Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
9
Education+
10
Salary+
11
Service
IV M DV
IV M DV
37
Step 3 Leadership variables, Culture variables (independent, IV), mediating variable (M) Job
Satisfaction and control variables against Organizational Commitment (dependent, DV)
OC=Constant+
1
TF+
2
TA+
3
BC+
4
IC+
5
SC+
6
JS+
7
Gender+
8
Function
+
9
Age+
10
Education+
11
Salary+
12
Service
Before the results of the regression analysis are given, the researcher will explain some
characters and terms by giving a simple definition.
Constant = the point where the value of the dependent variable relates to a value of zero for
the independent variables. At this point the regression line intersects with the X-axis in the
graph. The constant is the starting value of the outcome when there is no influence from the
predictors and the control variables (Field, 2009:199).
= the unstandardized regression coefficient which signifies the strength of the relationship
between a given predictor, I, and an outcome in the units of measurements of the predictors.
It represents the change in outcome connected with the unit change in the predictor (Field,
2009: 781).
R square = the coefficient of determination, a measure for how much of the variation in
outcome can be accounted for by the predictors (Field, 2009: 207).
Adjusted R square = a measure of the loss of predictive power or shrinkage in regression.
This value tells us how much variance in the outcome would be accounted for if the model
had been derived from the population from which the sample was taken (Field, 2009: 781)
IV M DV
38
4.5.1 Regression analysis Leadership style and Organizational Commitment
The regression of the leadership style, Transformational Leadership, with the control
variables on dependent variable, Organizational commitment, was performed first. The
results show that Transformational leadership, salary and tenure have a significant direct
effect on Commitment. In the table below the linear relationship between the variables is
shown. The equation for this model is:
OC = 2.438 + .273* Transformational - .112*Service + .285*Salary
Table 4-3 Regression coefficient Transformational leadership and Organizational Commitment
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.438 .280
8.703 .000
Transformational .273 .056 .339 4.886 .000
Gender -.011 .117 -.008 -.097 .923
Function -.133 .071 -.250 -1.877 .062
Age .049 .046 .108 1.053 .294
Education .031 .043 .088 .730 .467
Salary .285 .058 .591 4.887 .000
Tenure -.112 .047 -.236 -2.389 .018
Source: Calculated with the researchers survey data
In the model summary we find that 32.6% of Organizational Commitment can be accounted
for by transformational leadership, salary and tenure. The adjusted R square is .294.
Table 4-4 Model Summary Transformational leadership on Organizational Commitment
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .571
a
.326 .294 .45298
Source: Calculated with the researchers survey data
39
4.5.2 Regression analysis Leadership styles, Organizational culture and Job satisfaction
The second regression was executed with Leadership styles, Organizational culture (the
independent variables), the control variables on the mediating variable, Job satisfaction. The
results showed that Transformational leadership, Salary and Bureaucratic Culture have a
significant effect on Job satisfaction. The table below shows that there is a linear relationship
between transformational leadership, salary and bureaucratic culture on one side and job
satisfaction on the other side. The equation for this model is:
JS = 1.923 + .259*Transformational + .266*Bureaucratic Culture+ .342*Salary
Table 4-5 Regression coefficient Leadership styles, Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.923 .602
3.193 .002
Transformational .259 .087 .243 2.964 .004
Gender -.147 .168 -.076 -.875 .383
Function -.124 .100 -.186 -1.243 .216
Age -.090 .066 -.156 -1.351 .179
Education -.030 .060 -.066 -.504 .615
Salary .342 .082 .573 4.168 .000
Tenure -.061 .064 -.103 -.954 .342
Bureaucratic Culture .266 .089 .266 2.979 .003
Innovative Culture -.022 .116 -.019 -.190 .850
Supportive Culture .042 .116 .035 .361 .719
Transactional -.117 .086 -.111 -1.364 .175
Source: Calculated with the researchers survey data
The R square value states that 30.9% of Job satisfaction can be credited to transformational
leadership, bureaucratic culture and salary. The adjusted R square value is .254.
Table 4-6Model Summary Leadership styles, Organizational Culture on Job Satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .556
a
.309 .254 .59166
Source: Calculated with the researchers survey data
40
4.5.3 Regression analysis Leadership styles, Organizational culture, Job satisfaction and
Organizational Commitment
The last regression involved the whole model with Leadership styles, Organizational Culture
(independent), Job Satisfaction (mediating), the control variables and Organizational
Commitment (dependent). The table showed that transformational leadership, salary,
bureaucratic culture, supportive culture and job satisfaction have an effect on Organizational
Commitment. The equation for the model becomes:
OC = .590 + .158*Transformational + .142*Bureaucratic Culture + .192*Supportive Culture
+ .209*Job satisfaction + .143*Salary
Table 4-7 Regression coefficient Leadership styles, Organizational Culture, Job Satisfaction and Organizational
commitment
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .590 .436
1.355 .178
Transformational .158 .061 .185 2.572 .011
Gender .132 .118 .085 1.118 .265
Function -.104 .068 -.195 -1.514 .132
Age .086 .045 .189 1.908 .059
Education .073 .040 .202 1.794 .075
Salary .143 .060 .300 2.390 .018
Tenure -.060 .044 -.127 -1.363 .175
Bureaucratic Culture .142 .063 .178 2.267 .025
Innovative Culture .025 .079 .027 .320 .750
Supportive Culture .192 .079 .198 2.423 .017
Transactional -.034 .059 -.040 -.570 .570
Job Satisfaction .209 .058 .263 3.595 .000
Source: Calculated with the researchers survey data
The R square value found is that 50.9% of the organizational commitment can be credited to
Transformational leadership, bureaucratic culture, supportive culture, salary and job
satisfaction. The adjusted R square value is .466.
