Journal of Service Science – 2013 Volume 6, Number 1

Impact Of Leadership Styles On Employee

Organizational Commitment
Sharon Clinebell, University of Northern Colorado, USA
Vida Škudienė, ISM University of Management and Economics, Lithuania
Renata Trijonyte, ISM University of Management and Economics, Lithuania
James Reardon, University of Northern Colorado, USA

ABSTRACT

This research study examines the relationship between transformational, transactional and
passive/avoidant leadership styles and three dimensions of organizational commitment – affective,
continuance, and normative in two subsidiaries of one multinational organization. The research
findings revealed that transformational leadership has the strongest impact on affective
commitment, although transactional leadership also affects affective commitment.
Transformational leadership also has a significant positive affect on normative commitment.
Transactional leadership has a significant positive affect on continuance commitment and
positive/avoidant leadership has a significant negative affect on affective commitment.

Keywords: Organizational Commitment; Leadership

INTRODUCTION

O rganizational commitment is one of the constructs that has retained its importance throughout decades
and, despite the extensive research done in the field, still draws a high level of attention due to its
association with such preferred work attitudes as increased job satisfaction, higher performance, lower
absenteeism and turnover intentions (Yousef, 2000). It has been generally recognized that organizational
commitment is one of the major factors determining organizational performance and effectiveness (Lok &
Crawford, 1999, 2004).

In addition, as observed by Allen and Meyer (1990), a common link discussed in all conceptualizations of
commitment is the one between organizational commitment and turnover, indicating that “employees who are
strongly committed are those who are least likely to leave the organization”. By contrast, it is assumed that less
committed employees tend to leave their organizations more often and, in case of lack of alternatives, they may
“emotionally or mentally “withdraw” from the organization” (Lok & Crawford, 1999, p. 58; 2004, p. 321). In an
earlier meta-analysis, Mathieu and Zajac (1990) also found support for the relationship between organizational
commitment and turnover.

Yammarino and Dubinsky (1992) advocate an employee’s perception of the immediate supervisor to be
one of the major determinants of employee attitudes in the work place, including organizational commitment. This
assumption prompts for a deeper examination of distinct leadership styles employed in the day-to-day leader-
follower relationship. A set of questions arises with respect to how distinct styles or behaviors employed by a leader
affect the form and level of employee’s commitment. Even though separately, leadership behavior and
organizational commitment has been an object of research for decades, their mutual relationship received
considerably less attention, especially with respect to distinct leadership behaviors and multi-dimensional approach
to organizational commitment. As advocated by Meyer and Allen’s (1991, 1997) building on principles of need,
satisfaction and exchange, employees are more likely to willingly contribute to the success of the organization and
remain employed longer when their needs are satisfied within the work place. The leader acting as the closest
mediator in the employment environment is entrusted to ensure satisfied and committed employees. Thus, the leader
should be very familiar with any impact his/her demonstrated behavior has on followers’ perceptions towards the

2013 The Clute Institute Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 139
Journal of Service Science – 2013 Volume 6, Number 1

work place, or even the organization as a whole, and adapt his/her leadership behaviors in order to enhance
followers’ commitments. The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between distinct leadership
styles and separate dimensions of organizational commitment in two foreign subsidiaries of one multinational
organization.

Theory on Employee Organizational Commitment

Although there are many differing definitions of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Dale
& Fox, 2008), Meyer and Allen (1991, 1997) have identified commonality in various definitions in that commitment
is a psychological state that characterizes the employee’s relationship with the organization and has implications for
the decision to continue membership in the organization.

Meyer and Allen (1990, 1991, 1997) noted that a distinction was made between attitudinal and behavior
commitment. In the attitudinal approach, it is an attitude or a mind-set of employees that is measured in relation to
either antecedents (conditions) or consequences of commitment (behavior). Meanwhile, in the behavioral approach,
it is a course of action that plays an essential role as employees become committed specifically to that certain
existing behavior, e.g. remaining employed in the organization, rather than to the organization itself and, as a
consequence, tending to assimilate their attitudes accordingly with the prevalent perception of work experiences to
keep it consistent and avoid cognitive dissonance (Meyer & Allen, 1988, 1991, 1997). It is assumed that within the
attitudinal perspective, behavior, as a consequence of commitment, can influence the conditions that affect the state
of commitment, while behavioral perspective suggests that attitudes as an outcome of certain behavior may have an
impact on a recurring occurrence of such behavior (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The two approaches have both affected
the conceptualizations of organizational commitment, to a great extent, and often the distinction can be viewed as
blurred, depending on the interpretation of certain phenomena.

Continuing research in the field has led to an advanced understanding of the concept of organizational
commitment by bringing into scope other forms of attachment that exist between employees and organizations. One
of the most widely known and practically applied extensions of organizational commitment concept is that of Meyer
and Allen (Meyer & Allen, 1990, 1997; Lee et al, 2001; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001) who suggested a multi-
dimensional concept resulting in three components of organizational commitment - affective, continuance, and
normative. The scholars argue that affective, continuance, and normative commitment should always be treated as
components or dimensions instead of distinct types of commitment, and they further contemplate that these
components are being experienced by employees simultaneously, only to different extents (Meyer & Allen, 1990,
1991, 1997). Meyer & Allen (1991) also assert that even though the three components denote a certain
psychological state of commitment, each is of a different nature. Meyer and Allen’s work (1988, 1990, 1991, 1997)
assumes that each of the three components develops as a consequence of different antecedents.

