Valid
224
5.60
10
3.1
3.1
46.0
5.67
2.8
2.8
48.8
5.80
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
1.2
1.2
74.2
6.07
19
5.8
5.8
80.1
6.20
1.5
1.5
81.6
6.27
1.2
1.2
82.8
6.33
1.5
1.5
84.4
6.40
39
12.0
12.0
96.3
6.47
1.2
1.2
97.5
6.53
1.2
1.2
98.8
6.67
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
225
Percent
Valid
Valid
Percent
3.20
1.2
1.2
1.2
4.10
2.8
2.8
4.0
4.20
1.2
1.2
5.2
4.40
19
5.8
5.8
11.0
4.60
2.5
2.5
13.5
4.70
34
10.4
10.4
23.9
4.80
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
1.2
1.2
54.0
5.50
12
3.7
3.7
57.7
5.60
1.5
1.5
59.2
5.70
1.5
1.5
60.7
5.80
1.2
1.2
62.0
5.90
24
7.4
7.4
69.3
6.00
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
1.2
1.2
98.8
7.00
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
1.13
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
1.8
1.8
17.5
2.33
1.2
1.2
18.7
2.40
1.2
1.2
19.9
2.53
1.5
1.5
21.5
2.60
1.2
1.2
22.7
2.67
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
1.2
1.2
33.1
3.13
14
4.3
4.3
37.4
227
Valid
3.20
2.5
2.5
39.9
3.27
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
1.2
1.2
65.3
3.67
19
5.8
5.8
71.2
3.73
14
4.3
4.3
75.5
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
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
1.00
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.25
1.2
1.2
2.5
1.38
1.2
1.2
3.7
1.75
1.2
1.2
4.9
228
Valid
Valid
1.88
.3
.3
5.2
2.38
10
3.1
3.1
8.3
2.50
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
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
Valid
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
.00
40
12.3
12.3
12.3
.17
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
2.8
2.8
69.9
1.33
23
7.1
7.1
77.0
1.50
10
3.1
3.1
80.1
1.83
20
6.1
6.1
86.2
2.00
1.2
1.2
87.4
2.33
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
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
230
(0-4)
(0-4)
Transactional Style
(0-4)
Transformational Style
(1-7)
(1-7)
Statistics
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
50
5.8000
5.3000
3.4000
3.5000
1.0000
75
6.0667
6.1000
3.7333
3.6250
1.3333
Percentiles
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
and 60
they were
little
232
Correlations
Employee
Commitment
Total Score (1-7)
Builds Trust
Inspires Others
Encourages
Innovation
Thinking
Coaches People
Rewards
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Monitors Mistakes
Avoids
Involvement
**
Work
Motivation Total
Score (1-7)
**
Pearson Correlation
.313
.555
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.301
.660
.000
.000
N
Pearson Correlation
326
326
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
**
**
.335
.616
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.400
.563
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.268
.430
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.273
.499
.000
.000
326
326
*
**
.116
.189
.018
.000
326
326
**
**
.237
.316
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.357
.413
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.411
.449
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
-.177
-.499
.001
.000
326
326
233
Correlations
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Builds Trust
Acts with
Integrity
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Thinking
Coaches
People
Rewards
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
**
Transactional
Style (0-4)
**
Laissez
Faire Style
(0-4)
**
.918
.736
-.565
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.827
.562
-.570
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.919
.746
-.546
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.832
.775
-.435
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.925
.806
-.623
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.938
.813
-.626
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.571
.764
-.234
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.782
.833
-.486
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.725
.842
-.338
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
234
Monitors
Mistakes
Avoids
Involvement
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
**
**
**
.634
.815
-.317
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
-.630
-.447
1.000
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Transactional
Style (0-4)
Laissez Fairre
Style (0-4)
Work Motivation
Total Score
(1-7)
Pearson
Correlation
.342
.600
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
Pearson
Correlation
.373
.445
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Pearson
Correlation
**
**
**
**
-.177
-.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.001
.000
326
326
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 LaissezFaire 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.
transformational
and
employee
commitment
was
found.
scholarly studies.
Bass
and
Avolio
(1994)
stated
that
both
and
transactional.
The
results
also
indicated
that
commitment
of
employees
compared
to
transactional
238
motivation.
Barbuto
(2005)
researched
on
Motivation
and
240
CHAPTER 6
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 managers leadership styles on employee
motivation?
3. What are the effects of the managers 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
by
similar
studies
which
have
shown
supervision
and
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,
.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
248
Mowday et al.(1982),Steers (1977),Mathieu and Zajac (1990), and ALKahtany (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 (ALKahtany, 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 employees 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
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
251
252
253
CHAPTER 7
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 performanceall 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
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
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
transformational
elements,
such
as
with
adequate
idealized
incorporation of
influence,
inspirational
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
characteristics
of
transformational
leadership
include
increasing
262
there have been other studies which have all indicated that employees leave
the manager, not the organisation.
263
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
267
10. Angel,
H.L.,
&
Perry,
J.L.
(1983).Organizational
Commitment:
Heightened
Tensions.
Journal
of
Higher
Education
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. 20018.
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) Stogdills 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 & Stogdills 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
influence
attempts.
European
Journal
of
270
B.
(1997)
Disentangling
organizational
Commitment.
Reigel,
(1995).
T.E.,
Randall,
D.M.,
&
C.D.
The
271
272
of
Managers
in Work Organizations.
Journal
of
D.S.,
&
Perrewe,
P.L.
(1995).Institutionalization
of
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://wwwstatic.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:
274
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
International
Conference
in
Questionnaire
Development,
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: 1950.
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):
188212.
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
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/
Government of India
278
102.
279
110.
employee
attitudes and
perception
of
influence.
Academy of
(1977).Organizational
Behaviour
and
Performance.
Goodyear
Transformational
Leadership
in
Successful
and
Unsuccessful
280
118.
J.E.Bono
ad
T.A.
Judge
(2004),
Personality
and
Influence's
During
Early
on
Salespeople's
Employment.
Journal
Organizational
of
Marketing
Judge
and
R.
Piccolo
(2004),.Transformational
and
281
126.
performance
in
government
organisations.
Journal
of
Public
Kelman,
H.C.
(1958).
Compliance,
Identification,
and
transformational
leadership
on
teacher
attitudes
and
student
282
Hall,
Inc.
Landy,
F.J.
(1985).Psychology of
Work
Behaviour.
University Associates.
137.
Mcgraw-Hill
138.