41
Table 4-8Model Summary Leadership styles, Organizational Culture, Job Satisfaction and Organizational
commitment
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .714
a
.509 .466 .39998
Source: Calculated with the researcher survey data
4.6 Hypothesis testing
The results from the regression analysis which were presented in section 4.5 are summarized
in the table below.
Table 4-9 Summary Regression Analysis
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Organizational Commitment (DV)
Constant 2.438 1.923 .590
Control variables
Gender -.011 -.147 .132
Function -.133 -.124 .104
Age .049 -.090 .086
Education .031 -.030 .073
Salary .285 .342** .143*
Tenure -.112* -.061 .060
Direct effect
Transformational Leadership .273** .259** .158*
Mediating effect
Job Satisfaction
.209**
Indirect effect
Bureaucratic culture
.266** .142*
Innovative culture
.042 .025
Supportive culture
-.022 .192*
Transactional leadership
-.117 -.034
R .326 .309 .509
Adjusted R .294 .254 .466
**p<0.01; *p<0.05
Source: Calculated with the researcher survey data
;
42
The table shows that transformational leadership has a direct effect on organizational
commitment. Furthermore it shows that only 2 of the 5 independent variables namely
transformational leadership and bureaucratic culture have an effect on Job satisfaction. So job
satisfaction can be seen as a mediating variable.
Contrary to expectation the bureaucratic culture has a positive effect on job satisfaction and
bureaucratic and supportive cultures have a direct effect on organizational commitment. The
relationships can be considered fairly weak. This model explains 50.9% of organizational
Commitment behavior. An overview of the research questions with their hypotheses is
presented below. Based on the results and formulation of the hypotheses the decision to
accept or reject the null hypothesis is made.
Table 4-10Overview Null and Alternative Hypotheses
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
Hypothesis P - value Result
Hypothesis 1
H
0
: Transformational Leadership has no effect on p = .004 Reject H
0
Job satisfaction within SMEs = .259 Accept H
1
H
1
: Transformational Leadership has a positive effect on
Job satisfaction within SMEs
Hypothesis 2
H
0
: Transactional Leadership has no effect on p = .175 Accept H
0
Job satisfaction within SMEs = -.117 Reject H
1
H
1
: Transactional Leadership has a negative effect on
Job satisfaction within SMEs
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
2
Hypothesis 3
H
0
: Bureaucratic Culture has no effect on p =.003 Reject H
0
Job satisfaction within SMEs =.266 Reject H
1
H
1
: Bureaucratic culture has a negative effect on
Job satisfaction within SMEs
Hypothesis 4
H
0
:Innovative culture has no effect on p =.850 Accept H
0
Job satisfaction within SMEs =.042 Reject H
1
H
1
: Innovative culture has a positive effect on
Job satisfaction within SMEs
Hypothesis 5
H
0
: Supportive culture has no effect on p =.719 Accept H
0
Job satisfaction within SMEs =-.022 Reject H
1
H
1
: Supportive culture has a positive effect on
Job satisfaction within SMEs
43
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
3
Hypothesis 6
H
0
:Job satisfaction has no effect on Organizational
Commitment within SMEs
H
1
:Job satisfaction has a positive effect on Organizational
Commitment within SMEs
p =.000 Reject H
0
=.209 Accept H
1
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
4
Hypothesis 7
H
0
: Transformational Leadership has no direct effect on
Organizational commitment within SMEs
H
1
: Transformational Leadership has a positive direct
effect on Organizational Commitment within SMEs
p =.000 Reject H
0
=.273 Accept H
1
Source: Calculated with the researchers survey data
Looking at the hypothesized model, it becomes clear that certain relationships are not as was
expected. There are also new relationships found between the different variables. Another
noteworthy fact is that Bureaucratic Culture has a direct as well as an indirect effect on
Organizational commitment and the relationship is positive instead of negative. The
following figure shows the hypothesized model adjusted to the results of the regression
analysis.
