༄༅།། རྒྱལ་གཞུང་འཛིན་སྐྱོང་སྐྱོབ་སྡེ།
ROYAL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
(Incorporated under the Royal Charter of the Royal Institute of Management, 1990)
RESEARCH COVER PAGE
Student Code/ID:
Tshering Wangdi (PGDPA-1316)
Unit Title:
PGDPA Research Project
Submitted to:
Professor Carole Kayrooz
Research Topic:
Influence of leadership on Organizational Commitment
(A study in the head office of Ministry of Labour and Human Resources)
Word count:
CHECKLIST
I have:
followed the referencing rules set out in the RIM Academic rules and Regulations………
Declaration
I acknowledge that:
this report is my own
this report is expressed predominantly in my own words
the words and ideas of others, where used, are properly used and acknowledged
no part of this report has been previously submitted for assessment.
I understand that by submitting my work in both soft and hard copy to Royal Institute of
Management (RIM), it will be maintained within the premises of RIM policy and guidelines.
Signature
Date:
Time
Abstract
This paper aimed to explore employees’ perception on leadership and the influence of different
leadership styles on the organizational commitment of the employees. A survey was conducted
in the headquarter office of the Ministry of Labour and Human (MoLHR), Thimphu. 49
respondents (47 employees and 2 directors) of four departments in the ministry participated in
the study. 59.2% of the respondents were male while 40.8% were female but none of the leader
in the organization is female. The data required for the study were gathered through predesigned
Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and Organizational Commitment Questionnaire
(OCQ) and analysed through descriptive statistical applications. The findings of the study
indicated that transformational leadership style and transactional leadership styles are
significantly interdependent which has influence on developing organizational commitment in
the employees. Similarly, responses from the leaders revealed that they practice more of
transformational than transactional and laissez faire leadership style. The relationship between
leadership style and commitment indicated that laissez faire leadership style has effect on the
continuance employee commitment. On the other hand, strong correlations were found between
the commitment dimensions. Affective commitment has wider correlation with the normative
and continuance commitment while continuance and normative commitment are also strongly
correlated.
Key words: leadership style, employee commitment, MoLHR, transformational, transactional,
laissez faire, affective, continuance, normative
i
Acknowledgement
There are lots of people behind the success of this study. Firstly, I would like to thank my
research supervisor Professor Carole Kayrooz for her consistent support and guidance
throughout the course. I am deeply grateful for her positive words of encouragement and critical
assessment of my assignment.
I would like to extend my gratitude to Professor Jit Tshering for his support during the initial
times of my study. He has been a very inspiring and critical tutor who motivated me and pushed
me to be punctual as per the schedule.
More importantly, I would like to thank all the employees including the directors of the Ministry
of Labour and Human Resources for considering their time to respond to my questionnaire and
render other help during my study. My special thanks to Mrs. Maya Sherpa (chief HRO) and Mr.
Sonam Tobgay (Asst. Accounts officer) who helped me to distribute the questionnaires to the
employees and collect it back.
I owe a deep gratitude to my parents and siblings for their generous financial and moral support
during my study. My friends too had been very supportive to lend any help that I asked for.
Finally, it is the blessings of All Mighty and kind wishes of all the people that helped me to
successfully end my research.
Tshering Wangdi
PGDPA, 2013
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………i
Acknowledgement ……………………………………………………………………….. ii
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………. iii-iv
Chapter 1
Background ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Significance of the study ……………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Background of the ministry …………………………………………………………………………………. 3
Problem Statement ………………………………………………………………………………………………3
Research question ………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
Objectives of the research …………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Theoretical framework ………………………………………………………………… 4
Chapter 2
Literature Review ……………………………………………………………………………………………6
1. Definition and Concept of Leadership ……………………………………………………………. 6
1.1. Transformational Leadership …………………………………………………………………. 8
1.2. Transactional leadership ………………………………………………………………………… 8
1.3. Laissez Faire Leadership ………………………………………………………………………….8
2. The concept of Employees commitment ………………………………………………………….9
2.1. Affective commitment ……………………………………………………………………………..9
2.2. Continuance commitment ……………………………………………………………………… 10
2.3. Normative commitment ………………………………………………………………………… 10
3. Leadership-organizational commitment relationship …………………………………… 10
Chapter 3
Methodology and research design ………………………………………………………………….11
1. Data source and gathering instruments …………………………………………………………11
1.1. Multifactor leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) …………………………………12
1.2. Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ)……………………………12
2. Data analysis ………………………………………………………………………...13
iii
Chapter 4
1. Findings and Discussions ………………………………………………………………………13
1.1. Demographics ………………………………………………………………………………….13
1.1.1. Employees’ perception on the influence of leadership ……………………...17
1.1.2. Employees’ perception on leadership skill ……………………………………….18
2. Descriptive Statistical analysis ……………………………………………………………………20
2.1. Mean and standard deviations ………………………………………………………………….21
2.2. Correlations ……………………………………………………………………………………………..26
Chapter 5
Discussions and Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………..30
Recommendations and contributions of the study …………………………………………..32
Ethical considerations ………………………………………………………………………………………….33
Scope of the study ………………………………………………………………………………………………...34
Limitations ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….34
Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………………………………35-37
Appendices ………………………………………………………………...……………………………………38-47
A. Operationalization of Leadership Styles and Employee Commitment
B. Acronyms
C. 12 variables in Organizational ‘Commitment’ Questionnaire (OCQ)
D. 27 variables in Multifactor ‘Leadership’ Questionnaire (MLQ)
E. Questionnaire used for the study
iv
Background
Over the years, the work culture in organizations generally has transformed significantly leading
to more competitive and business-like work system. During the first phase of industrialization,
leaders in the organizations were just supervisors who drove those ‘hands’ or laborers in
production units. In the intermediary phase when organizations followed public administration
paradigm, leaders were essentially managers who implemented plans and controlled employees
in organizations. However, with New Public Management paradigm, organizations regard
‘leaders’ as a primary asset. The organizations expect leaders to be ethical, visionary and able to
lead the team towards the objectives. Moreover, the employees in the organization are
considered central to the production capacity, competition and sustainability of the organization.
In such dynamic and competitive working environment, an organization must incorporate several
aspects that cater to meeting the mandates and ultimate objectives.
Different leaders utilize various methods to recruit, train and develop, motivate and retain
employees. However, when leaders in the organization fail to do that, organizations can assume
that employees are less motivated, committed, and satisfied with their job which consequently
leads to poor performance and higher turnover. Bello (2012, p.228) asserts that “leaders are
expected to be persons of ‘strong characters’ and serve as role models to their employees;
without which, the organization’s goals may be undermined”. He elaborates that “leaders are the
key to determine the outcome of organizational goals” (p.229) and to create necessary ambiance
for the motivation and development of the employees in the organization. Moreover, he affirms
that organizations without competent leaders have several drawbacks such as ‘increased costs
associated with employee turnover, increased employee supervision, decrease job satisfaction in
the employees and decreased level of employee productivity’ (p.229).
Abbas (2011, p.1) states that “organizational leadership has a central role in the evolution and
cultivation of an organization. It can help members of an organization and working teams to face
the challenges and to work for organizational goal in a worthy way”. Moreover, according to
(Bass, 1990; Burke & Cooper, 2004) as cited in Abbas (2011, p.1), strategic leadership is eagerly
needed for organizations, which is well capable to predict essential alterations and changes in
advance and create required commitment and highly suitable atmosphere for worker and teams
to understand and adopt these changes successfully. Therefore, even in Bhutanese context,
having a good leader in any departments or workplace is of no exception.
1
Significance of the study
Bhutanese bureaucracy as a public sector has ten ministries, four constitutional bodies and
several other agencies and corporate organizations that function towards meeting social mandate.
According to the record maintained by Royal Civil Service Commission (RCSC, 2012), as of 31st
December, 2012 there are 24,275 civil servants working in various offices. Although there might
be different human resource (HR) strategies in different organizations, it is important to
understand that a leader in every organization has his/her role to play along with the HR
strategies. Therefore, understanding the concept of leadership and its relevance in Bhutanese
context is also of prime importance. Unlike private organizations which offer different incentives
and benefits (either intrinsic and/or extrinsic), the pay scale and benefits are similar in all the
organizations under civil service commission. In such conditions ‘leader’ can play a vital role in
motivating the employees and creating conducive environment whereby they can contribute to
the organization. However, as intended by this research, it is important to study what type of
personal traits label a person as a good leader and how such leaders influence employees in
developing organizational commitment. Moreover, this study was aimed to contribute towards
understanding the concept from broader prospect and help in framing policies that can cater to
develop Bhutanese leaders with necessary leadership skills.
The importance of research on the influence of leadership on employee commitment has been
regarded important across all the organizations. Riaz, Akram & Ijaz (2012, p.44) speculates that
besides numerous factor that develops organizational commitment such as work culture,
motivation and personal characteristics, ‘one personal and organizational factor that is
considered as key antecedent of organizational commitment is leadership’. Similarly, Mills
(2005, p.10) stated that ‘leaders make a business organization successful and enables a non-profit
organization to fulfill its mission’. Moreover, Raiz and Haier (2010, pp. 29-38) assert that “a
leader has to provide the followers what is needed to keep them productive and proceed towards
the shared vision. But if the leaders fail to provide what was promised, it can result a sense of
distrust and de-motivation. A leader needs to be focused on his followers’ needs both within and
outside the organization to keep them moving ahead consistently”. Therefore, it is clear that there
is a relationship between leader and the sense of motivation, satisfaction and commitment in the
employees.