Liou,
K.
T.
(1995,
Apr.)
Professional
Orientation
and
Industrial
283
Effectiveness
correlates
of
transformational
and
transactional
antecedents,
correlates,
and
consequences
of
organizational
284
150.
New York.
151.
house
sector,
International
Journal
of
Contemporary
Meyer,
J.
&
Allen.
N.J,
(1991).
Three
Component
Morrow,
Paula
C.
(1983),
"Concept
Redundancy
in
285
159.
Nel PS, Van Dyk PS, Haasbroek GD, Schultz HB, Sono TJ,
instruments.
Journal
of
Extension,
[On-line],
28(2).
Available
athttp://www.joe.org/joe/1990summer/tt2.html
165.
167.
Jossey Bass
174.
287
175.
Dimensions of
Free Press
181.
Reitz,
H.J.
(1981).Behaviour
in
Organizations
(Rev.ed).
Rucci, A.J., Kirn, S.P. and Quinn, R.T. (1998), ``The employee
288
184.
Schermerhorn,
Jr.,
J.R.,
Hunt,
J.G.,
Osborn,
R.N.
Scholl,
R.W.
(1981).
Differentiating
Commitment
from
characteristics.
personal,
International
organizational
Journal
of
and
Retail
&
managerial
Distribution
289
192.
Steers,
Organizational
R.M.
(1975).
Commitment.
Antecedents
Journal
of
and
Outcome
Administrative
of
Science
personal,
role,
and
organizational
predictors
of
managerial
290
201.
Stogdill,
R.M.
(1948).Personal
factors
associated
with
management.
(2nd
ed).Oxford:
Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann
Publishing.
204.
management.
(2nd
ed).Oxford:
Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann
Publishing.
209.
291
210.
T.Judge
and
R.Piccolo
(2004),
.Transformational
and
October-December
2005,
International
Institute
for
Educational Planning.
215.
Human Resource
292
Waldman,
D.A.,
Bass,
B.M.,
&
Einstein, W.O.
(1987).
Wang,
and
Huang,
T.
2009.
.The
Relationship
of
Webb,
K.
S.
(2003).
Presidents
Leadership
Behaviors
Organization {A. N. Henderson &T. Parsons, eds & trans). Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.
226.
293
227.
Macmillan.
230.
http://www.research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm
http://www.joe.org/joe/2007february/tt2.php
Publications :
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
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Neutral
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
disagree
agree
Agree
Rate
beyond
that
normally
299
find
that
organizations
my
values
values
are
and
very
similar
6
to
this
organization
indefinitely.
300
to
work
for
this
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
while
0
Frequently, if
not always
302
Your designation
Your
rating
him/her
2
Consider
the
moral
and
ethical
consequences of decisions
8
303
304
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
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly
disagree
agree
Agree
Disagree
Rate
Provides
satisfactory
material
306
rewards
4
Is a secure one
307
ANNEXURE-II
308
ANNEXURE-II
Tables and Graphs
Frequency Tables for Pilot Study
Table 5.3.1(i) : Frequency distribution by Age Group (in years)
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
21-30
12
24.0
24.0
24.0
31-40
21
42.0
42.0
66.0
41-50
14
28.0
28.0
94.0
> 50
6.0
6.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
Valid
BSc / BE /
BCom / BA
MA / MCom /
MSc / ME / MCA
Master Degree /
MBA / MMS
Total
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
12
24.0
24.0
24.0
16
32.0
32.0
56.0
22
44.0
44.0
100.0
50
100.0
100.0
309
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Married
41
82.0
82.0
82.0
Single
18.0
18.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
Valid
Operational
Executive
Middle
Manager
Senior
Manager
Senior
Executive
Total
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
11
22.0
22.0
22.0
20
40.0
40.0
62.0
13
26.0
26.0
88.0
12.0
12.0
100.0
50
100.0
100.0
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
2 lac and
above
2.0
2.0
2.0
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
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
10.0
10.0
94.0
> 30
6.0
6.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
Valid
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Male
41
82.0
82.0
82.0
Female
18.0
18.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
16.0
16.0
20.0
311
10.0
10.0
30.0
10
20.0
20.0
50.0
2.0
2.0
52.0
18.0
18.0
70.0
4.0
4.0
74.0
8.0
8.0
82.0
11
2.0
2.0
84.0
NA
16.0
16.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
Valid
Qualifications of Manager
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
BSc / BE /
BCom / BA
6.0
6.0
6.0
MA / MCom /
MSc / ME / MCA
6.0
6.0
12.0
Master Degree /
MBA / MMS
43
86.0
86.0
98.0
Doctorate
2.0
2.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
Gender
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Male
47
94.0
94.0
94.0
Female
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
Manager
50
.00
8.00
3.1300
1.78088
Age of Manager
50
35
57
45.50
6.072
0.862
0.891
29
0.713
0.806
15
(0-4)
Transformational Style
Employee Commitment
**
.485
.395
-.398
.000
.005
.004
50
50
50
.845
-.732
.000
.000
50
50
-.496
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
50
Pearson
**
.485
**
**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
50
Pearson
50
**
**
.395
.845
.005
.000
50
50
**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Laissez Fairre Style (0-4)
**
Score (1-7)
Pearson
**
.000
50
**
50
**
-.398
-.732
-.496
.004
.000
.000
50
50
50
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
50
Employee
Commitment
Total Score
(15 - 105)
Leadership
Style Total
Score
(0 116)
Mean
Std. Deviation
41
78.3171
3.65677
.57109
73.0000
6.48074
2.16025
Male
41
81.3902
10.92904
1.70683
Female
77.5556
11.18158
3.72719
Male
Female
Df
Sig. (2-tailed)
2.380
9.148
.041
.949
48
.347
-.426
48
.672
(0 - 116)
(10 - 70)
N of Items
Items
.834
.834
10
315
N of Items
Items
.862
.891
29
Pearson
Correlation
.277
Sig. (2tailed)
.051
Transactional Style
(0-4)
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Work Motivation
Total Score (1-7)
1
.602**
.329*
-.585**
.000
.020
.000
50
50
50
Pearson
Correlation
.485**
.602**
.845**
-.732**
Sig. (2tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
50
50
50
50
50
.395**
.329*
.845**
-.496**
.005
.020
.000
50
50
50
50
50
-.585**
-.732**
-.496**
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
Fair
Pearson
Correlation
re
-.398**
4)
50
(0-
50
Styl
Lai
Transactional
Transformational
Work Motivation
Employee
Commitment Total
Score (1-7)
Correlations (Pearsons R)
.000
316
Sig. (2tailed)
N
.004
.000
.000
.000
50
50
50
50
50
(in
Frequency
Percent
Years)
Valid
Cumulative
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
> = 50
40
12.3
12.3
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Valid
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
78
23.9
23.9
49.1
166
50.9
50.9
100.0
326
100.0
100.0
BCom / BA
MA / MCom /
MSc / ME /
Valid
MCA
Master
Degree
MBA / MMS
Total
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Married
258
79.1
79.1
79.1
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
154
47.2
47.2
70.2
69
21.2
21.2
91.4
28
8.6
8.6
100.0
326
100.0
100.0
Executive
Middle
Manager
Valid
Senior
Manager
Senior
Executive
Total
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
2,00,000
17
5.2
5.2
5.2
121
37.1
37.1
42.3
128
39.3
39.3
81.6
and Above
1,00,0001,99,000
Valid
51,00099,000
319
35,00060
18.4
18.4
326
100.0
100.0
100.0
50,000
Total
Frequency
Percent
Service
Valid
Cumulative
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
21-25
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
Valid
320
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Male
250
76.7
76.7
76.7
Female