Affective Commitment

Employees with a strong affective commitment continue employment with the organization because they
want to do so. This component is often treated as a predecessor of organizational commitment, in general, due to the
fact that Porter, in his studies (Dubin, Champoux & Porter, 1975), focused on a one-dimensional approach which is
now being reflected upon as representing, namely, affective commitment. As initially suggested by Mowday, Steers,
and Porter (1979), there can be four distinct groups of antecedents identified with respect to affective commitment –
1) personal characteristics, 2 job characteristics, 3) work experiences, and 4) structural characteristics. The vast
majority of attention in the research field has been devoted particularly to work experiences as it is believed to be
mostly manageable within the organization in order to affect employees’ commitments in the desired way (Meyer &
Allen, 1988).

Continuance Commitment

Employees whose primary link to the organization is based on continuance commitment remain because
they need to do so. There are two factors identified that impact the development of continuance commitment. One is
related to the volume of investments made and another is influenced by scarcity of alternatives. Becker‘s (1960)

140 Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 2013 The Clute Institute
Journal of Service Science – 2013 Volume 6, Number 1

side-bet theory has placed a solid ground for evolution of this component as it elaborates that employees keep
committed to a certain organization based on their time and effort spent for mastering specific skills and gaining
experiences or social relationships that cannot be replicated with ease elsewhere and would require enormous
investment to start over – in other words, “sunk costs” are taken into consideration to a great extent (Bučiūnienė &
Škudienė, 2008). Equally continuance commitment evolves under perceived lack of alternatives which forces an
employee to remain in the organization.

Normative Commitment

Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel that they ought to remain with the organization.
This is the component that has been questioned to have significant similarities with affective commitment,
especially when validating the scales presented by Meyer and Allen (1990, 1991, 1997). The antecedents of this
dimension cover both prior and post employment experiences. Normative commitment, as an obligation to remain
loyal to one organization, is capable of evolving much earlier than the actual employment takes place. Family
values, cultural socialization, historical traditions, and many other external factors can influence the evolution of
psychological state of obligation and a strong belief that one ought to be loyal to the organization. Of equal
importance is the organizational socialization after having entered the organization – the different attitudes and
values exhibited and believed in within the employment environment that can have impact on perceptions of a
newcomer.

The Full Range Leadership Model

Bass (1990, 1999) developed the full range leadership model entailing transformational, transactional, and
passive/avoidant dimensions or leadership styles. Bass also introduced the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) to measure the full range leadership, which, according to Turner and Müller (2005), is the most widely used
leadership measure. Bass’ model encompasses nine factors or underlying leadership behaviors explaining each of
the leadership styles derived from research studies by using the MLQ. There were numerous refinements made in
the run of decades of research to reflect the findings of various analyses and improve the model.

Transactional Leadership

This type of leadership is being referred to as traditional and was named based on the argument that there
are certain underlying transactions or bargains between managers and employees where followers are introduced to
what certain behavior is expected from them in order to become entitled to the compensation or reward for their
compliance to the postulated requirements. As Bass denoted in his overview of 20 years of research in the field, such
a leader-follower relationship is based solely on self-interest and entails a cost-benefit exchange process (Bass,
1999). Based on Bass’ model, there are certain techniques or behaviors used by a leader for goal attainment - 1)
contingent reward and 2) management-by-exception active. Contingent reward represents the relationship based on
punishments and rewards in return for expected performance, whereas management-by-exception active reveals
observance for deviations in follower’s performance and adequate repay (Flynn, 2009). As defined by Bass (1990, p.
20) when using contingent reward, “the leader gets things done by making and fulfilling promises of recognition,
pay increases, and advancement for employees who perform well … and contrary, employees who do not do good
work are penalized.”

A very important observation, though, is that the level to which the rewards or avoidance of penalties affect
the followers depends on two conditions: 1) there must be a wish for rewards or avoidance of penalties from the
follower’s side and 2) a certain control or freedom of the leader towards awarding or punishing. Pay increases and
promotions are most often dependant on internal policies and other factors, such as qualification of the follower or
existing competition, while penalties are usually administered under certain breakage of regulations. As observed by
Bass (1990, p. 20), “many an executive has found his or her hands tied by contract provisions, organizational
politics, and inadequate resources.”