2
Background of the ministry including the approved employee
There is hardly any systematic study or research done on the influence of leadership on
organizational commitment in employees in Bhutanese context. Therefore, this research attempts
to explore the perceptions of the employees on the two variables in headquarter office of one of
the ten ministries. However, since it a small scale study considering limited time and resources, it
will not be representative of other ministries or organizations in Bhutanese public or private
sector.
The present Ministry of Labour and Human Resources was initially incepted as National
Employment Board on 1st January 2000. After one year in August 2001 it was upgraded to
Department of Employment and Labour which finally established as Ministry of Labour and
Human Resources on 20th June, 2003. As summarized in the following table, the ministry has
four departments excluding secretariat service division and regional offices.
Table 1. Summary of civil servant strength in MoLHR
SUMMARY OF CIVIL SERVANT STRENGTH as of Sept. 30, 2013
Sl.No.
Department
Approved strength
Existing strength
1
Department of Employment
27
22
2
Department of Occupational Standards
15
14
3
Department of Labour
28
26
4
Department of Human Resources
25
21
Total
95
83
Note: The existing strength (83) also includes 4 directors referred as leaders in the study.
Problem Statement
In public, private and corporate organizations, one of the critical roles of management is to create
a work environment that will endear the organization to employees. It also includes influencing
these employees’ decision to be committed and remain with the organization even when other
job opportunities exist outside the organization (Michael, 2008) as cited in (Pradeep, 2011).
Pradeep based on his study concluded that the role of leadership and a supervisor is crucial in
3
creating these ambiance by motivating them, developing their commitment and maximizing job
satisfaction (enhance staff retention) and argues that ‘employees leave bosses not companies’. As
argued by Beard, it is important to recognize the importance of good leaders or managers in the
organization to minimize poor performance caused by less commitment of the employees.
In our Bhutanese context also, although there might be several reasons that demotivate
employees and their performance in the job, most of the people feel that employees request for
transfer or even resignation from the organization (civil service as the focus area) in order to
escape leaders with poor leadership skills. Thus, though there is not any formal study on the
subject in the Bhutanese context, this paper explores the issue in Bhutanese context.
Research question:
To explore the influence of leadership on job organizational commitment of the
employees in Ministry of Labour and Human Resources
Objectives of the research
The research will attempt to explore;
1. Whether leadership (Directors) influences on development of organizational commitment
in the employees of Ministry of Labour and Human Resources?
2. What are employees’ perception of different leadership styles, skills and commitment?
3. Which leadership trait has greater influence on developing organizational commitment in
the employees?
Theoretical framework (Developing a conceptual framework that illustrates the relationship
between different leadership styles and commitment of the employees)
This section of the paper attempts to develop a framework that illustrates the relationship
between different leadership styles (transformational, transactional and laissez faire) and the
commitment of the employees. Transformational leadership style emphasizes on intellectual
stimulations and instilling moral values such as respect, trust and pride in employees.
Transformational leadership style is based on the concept of cognitive reward for achievement
exchanged between leaders and employees. On the other hand, laissez faire leadership is a
4
passive leadership behavior. Laissez faire leaders hardly interfere in the affairs of an organization
and/or employees.
On the other hand, the commitment of the employees was studied based on the three subdivisions as categorized by Meyer and Allen (1979) as cited in ( Riaz, Akram & Ijaz, 2012) as
affective, normative and continuance commitment. According to them “continuance commitment
is that commitment in which employees are continually working for organization because they
cannot bear the cost to leave the organization. In normative commitment employees continually
works for the organization because they feel their obligations to live in the organization.
Affective employee’s commitment is the identification and involvement of the individuals in
achievement of organizational goals (p.44).
This conceptual framework is based on the studies done by other researchers and scholars.
According to the study conducted by Teshome (2011), whose findings revealed that
“transformational leadership has positive correlations with affective and continuance employee
commitments while transactional leadership style has significant and positive correlation with
only normative commitment. A laissez-faire leadership style is found to be significantly and
negatively associated with employees’ affective commitment”. Similarly, Ismail and Yusuf
(2009) (as cited in Bushra, Usman & Naveed, 2011) studied the impact of transformational
leadership on followers’ commitment and concluded that “there is significant positive relation
between these two variables”.
The synthesis of the information will be done at the simple levels using descriptive statistics to
find out what number/percentage of employees rated the MLQ and the OCQ. Moreover, the
research mainly focuses on the employees’ perception on each of the variables besides exploring
the correlation between the two general dimensions of leadership style and commitment
dimension.
Proposed research model
Leadership
influences
Commitment
Transformational
Affective
Transactional
Continuance
Laissez Faire
Normative
5
Literature Review
1. Definition and Concept of Leadership
The definition and concept of leadership can differ from organization to organization. In the
words of Hartog (2011), definitions of leadership also vary in terms of emphasis on leader
abilities, personality traits, cognitive versus emotional orientation, individual versus group
orientation, and appeal to self-versus collective interests. According to Yukl (1998, p.23)
leadership is defined “as influence processes affecting the interpretation of events for followers,
the choice of objectives for the group or organization, the organization of work activities to
accomplish the objectives, the motivation of followers to achieve the objectives, the maintenance
of cooperative relationships and teamwork, and the enlistment of support and cooperation from
people outside the group or organization”. Furthermore, (House & Shamir, 1993) as cited in
Hartog (2011, p.167) asserts leadership as “the ability of an individual to motivate others to
forego self interest in the interest of a collective vision and to contribute to the attainment of that
vision and to the collective by making significant personal self-sacrifices over and above the call
of duty, willingly”. This clearly shows that leaders are the focal people who develop motivation
and commitment in the employees for the attainment of organizational goals and mandates.
In any definition, the importance of leadership and leadership skills of the leader on the
performance and commitment of the employees must be considered. Besides several techniques
and strategies such as monetary incentives, promotions, career advancement and personal
development a good leader in an organization must be also considered key to strengthen
employees’ commitment and enhance employees’ performance which subsequently improves
organizational performance. Pradeep (2011) speculates that leadership in the organization has
been altered over time, with the change in employee requirements resulting in a demand for
change in the relationship between a leader and his subordinates. Moreover, he argued that
“effective leadership has a positive sway on the performance of organisations and confirmed the
link between high performance and leadership in the United States by developing a model of
charismatic/transformational leadership where the leaders’ behavior is said to give rise to
inspiration, awe and empowerment in his subordinates, resulting in exceptionally high effort,
exceptionally high commitment and willingness to take risks” (p.198).
6
It is generally accepted that the effectiveness of any set of people is largely dependent on the
quality of its leadership – effective leader behavior facilitates the attainment of the follower’s
desires, which then results in effective performance (Fiedler and House, 1988; Maritz, 1995;
Ristow, et al., 1999) as cited in Pradeep (2011). Leadership is perhaps the most investigated
organizational variable that has a potential impact on employee performance since ‘the success
of an organization is reliant on the leader’s ability to optimize human resources’ (p.199).
Similarly, Yip (2008) states that Singaporean governance system has been consistently rated by
Transparency International as one of ‘the most politically transparent and least corrupt
governments in the world’. Findings from their bureaucracy claim that the leadership lessons on
managing and motivating staff and accountability are critical in the public service. The most
widely cited leadership lessons learned by interviewees are on managing and motivating staff
(61%) and accountability (53%). Therefore, it underlines the importance of good leader as a
driver of the employees and organization. This also suggests the significance of relationshipbased leadership, leading with accountability, and developmental relationships in the Singapore
public service. However, one must be clear that there is not perfect model that will suit for all
public service sector, private organization or institution because of diverse working culture and
values for different working environment.
There are three fundamental leadership styles as researched and discussed in many literatures.
These leadership behaviors were initially researched and presented by Bass in his theory of Full
Range Leadership theory. Trottier (2008) (as cited in Teshome, 2011) asserted that Bass’s theory
was a “strategic organization development intervention designed to enhance the impact of
leadership on employee commitment”.
Thus, brief definitions and the consequent impacts of each leadership behaviors are discussed as
follows;
3.1. Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership includes individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation,
idealized influence (charisma), and inspirational motivation (Yukl, 1999, p.4). This leadership
7
behavior emphasizes more on the psychological and intellectual development and satisfaction of
the subordinates through idealized mechanisms.
According to Burns (1978) (as cited in Raiz and Hiadel, 2010, p.30), “transformational leaders
alter the beliefs and attitudes of followers and inspire the subordinates in their own interests
parallel with the betterment of the organization”. Moreover, Raiz and Haidel ibid. claim that
‘transformational leaders facilitate new understandings by increasing or altering awareness of
issues which consequently foster inspiration and excitement in the employees to put extra efforts
to achieve common goals’ (p.30).
3.2. Transactional leadership
Bass and Avolio (1990) (as cited in Chiang and Wang, 2012, p.2) defined transactional
leadership as “understanding employee needs, providing for those needs to reward employee
contributions and hard work, and committing to giving those rewards after employees complete
assigned work duties”. Therefore, transactional leadership behavior is more pragmatic and
emphasizes on ‘reinforcement and reward’ in exchange of employee’s effort/contribution to the
organization (Teshome, 2011). Therefore, transactional leaders mainly emphasize on the
completion of assigned task and subsequent reward or feedback.
