T H E R E L A T I O NSH IP B E T W E E N L E A D E RSH IP ST Y L ES A N D

E MPL O Y E E C O M MI T M E NT A T T H E NUC L E AR E NE RG Y
C O RP O R A T I O N O F SO U T H A F R I C A

by

DI L L EN RA MJE E

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

M AST E RS D E G R E E I N B USI N ESS A D M I N IST R A T I O N (M B A)

In the

Business School

Faculty of Management Sciences

TSH W A N E U N I V E RSI T Y O F T E C H N O L O G Y

Supervisor: Dr. A. Garg

October 2012

DE C L ARA TI ON O F C OPYRI G H T

, KHUHE\ GHFODUH WKDW WKLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ VXEPLWWHG IRU WKH GHJUHH 0DVWHU LQ %XVLQHVV
Administration at the Tshwane University of Technology, is my own original unaided
work and has not previously been submitted to any other institution of higher education. I
further declare that all sources cited are cited or quoted are indicated or acknowledged by
means of a comprehensive list of references.

______________
Dillen Ramjee

Copyright Tshwane University of Technology 2012

ii

DEDIC A TI ON
For my family and friends who offered me unconditional love and support throughout the
course of my study and dissertation.

iii

A C K N O W L E D G M E N TS
From the formative stages of this thesis, to the final draft, I owe an immense debt of
gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Ajay Garg. His sound advice and careful guidance was
invaluable.
I would also like to thank those who agreed to participate in the survey, for, without your
time and cooperation, this project would not have been possible.
For their assistance, a special thanks as well to my editor Antoinette Bisschoff, Mr Maupi
Letsoalo, Head of statistical support at Tshwane University of Technology, Nthebatse
Matube, Senior Manager of H & OD at Necsa as well as Prof. J. Bagraim, from the School
of Management Studies, Cape Town, for the use of his Organisational Commitment
Questionnaire.
Finally, I would be remiss without mentioning my wife, Seema, my mom, Kamlaben, and
my sister Thirusha, who were my best cheerleaders throughout the MBA process.
To each of the above, I extend my deepest appreciation and love.

iv

A BST R A C T
The South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) is a public company and a
parastatal responsible for undertaking and promoting research and development in the field
of nuclear energy and radiation sciences. Overall, South African organisations face the
urgent challenge of attaining competitive advantage through the effective utilisation and
retention of skilled employees who contribute to the basis of their success (Bagraim,
2004). A major motivation for this study derives from the urgent challenge of attaining
competitive advantage through the effective utilisation and retention of skilled knowledge
workers in a multi-cultural South Africa.

The influence of leadership style to employee commitment to the organisation has not been
adequately addressed in the nuclear industry. A need therefore exists for greater
understanding of the relationship between the leadership style and work-related attitudes
(such as employee commitment) in order to develop a leadership style that will encourage
organisational commitment.

This study examines the relationship between leadership style, and employee commitment.
It also, validates the factor structure of the Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ
form 5X short), and the organisational commitment questionnaire. Managers and their
subordinates participated in the study. 340 questionnaires were distributed, 58 to managers
and 290 to their subordinates. Final data for analysis includes responses from 197
participants (34 managers, and 163 subordinates) for a usable response rate of 56.61
percent. 163 respondents rated thHLUPDQDJHUVOHDGHUVKLSEHKDYLRXURQ%DVVDQG$YROLRV
(1997) multi-IDFWRU OHDGHUVKLS TXHVWLRQQDLUH 0/4 DQG 0H\HU DQG $OOHQV 
organisational commitment questionnaire.

A series of statistical procedures were followed to analyse the data. Hypotheses were tested
on two levels. First, correlations among managers and subordinates with regard to the
MLQ, and then the MLQ versus the OCQ.

Results revealed a weak positive yet significant relationship between transformational

leadership and affective commitment, normative commitment and continuance
commitment. Transactional leadership had a weak but significant positive correlation with
normative commitment, and Laissez-faire results indicated a weak negative yet significant
correlation to affective commitment and normative commitment. Overall findings from
this study suggest that leadership styles do play important roles in determining levels of
affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. Various
studies (Bateman and Strasser, 1984; DeCottis and Summers, 1987; Mathieu and Zajac,
1990; Nyengane, 2007; Sabir et al ,. 2011) conducted on leadership style and organisational
commitment validates this finding. As this research takes place in the South African
context, it contributes to the bank of findings relating to the development of leadership and
organisational commitment, not only in South Africa, but within the nuclear industry in
particular.

Keywords: Leadership, Leadership Models, Leadership Style, South African Leadership,

Multifactor Leadership, Employee Commitment, Affective, Continuance, Normative,
Organizational citizenship behaviour.

vi

T A B L E O F C O N T E N TS
PA G E
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................................. iv
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................... xii

C H APT ER 1
N A T U R E A N D SC O P E O F T H E ST U D Y
1.1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2

MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 2

1.3

THE OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH .................................................................................. 9

1.4

OUTLINE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................. 10

1.4.1

Chapter 2: Literature review ...................................................................................... 10

1.4.2

Chapter 3: The research design and methodology ..................................................... 11

1.4.3

Chapter 4: Analysis of results .................................................................................... 11

1.4.4

Chapter 5: Discussion, recommendations and conclusions ....................................... 11

1.5

SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 12

C H APT ER 2
LI T ERA TURE RE VI E W
2.1

LEADERSHIP ................................................................................................................ 14

2.1.1

Leadership Theories ................................................................................................... 15

2.1.1.1

Trait Theories ..................................................................................................................................... 17

2.1.1.2

Behaviour Theories ............................................................................................................................ 18

2.1.1.3

Contingency Theories ......................................................................................................................... 19

2.1.1.4

Neo-charismatic Theories/New Approaches ...................................................................................... 20

2.1.2

Full Range Leadership ............................................................................................... 21

2.1.3

Transactional Leadership ........................................................................................... 23

2.1.4

Transformational Leadership ..................................................................................... 26

2.1.5

Laissez-faire Leadership ............................................................................................ 30

2.1.6

Leadership in South Africa ......................................................................................... 31

vii

2.2

ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT ................................................................................... 33

2.2.1

+RZDUG%HFNHUV6LGH-bet Theory (Behavioural Approach) .......................... 35

2.2.2

The Porter et al. (1974) Attitudinal Approach ........................................................... 36