76
23.3
23.3
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
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
> 10
1.5
1.5
84.0
52
16.0
16.0
100.0
326
100.0
100.0
Valid
Not
Promoted/Not
Applicable
Total
321
.959
N of Items
15
.827
15.954
.024
N of Items
.882
Variance
Maximum
.055
Maximum /
Minimum
Minimum
.602
Range
Mean
Inter-Item
Correlations
15
Item-Total Statistics
LS1
LS2
LS3
LS4
LS5
LS6
LS7
LS8
LS9
LS13
LS14
LS15
LS16
LS17
LS18
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
44.55
44.40
44.54
44.21
44.28
44.34
44.24
44.35
44.54
44.33
44.44
44.60
44.21
44.27
44.58
Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
92.402
93.588
91.031
104.828
95.680
98.015
93.840
95.403
96.495
96.891
97.417
95.546
96.824
95.187
97.524
Corrected
Item - Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.845
.793
.900
.364
.744
.756
.885
.794
.765
.706
.725
.760
.795
.836
.741
.861
.787
.900
.612
.801
.776
.869
.762
.739
.766
.778
.805
.810
.884
.875
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
.954
.956
.953
.962
.957
.956
.954
.956
.956
.957
.957
.956
.956
.955
.957
Split-half Reliability
322
Reliability Statistics
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
.940
8a
.889
7b
15
.938
.968
.968
.951
Total N of Items
Correlation Between Forms
Equal Length
Unequal Length
Spearman-Brown Coefficient
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient
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 Cronbachs 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
N of Items
.869
.876
.736
N of Items
.820
Variance
Maximum
.084
Maximum /
Minimum
Minimum
.468
Range
Mean
Inter-Item
Correlations
9.780
.030
Item-Total Statistics
Scale
Scale
Corrected
Squared
Cronbach's
323
Mean if
Item
Deleted
LS10
22.07
LS12
22.25
LS19
22.44
LS20
22.47
LS21
22.20
LS22
22.26
LS23
22.23
LS24
22.66
Split-half Reliability
Variance
if Item
Deleted
20.020
20.972
18.764
19.432
18.134
19.418
19.207
19.899
Item-Total
Correlation
Multiple
Correlation
.638
.573
.700
.682
.774
.655
.635
.411
.641
.567
.621
.654
.676
.722
.719
.355
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
.852
.859
.844
.847
.835
.849
.852
.883
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
.827
4a
.687
4b
8
.782
.878
.878
.873
Total N of Items
Correlation Between Forms
Equal Length
Unequal Length
Spearman-Brown Coefficient
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient
N of Items
6
Inter-Item
Correlations
.561
.153
.798
.645
5.223
.039
N of Items
Variance
Maximum /
Minimum
Range
Maximum
Minimum
Mean
Item-Total Statistics
324
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
LS25
4.86
LS26
5.20
LS27
5.42
LS28
5.62
LS29
5.49
LS30
5.59
Split-half Reliability
Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
17.871
15.805
15.697
18.913
16.109
18.342
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.398
.806
.786
.687
.852
.639
.357
.724
.737
.557
.795
.657
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
.909
.822
.826
.851
.816
.854
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
.726
3a
.785
3b
6
.831
.907
.907
.899
Total N of Items
Correlation Between Forms
Equal Length
Unequal Length
Spearman-Brown Coefficient
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient
a. The items are: LS25, LS27, LS29
b. The items are: LS26, LS28, LS30
.672
.787
-5.840
10
.043
N of Items
Maximum
-.115
N of Items
Variance
Minimum
.370
Maximum
/ Minimum
Mean
Inter-Item
Correlations
.853
Summary Item Statistics
Range
Cronbach's Alpha
10
325
Item-Total Statistics
WMS1
WMS2
WMS3
WMS4
WMS5
WMS6
WMS7
WMS8
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
48.72
48.60
49.50
49.04
48.46
48.83
48.89
48.64
Scale
Variance if
Item
Deleted
40.603
39.219
39.734
40.740
42.772
45.558
44.538
40.409
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.690
.765
.603
.705
.482
.259
.320
.608
.626
.726
.639
.624
.576
.478
.335
.644
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
.828
.820
.835
.827
.845
.864
.859
.834
Split-half Reliability
Reliability Statistics
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
Total N of Items
Correlation Between Forms
Spearman-Brown Coefficient
.649
5a
.762
5b
10
.858
Equal Length
Unequal Length
.924
.924
.921
N of Items
Standardized Items
.796
.850
15
326
.696
.913
-3.201
N of Items
Variance
Minimum
Maximum /
Range
Minimum
-.217
Maximum
Mean
Correlations
Inter-Item
.274
.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
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Total N of Items
Correlation Between Forms
Spearman-Brown Coefficient
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient
Equal Length
Unequal Length
.602
8a
.694
7b
15
.712
.832
.832
.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
Commitment
Total
Score (1-7)
Score (1-7)
Pearson
**
**
.313
.555
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Builds Trust
Pearson
Acts with Integrity
**
.660
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Inspires Others
**
.301
**
**
.335
.616
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
.400
**
.563
328
Encourages
Correlation
Innovation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Pearson
**
**
.268
.430
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Thinking
Pearson
Coaches People
**
**
.273
.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
.116
.189
Sig. (1-tailed)
.018
.000
326
326
Correlation
Rewards
Pearson
Achievement
**
.316
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
.357
Contingent
**
.237
**
.413
Correlation
329
Rewards
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Pearson
**
**
.411
.449
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Monitors Mistakes
Pearson
**
**
-.177
-.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.001
.000
326
326
Correlation
Avoids
Involvement
Pearson
**
**
(0-4)
(0-4)
Transactional Style
Style (0-4)
Transformational
Correlations
**
.918
.736
-.565
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Builds
Trust
Pearson
**
.827
**
.562
**
-.570
Acts
330
Correlation
with
Integrity
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Pearson
Inspires
Others
Innovation
**
**
.746
-.546
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Encourages
**
.919
**
**
**
.832
.775
-.435
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
**
**
.925
.806
-.623
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Thinking
Pearson
Coaches
**
**
**
.938
.813
-.626
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
People
Pearson
**
.571
**
.764
**
-.234
Correlation
Rewards
331
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Pearson
**
**
**
.782
.833
-.486
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Achievement
Pearson
**
**
**
.725
.842
-.338
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Contingent
Rewards
Pearson
Monitors
Mistakes
**
involvement
**
.815
-.317
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Avoids
**
.634
**
**
**
-.630
-.447
1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
332
Employee
Commitment Total
Score (1-7)
Score (1-7)
Pearson
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Style (0-4)
**
.600
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Transactional
**
.342
**
**
.373
.445
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
**
-.177
-.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.001
.000
326
326
Correlation
Laissez faire
Style (0-4)
Variables
Variables
Entered
Removed
Method
333
Acts with
.