3.3. Laissez Faire Leadership
As the word itself suggest, this style of leadership is a ‘passive’ leadership style whereby leaders
hardly intervene in any organizational activities or well-being of the employees. James & Collins
(2008) (as cited in Teshome, 2011, p.17) “describe the laissez-faire leader as an extreme passive
leader who is reluctant to influence subordinates’ considerable freedom to the point of inaction
and loss of mission in the employees. Moreover, based on several other researches, Teshome
(2011, p.17) concluded that “laissez faire leadership is the least satisfying and least effective
style of leadership”. To this he claimed that this style of leadership behaviors are accompanied
by “little sense of accomplishment, little clarity, little sense of group unity, and followers do not
old as much respect for their supervisors” (Trottier, 2008 and Lok & Crawford, 1999 as cited in
Teshome, 2011, p.18).
8
2. The concept of Employees commitment
The second part of the research focus; organizational commitment of the employees also must be
reviewed, defined and streamlined through different literature to best suit the focus of the study.
Different literature and authors can define the concept of employee commitment differently
depending on the focus of the study or situation. Hunt and Morgan (1994) (as cited in Teshome,
2011, p.18) asserts that organizational commitment has been operationally defined as “multidimensional in nature, involving an employee’s loyalty to the organization, willingness to exert
effort on behalf of the organization, degree of goal and value congruency with the organization,
and desire to maintain membership”. Similarly, Mowday (1979) (as cited in Quaisar, Rehman &
Suffyan, 2012, p.248) states that organizational commitment is “the relative strength of an
individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization”. Therefore,
understanding employee’s commitment to the organization underscores one’s psychological
attachment and willingness to employ his/her physical effort while working in the organization.
Moreover, it is very important to understand the commitment of the employees to the
organization as it influences the effort they put towards achieving the goals and mandates of the
organization. In the words of Bennis and Nanus (1985, p.9), leader is one of the most important
aspects in the organization that fills “commitment gap”. Furthermore, they assert that failure of
the leader in bridging this gap often leads decline in motivation, job satisfaction, commitment,
performance and commitment in the employees. Therefore, regardless of whether it is in public
sector, institution or organization, one of the key and pivotal factor needed to enhance human
resources is ‘leadership’ (Bennis and Nanus ibid.).
3.4. Affective commitment
According to Teshome (2011, p.20), affective commitment is an ‘attitudinal based commitment
whereby employee develop emotional and psychological attachment with the organization’. An
employee with this type of commitment to the organization develops sense of belongingness and
responsibility to serve the organization with their acceptance to the values and mission of the
organization.
3.5. Continuance commitment
As stated by Allen & Meyer (1990) (referred in Teshome, ibid), continuance commitment is a
“commitment situation originating from the needs of employees to stay in the organization
9
considering the cost of leaving”. They also claim that the employees with this commitment ‘keep
his/her membership with the organization thinking it might cost him/her too much to leave the
organization’.
3.6. Normative commitment
Normative commitment is the third kind which is basically based on the employee’s obligations
to the organization and people in it. An employee with such ‘moral commitment’ feel he/she is
ought to serve or continue to be employed with the organization for several social reasons such
as family, the purpose of the organization, marriage and relationship with the people in the
organization which are not mutually exclusive (Allen & Meyer ibid.).
3. Leadership-organizational commitment relationship
A good leader is authentic, cares strongly about certain ideas that deserve robust concern and is a
person of prudence”. Furthermore, employees may expect their leaders to be visionary and lead
the organization toward the aspired goals and objectives. It is his/her job to envision, plan, lead
and keep his people working even during hard times. On the other hand, he/she must understand
the wellbeing of the people in the organization and must consider the employees as the fixed
assets whose contribution can change the direction of the organization in either direction.
Bureaucrats in Bhutan are also driven by altruistic motive and execute their duties based on
social mandate. According to Bhutan Civil Service Rules and Regulation (2012) section 3.2.5, “a
civil servant shall maintain the highest standard of, amongst others, integrity, honesty, fortitude,
selflessness, loyalty, right attitude, right aptitude, patriotism and endeavor to maintain
professional excellence in service of the Tsa-Wa-Sum”. Therefore even the leaders are also
expected to maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest and
manage employees efficiently and effectively who otherwise motivate the employees to perform
better and help the employees in developing higher commitment towards the organization.
Therefore, as claimed by Abbas (2010, p.2), “from allocation of resources to alignment, from
perception of thing to decide future focusing, form commitment and motivating the teams to get
the goals of an organization, to confirm the sustainable growth, it’s a leadership whose footprints
are everywhere”. Thus, leaders in the organization are invaluable assets.
10
4. Methodology and research design
This research aimed to utilize an in-depth case study of the Ministry of Labour and Human
Resources. The research is mainly designed to collect primary data from the employees of four
departments of the ministry. However, mixed method (both qualitative and quantitative methods)
is used for the study. The researcher targeted the existing approved strength of the ministry with
83 employees including 4 Directors. Although the researcher aimed to conduct a survey to gather
the responses from all the employees, some of the employees were out of station during the
survey and some of those who were there declined to respond to the questionnaire.
Table 2. Summary of civil servant strength
SUMMARY OF CIVIL SERVANT STRENGTH as of Sept. 30, 2013
Sl.No.
Department
Approved strength
Existing strength
1
Department of Employment
27
22
2
Department of Occupational Standards
15
14
3
Department of Labour
28
26
4
Department of Human Resources
25
21
Total
95
83
Note: The existing strength (83) also includes 4 directors referred as leaders in the study.
Table 2. illustrates the approved and the existing employee strength of the ministry under the
four departments. The researcher targeted the existing employee strength for the study.
4.1. Data source and gathering instruments
The information or the data necessary for the research/analysis was gathered through predesigned questionnaire adapted from Teshome (2011) who developed his thesis for MBA based
on those questions. Two sets of questions were used to gather the information necessary for the
study. One set of questions was used to help the leaders (Directors) describe their leadership
style as they perceive it. Another set was used to collect the perceptions of the employees on the
leadership skills that their leader uses. It also helps to understand the leadership skills that can
enhance employee commitment for the organization. In the two sets of questionnaire, besides the
demographic background of the respondents the questions used for both the directors as well as
11
general employees were similar. However, the questionnaire for the employees has a subset of
questions to collect the information or their perception towards organizational commitment.
Multifactor leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
At the beginning of the research, framing a new set of questions was considered to undertake the
study. However, after several consultations with the supervisor, using pre-designed MLQ as the
questionnaire was agreed as instructed by the supervisor. Moreover, Teshome (2011, p.28)
asserts that, the “Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) has been improved and tested
since 1985 with the result that many versions of the questionnaire have been developed”. The
MLQ was formulated from the Full Range Leadership Model consisting of three principal
leadership styles consisting of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire behaviors with
nine subscales (Bass & Avolio, 1995) (as cited in Teshome, 2011).
The respondents (both leaders as well as employees) in the survey were asked to rate the extent
of engagement/implementation of different leadership behaviors. This set of questions comprise
of 27 variables which respondents’ rate each variable `using 6 point likert scale. The predesigned
questionnaire has 5 point likert scale labeled as 0=not at all, 1=once in a while, 2=sometimes,
3=fairly often, 4=frequently, if not always. However, in addition to the existing likert scale, the
researcher added another point (5=don’t know) as advised by the concerned supervisor. This
additional point is to ensure that respondents do not leave the question unchecked if they are
unsure of the answer. Similarly as used by Teshome, ‘high score shows high effectiveness of
leadership style perception while low score implies low effectiveness perception in the scale’.
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ)
This set of questionnaire is only for the employees in addition to MLQ questions. The
predesigned questionnaire is adapted from Teshome ibid. OCQ comprise of 12 variables which
are further categorized under three fundamental commitment dimensions as “affective
commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. Similar to the ratings of
MLQ, the respondents rate their perception on commitment towards the ministry/job based on 6
point likert scale. The 6 point likert scale are labeled as 0=not at all, 1=once in a while,
2=sometimes, 3=fairly often, 4=frequently, if not always. Similarly, in addition to the existing
12
likert scale, the researcher added another point (5=don’t know). The readings can be also
understood as 0=strongly disagree, 1=disagree, 2=neither agree nor disagree, 3=agree,
4=strongly agree and 5=don’t know. As used in Teshome’s analysis, ‘high score shows high
employees’ organizational commitment perception while low score implies low perception in the
scale while rating’.
Data analysis
The data gathered through the survey was inserted into SPSS 17 and MS Excel spreadsheet for
the analysis. Some of the basic and appropriate applications were used to analyse or derive
necessary information required for further analysis and interpretation in the finding and
discussion. However, the details of application such as descriptive statistics and correlation are
indicated with the analysis in the findings and discussion section of the paper. On the other hand,
relevant literatures such as articles, published journals and case studies will be also referred as
secondary sources.
5. Findings and Discussions
This section of the paper presents the findings and interpretations of the data gathered through
the survey. The analysis of the data through relevant applications of the software helps to
interpret and understand the demographics of the respondents and answer research questions and
objectives.