44
Figure 4.7 Model based on Regression Analysis
Transformational
leadership
Bureaucratic
culture
Supportive
Culture
Job satisfaction Organizational
Commitment
Tenure Salary
.192*
.273**
.259**
.266**
.142*
.209**
.143*
-.112* .342*
Transactional
leadership
Innovative culture
NS
NS
45
4.7 Summary
Different analyses were done in this chapter to test the formulated hypotheses. The first
analysis was the reliability test. The following test was the analysis of the demographics
gender, function, education level, age, salary and years of employment. There were 3 striking
results in the demographics. First the high percentage (79%) of young people among the
respondents, second the high percentage (88%) of people with secondary education as their
highest level of education and third the high percentage (75%) of respondent who earns less
than SRD 2000 a month.
In the descriptive statistics part of this chapter the mean, median, mode, minimum,
maximum, standard deviation and the skewness were calculated. Thereafter the different
steps executed in the multiple regression analysis were presented. These led to a few different
relationships than was predicted in the theoretical framework presented in chapter 2. The
hypotheses were tested and rejected or accepted and the model based on the results of the
regression analysis was presented.
46
5 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 I ntroduction
The main goal of this research was to determine what type of Leadership style and
Organizational Culture keeps employees committed to their organization and if job
satisfaction had a mediating effect in this relationship. In this chapter the results are
discussed, conclusions will be drawn, an implication for theory and management and
recommendations will be given for future research.
5.2 Discussion and conclusions
Organizational commitment is has a big influence on the success of an organization and is
highly valued. Human resources are said to be the greatest asset of an organization. That
being the case than the commitment of human resources should be seen as the organizations
competitive advantage. To sustain that competitive advantage, organizations need to develop
a relationship with their employees. Nowadays the attitude of remaining with one employer
has decreased and cut backs are a frequent event. Employees with a higher level of job
satisfaction are less likely to be absent or to leave.
The main research question of this research was formulated as follows: How and why do
leadership style (Transformational, Transactional) and organizational culture (Bureaucratic,
Innovative or Supportive) affect organizational commitment in Small and Medium-sized
Enterprises, through Job satisfaction?
With this in mind an elaboration is given on the following results:
Transformational Leadership styles has a direct effect on Organizational Commitment
The results showed that there was a significant direct effect (p=.000, =.273) of
transformational leadership on the level of organizational commitment shown by employees.
The expected effect that transformational leadership would have on organizational
commitment was significant. The workforce within SMEs is usually not large which makes it
possible for leaders to be involved in tasks and consider employees individual needs,
capacities and ambitions. According to Glisson (1989) leadership explains a great deal of the
variation in Organizational commitment.
Transformational leadership has a direct effect on Organizational commitment because
commitment has been found to be directly dependent on behaviors of the transformational
leaders (Barling 1996).
47
Bureaucratic culture has a direct positive effect on with Organizational commitment
There was little empirical evidence, according to Lok and Crawford (2001), which suggested
that there was a direct effect from organizational culture on organizational commitment.
However for some characteristics of organizational culture, such as corporate beliefs and
values, a relationship was suggested (Harrison, 1972; Peter & Waterman, 1982; Trice &
Beyer, 1993). Still a direct effect for the different types of Organizational culture was not
predicted nor expected, because the researcher did not find significant literature about this
relationship. In the research of Lahiry (1994) a weak association between Organizational
culture and commitment was found. It is said that organizational culture is too abstract and
too far from most employees everyday activities within their organizational lives (Lok,
Wang, Westwood & Crawford, 2007). However the results from this research indicated that
there was indeed a significant direct effect from Bureaucratic (p=.025; =.142) on
Organizational commitment. The expectation was that the effect of this culture type on
organizational commitment was only mediated by job satisfaction. Another interesting
outcome was that the direct effect of bureaucratic culture was positive. Employees of SMEs,
of which the majority is operational, could also be comfortable in a bureaucratic environment
where everything is ordered, structured and procedure is well thought out. Authority in SMEs
is centered at the top, because the enterprises are usually privately owned and decisions are
made at the top. Information flows from the top down and this supports a culture which is
concentrating on rules and standards for operational processes. The processes are closely
monitored and supervised (Kemble, 2012).
Supportive culture has a direct positive effect on Organizational commitment
Research suggested that there was an effect of Supportive Culture on Job satisfaction
(Brewer, 1993; Lok & Crawford, 2000; Kratrina, 1990; Rashid et al, 2003), but not that there
could be a strong positive direct effect (p=.017; =0192) between Supportive Culture and
Organizational commitment. Being supported in everything you do, being able to work in a
team were people are helpful, they are friendly and fair (Lee, 2008) could be some of the
reasons why this result was found.
48
Transformational Leadership had a positive effect, through job satisfaction, on
Organizational commitment
All the effects of the independent variables on the dependent variable were expected to be
intervened by Job satisfaction. This however was not the case. Transformational leadership
had a significant effect (p=.004) on the mediator, but also had a direct effect on
Organizational commitment as was predicted. Transformational leadership models reduce
work stress and raise the morale of employees which result in the promotion of job
satisfaction (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Northouse, 2001 Waldman et al, 2001). Employees
perform beyond what is expected of them (Medley & La Rochelle, 1995).
