The impact of perceived leadership styles on organizational commitment

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY -oOo - Nguyen Thi Tuy An THE IMPACT OF PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP STYLES ON ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION THESIS HO CHI MINH City - 2012 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY -oOo - Nguyen Thi Tuy An THE IMPACT OF PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP STYLES ON ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT Major: Business Administration Major code: 60340102 MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION THESIS SUPERVISOR: ASSOC PROF DR NGUYEN DINH THO HO CHI MINH City - 2012 Contents Acknowledgement i Declaration ii List of tables iii List of figures iii Abstract iv CHAPTER I 1.1 INTRODUCTION Background 1.1.1 Organizational Commitment significance 1.1.2 The importance of Leadership Style 1.1.3 Current factors affect organizations in Ho Chi Minh City 1.2 Statement of the Problem 1.2.1 Employees’ commitment 1.2.2 Leadership 1.3 Research objective and its significance 1.3.1 Research objective 1.3.2 Research significance 1.4 Extent and methodology of the study 1.4.1 Extent of the study 1.4.2 Research methods 1.5 Some concepts related to the research 1.5.1 Organizational Commitment 1.5.2 Leadership and Leadership Style 1.6 Organization of the Remainder of the Study 10 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 12 2.1 Introduction on Organizational Commitment 12 2.2 Introduction on Leadership Style 14 2.3 Concept of each element of Organizational Commitment and Leadership Style model 17 2.3.1 Affective commitment 17 2.3.2 Continuance commitment 17 2.3.3 Normative commitment 18 2.3.4 Task Orientation 18 2.3.5 Relation Orientation 18 2.4 Development of Research Hypotheses 19 2.4.1 Task Orientation and Organizational Commitment 19 2.4.2 Relation Orientation and Organizational Commitment 19 2.5 Research Model 20 CHAPTER III 3.1 METHODOLOGY 23 Description of Instrumentation 23 3.1.1 Organizational Commitment Questionnaire 23 3.1.2 Leadership Style Questionnaire 25 3.2 Independent and Dependent Variables 26 3.3 Sample and Analysis Procedures 27 3.3.1 Sample 28 3.3.2 Analysis Procedures 28 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 31 4.1 Sample description 31 4.2 Reliability of Scales 32 4.2.1 Organizational Commitment 32 4.2.2 Leadership Style 33 4.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis 34 4.4 Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Style and Organizational Commitment Score 37 4.4.1 Organizational Commitment Score 37 4.4.2 Leadership Style Score 37 4.5 Relationship between Leadership Styles and Organizational Commitment 38 4.5.1 Regression of Relation Orientation, Task Orientation and Affective Commitment 40 4.5.2 Regression of Relation Orientation, Task Orientation and Continuance Commitment 45 4.5.3 Regression of Relation Orientation, Task Orientation and Normative Commitment 48 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51 5.1 Research Hypotheses 51 5.2 Summary of Findings 51 5.3 Conclusions 52 5.3.1 Organizational Commitment and Leadership Style Scale 52 5.3.2 Organizational Commitment and Leadership Style Score 53 5.3.3 Organizational Commitment and Leadership Style Relation 54 5.4 Managerial Implications 54 5.4.1 Organizational Commitment 54 5.4.2 Leadership Styles 55 5.4.3 Leadership Styles and Organizational Commitment 57 5.5 Limitations and suggestions 57 BIBLIOGRAPHY 59 APPENDIX 1: LIST OF KEY CONCEPS IN THE STUDY 63 Organizational Commitment 63 Leadership and Leadership Style 64 a Leadership 64 b Leadership Style 65 APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE 66 English version 66 Vietnamese version 69 APPENDIX 3: CHECKING RELIABILITY OF INSTRUMENTS 72 Organizational Commitment Scale 72 a Affective commitment 72 b Continuance commitment 72 c Normative commitment 73 d Reliability of Organizational Commitment Scale 73 