5.1. Demographics
Employees
As per the record maintained by the chief human resource office of the ministry’s headquarter
office, the existing employee strength of the ministry (both in headquarter and regional offices)
is 155. However, out of 155 employees 83 employees are considered for the study including 4
directors of the four departments. The table presented at the beginning of this section illustrates
the number of employees under each department. The employees as illustrated in the table are
taken for the study (as the respondents) because they work under the leadership of their
respective directors which can have influence over their commitment for the organization.
13
Out of 79 employees from the four departments (excluding 4 directors), 47 participated in the
survey which accounts to 59.4% of the total respondents. The total number of participants (47
respondents) was excluding 5 questionnaires filled by employees out of study area as well as
with missing data. The researcher did not include those responses into the study to ensure that
the data does not get manipulated and/or misinterpreted. 27 males and 20 females responded to
the questionnaire from the four departments.
Respondents by age group
Percentage
60
53.2
38.3
20-29
40
30-39
20
6.4
2.1
0
40-49
50-59
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
Age group
Figure 1. Respondents by age group
As depicted in the above graph the number of respondents from each department varied for
different dimensions such as age group, education qualification and position level. Majority of
the respondent’s age group was between 20-29 years (53.2%) followed by those in the age group
of 30-39 years (38.3%) and only 2.1% of the total participants fall between the age group of 5059 years.
Education qualification of the
respondents
17
Certificate
8.5
19.1
Diploma
Degree
Masters
55.3
Figure 2. Education qualification of the respondents
As portrayed above in figure 2, the education qualification of the employees was basically
categorized under five different categories viz. certificate, diploma, degree, masters and Ph.D.
From the total of 47 employees who participated in the survey, more than half of the employees
14
(55.3%) have degree qualification followed by (19.1%) diploma graduates. The four departments
have 17% and 8.1% employees with the qualification of Masters and certificate respectively.
However, there is no employee with Ph.D. qualification in the targeted group of participants who
responded to the survey.
Table 3. Existing employee and total respondents
Sl.No.
1
2
3
4
SUMMARY OF CIVIL SERVANT STRENGTH as of Sept. 30, 2013
Approved
Existing
Total
Department
strength
strength
respondents
Department of Employment
27
21
13
Department of Occupational
Standards
15
13
8
Department of Labour
28
25
16
Department of Human Resources
25
20
10
Total
95
79
47
percent
62
Note: The existing strength (79) and total respondents (47) excluded 4 directors in each department.
The above table illustrates the total number of employees from each department who responded
to the survey. It is encouraging to note that each department has atleast 50% of the employee
who participated in the survey. Department of Labour with the highest employee strength has
maximum respondents that accounts to 64% followed by Department of Occupational Standards
and Department of Employment. Fifty percent of the employees in the Department of Human
Resources participated in the survey.
Position level of the
respondents
27.7
P and M
S
72.3
Figure 3. Position level of the respondents
Related to the educational qualification, most of the respondents fall into the categories of
professional and managerial (P and M) and Supervisory and support position (S) category under
15
62
64
50
position classification system of Bhutan (2006). Seventy two point three percent of the
respondents are under P&M category while 27.7% are in S category. The figure is concentrated
in these two positions because directors who fall under executive category are excluded.
Moreover, the employees under operational category did not participate due to some reasons
such as declining to fill up the questionnaire, working outside the office (drivers, plumbers,
technicians) and absence during the day of survey (on official duty or on leave for personal
works).
Table 4. Duration of working years in the current ministry and under the current leader (director)
Number of working years
Percent of employees
60
51.1
42.6
40
23.4
20
4.3
27.7
23.4
10.6
6.4
under current
director
8.5
2.1
0
<1
1-2
2-3
3-5
in the current
ministry
>5
Number of years
With the mean=4.15 and Standard deviation (SD) =1.12 for the employees working in the
current ministry and mean=2.23 and SD=.98, more than fifty percent of the respondents (52.1%)
worked in the current ministry for more than 5 years followed by employees (27.7%) serving for
between 3 to 5 years. The percent of employees decreased towards the least year of serving (less
than 1 year).
Though there are more than fifty percent of employees who served the current
ministry for more than 5 years, the percent of employees who served the current director for the
last five year is just 2.1%. On the contrary, the percent of employees who serve the current
director for 1-2 years accounts for 42.6% followed by employees who serve the current director
for less than one year with 23.4%. The reason behind difference in the number of employees
serving under current director and current ministry is due to change in directors after certain
period of time (usually after 5 years) and transfer of employee from one department/ministry to
another.
16
5.2. Does your leader influence your commitment for the organization?
This was the first question that all the respondents were asked to rate on the five point likert
scale. The scale was labeled not at all, sometimes, neutral, to some extent and to a great extent.
leadership influence on organization commitment
of the employees
Not at all
6.4
8.5 6.4
Sometimes
27.7
neutral
To some Extent
51.1
to a great extent
Figure 4. leadership influence on organization commitment of the employees
As illustrated in the above pie chart, more than half of the respondents (51%) agreed that the
leader does have significant (to some extent) influence on developing organizational
commitment in the employees. 27% of the participants were neutral to the statement that leader
does have influence on inculcating such commitment in the employees. Similarly, 8.5% of the
total respondents asserted that leaders are fundamental to develop organizational commitment in
the employees. However, 6.4% of the total participants responded that leadership has nothing to
do with their commitment to the organization. The participants in the research responded that the
leader is just one of the factors that influence commitment in them. Therefore, it should be
understood that other factors are also associated for the development of commitment.
More importantly, this was the first and principal question that helped the researcher to explore
and understand the general perception of the employees on the importance of the leaders in an
organization for the development of organizational commitment in the employees. Since more
than half of the respondents (51%- to some extent and 8%- to a great extent) agreed that the
leader does have substantial influence on developing organizational commitment in the
employees, these responses broadly answered the first objective of the study; whether leadership
has influence on developing organizational commitment in employees of MoLHR. However, the
17
details on the employees’ perception on different leadership skills and commitment dimensions
are discussed in the following sections of this chapter.
5.3. Employees’ rating on different leadership skills
Employee's rating on different leadership skills
Percentage
30.0
21.7
17.5
20.0
9.2
10.0
16.7
15.0
7.5
4.2
3.3
4.2
0.8
0.0
0.0
Leadership skills
Figure 5. Employees’ rating on different leadership skills
As central to the second research objective, participants in the research were asked to rate any
three leadership skills that they aspire their leader to possess and implement in the organization.
This question was included to understand the top leadership skills that the employees of MoLHR
expect their leader to possess and implement in the workplace. This was assumed to have
consequent influence on developing organizational commitment in the employees.
From the total respondents, 40 respondents (85.1%) rated three top skills on the likert scale that
defines best qualities that they expect their leader to possess and implement in order to develop
sense of commitment in them. However, 7 participants (14.9%) either ticked more than three or
did not check against any skill. Therefore, the data answering from these 7 respondents were
considered invalid and included under missing data list for this question.
As illustrated through the above bar graph (figure 5), different employees have different
perception on the types of leadership skill/behavior. The checklist comprised of eleven
leadership skills including an open ended option (others…). Almost 22% of the respondents
rated the need for ‘fair, accountable and transparent’ leader in their ministry especially in the
four departments. The characteristics of fairness, accountability and transparency can be directly
associated with the behavior of ‘transformational leadership behavior’. In the words of Bass
18
(1999, p.9), these attributes are associated with the transformational leadership qualities of
‘uplifting morale, motivation and moral of the followers’. Similarly, (Bass & Riggio, 2006) (as
cited in Voon et al, pp.24-32) assert that transformational leader act as role models who gain
admiration, respect and trust from his/her followers. But the fundamental behaviors to achieve
those gains have to possess the aforementioned attributes such as accountability, fairness and
transparency which are referred to as ‘ethical behaviors’ as asserted by Bello (2012).
Secondly, encouraging team work and providing opportunities for growth for the employee were
rated as necessary leadership skills by 17.5% and 16.7% respectively. Encouraging team work in
the organization or work environment is also one of the qualities of transformational leader.
According to (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasurbramaniam, 2003; Bass & Riggio, 2006) (as cited in
Bello, 2012), ‘fostering strong team spirit (encouraging members to work as team) as a means
for leading team members towards achieving desired goals’ is associated with the ‘inspirational
motivation dimension of the transformational leadership behavior. On the other hand, providing
opportunities for growth for the employees can be considered as the attribute of both
transformational and transactional leadership behavior. Bass (1999, p.11) states that leaders
“paying attention to the developmental needs of followers and support and coach the
development of their followers” are considered as individualized considerations of the leader.
Moreover, he concluded that “the leaders delegate assignments as opportunities for growth”
upon which rewards and punishments are given based on the success/failure of the assigned task.
Inclusive approach towards decision making, communication skills and providing feedback are
the skills that some of the employees (less than 10%) find important for their leaders to possess.
The questions pertaining to laissez faire leadership behavior are not included in the check list.
However, from the ratings and interpretations of the aforementioned dimension (for
transformational and transactional leadership behavior), one can infer that employees least
expected laissez faire leadership. For instance, laissez faire leader will not interfere in any
organizational operations, but the respondents expect their leader to be transparent, accountable
and fair, encourage team work, provide opportunities for growth and include them while making
decisions.