2013 The Clute Institute Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 141
Journal of Service Science – 2013 Volume 6, Number 1

Transformational Leadership

Hater and Bass (1988) contemplate that under this kind of leadership, followers express high personal
identification with their leaders and are determined to go beyond self-interest due to a commonly shared vision with
their leaders. Followers are strongly motivated and constantly inspired to overachieve what is expected of them.
Bass (1990) observes that transformational leadership “occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their
employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when they
stir their employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group” (p. 21). Under Bass’ model,
transformational leaders exhibit the following attributes or behaviors: 1) idealized influence-attributed, 2) idealized
influence-behavior, 3) inspirational motivation, 4) intellectual stimulation, and 5) individual consideration. Idealized
influence-attributed refers to high levels of leader’s self-confidence which instills pride, respect, and trust in the
leader (Flynn, 2009). This factor is the only one comprised of attribution items, while idealized influence-behavior
represents a leader striving to promote his beliefs in an influential manner (Flynn, 2009). Inspirational motivation
represents the ability of the leader to act as a role model and inspire subordinates to exert his/her efforts towards a
shared vision. This factor was detached from the initial factor of charisma due to different behaviors implied and a
belief that “a leader could provide a challenge and meaning through the use of simple words, slogans, symbols, and
metaphors to generate acceptance of missions, without necessarily being charismatic” (Bass, 1999, p. 19).
Intellectual stimulation covers a leader’s ability to challenge the way the follower tends to think in the problem-
solving process by encouraging him/her to take into consideration different perspectives and bring in new ways of
making things happen. Finally, individual consideration reflects concern for subordinates to reach their full
potential. It entails identifying individual needs and aspirations of each subordinate and indulging in coaching and
training.

Passive-Avoidant Leadership

Transactional and transformational leadership styles represent the active leaders who are keen on
preventing problems; meanwhile, there are often occurances of indifferent leaders who act passively towards solving
potential problems, reacting only when they become chronic or, in general, tend to avoid responsibility in
supervising and decision-making. The passive leader is represented by the management-by-exception passive factor
or behavior which reflects a leader who is “waiting for problems to arise before taking corrective action” (Bass,
1999, p. 11). Meanwhile, lack of leadership or non-leadership style, as suggested by Yamarino and Bass (1990), is
referred to as laissez-faire and is highly contrasted to the active forms of leadership. Such leaders abdicate their
overall responsibilities and keep themselves at a distance from the problems with which their followers deal.

The fact that so much attention has been paid to the concept of leadership, and various attempts have been
made to measure the effectiveness of leaders, gives a clear indication of its influential relationship towards
performance of the organization. As observed by Lok and Crawford (2004, p. 324), “leadership contributes
significantly in the success and failure of an organization.”

Boehnke et al. (2003) noted research by Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) and Hunt and Schuler (1976) which
found that transformational and transactional leadership was mostly reported to have positive correlations to
individual performance of the follower (Howell and Avolio, 1993), while laissez-faire revealed mixed results,
including negative (Bass & Avolio, 1990) and non-correlation (Podsakoff et al., 1984). Bass et al (2003, p. 215)
denoted that “earlier research on transformational leadership has shown that it augments transactional leadership in
predicting performance”, though Bass himself was not able to confirm the differences between transformational and
transactional leadership with respect to predicting unit performance. There have also been positive relationships
found between the perceived transformational leadership style and democratic leadership style and subordinates’
work attitudes such as job satisfaction (Savery, 1994; Medley & Larochelle, 1995; Emery & Barker, 2007). Others,
such as Ozaralli (2003), have found contribution of transformational leadership on subordinate’s empowerment and
team effectiveness. With respect to nonprofit or voluntary organizations, active leadership forms, such as
transformational leadership style and management-by-exception active, have a positive relationship with positive
emotions such as “joy, pride, admiration, and enthusiasm” (Rowold & Rohmann, 2009, p. 280). Stronger
correlations between transformational leadership style and leader’s rated effectiveness, compared to transactional
leadership style, were observed in the voluntary sector giving valuable insights to relationships beyond pure

142 Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 2013 The Clute Institute
Journal of Service Science – 2013 Volume 6, Number 1

economic business (Rowold & Rohmann, 2009). In addition, some scholars attempted to identify impact of different
leadership behaviors on negative organizational outcomes, such as staff retention, and one of the correlations
discovered is that with management-by-exception (Kleinman, 2004).

Overall, a number of research studies are conducted with respect to leadership styles and their differential
impact on organizational outcomes and subordinates’ attitudes in the work place, which is a clear indication of its
persistent importance due to its perceived contribution to success of the organization.

Relationship between Organizational Commitment and Leadership Styles

Numerous empirical studies have confirmed certain leadership styles to have impact on development of
separate dimensions of organizational commitment. The general trend is supported that certain relationships underlie
between different leadership styles and organizational commitment, though the results are not entirely consistent.

Lok and Crawford (1999) observed significant correlations between consideration leadership style and
commitment, while commitment’s relation to initiating structure leadership style was lower, though still positive.
Dale and Fox (2008) observed similar results. However, although a more recent study of Lok and Crawford (2004)
similarly revealed a significant correlation between consideration leadership style and commitment, commitment
was not found to have statistically significant correlation with initiating structure leadership style.

Yiing and Bin Ahmad (2009) examined the relationships between affective commitment and such
leadership behaviors as participative, directive, and supportive with respect to moderating effects of organizational
culture. All three leadership behaviors were found to have positive and significant relationship to affective
commitment of employees.