2.2.3

The Normative Approach ........................................................................................... 36

2.2.4

Multi-di mensional Approach ...................................................................................... 37

2.2.4.1

25HLOO\DQG&KDWPDQV0XOWLGLPHQVLRQDO$SSURDFK ............................................................ 37

2.2.4.2

0H\HUDQG$OOHQV7KUHH-Component Conceptualization of Employee Commitment ....................... 38

2.2.5

2.2.4.2.1

Affective Commitment ............................................................................................................ 40

2.2.4.2.2

Continuance Commitment ....................................................................................................... 44

2.2.4.2.3

Normative Commitment .......................................................................................................... 46

Consequences of Organisational Commitment .......................................................... 49

2.3

LEADERSHIP STYLE AND ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT .......................................... 52

2.4

SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 56

C H APT ER 3
T H E R ESE A R C H D ESI G N A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y
3.1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 59

3.2

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS.................................................................................................. 60

3.3

RESEARCH DESIGN .......................................................................................................... 63

3.4

ETHICS ............................................................................................................................ 63

3.5

POPULATION AND SAMPLING PROCEDURE ...................................................................... 64

3.6

MEASURING INSTRUMENTS ............................................................................................. 65

3.6.1

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire [MLQ] ........................................................... 65

3.6.2

Organisational Commitment Questionnaire [O C Q] .................................................. 68

3.7

RESEARCH VARIABLES .................................................................................................... 72

3.8

DATA COLLECTION ......................................................................................................... 73

3.9

DATA CAPTURING ........................................................................................................... 74

3.10

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 74

C H APT ER 4
A N A L YSIS O F R ESU L TS
4.1

RESPONSE RATE .............................................................................................................. 76

4.2

RELIABILITY.................................................................................................................... 77

4.2.1

&URQEDFKV$OSKD5HOLDELOLW\&RHIILFLHQW6FRUHVIRUWKH0/4 .................................. 77

4.2.2

&URQEDFKV$OSKD5HOLDELOLW\&RHIILFLHQW6FRUHVIRUWKH2&4 .................................. 79

4.3

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ................................................................................................ 80

viii

4.4

COMPARISONS BETWEEN LEADER AND EMPLOYEE RESPONSES .................................... 85

4.5

RESULTS OF THE CORRELATION ANALYSIS .................................................................... 88

4.6

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 94

C H APT ER 5
D ISC USSI O N, R E C O M M E N D A T I O NS A N D C O N C L USI O NS
5.1

RELIABILITY.................................................................................................................... 96

5.2

DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS ......................................................................................... 98

5.3

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE ....................................................................................... 105

5.4

LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................. 105

5.5

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ........................................................... 107

5.6

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 109

R E F E R E N C ES ............................................................................................................................. 112
A PP E N D I X A : SURVEY NOTIFICATION
A PP E N D I X B: SURVEY CONSENT FORM
A PP E N D I X C : COVERING LETTER
A PP E N D I X D: MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE (RATER)
A PP E N D I X E : MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE (LEADER)
A PP E N D I X F : ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
A PP E N D I X G : MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE SCORING KEY

ix

L IST O F T A B L ES
PA G E

TABLE 2.1:

TABLE 2.2

Leadership Traits

Main Difference between Traditional Leadership and

17

20

New Approaches Leadership

TABLE 2.3:

Full Range Leadership Model (Six Factors)

23

TABLE 2.4:

Full Range Leadership Model (Nine-Factor)

23

TABLE 3.1

TABLE 3.2:

TABLE 3.3:

TABLE 3.4:

TABLE 3.5:

TABLE 4.1:

Tabulated Hypotheses of Leadership versus

61

Commitment

Population, sample and responses rates

Items from the transformational, transactional and

64

67

laissez-faire leadership styles

The reliability of the Allen and Meyer (1990)

71

questionnaire

Research variables

&URQEDFKV$OSKD5HOLDELOLW\&RHIILFLHQWVIRU0/4

72

78

Questions

TABLE 4.2:

TABLE 4.3:

TABLE 4.4:

TABLE 4.5:

TABLE 4.6:

TABLE 4.7:

&URQEDFKV$OSKD5HOLDELOLW\&RHIILFLHQWVIRU0/4

78

factors

CronbacKV$OSKD5HOLDELOLW\&RHIILFLHQWVIRU2&4

79

individual questions

&URQEDFKV$OSKD5HOLDELOLW\&RHIILFLHQWVIRU2&4

80

Factors

Sample sizes, mean scores and standard deviations for

81

the leadership style dimensions

Sample sizes, mean scores and standard deviations for

85

organisational commitment dimensions

T-tests results for the MLQ (leaders and employees)

87

responses

TABLE 4.8:

Correlation Analysis

89

TABLE 4.9:

Summary of Hypotheses Results

89

xi

L IST O F F I G U R ES
PA G E

FIGURE 2.1:

A Typology of Leadership Approaches

15

FIGURE 2.2:

The Basic Leadership approaches

16

FIGURE 2.3:

The Managerial Grid

19

FIGURE 2.4:

Full Range Leadership Model

21

FIGURE 2.5:

Organisational Commitment Model

40

FIGURE 4.1:

Leadership Scores (N=197)

80

FIGURE 4.2:

Commitment Scores(N=163)

84

FIGURE 4.3:

Transformational Leadership (Leader versus Rater)

86

FIGURE 4.4:

Transactional Leadership (Leader versus Rater)

86

FIGURE 4.5:

Laissez-faire Leadership (Leader versus Rater)

86

xii

C H APT ER 1

N A T U R E A N D SC O P E O F T H E ST U D Y
1.1

Introduction

There is agreement in the literature (Maritz, 1995; Bass, 1997) that leadership is a critical
factor in the success or failure of an organisation; excellent organisations begin with
excellent leadership, and successful organisations reflect their leadership. Effective
leadership can move organisations from current to future states, create visions of potential
opportunities for organisations, instil within employees commitment to change and instil
new cultures and strategies in organisations that mobilise and focus energy and resources
(Bennis & Nanus, 1985).