Leadership Style Scale 74 a Task Orientation 74 b Relation Orientation 75 c Reliability of Leadership Style Scale 75 APPENDIX 4: EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS 77 APPENDIX 5: REGRESSION 82 Multiple regression for Affective Commitment 82 a Assumptions 82 b Result 84 Multiple regression for Continuance Commitment 85 a Assumptions 85 b Result 88 Multiple regression for Normative Commitment 89 a Assumptions 89 b Result 91 i Acknowledgement I would like to thank the following people who helped to make this research possible: Respectful lecturers of University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City for empowering me with considerably useful knowledge during the time I studied in the University Assoc Prof Dr Nguyen Dinh Tho, for supporting and guiding with his patience and competence throughout my dissertation writing Respondents, for giving their precious time in inputting the questionnaires My family, for encouraging me all the time Even I have tried my best to complete the thesis, however, human errors might be found Therefore, all inputs, ideas, and comments would be greatly appreciated Nguyen Thi Tuy An Ho Chi Minh, November 2012 ii Declaration Student number: 7701080001 I would like to declare that this dissertation, “The impact of perceived leadership styles on organizational commitment”, was accomplished based on my recent independent and serious studies and has not been previously, in its entirety or in part, submitted at any university in order to obtain academic qualifications, the data was collected in reality, and all used sources were indicated and acknowledged by means of complete bibliography Nguyen Thi Tuy An iii List of tables Table Four periods of the development of Organizational Commitment 13 Table 2 Different points of Leadership Style Approach 16 Table Surveyed items used in the study for independent variables 26 Table Surveyed items used in the study for dependent variables 27 Table Demographic data 31 Table Reliability of Organizational Commitment Scale 33 Table Reliability of Leadership Style Scale 34 Table 4 Factor Analysis of Organizational Commitment and Leadership Style 36 Table Organizational Commitment Descriptive Statistics 37 Table Leadership Style Descriptive Statistics 37 Table Correlation between Leadership Styles and Organizational Commitment 39 Table Overall relationship between Leadership Styles and Affective Commitment 43 Table Overall relationship between Leadership Styles and Affective Commitment 43 Table 10 Relationship of each Leadership Style and Affective Commitment 44 Table 11 Overall Relationship between Leadership Styles and Continuance Commitment 46 Table 12 Overall Relationship between Leadership Styles and Continuance Commitment 46 Table 13 Relationship of each Leadership Style and Continuance Commitment 47 Table 14 Overall Relationship between Leadership Styles and Normative Commitment 48 Table 15 Overall Relationship between Leadership Styles and Normative Commitment 49 Table 16 Relationship of each Leadership Style and Normative Commitment 49 List of figures Figure Research Model 22 Figure Research Process 30 Figure Research Findings 52 iv Abstract The purpose of research was to explore the impact of perceived leadership styles on organizational commitment The population was the employees working in Ho Chi Minh City The used methods were qualitative and quantitative one based on two instruments of Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Meyer and Allen, 2004) and Leadership Style Questionnaire (Northouse, 2010) From this study, we could find that:  The organizational commitment in Ho Chi Minh City was at moderate level  The leadership style used by most leaders in Ho Chi Minh City was at moderate range of task and relation orientation  There was a statistically significant relationship between organizational commitment of the employees and their perception of supervisors’ leadership styles 78 20 490 1.440 87.734 21 454 