There have been many studies aimed at examining relationships, particularly between
transformational/transactional or laissez-faire leadership styles and organizational commitment (Avolio, Zhu, Koh,
& Bhatia, 2004; Bučiūnienė and Škudienė, 2008; Dunn, Dastoor & Sims, 2012; Emery and Barker, 2007; Limsila
and Ogunlana, 2007; Lo et al., 2010; Joo, Yoon and Jeung, 2012; Rehman, Shareef, Mahmood & Ishaque, 2012;
Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler & Shi, 2004). As Geijsel et al. (2003, p. 229) denoted reflecting upon work of Yukl,
“virtually all theoretical treatments of transformational leadership claim that, among its more direct effects, are
employee motivation and commitment, leading to the kind of extra effort required for significant organizational
change”. Emery and Barker (2007) reported a moderate positive correlation between all factors of transformational
leadership style, as well as contingent reward representing transactional leadership style and affective commitment;
meanwhile, the second factor of transactional leadership – management-by-exception, though still not distinguished
to active and passive – showed a negative correlation with affective commitment. Limsila and Ogunlana (2007) have
found that only transformational leadership style correlated to affective commitment while no significant
correlations were observed between transactional, laissez faire leadership styles and affective commitment.

Dun, Dastoor, and Sims (2012) found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and
affective and normative commitment, but no significant relationship between transformational and continuance
commitment. Avolio, et al. (2004) also found a positive relationship between transformational and organizational
commitment. They also found that psychological empowerment and structural distance may be moderators in this
relationship. Joo, Yoon, and Jeung (2012) found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and
organizational commitment. In particular, they found that vision articulation, group goal promotion, and intellectual
stimulation were significant predictors of organizational commitment. Rehman et al. (2012) found that while both
transformational and transactional leadership impact organizational commitment, transformational leadership had a
greater contribution to the level of organizational commitment. Walumbwa et al. (2004) also found a positive
relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment. They also found that this
relationship is partially mediated by collective efficacy.

Bučiūnienė and Škudienė (2008), as well as Lo et al. (2010), examined the relationship between full-range
leadership styles and separate dimensions of organizational commitment advancing from analyzing effects of
leadership styles on organizational commitment as a one-dimensional construct, but striving to examine the impact

2013 The Clute Institute Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 143
Journal of Service Science – 2013 Volume 6, Number 1

of distinct leadership styles on separate dimensions of organizational commitment; namely, affective, continuance,
and normative. In a Lithuanian context, Bučiūnienė and Škudienė (2008) were able to observe relatively similar
positive correlations between both transformational and transactional leadership styles with respect to affective and
normative commitment dimensions, even though of less significance in transactional leadership relations.
Meanwhile, they also found that laissez-faire correlated negatively to affective commitment. In a Malaysian context,
dimensions of transformational leadership were found to be predictive of all dimensions of organizational
commitment, while no significant relationship was observed between dimensions of transactional leadership
dimensions with respect to affective, continuance and normative commitment (Lo et al, 2010). The results obtained
in various empirical studies do not show entire consistency with respect to relationship between leadership styles
and organizational commitment which therefore prompts further research.

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Recent empirical studies have claimed that transformational leadership has, in general, a higher impact on
organizational commitment than does transactional leadership style (Avolio et al., 2004; Bučiūnienė & Škudienė,
2008; Emery & Barker, 2007; Joo, Yoon, & Jeung, 2012; Limsila & Ogunlana, 2008; Lo et al, 2010; Rehman et al.,
2012; Walumbwa et al., 2004). Despite the fact that most of the studies examining a relationship between leadership
styles and organizational commitment were conducted using Porter’s one-dimensional measure, which can only be
assumed to represent dimension of affective commitment, a few studies reported their results based on a multi-
dimensional measure revealing transformational leadership style to have a stronger impact on affective commitment
than transactional leadership style (Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008; Lo et al, 2010). According to Meyer & Allen
(1997, p. 46), who focused on various antecedents of distinct dimensions of organizational commitment, “affective
commitment to the organization is stronger among employees whose leaders allow them to participate in decision-
making … and who treat them with consideration … and fairness”. These characteristics can be compared to at least
two underlying behaviors of transformational leadership style; namely, intellectual stimulation and individual
consideration. Based on these observations, the first hypothesis to be tested is proposed as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership style positively affects the level of affective commitment.

As observed in most of the studies (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008; Lo et al, 2010),
normative commitment scale tends to show similar patterns of correlations with antecedents to the ones observed
within affective commitment scale. Only the latter, in most cases, reveals stronger relationships. Debates appear in
the leadership literature suggesting that the feelings of emotional attachment and obligation are often not
independent of one another. Specifically, transformational leadership style is most often found to have an impact on
normative commitment (Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008; Lo et al, 2010). Based on this, the second hypothesis is as
follows:

Hypothesis 2: Transformational leadership style positively affects the level of normative commitment.

Meyer & Allen (1997) identified “psychological contract” between an employee and organization as one of
the hypothesized antecedents to organizational commitment. A distinction, however, is made between “transactional
and relational” forms of psychological contract which are interpreted differently, suggesting each having impact on
separate dimensions of organizational commitment - transactional is treated as more objective, evolving from
economic exchange and thus more relevant for development of continuance commitment, while relational contract is
based on general social exchanges and has more impact on development of normative commitment (Meyer and
Allen, 1997). The cost-benefit approach of transactional type of psychological contract with the organization is
similar to transactional leadership style, indicating “relationship…(when) followers’ material and psychic needs are
satisfied in return for expected work performance” (Sarros & Santora, 2001, p. 388). Meanwhile, transformational
leadership, in contrast, “stirs…(the) employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group”
(Bass, 1990, p. 21) and raise their willingness to exert extra effort which exceeds merely pure economic exchange.
Building on the synthesis of these theoretical considerations, another proposed hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 3: Transactional leadership style positively affects the level of continuance commitment.