The benefits of organisational commitment have been well documented in the extant
management literature (Davenport, 2010). Committed employees are less likely to develop
patterns of tardiness or to be chronically absent from work (Davenport, 2010; Angle &
Perry, 1981; Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Porter et al ., 1974). Gbadamosi (2003) contends
WKDWWKHPRUHIDYRXUDEOHDQLQGLYLGXDOV attitudes toward the organisation, the greater the
LQGLYLGXDOV DFFHSWDQFH RI WKH JRDOV RI WKH RUJDQLVDWLRQ DV ZHOO DV WKHLU ZLOOLQJQHVV WR
exert more effort on behalf of the organisation. Employees that are committed are also less
likely to leave the organisation to explore other opportunities (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Porter

et al., 1974). Organisational commitment has also been shown to positively affect
motivation, organisational citizenship, and job performance (Meyer et al ., 2002; Mowday

et al., 1974).
1

South African organisations face the urgent challenge of attaining competitive advantage
through the effective utilisation and retention of skilled employees who contribute to the
basis of their success (Bagraim, 2004). According to the World Economic Forum (2011),
South Africa moves up by four places to attain 50th (out of 142 countries) position this
year in competitiveness, remaining the highest-ranked country in sub-Saharan Africa and
the second-placed among the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa)
economies. However, in order to further enhance its competitiveness the country will need
to address some weaknesses since it ranks 95th in labour market efficiency with significant
tensions in labour-employer relations (138th) (World Economic Forum, 2011).

As post-apartheid South Africa rejoins the global economy, it faces the dual challenges of
global competitiveness and social reconstruction; to develop a market economy flexible
enough to remain competitive amidst the changes in the global economy and to provide
basic services and greater economic equality amongst all its citizens (Bagraim, 2004).

1.2

Motivation and Background

The use of nuclear energy has been limited to a small number of countries, with only 31
countries, or 16 percent of the 193 members of the United Nations, operating nuclear
SRZHU SODQWV LQ HDUO\  6FKQHLGHU  )URJJDWW  +DOI RI WKH ZRUOGV QXFOHDU
countries are located in the European Union (EU), and they account for nearly half of the
ZRUOGV QXFOHDU SURGXFWLRQ )UDQFH DORQH JHQHUDWHV DERXW KDOI  SHUFHQW RI WKH (8V
nuclear production (Schneider & Froggatt, 2012).

In 2010, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that 65 countries had
expressed an interest, were considering, or were actively planning for nuclear power, up
from an estimate of 51 countries in 2008 (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2010). It
also stated that it expects Vietnam, Bangladesh, United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Belarus
to start building their first nuclear power plants in 2012 and that Jordan and Saudi Arabia
could follow in 2013 (Hixon, 2012). This increase in nuclear power plants will therefore
create a demand for skilled labour.

The South African nuclear industry dates back to the mid-1940s, when the predecessor
organisation to the Atomic Energy Corporation (AEC) was formed (Mwanda, 2010). In
1959, the government approved the creation of a domestic nuclear industry and planning
began the next year on building a research reactor, in cooperation with the US Atoms for
Peace program (World Nuclear Association, 2012). The Pelindaba site near Pretoria was
established in 1961, and the 20 Mega Watt (MWt) Safari-1 reactor there went critical in
1965 (Mwanda, 2010). In 1970, the Uranium Enrichment Corporation (UCOR) was
established as South Africa commenced an extensive nuclear fuel cycle program, as well as
the development of a nuclear weapons capability. In 1985, UCOR was incorporated into
the AEC, which was restructured to become the South African Nuclear Energy
Corporation (Necsa) as a state-owned public company in 1999 (World Nuclear
Association, 2012).

South Africa has one research reactor in Pelindaba and two French (Framatome/AREVA)
built reactors. Both are located at the Koeberg site east of Cape Town, which supplied 13
Terra Watt (TWh) or 5.2 percent of the counWU\V HOHFWULFLW\ LQ  WKH KLVWRULFDO

maximum was 7.4 percent in 1989). The reactors are the only operating nuclear power
plants on the African continent (Schneider & Froggatt, 2012).

The South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) is a public company and a
parastatal responsible for undertaking and promoting research and development in the field
of nuclear energy and radiation sciences. It is also responsible for processing source
material, including uranium enrichment, and cooperating with other institutions, locally
and abroad, on nuclear and related matters. Apart from its main activities at Pelindaba,
which include the SAFARI-1 research reactor, Necsa engages in commercial business
mainly through its wholly owned commercial subsidiaries NTP Radioisotopes (Pty) Ltd
(NTP), which is responsible for a range of radiation-based products and services for
healthcare, life sciences and industry, and Pelchem (Pty) Ltd (Pelchem), which supplies
fluorine and fluorine-based products. Both subsidiaries supply local and foreign markets,
earning valuable foreign exchange for South Africa.

2YHUDOO WKH 1HFVD JURXSV VWDII FRPSOHPHQW LQFUHDVHG E\  IURP  LQ  WR
2,113 at the end of the reporting period in 2010. A new Knowledge Management System
that will facilitate knowledge capturing, storage and transfer among employees is being
rolled out (Necsa Annual Report, 2010). In 2009, it was reported that there was a
significant increase in the number of disciplinary cases conducted at Necsa. According to
the Necsa Annual Report (2010), the rise in hearings could be attributable to the lack of
understanding of policies and procedures among semi-skilled and unskilled employees.
This however has not been substantially proven in the report.

According to Pinder (1998), if employees feel as though they have been unfairly treated,
they experience emotions such as anger and resentment. Procedurally unfair treatment has
been found to result in retaliatory organisational behaviours (e.g. theft) (Pinder, 1998;
Thompson & Heron, 2005). The results of perceived unfair treatment of employees may
also include lower production quantity and quality, greater absenteeism, greater turnover,
less initiative, lower morale, lack of cooperation, spread of dissatisfaction to co-workers,
fewer suggestions and less self-confidence (Schminke & Arnaud, 2005; Stretcher & Rosse,
2005).

With regard to employee turnover, a significant number of management, supervisors, and

operators resigned in 2009. According to a survey conducted by Accenture in 2009, just 13
percent of middle managers said that they are actively looking for a new job while twothirds said that they would consider a new job but are not actively looking. However,
nearly half believed that taking a new job in the current economic environment would be
risky. Clearly, statistically speaking, using turnover as a gauge of employee commitment is
certainly not reliable in this climate of economic downturn. Abbasi and Hollman (2000)
affirm that when an organisation loses a critical employee, there is a negative impact on
innovation, consistency in providing service to customers may be jeopardised, and major
delays in the delivery of services to customers may occur.