Integrity
Monitors
.
Mistakes
Rewards
.
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
Thinking
.
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
Avoids
.
Involvement
Encourages
Innovation
Inspires Others
Builds Trust
.
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
Change Statistics
ate
Estim
of the
Error
e
Std.
Squar
Squar
Adjust
e
ed R
Rl
Mode
Model Summary
334
Sig. F Change
.434
.53460
.436
250.479
324
.000
.498
.495
.50533
.062
39.616
323
.000
.539
.535
.48460
.042
29.230
322
.000
.559
.554
.47487
.020
14.328
321
.000
.764
.584
.577
.46203
.025
19.083
320
.000
.604
.597
.45147
.020
16.144
319
.000
.609
.601
.44915
.005
4.315
318
.039
.621
.611
.44320
.011
9.597
317
.002
.660a
.705
.734
.748
.777
.781
.788
df1
F Change
df2
R Square Change
.436
of
Df
Squares
Mean
Sig.
250.479
.000
159.974
.000
125.714
.000
101.770
.000
89.819
.000
Square
Regression
71.585
71.585
Residual
92.597
324
.286
Total
164.182
325
Regression
81.702
40.851
Residual
82.481
323
.255
Total
164.182
325
Regression
88.566
29.522
Residual
75.617
322
.235
Total
164.182
325
Regression
91.797
22.949
Residual
72.386
321
.226
Total
164.182
325
Regression
95.871
19.174
Residual
68.312
320
.213
336
Total
164.182
325
Regression
99.161
16.527
Residual
65.021
319
.204
Total
164.182
325
Regression
100.032
14.290
Residual
64.151
318
.202
Total
164.182
325
Regression
101.917
12.740
Residual
62.266
317
.196
Total
164.182
325
81.082
.000
70.837
.000
64.858
.000
337
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
Std.
Sig.
40.045
.000
15.827
.000
26.356
.000
Beta
Error
(Constant)
3.941
.098
.469
.030
3.384
.128
.409
.030
.575
13.800
.000
.239
.038
.262
6.294
.000
3.634
.131
27.634
.000
.469
.031
.660
15.371
.000
.303
.038
.332
7.908
.000
1
Acts with
.660
Integrity
(Constant)
Acts with
Integrity
2
Monitors
Mistakes
(Constant)
Acts with
3
Integrity
Monitors
Mistakes
338
Rewards
-.210
.039
-.240
-5.406
.000
28.453
.000
(Constant)
3.696
.130
.560
.038
.787
14.607
.000
Monitors Mistakes
.359
.040
.393
8.895
.000
Rewards
-.162
.040
-.185
-4.035
.000
Thinking
-.212
.056
-.238
-3.785
.000
(Constant)
4.243
.178
23.857
.000
.519
.038
.731
13.528
.000
Monitors Mistakes
.352
.039
.386
8.957
.000
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
.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
Encourages Innovation
.249
.062
.272
4.018
.000
(Constant)
4.130
.179
23.040
.000
.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
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
.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
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
Beta In
Sig.