144 Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 2013 The Clute Institute
Journal of Service Science – 2013 Volume 6, Number 1

Passive/avoidant leadership style is described as representing “maintenance of status quo, poor

communication…lack of confidence…(or even) avoidance and abdication of responsibility” (Sarros & Santora,
2001, p. 389-390). This type of leader behavior reveals a lack of touch with followers and is assumed to have no
impact, or even a negative one, on the most positive dimension of organizational commitment; namely, affective
(Limsila & Ogunlana, 2008; Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008). Based on the negative definitions of passive/avoidant
leadership representing leader’s indifference towards the followers, the following hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 4: Passive/avoidant leadership style negatively affects the level of affective commitment.

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

Sample and Data Collection

The primary data in this empirical study were collected from two subsidiaries of one multinational
enterprise operating in the IT industry, one of which is located in Vilnius, Lithuania, and the other in the capital of a
country in central Europe, which cannot be revealed due to a confidentiality agreement with the organization.
Hereinafter, both shall be referred to as ‘the MNE’ and ‘the foreign subsidiary”, respectively.

The survey questionnaire measured transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant leadership styles,
and dimensions of organizational commitment, specifically affective, continuance and normative. The wide
international presence of the MNE has led to the institutionalization of the English language as the official language
within the MNE. Based on the fact that assessment of English language skills is included in recruitment procedure as
one of mandatory selection criteria for all employees of the MNE, it was assumed that all existing employees
participating in the survey have sufficient English language skills to complete the survey questionnaire entailing
items formulated in English; therefore, it was decided that no translation is required into either of the languages
representing both subsidiaries. Not having the questionnaire translated also mitigated any translation issues that
might arise.

After being pilot tested, the final version of the self-completion survey questionnaire was distributed to all
employees as a hard copy, along with a self-addressed envelope to ensure a high level of anonymity. All participants
responded on a voluntary basis and were guaranteed that their responses would remain confidential. Along with the
physical distribution of the survey questionnaires, an internal introduction email, providing a short briefing of the
intent and scope of the research, was sent directly to managers in Vilnius, requesting their support and further
distribution within respective teams. Meanwhile, in the foreign subsidiary, a top-down approach was chosen in order
to ensure a higher response rate, and the introduction email was forwarded by the Managing Director further into the
organization. A reminder was sent within one week’s time encouraging participating in the survey. Both subsidiaries
were given 10 days to return the sealed envelopes in the special drop-boxes strategically based at the most visited
places - the reception and kitchen areas.

A total of 359 questionnaires were distributed – 159 in Vilnius and 200 in the foreign subsidiary based on
different head count numbers. All permanent employees of the two subsidiaries were sampled, including both full-
time and part-time. A total of 194 questionnaires were returned - 118 in Vilnius and 76 in the foreign subsidiary, out
of which two and eight, respectively, were incomplete and thus treated as non-usable. A total of 184 questionnaires
were used in the analysis, which constitutes a response rate of 51% for the total sample and 73% and 34% in Vilnius
and the foreign subsidiary groups, respectively. As expected, the higher response rate was observed in Vilnius which
can be explained by the fact that one of the authors is an employee of this particular subsidiary and was able to pro-
actively coordinate activities, while in the foreign subsidiary, the process was coordinated remotely with the help of
local colleagues.

Research Instrument

The survey questionnaire was comprised of 63 questions in total, 24 of which were devoted to measure
dimensions of organizational commitment, 34 measured leadership styles and underlying behaviors, and five
additional questions covered demographic information.

2013 The Clute Institute Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 145
Journal of Service Science – 2013 Volume 6, Number 1

Measure of Organizational Commitment

The first part of the survey questionnaire measuring organizational commitment dimensions was slightly
adapted from the OCQ developed by Meyer and Allen (1990). Based on the pilot study, a few minor changes have
been made in two out of 24 items by employing synonyms for two English words that had been reported to be more
difficult to understand for non-native speakers after the pilot survey (‘scarcity’ replaced by ‘lack’; ‘sensible’
replaced by ‘important’).

Measure of Leadership Styles

The second part of the survey questionnaire measuring leadership styles and their underlying behaviors was
adapted from Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire – MLQ-Form 5X Short – originally introduced and later re-
examined, to a wide extent, by Bass and Avolio (1999). A new leadership style named ‘Passive/avoidant’ was
formed which combines management-by-exception passive and laissez-faire sub-scales. Two of the items were
adapted in order to increase understandability for non-native English speakers (‘instills pride in me’ replaced by ‘I
am proud of’; ‘mobilizes’ replaced by ‘emphasizes’). The employees are asked to rate their direct day-to-day
manager, who varies depending on the respondent, for example, it can be a team leader, a functional manager or a
managing director subject to the type of functions undertaken by the rater.