Leaders
There are four directors for four departments in the ministry. The study aimed to get the
responses of all the directors (referred leaders in the study) for better understanding of the
19
concept of leadership and how it is perceived differently to employees and the leaders. However,
‘voluntary participation’ being one of the ethical considerations of the study, two directors did
not participate in the study. One of the directors was out of office for official purpose while the
other declined to complete the questionnaire. Therefore, the percentage of leader participation in
the study was 50%. Moreover, there was no female leader participation in the study.
Both the directors hold masters qualification and currently serve in the executive position
category. The total number of years of service in the current ministry and the department ranges
from 3-5 years. The response on the question whether leadership has an influence on the
employee commitment was 50% each for the scales ‘to some extent’ and ‘to a great extent’.
Therefore, similar to the responses of the employees, leaders also consider their role as one of the
primary aspects in developing organizational commitment in the employees.
The sample size of the leader was too small that cannot be analysed through statistical
applications. However, 27 items of MLQ were categorized under different leadership styles
similar to employees. The mean of the three leadership styles to find out which leadership style
is mostly used by the leader in the department. The mean scores are 4, 2.94 and 1.33 for
transformational, transactional and laissez faire leadership styles respectively. Therefore, similar
to the responses from the leaders also indicated more of transformational and transactional
leadership qualities than laissez faire leadership.
5.4. Descriptive Statistical analysis for leadership
styles and
employee
commitment
The descriptive statistical applications are used to explore and interpret the responses of the
employees on leadership styles and employment commitment. Before using the data for the
analysis, the raw data was re-arranged and grouped under different categories using MS excel
spreadsheet. The 27 variables were grouped under three broad categories of transactional
leadership, transformational leadership and laissez faire leadership styles. Similarly, the 12
variables in the OCQ were categorized under three broad subscales; affective, continuance and
normative commitment dimensions.
20
1.1. Firstly, the re-arranged data was used to examine the mean and standard deviation for
each of the sub-scales.
5.5. Table 4. Mean and standard deviations
Variables
Mean
Std. Deviation
Transformational
2.26
.920
Transactional
2.28
.902
Laissez faire
1.91
1.213
Affective
2.66
1.147
Continuance
2.09
1.380
Normative
2.43
47
1.456
Valid N (list wise)
Note: N= 47 in all the cases
Leadership: 27 variables
Commitment:
Transformational = 15 variables
Affective = 4 variables
Transactional = 9 variables
Continuance = 4 variables
Laissez faire= 3 variables
Normative= 4 variables
12 variables
The above table illustrates the mean and standard deviation for each of the variables as indicated
by the respondents. The mean and standard deviation (2.28 and .906 respectively) for the
transactional leadership style has the highest mean score and the least standard deviation among
leadership styles. This is followed by transformational leadership with mean and standard
deviation of 2.26 and .920 respectively. Finally, the laissez faire leadership style has the lowest
mean score of 1.91 and the highest standard deviation of 1.213. The results partially contrast the
finding of Teshome (2011) who found leadership style to be more transformational than the
transactional.
Similarly, the mean and standard deviation for the commitment dimensions are also tabulated
together with the leadership styles. The mean and standard deviation scores for each of the
commitment dimensions were indicated as affective commitment with 2.66 and 1.45,
continuance commitment with 2.09 and 1.38 and normative commitment with 2.43 and 1.46
respectively. Therefore, it is evident that affective commitment has the highest mean and the
lowest
standard
21
deviation.
2.2.1. Employees’ perception on Transformational leadership style
Variables
2
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
17
18
22
23
25
27
Not at all
3
7
7
17
12
3
18
12
3
10
3
9
5
3
4
Once in a
while
8
9
4
6
7
5
9
6
11
9
4
3
6
4
5
Sometimes
10
9
17
12
11
13
13
14
7
10
18
14
15
13
12
Fairly often
14
7
12
8
9
15
4
10
14
10
15
15
14
14
14
Frequently, if
not always
7
7
4
0
3
10
1
3
2
2
0
3
4
9
2
Don’t know
5
8
3
4
5
1
2
2
10
6
7
3
3
4
10
Scale
N
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
Table 5. Employees’ perception on Transformational leadership style
22
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
The above table shows the frequency of responses for each scale for the 12 variables of
transformational leadership style. The highlighted figures in the table show the highest number
of responses for each of the variable under different scales. According to the responses, for some
of the employee leaders ‘fairly often’ re-examines critical assumptions, talks of
accomplishments, treats employees as individuals rather than member of a group, acts in a way
that builds respect, helps to develop respect, emphasizes on having a collective sense of mission
and expresses confidence that the goals will be achieved (for the variables 2, 12, 15, 17, 22, 25 &
27 respectively). These findings are closely associated with the characteristics of
transformational leader as the person who develops moral, morale, motivation and ethics for
their followers (Bass, 1999). On the contrary, it is alarming to learn that for some of the
employees the leader does ‘not at all’ talk optimistically about the future of the employees,
instills pride for being associated with him/her, and spends time in coaching and teaching (for the
variables 8, 9 & 13).
2.2.1. Transactional leadership
Variables
Scale
1
3
4
10
11
16
19
20
26
Not at all
3
8
6
4
15
9
5
12
7
Once in a
while
9
8
6
7
7
8
8
4
3
Sometimes
16
13
5
15
10
11
13
11
19
Fairly often
10
9
20
12
5
6
7
8
10
Frequently,
if not always
6
9
9
6
3
2
9
6
4
Don’t know
3
0
1
3
7
11
5
6
4
N
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
Table 6. Ratings for the Transactional leadership
The above table illustrates those responses for the transactional leadership style on the same
scale. As highlighted the cells in the table, for most of the variables (variable 1, 3, 10, 16, 19 &
26) the responses concentrated on the scale that rates ‘sometimes’. This means for most of the
employees only sometimes the leader provides them assistance in exchange for their efforts, fails
23
to interfere until problems become serious, discuss on being accountable, demonstrate that
problems must become chronic before action, keep track of mistakes and express satisfaction
while the expectations are met. However, 15 respondents have responded that their leader never
wait for things to go wrong before taking action. This response is in contrary to the responses of
11 participants to variable 16. Therefore, one can infer that, though some leaders demonstrate
that problems must become chronic, some leader never delays/waits for things to go wrong
before taking action.
2.2.1. Laissez faire leadership style
Variables
Scale
5
21
24
Not at all
9
15
10
Once in a while
6
5
10
Sometimes
8
11
17
Fairly often
12
7
5
Frequently, if not
always
10
4
3
Don’t know
2
5
2
N
47
47
47
Table 7. Ratings for the laissez faire leadership style
The response to the questions of laissez faire leadership style has contrasting responses. Though
the responses are diverse and scattered throughout different scales, 12 respondents felt that
his/her leader often ‘avoids getting involved when important issues arise’, 15 respondents felt
that the leader not at all ‘avoids making decisions’ and 17 respondents rated that the leader
rarely ‘delays to respond to urgent questions’.
24
2.3. Employee commitment
Variables
Scale
Continuance
Affective
Normative
2
3
5
6
1
4
9
10
7
8
11
12
Strongly
disagree
16
18
17
15
3
12
4
7
10
13
19
10
Disagree
3
5
3
4
3
2
6
3
2
5
1
4
Neutral
7
4
5
8
13
6
11
11
10
5
8
6
Agree
6
10
12
11
14
17
10
11
13
8
8
11
Strongly
agree
7
3
6
2
14
7
13
10
4
5
7
12
Don’t know
8
7
4
7
0
3
3
5
8
11
4
4
N
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
Table 8. Employees’ perception on Employee commitment
25
The above table summarizes the responses to the three commitment dimensions. The responses
are rated on a five point likert scale and an additional option (Don’t know). Most of the
employees strongly disagreed that they have been continuing to work in the current ministry
because the cost of leaving is too high for them. However, most of the responses to the affective
commitment variable concentrated on the scales of agree and strongly agree. Therefore, it is
evident that those employees continue to work with the organization with a sense of
belongingness and emotional attachment.
On the other hand, the normative commitment sub-scale has varying responses. Most of the
respondents have strongly disagreed on the scales of fear of violating the trust and bearing the
guilt for the organization (Variable 8 and 11 respectively). However, some of the respondents
agreed that they continue their service with a moral obligation for the organization and people in
it.
26
2.4.
Transformational
Correlations between leadership styles and employee commitment
Transformational
Transactional
Laissez faire
Affective
Continuance
Normative
1
.647**
.020
.167
.154
.209
.000
.894
.263
.302
.158
47
47
47
47
47
1
.241
.135
.260
.190
.103
.366
.077
.201
47
47
47
47
1
.197
.407**
.329*
.183
.005
.024
47
47
47
1
.417**
.622**
.004
.000
47
47
1
.739**
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Transactional
Lassiez_faire
Affective
Continuance
Normative
47
Pearson Correlation
.647**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
47
Pearson Correlation
.020
.241
Sig. (2-tailed)
.894
.103
N
47
47
Pearson Correlation
.167
.135
.197
Sig. (2-tailed)
.263
.366
.183
N
47
47
47
Pearson Correlation
.154
.260
.407**
.417**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.302
.077
.005
.004
N
47
47
47
47
Pearson Correlation
.209
.190
.329*
.622**
.739**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.158
.201
.024
.000
.000
N
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 9. Correlations
27
47
.000
47
47
1
47
5.6. Correlations
In this section of the paper, correlation analysis of the two general variables (leadership styles
and commitment types) is discussed. The correlation analysis of the two variables was conducted
using two-tailed Pearson correlation analysis in SPSS 17. Similar to how the earlier researches
investigated the analysis, the p-value at different significant levels indicated the probability and
significance of relationship between each variable.