Bureaucratic culture had a strong positive effect, through job satisfaction, on
Organizational commitment
Bureaucratic culture also had a highly significant relationship with job satisfaction (p=.003)
but it was a positive relationship instead of a negative one as was hypothesized. Research
done by Odom, Boxx and Dunn (1990) established that bureaucratic culture neither improved
nor reduced an employees commitment and job satisfaction. Another explanation could be
that there is a culture match between the employees and the organization as Wallach (1983)
discussed. The characteristics like clear lines of responsibility and authority, a solid,
regulated and ordered organization with efficient systems could be what employees want,
hence the positive effect of bureaucratic culture on job satisfaction and also on organizational
commitment.
The transactional leadership and the other culture type, Innovative culture, did not have a
significant relationship with the mediator, job satisfaction or with Organizational
commitment. Most SMEs do not have a research and development department, so job
satisfaction due to an Innovative culture is not likely to occur. On the other hand the control
variable salary division also has a highly significant positive effect (p=.000; =.342) on job
satisfaction. A high salary often, if not always, leads to a satisfied employee.
The direct relationship between J ob satisfaction and Organizational commitment
Job satisfaction had a significant direct and positive effect on Organizational commitment.
When employees are satisfied they are most often also committed to the organization. In
literature job satisfaction is said to have the largest effect on commitment. In this research Job
49
satisfaction also has the largest effect on Organizational commitment when we look at the
regression of the whole model. This factor needs to be strengthened to enhance commitment
of the employees to an organization.
Salary division and Tenure had a significant direct positive effect on Organizational
Commitment
Salary division and years of employment (tenure), two of the control variables, also had a
significant direct effect on organizational commitment. Salary division has a positive direct
effect on commitment and tenure has a negative direct effect. This was also the case in earlier
research (Allen & Meyer, 1990; OReilly , Chatman & Caldwell, 1991) where employees
stated that if they get the pay they deemed fit for their supposed job input which includes
skills, effort, experience and present performance they would stay with the organization.
However it is striking that the longer some employees stay with a company the less
committed they get. One would think that the opposite is the case, the longer you work for a
company the more committed you are to that company.
The result that tenure has a negative effect could be attributed to the fact that employees only
stay with the organization because they have nowhere else to go to.
This could be the commitment for where employees stay with the organization because they
ought to; they feel obligated to stay (Allen and Meyer, 1991). A reason for this withdrawal
could be that front line employees get less satisfaction from their job as the years progress.
The work could have become monotonous to them because there were few training and
development programs available (Kemble, 2012).
5.3 I mplications for Theory and Practice
The findings of this thesis research have implications for both theory and practice. All results
are discussed in the previous sections and conclusions are drawn. This section addresses the
reasons why this research is relevant for theory and practice.
Theoretical I mplications
The theoretical importance is found in the fact that this research showed that certain
relationships are not always what theory has found. Every situation, organization, employee
and leader is different. Investigating the concepts alone and/or in different relationships with
other variables will result in greater understanding of organizational and employee behavior.
50
When conducting the research it became clear that the SMEs differ significantly from large
companies. The structure, the communication lines, how employees experience leadership
and their level of job satisfaction and commitment are all different.
Statistical and company information should be made available for students who want to do
research in the field of SMEs. The chamber of commerce should obtain and structure the
information which should be made available to everyone who wants use it for research
purposes. This study also is an addition to the few inquiries about organizational and
employee behavior in SMEs. Also the finding that Bureaucratic culture has a positive effect
on Job satisfaction and Organizational commitment as well as the framework conditions,
where this result was found, are of importance to theory.
Practical I mplications
It is important to keep employees committed and retain their strengths and sustain
productivity, which guarantees the stability of an organization. SMEs are seen as the
backbone of the economy so they need to maintain active. The ability of to lead an
organization now has a lot of challenges and demands.
This study could offer a useful guidance for SMEs on the researched topics. Managers could
use the information to improve or change their leadership style and the culture of the
organization. Attention should be paid to the following specific results:
Tenure having a negative effect on Organizational Commitment. Employees need to
be trained, so that they have different opportunities. If an employee stays with the
organization because he feel obligated to stay it is not a healthy situation for any
party;
Bureaucratic culture having a positive effect on job satisfaction and Organizational
commitment. This is a surprising result and needs to be looked at carefully. The
employees within SMEs could want a structured and ordered environment to thrive in.
this makes them worry less about chance of not having a job tomorrow;
The other found effects were expected but still need to be looked at and improved or
changed if needed within the organizations.
51
5.4 Recommendations
Based on the results presented earlier in chapter 4 the following recommendations could be
made:
More studies should be conducted on organizational and employee behavior in SMEs.