According to Gunnigle et al . (1997) people are the life-blood of organisations and they
represent the most potent and valuable resources of organisations. Ulrich (2002) argues
that the competitive edge of companies no longer lies in its product, but in its people.
Ulrich (2002) regards people as intangible resources, which are difficult to imitate.
According to Pearson and Thomas (2004), there has been a new business and

organisational focus on people management as a major source of competitive advantage

since the 1990s.

If the workforce is not committed in the organisation then job insecurity, low trust, high
stress and uncertainty will increase in the organisation, which have an ultimately negative
effect on the performance of the organisation (Panayiotis et al., 2011). Committed
employees usually act in the interests of their organisation and/or the customers being
served by the organisation (Romzec, 1990). Furthermore, they tend to generate high
performance business outcomes as measured by increased sales, improved productivity,
profitability and enhanced employee retention (Roger, 2001). Organisational commitment
can also increase creativity in the organisations (Carlos & Filipe, 2011). Consequently, the
lack of employee commitment threatens the survival of the organisation because the loss of
a competent employee is a loss of competitive advantage for the organisation.

Swanepoel, Erasmus, van Wyk and Schenk (2000) emphasise that the ability of an
organisation, to successfully implement business strategies, to gain a competitive
advantage and optimise human capital, largely depends on the leadership styles that
encourage employee commitment. Leadership is a critical factor in the success or failure of
an organisation; excellent organisations begin with excellent leadership, and successful
organisations reflect their leadership (Maritz, 1995; Bass, 1997). Thus, the ability of
1HFVDV leadership to retain competent employees is critical to its survival.

Accumulating evidence suggests that leadership style is positively associated with work
attitudes and behaviours at both an individual and organisational level (Dumdum et al .,
2002). Correlation analysis shows that transformational and transactional leadership style

LVUHODWHGWRHPSOR\HHVRUJDQLVDWLRQDOFRPPLWPHQW0DUPD\D et al., 2011). In particular,

there is considerable research now available suggesting that transformational leadership is
positively associated with organisational commitment in a variety of organisational settings
and cultures (Guang-lu et al., 2012; Muterera, 2008; Avolio et al ., 2004; Bono & Judge,
2003; Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003; Dumdum et al ., 2002; Koh et al ., 1995; Lowe et al .,
1996).

A major motivation for this study derives from the urgent challenge of attaining
competitive advantage through the effective utilisation and retention of skilled knowledge
workers in a multi-cultural South Africa and a small but growing international nuclear
industry. This is of particular concern for those wishing to ensure the success of a
developing South Africa emerging from its history of stunted potential and isolation borne
of racism (Bagraim, 2004). As South Africa rejoins the global economy, and tries to
solidify its foothold amongst the BRICS countries, it faces the dual challenges of global
competitiveness and social reconstruction; to develop a market economy flexible enough to
remain competitive amidst the changing and uncertainty of the new global economy and to
provide basic services with greater economic equality amongst all its citizens.

Various past studies cover different aspects of leadership and its relationship with
organisational commitment (Sabir et al ., 2011). Despite this, not enough empirical research
studies on the drivers of organisational commitment amongst South African knowledge
workers have been published (Bagraim, 2002; Kinnear, 2000).

Shokane et al . (2004) undertook a study to describe the nature of leadership in South

$IULFDQ RUJDQLVDWLRQV LQ SXUVXLW RI ZRUOG FODVV FRPSHWLWLYH VWDWXV They concluded that

the administrative nature of the public sector environment may be limiting the derivation
of transformational leadership in the Public Sector Institution, and that the Tertiary Sector
Institution is significantly a transformational organisation compared with the Private Sector
Corporation and the Public Sector Institution.

Studies in organisational commitment in Australian and South African Accountants

(Clayton & Hutchinson, 2001), Secondary Education Educators in the Western Cape (Bull,
2005), Eskom Eastern Region (Nyengane, 2007), the South African Motor manufacturing
industry (Manetje & Martins, 2009), the telecommunications industry (Visagie, 2010), the
accounting and information technology sector (Bagraim, 2010), and within the information
technology environment ( Lumley et al., 2011) were conducted; however, there are no
studies with regard to the nuclear sector/industry.

The influence of leadership style to employee commitment to the organisation has not been
adequately addressed in the nuclear industry. Thus, there is a need for greater
understanding of the relationship between the leadership style and work-related attitudes
(such as employee commitment) in order to develop a leadership style that will encourage
organisational commitment. Effective leadership is every bit as essential in a South African
parastatal organisation as it is in any organisation all over the world (Hayward, 2005).

The results of this study would help the leadership of Necsa to practise leadership
behaviours and improve their organisational practices that will encourage employee
commitment to the organisation and retain valuable staff members not only at Necsa, but
within the nuclear industry in South Africa as a whole, creating a more competitive

industry. This study will also contribute to the body of knowledge by providing
information on the relationship between leadership styles and organisational commitment.

1.3

T he O bjective of the Research

A major motivation for this study derives from the urgent challenge of attaining
competitive advantage through the effective utilisation and retention of skilled knowledge
workers in a multi-cultural South Africa. Swanepoel et al . (2000) emphasise that the ability
of an organisation, to successfully implement business strategies, to gain a competitive
advantage and optimise human capital, largely depends on the leadership styles that
encourage employee commitment. The aim of the research was to identify the different
aspects of leadership styles that have an influence on employee commitment in general and
be able to determine the relationship between them.

Various past studies cover different aspects of leadership and its relationship with
organisational commitment (Sabir et al ., 2011). However, the influence of leadership style
to employee commitment to the organisation has not been adequately addressed in the
nuclear industry. There therefore, is a need for greater understanding of the relationship
between the leadership style and work-related attitudes (such as employee commitment) in
order to develop a leadership style that will encourage organisational commitment. Thus,
the main objective of the study was to investigate the relationship between leadership
styles and employee commitment at the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa.

The null hypothesis stated that there was no statistical significant relationship between
leadership styles and employee commitment to the organisation and the alternate

hypothesis stated that there was a statistically significant relationship between leadership
styles and employee commitment to the organisation.