Demographical Items

The last part of the survey questionnaire was devoted to demographical information. In total, five multi-
choice questions were presented: 1) interaction with direct manager – face-to-face or remote, 2) job functions –
administrative, leading, technical or other, 3) job tenure, 4) age and 5) gender.

RESULTS

Demographic data were gathered from the respondents. Sixty-three percent of the respondents were from
the Vilnius location. Gender was approximately even with 50% males, 47% females, and 3% unspecified. Forty-six
percent of employees are 26-30 years old. The next largest group was less than 25 years old with 32%, followed by
31-35 (13%), 36-40 (2%), over 41 (3%), with 4% of respondents not specifying their age. Forty-three percent of
employees had technical job functions, 24% were administrative, 11% were classified as leading, 16% were
classified as other, and 6% did not specify their job function. Eighty-three percent had face-to-face interaction with
their managers, 10% had remote interaction, and 7% did not specify the mode of interaction with their managers.
With respect to job tenure, a relatively high number of responents (28%) have worked for less than a year. Forty-two
percent have job tenure between 1 and 2 years and 22% of respondents represent the most experienced part of the
organization having job tenure between two and three years.

The results reveal that transformational leadership style is the most dominant along both subsidiaries,
according to ratings of employees. Transactional leadership style is used less often compared to transformational,
while passive/avoidant leadership is identified less when compared to the other types of leadership styles.

Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to examine the relationship between leadership styles and
employee organizational commitment. These results, as well as means, standard deviations, and Cronbach alphas,
are shown in Table 1. Both transformational and transactional leadership styles have been found to correlate with all
dimensions of organizational commitment to various degrees. Only passive/avoidant leadership style revealed no
significant relationship to either continuance or normative dimensions of commitment and did show a significant
negative correlation (r2 = -0.296, p < .001) to transformational leadership.

146 Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 2013 The Clute Institute
Journal of Service Science – 2013 Volume 6, Number 1

Table 1: Measures
Variable Means SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Affective Commitment 5.50 1.60 (0.747)
2. Continuance Commitment 5.42 1.77 .187** (0.684)
3. Normative Commitment 5.17 1.76 .344*** .284*** (0.613)
4. Transformational Leadership 5.93 1.65 .325*** .198** .310*** (0.936)
5. Transactional Leadership 6.17 1.76 .345*** .330*** .391*** .751*** (0.799)
6. Passive/Avoidant Leadership 4.41 1.60 -.296*** -.013 .011 -.470*** .300*** (0.733)
* ** ***
Note: Cronbach alphas are on the diagonal. p < .05; p < .01; p < .001

To test the hypotheses, regression models were developed where each type of organizational commitment
was the dependent variable in separate regression models. Each type of leadership was the independent variable in
each regression model. Hence, the models were as follows:

Affective Commitment = B1Transformational + B2Transactional + B3 Passive/Avoidant

Continuance Commitment = B1Transformational + B2Transactional + B3 Passive/Avoidant

Normative Commitment = B1Transformational + B2Transactional + B3 Passive/Avoidant

The results of the regression analyses are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Regression Analysis Results

Transformational Transactional Passive/Avoidant R2/F-value
Affective Commitment 0.296** 0.247* -0.201** 0.160**/11.447
** ***
Continuance Commitment 0.199 0.438 0.084 0.119**/8.077
Normative Commitment 0.31*** 0.197* 0.139 0.178**/13.025
*
p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

All leadership styles were found to have a significant impact on affective commitment to varying levels. As
predicted in Hypothesis 1, transformational leadership had a significant positive effect on affective commitment (r2 =
0.296, p < .001). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported. Transactional leadership was also shown to have a
significant positive effect of affective commitment to a lesser degree (r2 = 0.247, p < .05). Passive/avoidant
leadership had a significant negative effect on affective commitment (r2 = -0.201, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was
supported.

The information presented in Table 2 shows that transformational leadership had a significant positive
effect on normative commitment (r2 = 0.310, p < .001), providing support for Hypothesis 2. Transactional leadership
also had a significant positive effect on continuance commitment (r2 = 0.438, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 3 is
supported.

DISCUSSION

The empirical study conducted in two foreign subsidiaries of the MNE examined the relationship between
transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant leadership styles and dimensions of organizational
commitment; namely, affective, continuance, and normative. Both transactional and transformational leadership
styles were found to have relationships with all dimensions of organizational commitment to varying extents, while
passive/avoidant leadership style showed a significant negative correlation with affective commitment dimension
only. As predicted, transformational leadership had a stronger impact on affective and normative commitment
levels, while transactional leadership had a stronger impact on continuance commitment. These findings are
congruent with the findings of many studies discussed earlier.