This could improve this could improve the life span of the organization;
Further research should be conducted to other concepts that influence Organizational
Commitment. Leaders should realize that influencing the commitment of employees
leads to higher performance and lower turnover rates among other things.
Institutions, such as the chamber of commerce, central bureau for statistics, should
realize the need for specific and adequate information about SMEs. Establishing
countrywide recognized criteria for SMEs in Suriname and communicating those
criteria to those specific organizations;
Leadership in organizations should be assessed and managers should become aware
of what is needed to obtain positive results from employees in order to improve
performance.
52
REFERENCES
Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1991). A three- component conceptualization of organizational
commitment: Some methodological considerations. Human Resource Managemant
Review, 1, 61-98.
Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedent of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,
1- 18.
Avolio, B. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital Forces in Organization.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Avolio, B. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory- building.
Journal of American Psychology , 25-33.
Avolio, B., & Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-318.
Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership, Theory, research and
managerial applications. New York: the Free Press.
Bass, B. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial military and educational impact.
new Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.
European Journal Of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8 (1), 9-32.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (2000). Technical report for the MLQ (2nd ed). Redwood: Mind
Garden.
53
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture.
Public Administration Quaterly, 17 (1), 112-121.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologist
Press.
Bingham, W. (1927). Leadership in H.C. Metcalfe, The psychological foundations of
management. New York: Shaw.
Bodla, M., & Nawaz, M. (2010). Transformational leadership style and its relationship with
satisfaction. Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business, 12, 370-
381.
Bolden, R., & Terry, R. (2002). Leadership Development in Small and Medium-sized
Enterprises. Exeter: Centre of Leadership Studies.
Bono, d. (2012). Thesi Writing Workshop 2. Paramaribo: FHR Lim A PO Institute.
Bono, J., & Judge, T. (2003). Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the
motivational effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 46,
554-571.
Bowden, A. (1926). A study of the personality of studentsleaders in the United States.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21, 149-160.
Brewer, A. (1993). Managing for Employee Commitment. Longman, Sydney.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R., & Allen, J. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985)
conceptualization of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 468-478.
54
Chen, L. (2004). Examining the effect of organization culture and leadership behaviors on
organizational commitment, job satisfaction and job performance at small an middle
firms of Taiwan. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5 (1/2), 432-438.
Chen, P., Spector, P., & Jex, S. (1995). Effects of manipulated job stressors and job attitude
on perceived job conditions: A simulation. Washington: American psychology
association.
Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006, July). Qualitative Research Guidelines Projects. Retrieved
September 12, 2012, from Widermind: http://www.wider-mind.com
Cohen, J. (1988). Staitical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New jersey: Erlbaum.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Currivan, B. D. (1999). The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment
in models of employee turnover. Human Resource Management Review, 9 (4), 495-524.
Daft, R. (2005). The leadership experience. Ohio: Thomson South-Western.
Dubkevics, L., & Barbars, A. (2010). The role of organizational culture in human resource
management. Human Resource Management & Ergonomics, 4, 1-10.
DuBrin, A. (2004). Leadership: Research findings, practice and skills. New York: Hougton
Mifflin.
Dumdum, U., Lowe, K., & Avolio, B. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and
transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: an update and
extension. Transformational and charismatic leadership: the road ahead, 2, 35-66.
Earle, V. (1996). Motivational Leadership. Executive Excellence, 13 (11), 16-17.
55
Eslami, J., & Gharakhani, D. (2012). Organizational commitment and Job satisfaction. ARPN
Journal of Science and Technology, 2 (2), 85-91.
Field, A. (2009). Discover statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Finn, C. (2001). Autonomy: an important component for nurses' job satisfaction.
International ournalof Nurses studies, 38, 349-357.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference 11.0 update. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gill, G. (1998). Stallinism. New York: Mac Millan and St Martin's Press.
Gliem, J., & Gliem, R. (2003). Calculating, Interpreting and Reporting Cronbach's Alpha
Scholar works website:
http://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/344/gliem%20&%20...?sequence=1
Harrison, R. (1972). Understanding your organization's character. Harvard Business Review ,
22- 32.
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. (2007). Fundamentals of organizational behavior. Mason:
Thomson South-Western.
Holland, P., Sheehan, C., & De Cierr, H. (2007). Attracting and remaining talent: Exploring
juman resources management trends in Australia. Human Resource Development
Inetrnational, 10 (3), 247-262.
Hutcheson, S. (1996). The development of a measure of organizational climate.
Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand.
Kerego, K., & Mthupha, D. (1997). Job satisfaction as perceived by agricultural extension
workers in Swaziland. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, 23 (2), 19-24.
56
Kivimaki, M., & Kalimo, R. (1994). Contributors to satisfaction with management in hospital
wards. Journal of Nursing Management, 2, 225-34.