Partial
Correlation
Collinearity
Statistics
Tolerance
.019b
.247
.805
.014
.307
.241b
3.489
.001
.191
.354
.280b
5.833
.000
.309
.684
-.097b
-1.620
.106
-.090
.479
.060b
1.021
.308
.057
.496
Rewards
-.132b
-2.865
.004
-.157
.801
Achievement
-.118b
-2.287
.023
-.126
.648
.093b
1.917
.056
.106
.727
.262b
6.294
.000
.331
.895
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Thinking
Coaches
People
1
Contingent
Rewards
Monitors
341
Mistakes
Avoids
-.181b
-3.643
.000
-.199
.676
-.318c
-3.832
.000
-.209
.217
-.009c
-.114
.909
-.006
.230
.130c
1.856
.064
.103
.315
-.319c
-5.215
.000
-.279
.385
-.172c
-2.640
.009
-.146
.359
Rewards
-.240c
-5.406
.000
-.288
.725
Achievement
-.229c
-4.595
.000
-.248
.591
-.093c
-1.693
.091
-.094
.511
-.134c
-2.778
.006
-.153
.656
-.318c
-3.832
.000
-.209
.217
-.009c
-.114
.909
-.006
.230
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
2
Thinking
Coaches
People
Contingent
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
342
Encourages
.130c
1.856
.064
.103
.315
-.319c
-5.215
.000
-.279
.385
-.172c
-2.640
.009
-.146
.359
Rewards
-.240c
-5.406
.000
-.288
.725
Achievement
-.229c
-4.595
.000
-.248
.591
-.093c
-1.693
.091
-.094
.511
-.134c
-2.778
.006
-.153
.656
-.248d
-3.041
.003
-.167
.210
.056d
.698
.486
.039
.225
.122d
1.811
.071
.101
.315
-.238d
-3.785
.000
-.207
.347
-.085d
-1.304
.193
-.073
.333
-.117d
-1.981
.048
-.110
.408
Innovation
Thinking
Coaches
People
Contingent
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Thinking
Coaches
People
Achievement
343
Contingent
.097d
1.524
.129
.085
.351
-.113d
-2.433
.016
-.135
.651
-.141e
-1.576
.116
-.088
.170
.196e
2.335
.020
.129
.193
.243e
3.493
.001
.192
.274
.125e
1.482
.139
.083
.193
.084e
1.009
.314
.056
.198
.132e
2.108
.036
.117
.344
-.212e
-4.368
.000
-.237
.555
-.132f
-1.518
.130
-.085
.170
.209f
2.561
.011
.142
.193
.272f
4.018
.000
.219
.272
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Coaches
People
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
344
Coaches
.056f
.669
.504
.037
.185
.082f
1.018
.309
.057
.198
.147f
2.406
.017
.133
.343
-.164g
-1.920
.056
-.107
.169
.167g
2.077
.039
.116
.189
-.031g
-.369
.712
-.021
.173
.072g
.911
.363
.051
.198
.097g
1.574
.117
.088
.326
-.287h
-3.098
.002
-.171
.140
-.002h
-.025
.980
-.001
.168
.075h
.952
.342
.053
.198
.116h
1.880
.061
.105
.320
.021i
.242
.809
.014
.167
People
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Coaches
7
People
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Builds Trust
Coaches
People
8
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Coaches
345
People
Achievement
Contingent
.068i
.868
.386
.049
.198
.110i
1.804
.072
.101
.319
Rewards
Rewards,
Thinking,
Avoids
Involvement,
Encourages
Innovation
h. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors
Mistakes,
Rewards,
Thinking,
Avoids
Involvement,
Encourages
Rewards,
Thinking,
Avoids
Involvement,
Encourages
346
Mean
Std.
Std.
95% Confidence
Dev.
Error
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
<5
66
5.0273
.47573
.05856
4.9103
5.1442
3.93
5.60
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
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
32
Total
6
<5
66
5.5091
.63190
.07778
5.3537
5.6644
4.40
6.20
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
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
32
Total
3.20
7.00
347
ANOVA
Sum of
Df
Mean
Squares
Employee
Between
Commitment
Groups
Sig.
34.398
.000
8.325
.000
Square
39.843
9.961
92.952
321
.290
132.795
325
15.432
3.858
148.751
321
.463
164.182
325
Total Score
Within
(1-7)
Groups
Total
Work
Between
Motivation
Groups
Total Score
Within
(1-7)
Groups
Total
Post Hoc Tests
Multiple Comparisons
Bound
Interval
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
Sig.
Std. Error
Difference (I-J)
Mean
Service
(J) Length of
Service (Years)
(I) Length of
Variable
Dependent
Games-Howell
348
5-10
-.19234
.14392
.670
-.6007
.2161
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
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
<5
Employee
5-10
Commitment
Total Score
(1-7)
11-15
16-20
16-20
.19971
.07618
.071
-.0103
.4097
> 20
.12491
.09336
.668
-.1345
.3843
<5
.69793
.07865
.000
.4806
.9153
5-10
.50560
.14156
.007
.1030
.9082
11-15
-.19971
.07618
.071
-.4097
.0103
> 20
-.07480
.09179
.925
-.3302
.1806
.09538
.000
.5076
1.0379
.58039
.15150
.003
.1529
1.0079
-.12491
.09336
.668
-.3843
.1345
<5
.77273
5-10
11-15
349
> 20
16-20
.07480
.09179
.925
-.1806
.3302
5-10
.63556
.13841
.000
.2470
1.0242
11-15
-.12565
.11014
.785
-.4297
.1784
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
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
16-20
.22864
.09376
.111
-.0301
.4873
> 20
.30208
.14593
.242
-.1045
.7086
<5
-.10299
.09360
.806
-.3623
.1563
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
< 5 Years
5-10
Work
11-15
Motivation
Total Score
(1-7)
16-20
350
> 20
11-15
-.30208
.14593
.242
-.7086
.1045
16-20
-.07344
.13389
.982
-.4491
.3022
Max
Mean
Bound
Min
Interval for
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
.50187
.05834
4.8684
5.1010
3.93
5.60
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
5.4000
.68186
.07926
5.2420
5.5580
4.20
6.20
5.3549
.79910
.08825
5.1793
5.5305
3.20
6.70
74
82
(1-7)
Motivation
30-39
Total Score
Std. Error
4.9847
Std.
74
N
20-29
20-29
Work
Deviation
Mean
Descriptives
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
Squares
Sig.
Square
Between Groups
43.314
14.438
Within Groups
89.481
322
.278
Total
132.795
325
6.324
2.108
Within Groups
157.859
322
.490
Total
164.182
325
51.956
.000
4.300
.005
Employee
Commitment
Total Score
(1-7)
Between Groups
Work
Motivation
Total Score
(1-7)
Interval
.000
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
-1.2606
7)
.08629
al
nt
30-39
95%
(1-
Error
re
Diff. (I-J)
Sig.
Sco
Group
Tot
Group
tme
Variable
mmi
Std.
Co
Mean
ee
(J) Age
ploy
(I) Age
Em
Dependent
-.8123
352
1.03645
20-29
.07371
.000
-.8673
-.4844
.09975
.000
-.9605
-.4368
40-49
-.67583
>= 50
-.69865
20-29
1.03645
.08629
.000
.8123
1.2606
40-49
.36063
.07792
.000
.1583
.5630
>= 50
.33780
.10290
.008
.0682
.6074
30-39
.07371
.000
.4844
.8673
-.36063
.07792
.000
-.5630
-.1583
-.02282
.09260
.995
-.2670
.2213
20-29
.69865*
.09975
.000
.4368
.9605
30-39
-.33780
.10290
.008
-.6074
-.0682
40-49
.02282
.09260
.995
-.2213
.2670
30-39
.04512
.11862
.981
-.2630
.3532
40-49
-.17308
.09428
.261
-.4184
.0722
>= 50
.25000
.15669
.388
-.1630
.6630
20-29
-.04512
.11862
.981
-.3532
.2630
40-49
-.21820
.10195
.146
-.4834
.0470
>= 50
.20488
.16142
.585
-.2195
.6293
20-29
.17308
.09428
.261
-.0722
.4184
20-29
.67583
30-393
>= 50
40-49
>= 50
20-29
30-39
353
40-49
>= 50
30-39
.21820
.10195
.146
-.0470
.4834
>= 50
.42308
.14448
.025
.0393
.8069
20-29
-.25000
.15669
.388
-.6630
.1630
30-39
-.20488
.16142
.585
-.6293
.2195
40-49
-.42308
.14448
.025
-.8069
-.0393
Mean
Std.