2.4.1. Correlation between the leadership styles
As tabulated above, the correlations are highly significant (.647**) between transformational and
transactional leadership style at 0.01 significance level. This strong correlation indicates that the
two variables/leadership styles are highly interdependent and supplementary in developing
commitment in the employees. The result is consistent with the findings of Bass (1999, p.12) on
how “transformational leadership enhances commitment, involvement, loyalty, and performance
of followers; how transactional leadership may induce more stress; how transformational
leadership helps deal with stress among followers; and how contingencies in the environment,
organization, task, goals, and relationships affect the utility of transactional and transformational
leadership”. Thus, he concluded that ‘transactional leadership can be reasonably satisfying and
effective but transformational leadership adds substantially to the impact of transactional
leadership’. Similarly, he strongly emphasized that “transformational leadership adds to the
effectiveness of transactional leadership but transformational leadership does not substitute for
transactional leadership” (Bass, 1999, p.21). Therefore, good leaders are both transformational
and transactional. Though there are positive correlations between other leadership styles they are
not strong or significant at the given significance levels.
2.4.2. Correlation between leadership styles and commitment dimensions
With reference to the earlier research, there were significant correlation between different
leadership styles and commitment dimensions. As cited in the conceptual framework, earlier
studies found that transformational leadership has strong correlation with affective commitment
and transactional leadership has high correlation with normative commitment. On the contrary,
laissez faire leadership style has significant negative correlation with affective commitment.
The analysis of the variables in this study found that the correlations between the leadership
styles and commitment dimensions are positive although they are not as significant as the earlier
28
research. However, the correlation between the laissez faire leadership and continuance
commitment is highly significant (.407**).
2.4.3. Correlation between different commitment behaviors
Similar to the correlation between different leadership styles there are correlations among the
employee commitment variables. There is strong correlation .417**, .622**& .739** between
affective and continuance, affective and normative and continuance and normative commitments
respectively. These correlations indicate that the commitment dimensions are also interdependent
which can have significant influence on developing organizational commitment in the
employees.
29
Discussions and Conclusion
The main focus of the study was to examine general perception of the employees towards the
concept of leadership and the relationship of different leadership styles with employee
commitment dimensions in the four departments of MoLHR head office in Thimphu. The
following conclusions were drawn based on the analysis of information gathered through MLQ
and OCQ survey.
A total of 49 employees including 2 directors participated in the study. Although the proportion
of gender participation was almost equal (29 males and 20 females) there is no female leader in
the organization. However, it is not unusual case with the concerned ministry because most of
the other ministries or organizations/departments are also headed by males.
Fifty one percent of the participants responded that leader does have influence on the
development of organizational commitment in the employees. This finding can be correlated
with the finding of Pradeep (2011, p.199) from some of the selected public and private sectors in
India that leadership is one of the aspects that determine the performance of the employee by
developing ‘exceptionally high efforts, exceptionally high commitment and employee’s greater
willingness to take risk for their job/organization’. This is also consistent with the findings of
Ramchandran and Krishnan (2009) (as cited in Raiz, Akram & Ijaz, 2012, p.43) that ‘the leader
and style of that leader is one of the most important determinants of employee’s commitment’.
The findings of the employees’ perception on leadership styles revealed that their leader(s) fairly
often exhibit the behaviors of transformational leadership in developing moral and ethical values.
Similarly, the responses from the leaders also indicated more of transformational and
transactional leadership qualities than laissez faire leadership.
However, for some of the
employees their leader does ‘not at all’ talks optimistically about
the future of the employees,
instills pride for being associated with him/her, and spends time in coaching and teaching.
Although they emphasize less on meeting the standards and keeping track of irregularities, only
sometimes they fail to take action before the problem/issue becomes chronic. The employees
30
remarked that their leader tries to avoid getting involved when the issues arise but when they
intervene, they rarely respond to urgent questions and never fails to make decisions.
The finding on the employee commitment dimensions and its relationship with the leadership
styles were hardly in consistence with the finding of the earlier studies. As cited while
developing the conceptual/theoretical framework, the earlier studies done by Bass (1999) and
Teshome (2011) revealed that transformational leadership style has the greatest influence on
developing employee commitment followed by transactional and laissez faire leadership styles.
Moreover, affective commitment dimensions have significant correlation with transformational
leadership style followed by normative commitment but negative correlation of laissez faire
leadership with affective commitment. Nonetheless, the findings of the correlation analysis of
this study found significant correlation with the leadership styles (transformational and
transactional leadership) and commitment subscales (affective-normative and normativecontinuance). Therefore, this finding reflects that leadership styles and commitment dimensions
are intra-dependent whereby one behavior supplements the other dimension/style. For instance,
leader’s emphasis on cognitive rewards and meeting the standards supplements developing trust
and instilling pride in the employees.
One of the important findings of this study that contrast the findings of Bass and Teshome is the
correlation between laissez faire leadership style and normative employee commitment (.407**).
This result predicts how the leadership style that least interfere in the work affairs can affect the
employees need to stay in the organization. This reveals that though leader(s) exhibit
indifference and overlook achievements, employees will tend to develop organizational
commitment only because the cost of leaving is high for them at the moment.
On the other hand, employees’ responses from the ratings on the leadership skills, respondents
revealed that they expect their leaders to be fair, transparent and accountable, encourage team
work in the organization and provide opportunities for growth. This response indicated that more
than the emphasis on cognitive rewards and meeting the standards, leader must give importance
to the process of achieving those higher ends.
31
It is clear that there are several similarities as well as differences in the findings. The main
differences of the findings of this study can be because of:
1. Smaller population size used for the study (focused only on one organization and very
less leader participants)
2. Study area (public sector in contrast to Teshome’s study in private schools)
3. Cultural difference which can have influence on the general perception of the
participants
4. Differing perceptions on leadership and commitment between Bhutanese civil
servants and employees in other organizations/ countries
Recommendations and contribution of this study to theory and practice
The review of several literatures it is clear that any organization attempts to become successful
and achieve its mandates through different strategies or methods. However, it is evident that one
of those strategies is to have a leader who develops sense of belongingness in the employees and
motivate them to contribute with their full potential. It was found that different leadership style
has influence on employees’ commitment differently. Therefore, here are few recommendations
to the MoLHR and future researchers based on the analysis and understandings from this study.
1. There are substantial differences in the response given by the leaders and employees.
Therefore, leaders must try being as pragmatic as the theoretical responses and
employees which will develop ambient working environment. On the other hand,
employees must realize the actions of the leaders professionally rather than taking it
personally.
2. Most of the employees indicated that their sense of commitment is influenced by having
transparency, fairness and accountability, team work and opportunities for growth.
Therefore, leaders must take inclusive decisions and foster employee participation in the
office while the system needs to be fair and transparent.
3. The management should strive to improve the mean scores of laissez faire leadership
behavior with the leaders being proactive and looking into both work affairs and
wellbeing of the employees.
4. The responses on the continuance commitment dimension reveal that most of the
employees disagree that it is too expensive for them to the organization. Therefore, civil
32
service should look into the issue and try to raise the benefits to let them realize their
need to stay.
Therefore, based on the study it is clear that any management strategy needs a leader with any
leadership skill that will have positive influence on developing organizational commitment in the
employees. Developing organizational commitment can also help to increase job satisfaction and
performance of the employees. This interdependence and correlation was intensively studied and
agreed by various researchers. Nonetheless, it is important to understand that there is no single
leadership style that is ideal for all the organizations. Leadership styles also depend on the
urgency and work culture.
This small study contributed towards understanding the general perception of the employees on
leadership styles and commitment in Bhutanese context. Moreover, the results and finding of this
study can be used to develop leadership skills that are relevant in Bhutanese context. More
importantly, with consistent and encouraging guidance from supervisor the study has immensely
helped the researcher to increase the learning horizons of approaches towards research.
6. Ethical considerations
 Confidentiality
 The identities of the respondents were kept confidential as promised in the
questionnaire.
 Competence
 Conducted the research and analyzed based on my level of knowledge and
competence
 Non-Participation
 The willingness to respond was totally voluntary although the researcher aimed to
get as many participants as possible.
 Researcher responsibility- informed consent
 The researcher provided enough information about my research considering its
sensitiveness.
Finally, a copy of the findings/study will be also given to each department if necessary.
33
7. Scope of the study
As stated in the research question and the research objectives, the main focus of this study was to
explore the relationship between the leadership skill and its consequent influence on the
development of organizational commitment in the employees. The data gathered was delimited
to the employees and the leaders (directors) of the MoLHR in the headquarter office. Since, the
data was gathered from the above mentioned respondents only; the findings cannot be
generalized for other ministries or public organizations. However, as there are no other studies
done on similar topic in Bhutan, there is a vast scope that any future researcher can undertake
such studies across the ministries, in private sectors and also do comparative studies for the
public and private sectors.