1.334 89.068 22 408 1.199 90.267 23 389 1.144 91.411 24 370 1.088 92.499 25 366 1.075 93.574 26 348 1.024 94.598 27 318 934 95.532 28 298 877 96.410 29 266 783 97.192 30 248 730 97.922 31 220 648 98.570 32 212 624 99.194 33 151 444 99.638 34 123 362 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotated Component Matrix a Component TO1 TO3 630 TO4 694 TO5 625 TO6 668 TO7 TO8 849 TO9 566 TO10 670 RO1 RO2 583 RO3 622 RO4 580 RO6 649 79 RO7 738 RO8 773 RO9 752 RO10 656 AC1 570 AC2 707 AC3 652 AC4 699 AC5 698 AC6 805 CC2 CC3 CC4 761 CC5 678 CC6 700 NC1 638 NC2 734 NC3 750 NC4 723 NC6 659 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization a Rotation converged in iterations After deleting TO1, TO7, RO1, CC2 and CC3 KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Sphericity 920 Approx Chi-Square 3132.621 df 406 Sig .000 Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Loadings 80 Total dimension0 % of Cumulative Variance % 10.620 36.622 2.411 8.315 44.937 1.810 6.241 1.654 Total 36.622 10.620 % of Cumulative Variance % % of Total Variance Cumulative % 36.622 36.622 4.679 16.133 16.133 2.411 8.315 44.937 3.975 13.708 29.841 51.179 1.810 6.241 51.179 3.802 13.109 42.950 5.704 56.882 1.654 5.704 56.882 3.165 10.913 53.863 1.192 4.110 60.992 1.192 4.110 60.992 2.068 7.130 60.992 903 3.114 64.106 828 2.856 66.962 781 2.692 69.655 699 2.412 72.066 10 657 2.265 74.331 11 627 2.162 76.493 12 596 2.054 78.547 13 588 2.027 80.574 14 540 1.862 82.436 15 515 1.776 84.212 16 502 1.730 85.943 17 449 1.547 87.490 18 425 1.467 88.957 19 408 1.405 90.362 20 373 1.288 91.650 21 367 1.265 92.915 22 357 1.230 94.145 23 333 1.148 95.294 24 311 1.073 96.366 25 268 923 97.290 26 255 880 98.170 27 236 814 98.984 28 170 585 99.569 29 125 431 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis 81 Rotated Component Matrix a Component TO3 620 TO4 714 TO5 639 TO6 676 TO8 868 TO9 554 TO10 679 RO2 569 RO3 630 RO4 585 RO6 650 RO7 741 RO8 784 RO9 767 RO10 671 AC1 613 AC2 722 AC3 651 AC4 701 AC5 708 AC6 822 CC4 800 CC5 659 CC6 722 NC1 636 NC2 757 NC3 757 NC4 757 NC6 650 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization a Rotation converged in iterations 82 APPENDIX 5: REGRESSION Multiple regression for Affective Commitment a Assumptions Linearity and Homoscedasticity Normality 83 Tests of Normality a Kolmogorov-Smirnov Statistic Standardized Residual a Lilliefors Significance Correction * This is a lower bound of the true significance df 057 Sig 206 200 * 84 Independence b Model Summary Model Std Error of the R dimension0 R Square 665 a Adjusted R Square 442 Estimate 437 Durbin-Watson 54518 1.866 a Predictors: (Constant), Relation_Orientation, Task_Orientation b Dependent Variable: Affective_Commitment Multicollinearity Coefficients Model Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity Coefficients Coefficients Statistics B a Std Error (Constant) 441 220 Task_Orientation 306 072 Relation_Orientation 479 067 Beta t Sig Tolerance VIF 2.008 046 276 4.278 000 658 1.520 465 7.191 000 658 1.520 a Dependent Variable: Affective_Commitment b Result Model Summaryb Model Std Error of the R dimension0 R Square 665 a Adjusted R Square 442 Estimate 437 Durbin-Watson 54518 1.866 a Predictors: (Constant), Relation_Orientation, Task_Orientation b Dependent Variable: Affective_Commitment b ANOVA Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square Regression 47.876 23.938 Residual 60.336 203 297 108.212 205 Total a Predictors: (Constant), Relation_Orientation, Task_Orientation b Dependent Variable: Affective_Commitment F 80.538 Sig .000 a 85 Coefficients Model Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity Coefficients Coefficients Statistics B a Std Error (Constant) 441 220 Task_Orientation 306 072 Relation_Orientation 479 067 Beta t a Linearity and Homoscedasticity VIF 046 276 4.278 000 658 1.520 465 7.191 000 658 1.520 Multiple regression for Continuance Commitment Assumptions Tolerance 2.008 a Dependent Variable: Affective_Commitment Sig 86 Normality 87 Tests of Normality a Kolmogorov-Smirnov Statistic Standardized Residual df Sig .042 206 200 * a Lilliefors Significance Correction * This is a lower bound of the true significance Independence b Model Summary Model Std Error of the R dimension0 R Square 503 a Adjusted R Square 253 246 a Predictors: (Constant), Relation_Orientation, Task_Orientation b Dependent Variable: Continuance_Commitment Estimate 60042 Durbin-Watson 1.859 88 Multicollinearity Coefficients Model Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity Coefficients Coefficients Statistics B (Constant) a Std Error 1.183 242 Task_Orientation 166 079 Relation_Orientation 387 073 Beta t Sig Tolerance VIF 4.887 000 158 2.110 036 658 1.520 394 5.273 000 658 1.520 a Dependent Variable: Continuance_Commitment b Result b Model Summary Model Std Error of the R dimension0 R Square 503 a Adjusted R Square 253 Estimate 246 Durbin-Watson 60042 1.859 a Predictors: (Constant), Relation_Orientation, Task_Orientation b Dependent Variable: Continuance_Commitment b ANOVA Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square Regression 24.801 12.401 Residual 73.183 203 361 Total 97.985 205 F Sig 34.398 000 a a Predictors: (Constant), Relation_Orientation, Task_Orientation b Dependent Variable: Continuance_Commitment Coefficients Model Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity Coefficients Coefficients Statistics B (Constant) a Std Error 1.183 242 Task_Orientation 166 079 Relation_Orientation 387 073 a Dependent Variable: Continuance_Commitment Beta t Sig Tolerance VIF 4.887 000 158 2.110 036 658 1.520 394 5.273 000 658 1.520 89 a Multiple regression for Normative Commitment Assumptions Linearity and Homoscedasticity Normality 90 Tests of Normality a Kolmogorov-Smirnov Statistic Standardized Residual a Lilliefors Significance Correction * This is a lower bound of the true significance df 047 Sig 206 200 * 91 Independence b Model Summary Model Std Error of the R dimension0 R Square 461 a Adjusted R Square 213 Estimate 205 Durbin-Watson 63405 1.617 a Predictors: (Constant), Relation_Orientation, Task_Orientation b Dependent Variable: Normative_Commitment Multicollinearity Coefficients Model Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity Coefficients Coefficients Statistics B (Constant) a Std Error 1.210 256 Task_Orientation 110 083 Relation_Orientation 397 077 Beta t Sig Tolerance VIF 4.735 000 102 1.326 186 658 1.520 394 5.131 000 658 1.520 a Dependent Variable: Normative_Commitment b Result Model Summaryb Model Std Error of the R dimension0 R Square 461 a Adjusted R Square 213 Estimate 205 Durbin-Watson 63405 1.617 a Predictors: (Constant), Relation_Orientation, Task_Orientation b Dependent Variable: Normative_Commitment b ANOVA Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square Regression 22.022 11.011 Residual 81.610 203 402 103.633 205 Total a Predictors: (Constant), Relation_Orientation, Task_Orientation b Dependent Variable: Normative_Commitment Coefficients a F 27.389 Sig .000 a 92 Model Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity Coefficients Coefficients Statistics B (Constant) Std Error 1.210 256 Task_Orientation 110 083 Relation_Orientation 397 077 a Dependent Variable: Normative_Commitment Beta t Sig Tolerance VIF 4.735 000 102 1.326 186 658 1.520 394 5.131 000 658 1.520 ... and Organizational Commitment 38 4.5.1 Regression of Relation Orientation, Task Orientation and Affective Commitment 40 4.5.2 Regression of Relation Orientation, Task Orientation and Continuance... Abstract The purpose of research was to explore the impact of perceived leadership styles on organizational commitment The population was the employees working in Ho Chi Minh City The used methods... relationship between organizational commitment of the employees and their perception of supervisors’ leadership styles 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter will present the background of Organizational