Std.
95%
Confidence
Dev.
Error
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
BSc /
BE /
82
5.4862
.61321
.06772
5.3514
5.6209
4.07
6.47
78
5.7812
.47639
.05394
5.6738
5.8886
4.93
6.40
BCom /
BA
MA /
MCom /
MSc /
ME /
MCA
354
Master
Degree
166
5.5723
.70114
.05442
5.4648
5.6797
3.93
6.67
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
82
5.6293
.52786
.05829
5.5133
5.7453
4.20
6.20
78
5.5487
.52860
.05985
5.4295
5.6679
4.70
6.30
166
5.2699
.82201
.06380
5.1439
5.3958
3.20
7.00
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
/ MBA /
MMS
Total
BSc / BE
/ BCom /
BA
MA /
MCom /
MSc /
ME /
MCA
Master
Degree
/ MBA /
MMS
Total
ANOVA
Sum of
df
Employee Commitment
Squares
Mean
Sig.
4.694
.010
Square
Between Groups
3.751
1.875
Within Groups
129.045
323
.400
Total
132.795
325
355
Score (1-7)
Between Groups
8.608
4.304
Within Groups
155.574
323
.482
Total
164.182
325
8.936
.000
BSc / BE / BCom /
-.29502
.08657
.002
-.4999
-.0901
-.08611
.08687
.583
-.2914
.1192
.29502
.08657
.002
.0901
.4999
.20891
.07662
.019
.0281
.3898
.08687
.583
-.1192
.2914
.07662
.019
-.3898
-.0281
Bound
Interval
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
Sig.
Std. Error
(I-J)
Mean Difference
Employee
(J) Education of
Employee
MA / MCom / MSc / ME
/ ME / MCA
Master Degree /
MBA / MMS
BA
/ MCA
Master Degree /
MBA / MMS
BSc / BE / BCom /
.08611
BA
MA / MCom / MSc
MMS
Variable
(I) Education of
BSc / BE / BCom / BA
MA / MCom / MSc
Dependent
Games-Howell
-.20891
/ ME / MCA
356
BSc / BE / BCom / BA
MA / MCom / MSc / ME
BSc / BE / BCom /
.08055
.08355
.601
-.1171
.2782
.08642
.000
.1555
.5633
-.08055
.08355
.601
-.2782
.1171
.08748
.005
.0724
.4853
/ ME / MCA
Master Degree /
.35939
MBA / MMS
BA
/ MCA
Master Degree /
.27884
MBA / MMS
BSc / BE / BCom /
-.35939
.08642
.000
-.5633
-.1555
-.27884
.08748
.005
-.4853
-.0724
BA
MA / MCom / MSc
MMS
MA / MCom / MSc
/ ME / MCA
Mean
Std.
Std.
Dev.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
Operational
75
5.2276
.64915
.07496
5.0782
5.3769
4.13
6.47
154
5.5939
.65534
.05281
5.4896
5.6983
3.93
6.67
69
5.8860
.49614
.05973
5.7668
6.0052
4.60
6.40
Executive
Middle
manager
Senior
357
Manager
Senior
28
5.9333
.00000
.00000
5.9333
5.9333
5.93
5.93
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
75
5.5560
.68027
.07855
5.3995
5.7125
4.10
6.30
154
5.2792
.84022
.06771
5.1455
5.4130
3.20
7.00
69
5.6681
.43471
.05233
5.5637
5.7725
5.10
6.30
28
5.3000
.00000
.00000
5.3000
5.3000
5.30
5.30
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
Executive
Total
Operational
Executive
Middle
manager
Senior
Manager
Senior
Executive
Total
Work Motivation
Total Score (1-7)
Employee
Commitment Total
Score (1-7)
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
Sig.
Between Groups
19.164
6.388
18.102
.000
Within Groups
113.632
322
.353
Total
132.795
325
Between Groups
9.074
3.025
6.279
.000
Within Groups
155.108
322
.482
Total
164.182
325
Multiple Comparisons
Middle Manager
Senior Manager
Bound
Interval
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
-.36638
.09169
.001
-.6046
-.1281
Senior Manager
-.65843
.09584
.000
-.9077
-.4092
Senior Executive
-.70578
.07496
.000
-.9028
-.5088
.09169
.001
.1281
.6046
.36638
Executive
Senior Manager
-.29205
.07973
.002
-.4989
-.0852
Senior Executive
-.33939
.05281
.000
-.4766
-.2022
Operational
.65843
.09584
.000
.4092
.9077
Middle manager
.29205
.07973
.002
.0852
.4989
Senior Executive
-.04734
.05973
.858
-.2047
.1100
.70578
.07496
.000
.5088
.9028
Middle manager
.33939
.05281
.000
.2022
.4766
Senior Manager
.04734
.05973
.858
-.1100
.2047
Executive
Operational
Senior Executive
Sig.
Middle Manager
Operational
Std. Error
(J) Occupation
Executive
(I) Occupation
Operational
Dependent Variable
Games-Howell
Executive
359
Confidence
Lower
Bound
.10370
.041
.0078
.5457
Senior Manager
-.11212
.09439
.636
-.3578
.1336
Senior Executive
.25600
.07855
.009
.0495
.4625
Middle Manager
Bound
Upper
Std. Error
-.27678
.10370
.041
-.5457
-.0078
Senior Manager
-.38890
.08557
.000
-.6105
-.1673
Senior Executive
-.02078
.06771
.990
-.1966
.1551
.11212
.09439
.636
-.1336
.3578
Executive
Operational
Senior Manager
Operational
Interval
95%
Sig.
(J) Occupation
Executive
(I) Occupation
Operational
Dependent Variable
Middle Manager
Executive
Middle manager
.38890
.08557
.000
.1673
.6105
Senior Executive
.36812
.05233
.000
.2303
.5059
.07855
.009
-.4625
-.0495
.06771
.990
-.1551
.1966
.05233
.000
-.5059
-.2303
Senior Executive
Operational
-.25600
Executive
Middle manager
.02078
Senior Manager
-.36812
360
Mean
Std.
Std.