8. Limitations
Besides having generous support and guidance from supervisors, concerned officials in the study
area and peers, the researcher faced some challenges while carrying out the study. One of the
main constraints is limited time and budget for the study. In order to have finding that is
representative of other ministries and organizations in the Bhutanese bureaucracy I would like to
involve a large number of respondents from other ministries and organizations. However, with
such constraints this was not possible which restricted me to carry out small scale study in only
one of the ten ministries.
Furthermore, the other challenge was associated with getting validated and reliable
researches/studies done in Bhutan on such topics. However, as advised by the supervisor one of
the studies done by a MBA student in Euthopia helped me to narrow down the focus of my study
as well as developing overall framework of my paper.
One of the major problems was while the researcher is on the campus for the survey employees
are often out office for official or personal work. On the other hand, some of the employees
(including a director) declined to respond to the questionnaire for some reasons. As reflected in
the demographic section, though there were some enthusiastic employees who agreed to fill up
the questionnaire, some of them did not return back the questionnaire while some respondents
were outside the intended group for the study such as employees under secretariat services
section.
34
Bibliography
Abbas, W. & Ashgar, I. (2011, June). the role of leadership in organizational. pp. 1-49. Retrieved
25/07/2013, from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:326289/FULLTEXT01
Bass, B.M. (1999). Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8 (1), 9–32. Retrieved from
www.techtied.net/wp-content/.../bass_transforrmational_leadership.pdf
Bello, S. (2012, June). Impact of Ethical Leadership on Employee Job Performance.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(11), pp. 228-236. Retrieved
26/07/2013, from www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_11_June_2012/25.pdf
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper &
Row, Publishers, Inc.
Chiang,C. & Wang, Y. (2012). The Effects of Transactional and Transformational Leadership
on Organizational Commitment in Hotels: The Mediating Effect of Trust. Retrieved on
08/09/2013 from http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2169-0286.1000103
Dvir T, Eden. D, Avolio B. J, Shamir. B (2002), “Impact of Transformational Leadership on
Follower Development and Performance: A Field Experiment,” Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 735–744.
Jago, A.G. (1982). “Leadership: Perspectives in Theory and Research”. Management Science,
Vol.28, No.3, pp.315-336.
Hartog, D.N.D. & Koopman, P.L. (2001, Feburary 16). Leadership in Organizations. Handbook
of Industrial Work and Organizational Psychology, 2, pp. 167-187. Retrieved
25/07/2013, from www.sagepub.com/northouseintro2e/study/chapter/.../handbook4.1.pdf
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. (2001). Management of organizational behavior:
Leading human resources (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35
Klimoski R. J, Hayes N. J (1980), “Leader Behavior and Subordinate Motivation”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 454–466.
Mary, N. (2005). Transformational leadership in human service organizations. Administration in
Social Work, 29(2), 105–118.
Mills, D.Q. (2005). The Importance of Leadership. retrieved on 23/7/2013 from
http://www.cafanet.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=qwswE8roe74%3D&tabid=96
Pradeep, D.D. & Prabu, N.R.B. (2011). The Relationship between Effective Leadership and
Employee. 2011 International Conference on Advancements in Information Technology,
20, pp. 198-207. Retrieved 26/07/2013, from www.ipcsit.com/vol20/37-ICAIT2011G4062.pdf
Premji, A. (n.d.). Why employees leave organizations? Retrieved on 02/08/2013, from
http://www.akwl.org/presentation/management/why_employees_leave_orgn_by_Premji.
pdf.
Qaisar,M.U., Rehman,M,S. & Suffyan,M. (2012). Exploring Effects of Organizational
Commitment on Employee Performance: Implications for Human Resource Strategy.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business. Vol.3 (11). retrieved on
23/09/2013 from ijcrb.webs.com
Raiz, A. & Haider, M.H. (2010). Role of transformational and transactional leadership on job
satisfaction and career satisfaction. BEH - Business and Economic Horizons Volume 1
(1). Retrieved on 09/09/2013 from
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/95932/2/05_V1_PAKISTAN_BEH_Adnan%20Ri
az_d.pdf
Riaz, T., Akram, M.U. & Ijaz, H. (2012). Impact of Transformational Leadership Style on
Affective EMPLOYEES’ Commitment: An Empirical Study of Banking Sector in
Islamabad (PAKISTAN). The Journal of Commerce, Vol. 3(1). retrieved on 9/09/2013
from http://joc.hcc.edu.pk/articlepdf/joc_tabassumriaz.pdf
36
Royal Civil Service Commission. (2012). Civil service statistics. Retrieved on 19/11/2013 from
http://www.rcsc.gov.bt/statistics.asp#
Teshome, T. (2011). The relationship between Leadership Styles and Employee Commitment in
Private Higher Education Institutions at Addis Ababa City. Retrieved on 07/09/2013 from
etd.aau.edu.et/dspace/bitstream/.../1/Temesgen%20MBA%20thesis.pdf
Usman, M., Rehman, M.S. & Suffyan,M. (2012). Exploring Effects of Organizational
Commitment on Employee Performance: Implications for Human Resource Strategy.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business. Vol. 3 (11). Retrieved
on 24/10/2013 from http://journal-archieves16.webs.com/248-255.pdf
Voon1, M.L., Lo, M.C., Ngui1, K.S. & Ayob, N.B. (2011). The influence of leadership styles on
employees’ job satisfaction in public sector organizations in Malaysia. International
Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences Vol. 2(1), pp. 24-32. Retrieved on
24/10/2013 from
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/215628333_The_influence_of_leadership_styles
_on_employees_job_satisfaction_in_public_sector_organizations_in_Malaysia/file/50463
521848489348d.pdf
Yip, J. & Wilson, M. (2008, October). Developing Public Service Leaders in Singapore. A
RESEARCH OVERVIEW: BASED ON THE LESSONS OF EXPERIENCE –
SINGAPORE PUBLIC SERVICE STUDY, 1-27. Retrieved on 15/07/2013, from
www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/capabilities/LessonsOfExperienceInAsia.pdf
Yukl, G. (1999). An Evaluative Essay on Current Conceptions of Effective Leadership.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8 (1), pp. 33–48. Retrieved on
24/10/2013 from
www.iei.liu.se/fek/frist/.../JournalArticlesLeadershipCultureVT2009.pdf
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in Organizations. (E. Cliffs, Ed.) New Jersy: Prentice-Hall.
37
Appendices
Appendix A:
Operationalization of Leadership Styles and Employee Commitment
Transformational Style Operationalization
Idealized Influence (attributed): instills pride and builds trust.
Idealized Influence (behavior): emphasizes collective sense of mission, and talks about values
and beliefs.
Inspirational Motivation: expresses enthusiasm, optimism, and confidence.
Intellectual Stimulation: encourages problem solving, critical thinking, and creativity.
Individualized Consideration: develops, coaches, and teaches.
Transactional style Operationalization
Contingent Reward: recognizes accomplishments and clarifies expectations.
Management-by-Exception (active): takes immediate action to correct problems and
highlights mistakes or errors.
Management-by-Exception (passive): waits for problems to become chronic or serious
before correcting.
Laissez-Faire style Operationalization
Laissez-Faire: acts non-involved, displays indifference, overlooks achievements, and
ignores problems.
Employee Commitment Operationalization
Affective Commitment: wants to stay with the organization and feels emotionally
attached.
Continuance Commitment: needs to stay with the organization because the cost of
leaving is too high.
Normative Commitment: feels obligated to stay with the organization because it is the
moral and right thing to do.
Source: Teshome, 2011
38
Acronym
Appendix B
MoLHR- Ministry of Labour and Human Resources
DoE- Department of Employment
DoL- Department of Labour
DoOS- Department of Occupational Standards
DoHR- Department of Human Resources
MLQ- Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire
OCQ- Organizational Commitment Questionnaire
SD- Standard Deviation
Appendix C
12 variables in Organizational ‘Commitment’ Questionnaire (OCQ)
1. I feel like part of the family at this organization
2. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided that I wanted to leave this organization now
3. I would not leave this organization right now because of what I would stand to lose
4. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me
5. It would be very costly for me to leave this organization right now
6. For me personally, the cost of leaving this organization would be far greater than the benefit
7. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now
8. I would violate a trust if I quit my job with this organization now
9. I feel a strong sense of belonging to this organization
10. I feel emotionally attached to this organization
11. I would feel guilty if I left my organization now
12. I would not leave this organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in
it
39
Appendix D
27 variables in Multifactor ‘Leadership’ Questionnaire (MLQ)
1. Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts
2. Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate
3. Does not interfere until problems become serious
4. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards
5. Avoids getting involved when important issues arise
6. Talks about their most important values and beliefs
7. Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems
8. Talks optimistically about my future
9. Instills pride in me for being associated with him/her
10. Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets
11. Waits for things to go wrong before taking action
12. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished
13. Spends time teaching and coaching
14. Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group
15. Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group
16. Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action
17. Acts in ways that builds my respect
18. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions
19. Keeps track of all mistakes
20. Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards
21. Avoids making decisions
22. Helps me to develop my strengths
23. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments
24. Delays responding to urgent questions
25. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission
26. Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations
27. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved
40
Employee Opinion Survey‐ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
Dear respondent,
I am Tshering Wangdi currently pursuing Post Graduate Diploma in Public Administration (PGDPA) at the Royal
Institute of Management. Please provide your opinion on the leadership style of your leader and the different
leadership skills that your leader uses. The rating can help to understand the leadership skills that can enhance
employee commitment for the organization. Participation in this survey is voluntary and the responses will be
confidential. I would like to thank you for your response to the questionnaire. The results will be used for academic
purposes only.