Koh, W., Steers, R., & Terborg, J. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on
teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational
Behavior , 319-333.
Kotter, J. (2009). Leading Change. Moscow.
Kotter, J. (2001). What leaders reallly do? Harvard Business Review, 79 (11), 85-96.
Kotter, J. (1999). What leaders really do. London: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kratrina, S. (1990). Organizational culture and head nurse leadership: the relationship tp
nurses' job satisfaction and turnover in hospital settings. Atlanta: George state
university.
Lahiry. (1994). Building commitment through organizational culture. Training and
Development journal, 3, 50-2.
Lawler, E. (1992). Affective attachments to nested groups: a choice process theory. American
Sociological Review, 57, 327-339.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2000). The application of a diagnostic model and surveys in
organizational development. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15 (2), 108-125.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2004). the effect of organizational culture and leadership style on
job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A cross-Natural comparison. Journal of
Management Development, 23 (4), 321-338.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (1999). The relationship between commitment and organizational
culture, subculture, leadeship style and job satisfaction in organizational change
development. Leadership & Organizational Development, 20 (7), 365-377.
57
Lok, P., Wang, P., Westwood, B., & Crawford, C. (2007). Antecedents of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment and the mediating role of organizational sub culture.
Sydney.
Lowe, K., Kroeck, K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7 (3), 385-425.
Lund, D. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, 18, 219-236.
Mc Neese-Smith, D. (1997). The influence of manager behavior on nurses' job satisfaction,
productivity and commitment. Journal of nursing Administration, 27, 47-55.
Medley, F., & Larochelle, D. (1995). Transformational leadership and job satisfaction.
Nursing Management, 26, 64-65.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1996). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the
organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
49, 252-276.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (2004). TCM Employee Commitment Survey Academic Users Guide.
Ontario: University of Western Ontario.
Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance and
normative commitment to organizations: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates
and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.
Misener, T., Haddock, K., Gleaton, J., & Ajamieh, A. (1996). Toward an international
measure of job satisfaction. nursing research , 87-91.
Mohammad, J., Habib, F., & Alias, M. (2011). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behavior: an empirical study at highre learning institutes. Asian Academy of
Management Journal, 16 (2), 149-165.
58
Mosadeghrad, A. (2003). The role of participative management. research in medical Science,
8 ( 3), 85-89.
Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee-organization Linkages: The
psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover. Academic Press .
Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measure of Organizational commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14 (2), 224-7.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications.
Northouse, P. (2001). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Inc.
Nystrom, P. (1993). Organizational cultures, strategies and commitment in health care
organizations. Helath care Management Review, 18, 43-49.
Odom, R., Boxx, R., & Dunn, M. (1990). Organizational cultures, commitment, Satisfaction
and cohesion. Product Productivity and Management Review, XIV (2), 157-169.
OECD. (1998). Best practice policies for small and medium sized enterprises. Paris:
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Opkara, J. (2004). Job satisfaction and Organizational Commitment are there differences
between American and Nigerian Managers Employed in the US MNCs in Nigeria?
switzerland: Academy of Business & Administrative science, Braircliff College.
O'Reilly, C. (1989). Corporations, culture and commitment: motivation and social control in
organizations. California Management Review, 31, 9-25.
O'Reilly, C., Caldwell, D., & Chatman, J. (1991). People and organizational culture: a profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management
Studies, 34, 487-516.
59
Pallant, J. (2007). The SPSS Survival Manual. Maidenhead, UK: OUP.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row.
Porter, L., & Smith, F. (1970). The etiology of organizational commitment. Irvine: University
of california.
Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Boulian, P. (1974). Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 59 (5), 603-9.
Raju, P., & Srivastava, R. (1994). Factors contributing to commitment to the teaching
profession. International journal of Education Management, 8 (5), 7-13.
Randeree, K., & Chaudhry, A. (2012). Leadership- style, satisfaction and commitment: an
expolration in the United Arab Emirates' construction sector. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 19 (1), 61-85.
Rashid, Z., Sambasivan, M., & Johan, J. (2003). The influence of corporate culture and
organizational commitment on performnace. Journal of Management development, 22
(8), 708-728.
Rhodes, S., & Steers, R. (1981). Conventional vs worker-owned organizations. Human
relations, 12, 1013-1035.
Ribelin, P. (2003). Retentions reflects leadership style. Nursing management, 34 (8), 18-19.
Robbins, S. (2003). Organizational behavior. San Diego: Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. (1993). Organizational behavior, concepts, controversies and applications. new
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. P. (2005). Essentials of organizational behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
60
Samad, S. (2007). Assessing the effects of Job satisfaction and Psychological Contract on
Organizational commitment among employees in Malaysian SMEs. The 4th SMEs in
a Global Economy Conference .
Schein, E. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45 (2), 109-119.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seashore, S., & Taber, T. (1975). Job satisfaction Indicators and their correlates. American
Behavior Science, 18 (3), 333-368.