The results of this study could mould how future leadership training at Necsa would be
developed and structured. This would help the leadership of Necsa to practise leadership
behaviours and improve their organisational practices that will encourage employee
commitment to the organisation and retain valuable staff members not only at Necsa, but
within the nuclear industry in South Africa as a whole, creating a more competitive
industry. This study will also contribute to the body of knowledge by providing
information on the relationship between leadership styles and organisational commitment.

1.4

O utline of the study

The study is divided into five chapters. This introductory chapter defines the problem,
gives a motivation and background, as well as objective of the research and describes the
layout of the thesis:

1.4.1

C hapter 2: L iterature review

The literature review section is divided into three sections; a review on the literature on
leadership as well as a review on the literature on organisational commitment. It then
reviews the literature on the relationship between these two constructs.

The literature review incorporates the construct of both leadership styles and organisational
commitment and further goes on to critique both definitions. It offers an operational
definition and history of both leadership and organisational commitment adopted by the

10

researcher. Both reviews conclude with propositions from literature aimed at guiding the
investigation of the relationship between leadership style and organisational commitment
undertaken in this study.
1.4.2

C hapter 3: T he research design and methodology

The research design and methodology chapter describes the methodology employed in the
investigation of the relationship between leadership styles and organisational commitment
of employees at the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa. It identifies and briefly
describes the paradigm of the research and then goes on to describe how the sample was
determined; the administration of the questionnaires; the history of the measuring
instruments used ( Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and Organisational Commitment

Questionnaire); their reliability and validity; DQGWKHUHVHDUFKVHWKLFDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQV

1.4.3

C hapter 4: A nalysis of results

This chapter contains the results, descriptions of the results followed by the analysis of the
relationship (interpretation of the results) and explanations on what the researcher
subscribes to the results.

1.4.4

C hapter 5: Discussion, recommendations and conclusions

The thesis ends with a discussion, concluding remarks and recommendations on further
research on the relationship between leadership style and organisational commitment. The
chapter also discusses the implications of these results in the light of the literature review.
Research limitations are identified and implications of the research are also discussed in
this chapter.

11

1.5 Summary
The South African nuclear industry dates back to the mid-1940s, when the predecessor
organisation to the Atomic Energy Corporation (AEC) was formed (Mwanda, 2010). In
1985, the Uranium Enrichment Corporation (UCOR) was incorporated into the AEC,
which was restructured to become the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa)
as a state-owned public company in 1999 (World Nuclear Association, 2012). The South
African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) is a public company and a parastatal
responsible for undertaking and promoting research and development in the field of
nuclear energy and radiation sciences. Necsa engages in commercial business mainly
through its wholly owned commercial subsidiaries NTP Radioisotopes (Pty) Ltd. As postapartheid South Africa rejoins the global economy, it faces the dual challenges of global
competitiveness and social reconstruction; to develop a market economy flexible enough to
remain competitive amidst the changes in the global economy (Bagraim, 2004).

Swanepoel et al . (2000) emphasise that the ability of an organisation, to successfully

implement business strategies, to gain a competitive advantage and optimise human
capital, largely depends on the leadership styles that encourage employee commitment.
7KXVWKHDELOLW\RI1HFVDVOHDGHUVKLSWRUHWDLQFRPSHWHQWHPSOR\HHVin a global economy
is critical to its survival.

Various past studies cover different aspects of leadership and its relationship with
organisational commitment (Sabir et al ., 2011). Despite this, not enough empirical research
studies on the drivers of organisational commitment amongst South African knowledge
workers have been published (Bagraim, 2002; Kinnear, 2000). The influence of leadership
style to employee commitment to the organisation has not been adequately addressed in the
12

nuclear industry. Thus, there is a need for greater understanding of the relationship
between the leadership style and work-related attitudes (such as employee commitment) in
order to develop a leadership style that will encourage organisational commitment.
Effective leadership is every bit as essential in a South African parastatal organisation as it
is in any organisation all over the world (Hayward, 2005).

The results of this study would help the leadership of Necsa to practise leadership
behaviours and improve their organisational practices that will encourage employee
commitment to the organisation and retain valuable staff members not only at Necsa, but
within the nuclear industry in South Africa as a whole, creating a more competitive
industry. This study will also contribute to the body of knowledge by providing
information on the relationship between leadership styles and organisational commitment.

13

C H APT ER 2

2 LIT ERA TURE R E VIE W

2.1

L eadership

James MacGregor Burns (1978:2) wrote in his book, Leadership, "that we know all too
much about our leaders, but far too little about leadership." In the past 60 years, as many as
65 different classification systems have been developed to define the dimensions of
leadership (Fleishman et al ., 1991). $VDPDWWHURIIDFWWKHWHUPOHDGHUKDVEHHQWUDFHG
back to around 1300 A.D. (Stogdill, 1974).

The quality of leadership in organisations is regarded as one of the basic factors

influencing the survival of the human race (Bennis, 1988).These days, the workforce of the
organisation is more aware, educated, knowledgeable and expecting better values for
themselves; on the other hand, organisations also want to better utilise them (the
workforce) to get maximum benefits (Sabir et al ., 2011).Efficiency of the organisation
relies on the leadership style in the organisation. Today, survival and success are
dependent upon speed of response, relationship, and understanding of the core of what
drives the business, adaptability and innovation.

A plethora of academics and scholars have claimed that the potential to develop and foster
innovation within employees is a crucial driving force behind organisational performance
and sustained competitive advantage (Drazin & Schoonhoven, 1996; Oldham &
Cummings, 1996; Axtell et al ., 2000; Dess & Pickens, 2000). Fierce international

14

competition and globalisation with the need for sustained competitive advantage, reinforce
the necessity for strong leadership. To maintain financial competitiveness in this diverse
landscape, organisational leaders must embrace the leadership styles that are most effective
in motivating the diverse groups in which many employees work (Dixon & Hart, 2010).

This chapter presents an overview of Leadership. We then discuss Leadership Theories, the
Full Range Leadership model, and an overview of Leadership in South Africa.

2.1.1

L eadership T heories

Since the middle of the twentieth century, many scholars with different standpoints have
developed various theories and literature. In order to overcome the complexity inherent in
leadership theories, Schilbach (1983) undertook an extensive leadership study and
discussed a framework of basic approaches to leadership (Gerber et al ., 1996). Schilbach
(1983) designed a frame or typology of leadership approaches to make meaningful
discussions (Figure 2.1).