95%
Confidence
Dev
Error
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
2,00,000
17
4.7059
.48020
.11646
4.4590
4.9528
4.13
5.33
121
5.4529
.68356
.06214
5.3299
5.5759
3.93
6.47
128
5.7281
.52810
.04668
5.6358
5.8205
4.60
6.40
60
5.8800
.49750
.06423
5.7515
6.0085
4.93
6.67
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
17
5.1059
.32494
.07881
4.9388
5.2730
4.60
5.50
121
5.4273
.79015
.07183
5.2851
5.5695
3.20
6.30
128
5.4086
.66830
.05907
5.2917
5.5255
4.10
6.30
60
5.5567
.68948
.08901
5.3786
5.7348
4.70
7.00
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
& Above
1,00,0001,99,000
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
Total
2,00,000
& Above
1,00,0001,99,000
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
Total
ANOVA
361
Sum of
Df
Employee Commitment
Total Score (1-7)
Between
Squares
Between
Mean
Sig.
22.501
.000
1.866
.135
Square
23.014
7.671
Within Groups
109.781
322
.341
Total
132.795
325
2.805
.935
Within Groups
161.377
322
.501
Total
164.182
325
Groups
Groups
(J)
Mean
Std.
Variable
Monthly
Monthly
Diff (I-J)
Error
Salary
Salary
1,00,000-.74701
Sig
95% Confidence
Interval
.13201
.000
-1.1090
-.3850
1,99,000
Score (1-7)
Dependent
51,0002,00,000
& Above
-1.02224
.12547
.000
-1.3713
-.6732
-1.17412
.13300
.000
-1.5385
-.8098
99,000
35,00050,000
362
2,00,000
.13201
.000
.3850
1.1090
-.27523
.07772
.003
-.4764
-.0741
-.42711
.08937
.000
-.6592
-.1950
.12547
.000
.6732
1.3713
.07772
.003
.0741
.4764
-.15188
.07940
.228
-.3587
.0549
.13300
.000
.8098
1.5385
.08937
.000
.1950
.6592
.15188
.07940
.228
-.0549
.3587
.74701
& Above
1,00,000 1,99,000
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
2,00,000
1.02224
& Above
51,00,000-
51,000-
99,00,000
99,000
.27523
35,00050,000
2,00,000
1.17412
& Above
35,000
51,000.42711
50,000
99,000
35,000-
1,00,000-.32139
.10663
.021
-.6050
-.0378
-.30271
.09849
.020
-.5675
-.0380
-.45078
.11889
.002
-.7653
-.1362
1,99,000
(1-7)
50,000
2,00,000 &
Above
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
363
2,00,000
.10663
.021
.0378
.6050
.01868
.09300
.997
-.2220
.2593
-.12939
.11438
.671
-.4270
.1682
.09849
.020
.0380
.5675
-.01868
.09300
.997
-.2593
.2220
-.14807
.10683
.511
-.4267
.1305
.11889
.002
.1362
.7653
.12939
.11438
.671
-.1682
.4270
.14807
.10683
.511
-.1305
.4267
.32139
& Above
1,00,000-
51,000-
1,99,000
99,000
35,00050,000
2,00,000
.30271
& Above
51,000-
1,00,000-
99,000
1,99,000
35,00050,000
1,00,000.45078
1,99,000
35,000-
51,000-
50,000
99,000
51,00099,000
Mean
Std.
Std.
95%
Dev.
Error
Lower
Confidence
Min
Max
Upper
364
Bound
Bound
< 5 Years
66
5.0273
.47573
.05856
4.9103
5.1442
3.93
5.60
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
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
Squares
Employee
Between
Commitment
Groups
39.843
Mean
Sig.
Square
9.961
34.398
.000
365
Total Score
(1-7)
Within
92.952
321
.290
132.795
325
15.432
3.858
148.751
321
.463
164.182
325
Groups
Total
Work
Between
Motivation
8.325
.000
Groups
Total Score
Within
(1-7)
Groups
Total
Post Hoc Tests
Multiple Comparisons
Games-Howell
Depend
(I) Length
(J) Length
Mean Diff.
Std.
ent
of Service
of Service
(I-J)
Error
Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
< 5 Years
(1-7)
Variable
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
5-10
-.19234
.14392
.670
-.6007
.2161
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
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
16-20
.19971
.07618
.071
-.0103
.4097
> 20
.12491
.09336
.668
-.1345
.3843
<5
.69793
.07865
.000
.4806
.9153
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
16-20
.07480
.09179
.925
-.1806
.3302
5-10
.63556
.13841
.000
.2470
1.0242
11-15
-.12565
.11014
.785
-.4297
.1784
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
16-20
-.53257
.12577
.001
-.8892
-.1759
11-15
16-20
> 20
<5
5-10
367
11-15
> 20
-.45912
.16829
.059
-.9288
.0106
<5
.12565
.11014
.785
-.1784
.4297
5-10
.76121
.13852
.000
.3727
1.1497
16-20
.22864
.09376
.111
-.0301
.4873
> 20
.30208
.14593
.242
-.1045
.7086
<5
-.10299
.09360
.806
-.3623
.1563
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
11-15
-.30208
.14593
.242
-.7086
.1045
16-20
-.07344
.13389
.982
-.4491
.3022
16-20
>20
Dev.
Error
Bound
Bound
5.4972
5.8730
7)
Upper
(1-
Lower
re
.09431
al
.82218
Sco
Std.
Tot
Std.
nt
5.6851
tme
mmi
76
Mean
Co
0-2
ee
ploy
Em
Years
Min
Max
3.93
6.53
368
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
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
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
52
5.4615
.56261
.07802
5.3049
5.6182
4.60
6.10
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
Not Applicable
Not Promoted /
Not Applicable
160
Not Promoted /
3-6
Total
ANOVA
Sum of
df
Employee Commitment
Total Score (1-7)
Squares
Mean
Sig.
21.779
.000
Square
Between
22.401
7.467
110.395
322
.343
132.795
325
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
369
Between
12.245
4.082
151.938
322
.472
164.182
325
8.650
.000
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
(I)
(J) Promoted
Mean
Std.
nt
Promoted
Span
Diff
Error
Variable
Span
Sig.