Sempane, M., Rieger, H., & Roodt, G. (2002). Job satisfaction in relation to organizatinal
culture. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28 (2), 23-30.
Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma theoretical notes and an exploratory study.
Leadership Quaterly, 6, 19-47.
Smith, P., & Peterson, M. (1988). Leadership Oragnizations and culture: an event
management model. London: Sage Publications.
Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction: Applicatio, assesment, cause and consequences.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Trice, H., & Beyer, J. (1993). The cultures of Work organization. Prentice Hall.
Waldman, D., Ramirez, G., House, R., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does Leadership matter? CEO
leadership and profitablility under conditions of perceived environmental uncertain.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134-143.
Wallach, E. (1983). Individuals and organizations: The culture match. Training and
development journal, 12, 28-36.
61
Walumba, F., & Lawler, J. (2003). Building effective organizations: transformational
leadership, collectivist orientation, work related attitudes and withdrawal behaviors in
three emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14,
1083- 1101.
Wexley, K., & Yukl, G. (1984). Organizational behavior and personnel psychology.
Homewood: R.D Irwin.
Williams, L., & Anderson, S. (1991). Job satisfaction and Organizational commitment as
predictors of Organizational citizenship and in-role behavior. Journal of Management,
17 (3), 601-617.
Wilson, D. C. (1990). Managing Organizations. London: Mc Graw-Hill.
Worrell, T. (2004). School pshychologists's job satisfaction: Ten years later. Virginia:
Virginia Tech.
Yammarino, F., Spangler, W., & Bass, B. (1993). Transformational leadership and
performance. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 81-102.
Yousef, D. (2002). Job satisfaction as a member of the relationship between job stressors and
affective, continuance and normative commitment: A path analysis approach.
International Journal of Stress Management, 9 (2), 99-112.
Yousef, D. (2000). Organizational commitment: a mediator of the relationships of leadership
behavior with job satisfactio and performance in a non-western country.
Journal of ManagerialPpsychology, 15 (1), 6-24.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations. New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research. Journal of
Management, 15 (2), 213-252.
62
Yukl, G. (1971). Toward a behavioral theory of leadership. Organizational behavior and
human performance, 6, 414-440.
a
APPENDIX
b
Appendix A: I ntroduction of the researcher to the questionnaire respondent
Paramaribo, December 2012
Dear Participant,
I am Danielle Griffith-Kranenburg, a student at FHR Lim A Po Institute for Social
Studies in Paramaribo. In order to finish my study Master of Business Administration in
Management and Business Strategy, I need to conduct research.
My research is about the effect that organizational culture and leadership style have on
organizational commitment and what role job satisfaction plays in these relationships.
Your input is important to this research because it will help form an overall picture of
how employers can work towards having satisfied and committed employees.
This questionnaire is developed to gather information for the purpose of this research.
It will take an average of 20 25 minutes to fill it out. Your answers will be handled
strictly confidential and will exclusively be used for the purpose of this research.
Therefore I request you to answer the questions as honest and objective as possible in
order to contribute to the success of this research.
Many thanks for your time and support.
Danielle Griffith- Kranenburg BSc.
c
Appendix B: The Questionnaire
Part 1 Leadership
This part of the questionnaire is to describe the leadership style of your supervisor as you
perceive it. Please answer all items on the answer sheet. Judge how frequently each statement
fits the person you are rating. Use the following scale:
1= not at all
2= once in a while
3= sometimes
4= fairly often
5=frequently, if not always
My leader/Manager
Scale
1. Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts 1 2 3 4 5
2. Re-examines critical assumptions to questions whether they are
appropriate
1 2 3 4 5
3. Fails to interfere until problems become serious 1 2 3 4 5
4. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions and
deviations from standards
1 2 3 4 5
5. Avoids getting involved when important issues arrive 1 2 3 4 5
6. Talks about their most important values and beliefs 1 2 3 4 5
7. Is absent when needed 1 2 3 4 5
8. Discusses in specific term who is responsible for performance
targets
1 2 3 4 5
9. Waits for things to go wrong before taking action 1 2 3 4 5
10. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished 1 2 3 4 5
11. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose 1 2 3 4 5
12. Spends time teaching and coaching 1 2 3 4 5
13. Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance
goals are achieved
1 2 3 4 5
14. Goes beyond self interest for the good of the group 1 2 3 4 5
15. Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking
action
1 2 3 4 5
16. Acts in ways that build my respect 1 2 3 4 5
17. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions 1 2 3 4 5
18. Keeps track of all mistakes 1 2 3 4 5
19. Displays a sense of power and confidence 1 2 3 4 5
20. Articulates a compelling vision of the future 1 2 3 4 5
d
Part 1 Leadership
21. Directs my attention towards failure to meet standards 1 2 3 4 5
22. Considers me as having different needs, abilities and
aspirations from others
1 2 3 4 5
23. Gets me to look at problems from many different angles 1 2 3 4 5
24. Helps me to develop my strengths 1 2 3 4 5
25. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments 1 2 3 4 5
26. Delays responding to urgent questions 1 2 3 4 5
27. Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations 1 2 3 4 5
28. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved 1 2 3 4 5
e
Part 2 Organizational culture
For each item identified below, circle the number that most closely describes how you see
your whole organization.