Similarly to the relationship between both transformational and transactional leadership styles and affective
commitment, both leadership styles positively affected normative commitment, with transformational also having a

2013 The Clute Institute Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 147
Journal of Service Science – 2013 Volume 6, Number 1

stronger impact than transactional. Normative commitment, as discussed in development of the hypotheses section,
is often hardly distinguishable from affective commitment, in practice, though theoretical justifications differ for
both dimensions. The results obtained in this study confirm previous empirical findings where both transformational
and transactional leadership styles correlated with normative commitment (Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008). As
observed by Meyer & Allen (1997), the two scales of commitment – affective and normative – tend to have similar
relations with the same antecedents. “The correlations involving the affective commitment scale, however, tend to
be somewhat stronger than those involving the normative commitment scale.” (p. 122)

The study also found that continuance commitment is more impacted by transactional leadership style
compared to transformational. As significantly more attention was given to affective commitment since its
introduction as a one-dimensional construct, antecedents of both normative and continuance commitment received
considerably less attention. Only a few studies report the relationship, albeit weak, between transactional leadership
and continuance commitment (Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008). Other empirical findings report transactional
leadership style, or its underlying behaviors, as not predicting continuance commitment, but instead identifying
certain sub-scales of transformational leadership as determining this particular dimension of organizational
commitment (Lo et al, 2010). Transactional leadership style positively correlated with continuance commitment,
which was expected given the theoretical assumption that the follower’s perceived psychological-transactional
contract with the organization might be the antecedent of continuance commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Transformational leadership also impacted continuance commitment, but not as strongly as transactional leadership
did.

Existing literature and previous studies found that passive/avoidant leadership style either do not correlate
or correlate negatively with affective commitment (Limsila & Ogunlana, 2008; Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008; Lo et
al, 2010). Such leaders are not admired by their followers who, in turn, might tend to assimilate their negative
experiences from interaction with the manager to a wider perception of the work place and will most likely not have
high levels of emotional attachment to the organization. The findings of this study support the results obtained in
previous empirical researches which confirmed that passive/avoidant leadership negatively effects affective
commitment (Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008, Lo et al, 2010).

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

One possible limitation of the study might be the fact that the questionnaire survey was distributed in the
English language to respondents to whom English is not their first language. The respondents might read and
comprehend the items differently based on various levels of English language skills. However, this concern is
mitigated by the requirement of the organization that employees have English language skills. The lower response
rate in the foreign subsidiary might also be considered a limitation. Additionally, this was a sample from one
organization, which limits the generalizability of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study examined the relationship between transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant
leadership styles and three dimensions of organizational commitment – affective, continuance, and normative. The
key findings revealed that both leadership styles – transformational and transactional – positively affect all
dimensions of organizational commitment to varying extents. Meanwhile, passive/avoidant leadership style was
found to have a negative effect with affective commitment only. The results of the study confirm earlier findings on
the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership styles and affective commitment. In
congruence with leadership theory and previous empirical studies, a relationship was also found between
transformational leadership style and normative commitment. Also, as supported by existing literature, the effect of
transformational leadership on normative commitment is slightly lower when compared to the relationship between
transformational leadership style and affective commitment. A relatively new finding reveals transactional
leadership style to be a better predictor of continuance commitment confirming the importance of a cost-benefit
approach of leadership and mutual economic exchange while previous studies either did not reveal such a
relationship or reported correlations that do not vary from the ones with transformational leadership style.
Passive/avoidant leadership style, as expected, had a negative effect on affective commitment.

148 Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 2013 The Clute Institute
Journal of Service Science – 2013 Volume 6, Number 1

These findings add to the body of leadership research that has been conducted outside of the U.S. They also
confirm previous findings and extend the literature with regard to the relationship between transactional leadership
and continuance commitment. The importance of leadership style and organizational commitment is recognized in
management literature, and this study examined the relationship between dimensions of these two important
constructs.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Dr. Sharon Clinebell is a Professor of Management at the Monfort College of Business at the University of
Northern Colorado. Her publications have appeared in Journal of Management, Academy of Management Executive,
Academy of Management Learning and Education, and Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies as well as
other publications. She is the President of the Academy of Business Education and serves on the editorial boards of
the Academy of Management Learning and Education and Quality Management Journal. E-mail:
[email protected]

Dr. Vida Škudienė is the Professor of Marketing and Organizational Behaviour at ISM University of Management
and Economics, Nagoya University of Commerce and Business, Japan, and Instituto Portugues de Administracao de
Marketing (IPAM), Portugal. Prof. Škudienė has presented her research at international conferences in France,
Japan, Israel, US (Hawaii, Chicago), Greece, Croatia, France, Spain, Norway, Jamaica, Sweden, Italy (Boccioni),
and published over 30 articles, e-textbook on Organizational Behaviour, and co-authored two books on case writing.
Prof. Škudienė is a member of editorial advisory board of Baltic Journal of Management. E-mail: [email protected]

Renata Trijonytė holds Master degree in International Marketing Management from ISM University of
Management and Economics, Lithuania. Her research is focused on employee motivation, leadership and
entrepreneurship.

Dr. Reardon is the Chairperson and Professor of Marketing at the Monfort College of Business. His publications
have appeared in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Retailing, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of
Marketing Education, among others. He was named the UNC Distinguished Scholar and has been named the
Monfort College Scholar five times. In addition, he has been named marketing professor of the year three times. His
non-academic background includes managing several businesses in various functions in the Home Shopping,
Construction, Casino, and Film industries. E-mail: [email protected] (Corresponding author)

REFERENCES

1. Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P., (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
2. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.
3. Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational
commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951-968.
4. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision.
Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
5. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European
Journal of Work and Organization Psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
6. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The multifactor leadership questionnaire, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
7. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I., & Berson Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.
8. Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-42.