If you would like to have a copy of the results of this survey, please contact me at twpwangdee19@gmail.com
Demographics
Instructions: Please place a cross (X) in the box provided for the answer that best describes you or your view. If you
are unsure or do not know the answer, leave the answer blank.
1. Gender
Male
Female
2. Age
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
others …………
3. Education qualification completed
Certificate
Diploma
Degree
Masters
Ph. D.
4. Department
Department of Labour
Department of Employment
Department of Human Resources
Department of Occupational standards
5. Position level
Professional and management position category
Supervisory and support position category
Operational Position category
Others (please specify) _________________
41
6. How long have you worked for the current ministry?
Less than one Year
More than one year but less than two years
More than two years and less than three years
More than three years but less than five years
More than five years
7. How long have you worked for your current leader (Director)?
Less than one Year
More than one year but less than two years
More than two years and less than three years
More than three years but less than five years
More than five years
8. Does your leader (Director) influence your commitment for the organization?
not at all
sometimes
neutral
to a certain extent To a great extent
9. Select the three top leadership skills that you expect your leader (Director) to possess.
9.1. Communication skills
9.2. Team work
9.3. employee participation in decision making
9.4. Work-life balance
9.5. Compensation and rewards
9.6. Fairness, accountability and transparency
9.7. Feedback
9.8. Opportunities for growth for the employees
9.9. Vision
9.10.
Compassion
9.11.
Others (specify) ____________________
10. Leader’s role in developing employee commitment
Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with each statement about your leader/supervisor
by circling a number from 0 to 4. Whatever information you give me is strictly confidential and could be used
for academic purpose only.
42
Instructions: Please use the following rating scale to CIRCLE the number that best describe your view.
0
1
Once in a
Not at all
while
2
Sometimes
3
Fairly Often
4
Frequently, if not
always
The leader (Director) …
1. Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts……………………...…. 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate…… 0 1 2 3 4 5
3. Does not interfere until problems become serious……………………………….. 0 1 2 3 4 5
4. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and
deviations from standards……………………………………………………………...0 1 2 3 4 5
5. Avoids getting involved when important issues arise………………….……….. ..0 1 2 3 4 5
6. Talks about their most important values and beliefs………………………...…....0 1 2 3 4 5
7. Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems………………………………0 1 2 3 4 5
8. Talks optimistically about my future……………………………………………. ..0 1 2 3 4 5
9. Instills pride in me for being associated with him/her……………………….........0 1 2 3 4 5
10. Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for
achieving performance targets……………………………………………….............0 1 2 3 4 5
11. Waits for things to go wrong before taking action……………………………….0 1 2 3 4 5
12. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished…………………....0 1 2 3 4 5
13. Spends time teaching and coaching……………………………..........................0 1 2 3 4 5
14. Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group…………………………......0 1 2 3 4 5
15. Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group…………….0 1 2 3 4 5
16. Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action…….....0 1 2 3 4 5
17. Acts in ways that builds my respect………………………………………...…….0 1 2 3 4 5
18. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions………………..........0 1 2 3 4 5
19. Keeps track of all mistakes………………………………………………………....0 1 2 3 4 5
20. Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards……………..……….......0 1 2 3 4 5
21. Avoids making decisions…………………………………………………...………0 1 2 3 4 5
22. Helps me to develop my strengths…………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4 5
23. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments…………….......0 1 2 3 4 5
24. Delays responding to urgent questions………………………………………........0 1 2 3 4 5
43
5
Don’t know
25. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission………....0 1 2 3 4 5
26. Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations…………………………...…0 1
2 3 4 5
27. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved………………………..……0 1 2 3 4 5
Employee Opinion Survey‐ Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ)
Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with each statement as objectively as you can by
circling a number from 0 to 4. Whatever information you give me is strictly confidential and could be used for
academic purpose only, so please respond honestly.
Instructions: Please use the following rating scale to Circle the number that best describe your view.
0
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Neutral
3
Agree
4
5
Strongly agree
Don’t know
disagree
1. I feel like part of the family at this organization……………………………..…. 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided that I wanted
to leave this organization now………………………………………………….. 0 1 2 3 4 5
3. I would not leave this organization right now because of what I
would stand to lose………………………………………………………...……. 0 1 2 3 4 5
4. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me…………...……..0 1 2 3 4 5
5. It would be very costly for me to leave this organization right now……………. 0 1 2 3 4 5
6. For me personally, the cost of leaving this organization would be
far greater than the benefit………………………………………………...…….. 0 1 2 3 4 5
7. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my
organization now………………………………………………………….……. 0 1 2 3 4 5
8. I would violate a trust if I quit my job with this organization now………..……. 0 1 2 3 4 5
9. I feel a strong sense of belonging to this organization……………………….…..0 1 2
3 4 5
10. I feel emotionally attached to this organization…………………………….…...0 1 2 3 4 5
11. I would feel guilty if I left my organization now…………………………...…. 0 1 2 3 4 5
12. I would not leave this organization right now because I have a sense of
obligation to the people in it……………………………………….……….…. 0 1 2 3 4 5
================= Thank you for your co-operation!!=====================
44
Leader Opinion Survey‐ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
Dear respondent,
This pre-designed questionnaire is designed to help you describe your leadership style as you perceive it. Moreover,
the opinions and any information provided by the respondents are confidential and will be used for academic purpose
only.
If you would like to have a copy of the results of this survey, please contact me at twpwangdee19@gmail.com
Demographics
Instructions: Please place a cross (X) in the box provided for the answer that best describes you or your view. If
you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave the answer blank.
1. Gender
Male
Female
2. Age
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
others …………
3. Education qualification completed
Certificate
Diploma
Degree
Masters
Ph. D.
4. Department
Department of Labour
Department of Employment
Department of Human Resources
Department of Occupational standards
5. Position category
Executive position category
Specialist position category
6. How long have you worked for the current ministry?
Less than one Year
More than one year but less than two years
More than two years and less than three years
More than three years but less than five years
More than five years
7. How long have you worked for your department?
45
Less than one Year
More than one year but less than two years
More than two years and less than three years
More than three years but less than five years
More than five years
8. Do you think leadership determines the job performance of leader’s employees/subordinates?
not at all
sometimes
neutral
to a certain extent
to a great extent
9. Select the three top leadership skills that you consider most important in leaders.
9.1. Communication skills
9.2. Team work
9.3. Employee participation in decision making
9.4. Work-life balance
9.5. Compensation and rewards
9.6. Fairness, accountability and transparency
9.7. Feedback
9.8. Opportunities for growth for the employees
9.9. Vision
9.10.
compassion
9.11.
Others (specify) ____________________
10. Leader’s role in developing job commitment in employees
Instructions: Please answer items below by CIRCLING a number from 0 to 4 that best reflects your perception of
each statement. Judge how frequently each statement fits you. The word "others" in the statements may mean your
peers, clients, direct reports, supervisors, and/or all of these individuals.
0
Not at all
1
Once in a
while
2
3
Fairly
Often
Sometimes
4
Frequently, if
not always
5
Don’t
Know
1. I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts……………………0 1 2 3 4 5
2. I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate… ..0 1 2 3 4 5
3. I do not to interfere until problems become serious……………………….… 0 1 2 3 4 5
46
4. I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and
deviations from standards………………………………………………………. 0 1 2 3 4 5
5. I avoid getting involved when important issues arise…………………..……..0 1 2 3 4
5
6. I talk about my most important values and beliefs ……………………………0 1 2 3 4 5
7. I seek differing perspectives when solving problems………………………..... 0 1 2 3 4 5
8. I talk optimistically about the future of the employees ………………….…..0 1 2 3 4 5
9. I instill pride in others for being associated with me……………………….. .. 0 1 2 3 4 5
10. I discuss in specific terms who is responsible for
achieving performance targets……………………………………………...…. .0 1 2 3 4 5
11. I wait for things to go wrong before taking action……………………………0 1 2 3 4 5
12. I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished………………. .0 1 2 3 4 5
13. I spend time teaching and coaching………………………………...……… ..0 1 2 3 4
5
14. I go beyond self-interest for the good of the group………………………......0 1 2 3 4
5
15. I treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of a group………. 0 1 2 3 4 5
16. I demonstrate that problems must become chronic before I take action…….0 1 2 3 4 5
17. I act in ways that build others' respect for me………………………………. .0 1 2 3 4
5
18. I consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions………………... .0 1 2 3 4 5
19. I keep track of all mistakes……………………………………………………..0 1 2 3 4 5
20. I direct my attention toward failures to meet standards………………………0 1 2 3 4 5
21. I avoid making decisions……………………………………………………….0 1 2 3 4 5
22. I help others to develop their strengths………………………………..………0 1 2 3 4
23. I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments…………… 0 1 2 3 4
5
5
24. I delay responding to urgent questions………………………………..……….0 1 2 3 4
5
25. I emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission………. 0 1 2 3 4
5
26. I express satisfaction when others meet expectations…………………………0 1 2 3 4
5
27. I express confidence that goals will be achieved………………………………0 1 2 3 4
5
================= Thank you for your co-operation!!=====================
47