Trait Approach

Functional
Approach

Behavioural
Approach

Situational
Approach

F igure 2.1: A T ypology of L eadership A pproaches

Source: Schilbach, 1983

15

Robbins (1996) indicated that there are three broad approaches to leadership namely, the
trait approach, the behavioural approach and the contingency approach, as well as a move
to new approaches as shown in Figure 2.2.

An outline of the historical evolution of leadership theories is given below. The list below
is not exhaustive, but it highlights the most significant approaches to leadership over time.
These theories can be classified as follows:

L E A D E RSH IP T H E O R I ES

B E H A VIO URA L
A PPR O A C H

T R A I T A PPR O A C H

x
x

x
Mann (1959)
x
Stogdill (1974)
x
Stogdill (1984)
Lord De Vader & Allinger
(1986)
Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991)

Theory of Lewin, Lippit &

White (1939)
x
0F*UHJRUV7KHRU\
x
Blake and MoXWRQV
Managerial Grid (1978)
x
Ohio State and University of
Michigan Models

C ONTING ENC Y
A PPR O A C H
x
x

Leadership Continuum
)LHGOHUV&RQWLQJHQF\
Model
x
+HUVH\DQG%ODQFKDUGV
Situational Leadership
x
+RXVHV3DWK-Goal Model
x
Leader-Member-Exchange
Theory

N E W A PPR O A C H ES

F U L L R A N G E L E A D E RSH IP
F igure 2.2: T he Basic L eadership approaches
Source: A dapted from A mos and Ristow (1999)
(Small Business M anagement Series H uman Resources M anagement, pp 134)

16

2.1.1.1 Trait Theories

The early trait research was conducted in the 1930s and 1940s and was based on the idea
that leaders were born with traits that made them effective leaders (Norris, 2000). Early
research focused on traits that researchers were able to measure like physical
characteristics (e.g. height, appearance, etc.), aspects of personality (such as self-esteem,
dominance, emotional stability, and more) and aptitudes (such as general intelligence,
verbal fluency, creativity, and more) (Yukl, 1998). The argument was that once these
characteristics have been identified, they could be used to select leaders (Schermerhorn et

al., 1994).

The assumption based on this theory is that not all individuals have these leadership
characteristics or traits, but those in possession of them can be considered potential leaders.
Leadership training can only be appropriate to those with inherent leadership traits (Hersey
& Blanchard, 1993). Table 2.1 provides a summary of the traits and characteristics that
were identified by researchers from the Trait Approach.
T able 2.1: L eadership T raits

Stogdill
(1948)

M ann
(1959)

Stogdill
(1974)

Intelligence
Alertness
Insight
Responsibility
Initiative
Persistence
Selfconfidence
Sociability

Intelligence
Masculinity
Adjustment
Dominance
Extroversion
Conservatism

Achievement
Persistence
Insight
Initiative
Self-confidence
Responsibility
Cooperativeness
Tolerance
Influence
Sociability

Lord, De
V ader, and
A lliger (1986)
Intelligence
Masculinity
Dominance

K ir kpatrick
and Locke
(1991)
Drive Motivation
Integrity
Confidence
Cognitive ability
Task Knowledge

Zaccaro, K emp
and Bader (2004)
Cognitive Ability
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Openness
Agreeableness
Motivation
Social Intelligence
Self-monitoring
Emotional Intelligence
Problem Solving

6285&(6$GDSWHGIURP7KH%DVHVRI6RFLDO3RZHUE\-5P. F rench, Jr. and B. Raven, 1962, in

D. C artwright (E d.),
Group Dynamics: Research and Theory (pp. 259269), New Yor k: H arper and Row; Zaccoro et al.
(2004).

17

Although popular at the time, the trait approach has almost disappeared as a result of its
inability to explain much about why relationships between some traits and leadership
occurred (Parham, 1983). Individual traits do not predict who will become a leader and
who will not (Beukman, 2005). Schein (1980), reports that traits correlating with success in
one situation, failed to do so in the next. Similarly, no consistent pattern could be found by
Bennis and Nannus (1985). It is now recognised that certain traits increase the likelihood
that a leader will be effective, but they do not guarantee effectiveness, and the relative
importance of different traits is dependent upon the nature of the leadership situation
(Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). Critiques of the leader trait paradigm (Jenkins, 1947; Mann,
1959; Stogdill, 1948) prompted scholars to looNEH\RQGOHDGHUWUDLWVDQGFRQVLGHUKRZOHDGHUV
behaviours predicted effectiveness.

2.1.1.2 Behaviour Theories

By the late 1940s, most leadership research focussed on the behaviour of the leaders, rather
than on analysing their traits (Lussier, 2012). These theories resulted from intensive
research that began at the Ohio State University where researchers attempted to identify
differences in the behaviour of effective leaders versus that of ineffective leaders (Lussier,
2012). Perhaps the best-known model of managerial behaviour is the Managerial Grid
(Figure 2.3), which first appeared in the early 1960s and has been refined and revised
many times (Blake & McCanse, 1991). The Managerial Grid was designed to explain
how leaders help organisations to reach their purposes through two factors: concern for
production and concern for people (Northouse, 2009).

By plotting scores from each of the axes, various leadership styles can be illustrated. The
Managerial Grid portrays five major leadership styles: authority-compliance (9, 1),

18

country-club management (1, 9), impoverished management (1, 1), middle of the road
management (5, 5), and team management (9, 9) (Northhouse, 2009).

This behavioural approach also underpins the leadership competency models adopted in
many organisations today, with key contemporary roles including strategic thinking,
change manager, relationship builder and talent developer (Barret & Beeson, 2002). Unlike
traits, the opinion was that behaviours can be learnt or acquired, and that individuals could
thus be developed into more effective leaders (Beukman, 2005).

High

9, 9

1, 9

T eam M anagement

Country-club Management

Work accomplishment is from committed

people. Interdependence through a common
stake in organisation purpose leads to
relationships of trust and respect

Concern for People

Thoughtful attention to the needs of the

people for satisfying relationships leads to
comfortable, friendly organisation
atmosphere and work tempo.

M iddle-of-the-Road M anagement

5, 5
Adequate organisation performance is possible through balancing the
necessity to get work out while maintaining morale of people at a
satisfactory level

A uthority-Compliance Management
Efficiency in operations results from arranging
conditions of work in such a way that human
elements interfere to a minimum degree.