2013 The Clute Institute Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 149
Journal of Service Science – 2013 Volume 6, Number 1

9. Boehnke, K., Bontis, N., DiStefano, J.J., & DiStefano, A.C. Transformational leadership: An examination
of cross-national differences and similarities. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(1), 5-
15.
10. Bučiūnienė, I., & Škudienė, V. (2008) Impact of Leadership Styles on Employees’ Organizational
Commitment in Lithuanian Manufacturing Companies. South East European Journal of Economics and
Business, 3(2), 57-65.
11. Dale, K., & Fox, M. L. (2008) Leadership style and organizational commitment: Mediating effect of role
stress. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(1), 109-130.
12. Dubin, R., Champoux, J. E., & Porter, L.W. (1975). Central life interests and organizational commitment of
blue-collar and clerical workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(3), 411-421.
13. Dunn, M., Dastoor, B., & Sims, R. (2012). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: A
cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 4(1), 45-60.
14. Emery, C. R., & Barker, K. J. (2007) The effect of transactional and transformational leadership styles on
the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of customer contact personnel. Journal of
Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 11(1), 77-90.
15. Flynn, S.I. (2009). Transformational & transactional leadership. EBSCO Research Starters. Academic
Topic Overviews, p. 1-6.
16. Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2003) Transformational leadership effects on
teachers’ commitment and effort toward school reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(3), 228-
256.
17. Hater, J.J. & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational
and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695-702.
18. Howell, J. & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and
support for innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.
19. Hunt, J.G. & Schuler, R. S. (1976). Leader Reward and Sanctions: Behavior Relations Criteria in a Large
Public Utility. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press.
20. Joo, B., Yoon, H., & Jeung, C. (2012). The effects of core self-evaluations and transformational leadership
on organizational commitment. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 33, 564-582.
21. Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership
components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36-51.
22. Kleinman, C. (2004). The relationship between managerial leadership behaviors and staff nurse retention.
Hospital Topics: Research and Perspectives on Healthcare, 82(4), 2-9.
23. Limsila, K., & Ogunlana, O. (2008). Performance and leadership outcome correlates of leadership styles
and subordinate commitment. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 15(2), 164-184.
24. Lee, J. (2005) Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 655-672.
25. Lee, K., Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P., & Rhee, K.Y. (2001). The three-component model of organizational
commitment: An application to South Korea. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 596-
614.
26. Lo, M.C., Ramayah, T., Min, H.W., & Songan, P. (2010). The relationship between leadership styles and
organizational commitment in Malaysia: Role of leader-member exchange. Asia Pacific Business Review,
16(1-2), 79-103.
27. Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (1999). The relationship between commitment and organizational culture,
subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and development. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 20(7), 365-373.
28. Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2004). The effect of organizational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction
and organizational commitment: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Management Development,
23(4), 321-338.
29. Mathieu, J. E. & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and
consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194.
30. Medley, F., & Larochelle, D.R. (1995). Transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Nursing
Management, 26(9), 64JJ-64NN.
31. Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. (1988). Links between work experiences and organizational commitment during
the first year of employment: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 195-209.

150 Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 2013 The Clute Institute
Journal of Service Science – 2013 Volume 6, Number 1

32. Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment.
Human Resource Management Review, 1, pp. 61-89.
33. Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the work place. London: SAGE Publications.
34. Meyer, J.P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the work place: Towards a general model. Human
Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326.
35. Mowday, R.T. (1999). Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational commitment. Human
Resource Management Review, 8(4), 387-401.
36. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R. M. & Porter, L. W. 1979. The measurement of organizational commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
37. Ozaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(6), 335-344.
38. Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A. & Skov, V.L. (1984). Situational moderators of leader reward
and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 21-63.
39. Rehman, S., Shareef, A., Mahmood, A., & Ishaque, A. (2012). Perceived leadership styles and
organizational commitment. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(1), 616-
626.
40. Rowold, J., & Rohmann, A. (2009). Relationship between leadership styles and followers' emotional
experience and effectiveness in the voluntary sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 8(2), 270-
286.
41. Sarros, J.C., & Santora, J.C. (2001). The transformational-transactional leadership model in practice.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 383-393.
42. Savery, L.K. (1994). The influence of the perceived styles of leadership of a group of workers on their
attitudes to work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 15(4), 12-18.
43. Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2005). The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on projects. A
literature review. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 49-61.
44. Yammarino, F. J. & Bass, B. M. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its
effects among naval officers: In K. E. Clark & M. B Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership. West Orange,
NJ: Leadership Library of America.
45. Yammarino, F. J. & Dubinsky, A. J. 1992. Superior-subordinate relationships: A multiple levels of analysis
approach. Human Relations, 45(6), 575-601.
46. Yiing, L. H., & Bin Ahmad, K.Z. (2009). The moderating effects of organizational culture on the
relationships between leadership behavior and organizational commitment and between organizational
commitment and job satisfaction and performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
30(1), 53-86.
47. Yousef, D. (2000). Organizational commitment: A mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior
with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1),
6-28.

2013 The Clute Institute Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 151
Journal of Service Science – 2013 Volume 6, Number 1

NOTES

152 Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 2013 The Clute Institute