Use the scale below to select the quality number.
1=not at all
2 = once in a while
3 = sometimes
4 = most of the time
5 = frequently, if not Always
My organization is:
Scale
1. Risk taking 1 2 3 4 5
2. Collaborative 1 2 3 4 5
3. Hierarchical 1 2 3 4 5
4. Procedural 1 2 3 4 5
5. Relationship - oriented 1 2 3 4 5
6. Results - oriented 1 2 3 4 5
7. Creative 1 2 3 4 5
8. Encouraging 1 2 3 4 5
9. Structured 1 2 3 4 5
10. Stimulating 1 2 3 4 5
11. Personal freedom 1 2 3 4 5
12. Safe 1 2 3 4 5
13. Challenging 1 2 3 4 5
14. Enterprising 1 2 3 4 5
15. Established, solid 1 2 3 4 5
16. Cautious 1 2 3 4 5
17. Trusting 1 2 3 4 5
18. Power - oriented 1 2 3 4 5
f
Part 3 Job satisfaction
For each item identified below, circle the number to the right that comes the closest to
reflecting your opinion about it.
Use the scale below to select the number.
1= disagree very much
2 = Disagree
3= Cant decide
4 =Agree
5 = Agree very much
On my present job this is how I feel about .
Scale
1. I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do 1 2 3 4 5
2. There is too little chance for promotion on my job 1 2 3 4 5
3. My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job 1 2 3 4 5
4. I like the people I work with 1 2 3 4 5
5. I sometimes feel my job is meaningless 1 2 3 4 5
6. Raises are too few and far between 1 2 3 4 5
7. Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being
promoted
1 2 3 4 5
8. My supervisor is unfair to me 1 2 3 4 5
9. I find I have to work harder at my job because of the
incompetence of people I work with
1 2 3 4 5
10. I like doing the things I do at work 1 2 3 4 5
11. I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about
what they pay me
1 2 3 4 5
12. People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places 1 2 3 4 5
13. My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of
subordinates
1 2 3 4 5
14. I enjoy my coworkers 1 2 3 4 5
15. I feel a sense of pride in doing my job 1 2 3 4 5
16. I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases 1 2 3 4 5
17. I like my supervisor 1 2 3 4 5
18. I am satisfied with my chances for promotion 1 2 3 4 5
19. There is too much bickering and fighting at work 1 2 3 4 5
20. My job is enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5
Part 4 Organizational Commitment
g
Part 3 Job satisfaction
Listed below is a series of statements that represent feelings that individuals might have
about the company or organization for which they work. Circle a number from 0 to 4
using the scale below.
1= Strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3= Cant decide
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Indicate your feeling about the organization you are working for
Scale
1. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond which is
normally expected in order to help this organization be
successful.
1 2 3 4 5
2. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great
organization to work for.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I feel very little loyalty to this organization. (R) 1 2 3 4 5
4. I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to
keep working for this organization.
1 2 3 4 5
5. My values and the organizations values are very similar. 1 2 3 4 5
6. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I could just as well be working for a different organization as
long as the type of work was similar. (R)
1 2 3 4 5
8. This organization really inspires the very best in me in the
way of job performance.
1 2 3 4 5
9. It would take very little change in my present circumstances
to cause me to leave this organization. (R)
1 2 3 4 5
10. I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for
over others I was considering at the time I joined.
1 2 3 4 5
11. Theres not too much to be gained by sticking with this
organization indenitely. (R)
1 2 3 4 5
12. Often, I nd it difficult to agree with policies on important
matters relating to this organization (R)
1 2 3 4 5
13. I really care about the fate of this organization. 1 2 3 4 5
14. For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which
to work.
1 2 3 4 5
15. Deciding to work for this organization was a denite mistake
on my part. (R)
1 2 3 4 5
h
Below are some questions to get a better overall view of the respondent. Please note that all data
remains anonymous.
1. What is your gender?
Male Female
2. What is your current job category within the organization?
Operational(work floor)
Administrative personnel
Supervisor (middle management)
Manager(upper management)
3. What is your age range?
16 24
25 34
35 44
45 54
55 64
>65
4. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
PRIMARY EDUCATION
MULO
VWO
MBO
HBO
UNIVERSITY
5. What is your average monthly salary range (in SRD)?
<949
950 1999
2000 2799
2800 3999
4000 5999
>6000
6. Which range indicates the number of years you are employed within the organization?
<1 Year
1 5 years
6 10 years
11 15 years
>15 years
9