1, 1

1
Low

Impoverished M anagement
Exertion of minimum effort to get required
work done as appropriate to sustain
organisation management

9, 1

1
Low

Concern for Results

High

F igure 2.3: T he M anagerial G rid

Source: Blake & M outon, 1964

2.1.1.3 Contingency Theories

The contingency approach suggests that no single leadership style, specific leadership
functions or particular leadership qualities are recommended as the best under all
19

circumstances (Gerber et al ., 1996). The contingency approach represents a shift in

leadership research from focusing on the leader to looking at the leader in conjunction with
the situation in which the leader works (Fiedler, 1967). Despite its potential advantages,
the contingency theory is too complicated to have much of an impact on most leaders (Du
Brin, 2012). The main contingency models are the Leadership Continuum of Tannenbaum
and SchmLGW )LHGOHUV &RQWLQJHQF\ 0RGHO +HUVH\ DQG %ODQFKDUGV 6LWXDWLRQDO
/HDGHUVKLS0RGHODQG+RXVHV3DWK-Goal Model and the Leader-Member Exchange theory
(Bass, 1990a).

2.1.1.4 Neo-charismatic Theories/New Approaches

The genesis of Neo-charismatiF OHDGHUVKLS LV JHQHUDOO\ WUDFHG EDFN WR 0D[ :HEHUV
writing in the early 1920s (Benson, 2006). Rothwell (2012) describes the main differences
between traditional and Neo-charismatic/New Approaches in the following table (Table
2.2).
T able 2.2: M ain Difference between T raditional L eadership and New A pproaches L eadership
T raditional A pproaches

New A pproaches

Direction of Influence
Leadership Behaviour
Power Relation

One-sided, top down

Leadership Style
Ruling of the leader

Instrument of Goal Attainment

Personal Traits

Success depends on leadership style,

2QH%HVW:D\
Traits of leader matters

Group Phenomena

Formal leadership, static

Understanding of Reality

Clear, unambiguous, transparent,

manageable
Facts, impact
(Natural) Science, positivist
Psychological or micro level

Both Directions
Interaction strategies and tactics
Contribution of followers, power
balance
Many factors, circular influence,
alternative options
Attribution of traits through
followers important
Informal, dynamic, emergent
leadership
Ambiguous, complex, multifactorial, diverse, unpredictable.
Subjective meanings
Social constructionist or beyond
Influence of societal cultures,
discourses, models, guiding
principles
Symbolic leadership, implicit
leadership theory, neo-charismatic
approaches, dispersed leadership,
micro politics

Type of Rationality
Paradigm
Reference to Society
Leader Approaches or Concepts

Trait approach, behavioural

approach, situational approach

Source: E ncyclopaedia of H uman Resource M anagement: C ritical and emerging issues in human
resources, Rothwell, 2012.

20

According to Robbins (2003), the Neo-charismatic theories of leadership focus on the

OHDGHUV DELOLW\ WR GHPRQVWUDWH RU DFW RXW EHKDYLRXU WKDW LV HPRWLRQDOO\ DSSHDOLQJ DQG
symbolic. The Neo-charismatic theories include: Transactional Leadership Theory,
Transformational Leadership Theory and Full-Range Leadership Theory (Robbins, 2003).

2.1.2

F ull Range L eadership

The Full Range Leadership (FRL) approach as developed by Bass and Avolio (1994; 1997)
encompasses a range of leader behaviours. This model and its associated measure, the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) were LQWURGXFHGLQRUGHUWRGHWHUPLQHZKR
DWWHPSWV ZKR LV VXFFHVVIXO DQG ZKR LV HIIHFWLYH DV D OHDGHU %DVV  7KH PRGHO
describes and the questionnaire measures the factors related to three leadership styles:
laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational leadership (Allen, 2010). These leadership
styles have been described to have a direct effect on individual and organisational level
outcomes (Bass, 1990a; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992).

F igure 2.4: F ull Range L eadership M odel

Source: Bass and A volio, 1997

Avolio (1999) clarified the Full Range Leadership model and initially developed it with six
21

factors, presented in Table 2.3. Bass (1985a) integrated both transformational and
transactional styles in his original development of the Full Range of Leadership model by
recognising that both styles may be linked to achievement of goals and objectives. Bass
and Avolio (1993) stated that it is possible to describe a purely transactional organisational
culture and a purely transformational one but that most organisations have cultures
characterised by both styles.

The Full Range of Leadership model has three primary parts (transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire) along with corresponding six factors. The model was
developed to broaden the range of styles investigated in the leadership field (Bass &
Avolio, 1994). Bass and Avolio (1991) stated that effective organisations move in the
direction of a transformational culture but also maintain a healthy level of transactional
qualities.

In its current form, the Full Range of Leadership model now has nine single-order factors
(Antonakis et al ., 2003; Avolio & Bass, 2004). The nine-factor version was based on the
results of previous research using earlier versions of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ), the expert judgment of six leadership scholars who recommended
additions or deletions of items, and confirmatory factor analysis (Avolio et al ., 1999). The
current model (nine-factor version) is presented in Table 2.4.

In these results, there is clear support for this nine-factor model regardless of the rater (the
individual completing the MLQ) sources or the geographic region (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
This nine-factor model divides idealised influence from the six-factor model into idealised
attributes, idealised behaviours, and inspirational motivation that were previously

22

subcategories of idealised influence in order to examine each factor individually (Avolio &
Bass, 2004).

This multi-factor leadership (or full range of leadership model) is one of the most widely
cited and comprehensive theories of leadership behaviours (Lee, 2005). Leadership is
conceptualised within the domains of behaviour from transformational leadership based
upon attributed and behavioural charisma, to laissez-faire or non-leadership, to
transactional leadership (Bass, 1985b).