Interval
(I-J)
95% Confidence
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
3-6
-.05075
.10421
.962
-.3226
.2211
>7
.00263
.10528
1.000
-.2723
.2775
.10671
.000
.4054
.9622
0-2
.05075
.10421
.962
-.2211
.3226
>7
.05338
.06447
.841
-.1147
.2215
.06677
.000
.5609
.9082
0-2 years
-.00263
.10528
1.000
-.2775
.2723
3-6
-.05338
.06447
.841
-.2215
.1147
0-2 years
Not Promoted/
.68381
Not Applicable
3-6 years
Not Promoted/
.73455
Not Applicable
370
> 7 years
Not Promoted/
.68117
.06843
.000
.5019
.8604
Not Applicable
0-2 years
-.68381
.10671
.000
-.9622
-.4054
3-6
-.73455
.06677
.000
-.9082
-.5609
>7
-.68117
.06843
.000
-.8604
-.5019
3-6
-.18964
.09875
.224
-.4460
.0667
>7
.43289
.11748
.002
.1255
.7403
-.09180
.11097
.841
-.3809
.1973
0-2 years
.18964
.09875
.224
-.0667
.4460
>7
.62253
.10534
.000
.3458
.8993
.09784
.09804
.751
-.1577
.3534
Not
Promoted
/ NA
0-2 years
Not Promoted /
Not Applicable
3-6
Not Promoted /
Not Applicable
>7
0-2 years
-.43289
.11748
.002
-.7403
-.1255
3-6
-.62253
.10534
.000
-.8993
-.3458
-.52470
.11688
.000
-.8312
-.2182
Not Promoted /
Not Applicable
0-2 years
.09180
.11097
.841
-.1973
.3809
3-6
-.09784
.09804
.751
-.3534
.1577
>7
.52470
.11688
.000
.2182
.8312
Not
Promoted
/ NA
371
Min
Max
Mean
Std. Dev.
Builds Trust
326
.00
4.00
3.0245
1.03746
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.
326
3.93
6.67
5.6006
.63922
326
3.20
7.00
5.4270
.71076
372
Descriptive Statistics
N
Min.
Max.
Mean
Std. Dev.
326
1.13
4.00
3.1708
.69899
326
1.00
4.00
3.1890
.62471
326
.00
3.67
1.0726
.81703
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
3.93
1.2
1.2
1.2
4.07
1.2
1.2
2.5
4.13
1.5
1.5
4.0
4.27
1.2
1.2
5.2
4.40
1.2
1.2
6.4
4.60
2.5
2.5
8.9
4.80
1.2
1.2
10.1
4.93
26
8.0
8.0
18.1
5.00
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
1.2
1.2
28.2
5.27
1.5
1.5
29.8
5.33
30
9.2
9.2
39.0
5.40
2.8
2.8
41.7
5.47
1.2
1.2
42.9
5.60
10
3.1
3.1
46.0
5.67
2.8
2.8
48.8
5.80
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
1.2
1.2
74.2
6.07
19
5.8
5.8
80.1
6.20
1.5
1.5
81.6
6.27
1.2
1.2
82.8
6.33
1.5
1.5
84.4
6.40
39
12.0
12.0
96.3
6.47
1.2
1.2
97.5
6.53
1.2
1.2
98.8
Valid
374
6.67
1.2
1.2
Total
326
100.0
100.0
100.0
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
3.20
1.2
1.2
1.2
4.10
2.8
2.8
4.0
4.20
1.2
1.2
5.2
4.40
19
5.8
5.8
11.0
4.60
2.5
2.5
13.5
4.70
34
10.4
10.4
23.9
4.80
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
1.2
1.2
54.0
5.50
12
3.7
3.7
57.7
5.60
1.5
1.5
59.2
5.70
1.5
1.5
60.7
375
Valid
5.80
1.2
1.2
62.0
5.90
24
7.4
7.4
69.3
6.00
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
1.2
1.2
98.8
7.00
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
1.13
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
1.8
1.8
17.5
2.33
1.2
1.2
18.7
2.40
1.2
1.2
19.9
2.53
1.5
1.5
21.5
376
Valid
Valid
2.60
1.2
1.2
22.7
2.67
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
1.2
1.2
33.1
3.13
14
4.3
4.3
37.4
3.20
2.5
2.5
39.9
3.27
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
1.2
1.2
65.3
3.67
19
5.8
5.8
71.2
3.73
14
4.3
4.3
75.5
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
377
Frequency
Valid
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
1.00
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.25
1.2
1.2
2.5
1.38
1.2
1.2
3.7
1.75
1.2
1.2
4.9
1.88
.3
.3
5.2
2.38
10
3.1
3.1
8.3
2.50
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
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
Valid
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
.00
40
12.3
12.3
12.3
.17
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
2.8
2.8
69.9
1.33
23
7.1
7.1
77.0
1.50
10
3.1
3.1
80.1
1.83
20
6.1
6.1
86.2
2.00
1.2
1.2
87.4
2.33
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
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
(0-4)
(0-4)
Transactional Style
(0-4)
Transformational Style
(1-7)
(1-7)
Statistics
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
50
5.8000
5.3000
3.4000
3.5000
1.0000
75
6.0667
6.1000
3.7333
3.6250
1.3333
Percentiles
380
Correlations
Employee
Commitment
Total Score (1-7)
Builds Trust
Inspires Others
Encourages
Innovation
Thinking
Coaches People
Rewards
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Monitors Mistakes
Avoids
Involvement
**
Work
Motivation Total
Score (1-7)
**
Pearson Correlation
.313
.555
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.301
.660
.000
.000
N
Pearson Correlation
326
326
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
**
**
.335
.616
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.400
.563
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.268
.430
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.273
.499
.000
.000
326
326
*
**
.116
.189
.018
.000
326
326
**
**
.237
.316
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.357
.413
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.411
.449
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
-.177
-.499
.001
.000
326
326
381
Correlations
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Builds Trust
Acts with
Integrity
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Thinking
Coaches
People
Rewards
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
**
Transactional
Style (0-4)
**
Laissez
Faire Style
(0-4)
**
.918
.736
-.565
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.827
.562
-.570
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.919
.746
-.546
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.832
.775
-.435
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.925
.806
-.623
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.938
.813
-.626
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.571
.764
-.234
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.782
.833
-.486
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.725
.842
-.338
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
382
Monitors
Mistakes
Avoids
Involvement
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
**
**
**
.634
.815
-.317
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
-.630
-.447
1.000
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Transactional
Style (0-4)
Laissez Fairre
Style (0-4)
Work Motivation
Total Score
(1-7)
Pearson
Correlation
.342
.600
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
Pearson
Correlation
.373
.445
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Pearson
Correlation
**
**
**
**
-.177
-.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.001
.000
326
326
383