T able 2.3: F ull Range L eadership M odel (Six F actors)

T ransformational L eadership
F actor 1

T ransactional L eadership
F actor 4

Idealised Influence
Charisma
Inspirational Motivation
F actor 2

L aissez-faire L eadership
F actor 6

Contingent Reward
Constructive Transactions

Laissez-faire
Non-transactional

F actor 5
Intellectual Stimulation

F actor 3
Individualised Consideration

Management-by-Exception
Active and Passive
Corrective Transactions

Source: A volio, 1999

T able 2.4: F ull Range L eadership M odel (Nine-F actor)

T ransformational L eadership
F actor 1

T ransactional
L eadership

L aissez-faire
L eadership

F actor 6
Idealised Influence Attributes (IA)

F actor 2

F actor 9
Laissez-faire

Contingent Reward (CR)

F actor 7

Idealised
(IB)

Influenced

Behaviours

F actor 3

Management-by-Exception Active (MBEA)

F actor 8

Inspirational Motivation (IM)

Management-by-Exception:
(MBEP)

Passive

F actor 4
Intellectual Stimulation (IS)
F actor 5

2.1.3

Individualised Consideration (IC)Source:

Bass and A volio, 2004

T ransactional L eadership

In his seminal work on leadership, James MacGregor Burns (1978) defines transactional
leadership as the first form of interaction between leaders and followers (Marturano &
23

Gosling, 2007). Bass (1985a) and Bass and Avolio (1997) described transactional
leadership in terms of two characteristics: the use of contingent rewards and management
by exception. They described contingent reward as the reward that the leader will bestow
on the subordinate once the latter has achieved goals that were agreed to. Contingent
reward is, therefore, the exchange of rewards for meeting agreed-on objectives. By making
and fulfilling promises of recognition, pay increases and advancement for employees who
perform well, the transactional leader is able to get things done. Bass (1985a) therefore
argues that by providing contingent rewards, a transactional leader might inspire a
reasonable degree of involvement, loyalty, commitment and performance from
subordinates.

Transactional leaders may also rely on active management by exception which occurs
when the leader monitors followers to ensure mistakes are not made, but otherwise, allows
the status quo to exist without being addressed (Bass & Avolio, 1997). In passive
management by exception, the leader intervenes only when things go wrong (Nyengane,
2007). In general, one can conclude that transactional leadership is an exchange
relationship that involves the reward of effort, productivity and loyalty.

Antonakis et al . (2003) stated that this leadership model is made up of the three first-order
factors:
a)

Contingent Reward: Contingent reward may be considered as one of the most

direct ways for followers to work harder in accordance with the mutually agreed
performance level. Bass (1985a) suggested that transactional leaders might utilise
contingent rewards to remunerate followers in return for their services and work
done. The remuneration may be taken in the form of awards in recognition of

24

achievements, recommendations for increase in pay and promotion, or

commendation for outstanding efforts.

b)

M anagement-by-E xception: A transactional leader who utilises managementby-exception can be described as one who intervenes only when the work done or
performance level is below the agreed or expected standard. The leader will only
take corrective actions when things go wrong. According to Bass (1990a),
management-by-exception can be active or passive in nature.
x

A ctive: Some leaders constantly monitor followers to avoid mistakes and

actively take corrective actions on committed errors and deviances.

Passive: The leader does not take any action until obvious deviances and
mistakes occur, which is then followed by corrective action.

Therefore, as Bass (1985a) contends, transactional leadership uses satisfaction of lower

order needs as the primary basis for motivation. Accordingly, the focus in transactional
leadership is on role clarification wherein the leader helps the follower in understanding
exactly what needs to be done in order to meet the organisatiRQV REMHFWLYHV DQG JRDOV
Hence, a successful result of transactional leadership would be an expected outcome.

2.1.3.1 Limitation of Transactional Leadership

The limits of transactional leadership hinge on the behaviourist assumption that a 'rational
SHUVRQ LV largely motivated by money and simple rewards, and hence his behaviour is
predictable (Tavanti, 2008). In practice this assumption often ignores complex emotional
factors and social values present in work environments and interpersonal relationships. For
example, transactional leadership may operate successfully in a work environment where

25

OHDGHUVDQGZRUNHUVSHUVRQDOLWLHVDUHFRPSDWLEOHEXWLWFRXOGUHVXOWLQFRQIOLFWEHWZHHQ
task-oriented and person-oriented personalities. Transactional leadership works well in a
supply-and-demand situation of much employment, coupled with the effects of deeper
needs, but it may be insufficient when the demand for a skill outstrips the supply.
Transactional leadership behaviour is used by one degree or another by most leaders.
However, it can be quite limiting if it is the only leadership style used. As the old saying
JRHVLIWKHRQO\WRROLQ\RXUZRUNER[LVDKDPPHU\RXZLOOSHUFHLYHHYHU\SUREOHPDVD
QDLO7RGD\PRVWOHDGHUVZRXOGDJUHHWKDWPDWHULDOUHZDUGVDQGfear of punishment may
not be the best approach to motivate their workers. Because transactional leadership
encourages specific exchanges and a close connection between goals and rewards, workers
are not motivated to give anything beyond what is clearly specified in their contract.

2.1.4

T ransformational L eadership

:KLOHWKHWHUP7UDQVIRUPDWLRQDO/HDGHUVKLSZDVRULJLQDOO\FRLQHGE\-DPHV'RZQWRQ
in a 1973 paper on rebel leadership, it was James MacGregor Burns who brought the term
to wider parlance in his classic study of political leadership in the 1978 book simply
HQWLWOHG/HDGHUVKLS%U\PDQIn recent years, there has been considerable interest
in the model of transformational leadership, because it has been shown that
transformational leaders generate greater commitment in their followers than do those who
use other leadership styles (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998).

Transformational leaders encourage problem solving in followers rather than constantly

providing solutions and directions and a greater pool of knowledge (Buhler, 1995). Bass
and Avolio (1994) suggest that a consequence of this behaviour is that followers develop
the capacity to solve future problems which might be unforeseen by the leader. Dubinsky

26

et al. (1995) also suggest that leaders who are intellectually stimulating often possess a
high level of risk-taking because of their capability to trust the abilities of their followers.
Individuals who work for transformational leaders may willingly expand their job
descriptions as they develop a greater conception of the organisation as a whole (Avolio &
Bass, 1991).

According to Bass and Avolio (2000), transformational leadership is defined by five key
dimensions. They can be summarised as follows:
a)

Idealised influence attributes (I A): which refers to the socialised charisma of

the leader, whereby the followers feel trust, admiration, loyalty and respect for
the leader.

b)

Idealised influence behaviour (I B): which refers to the charismatic actions of

the leader, whereby individuals transcend their self-interest for the sake of the
organisation and develop a collective sense of mission and purpose; this
GLPHQVLRQ EURDGHQV WKH WUDGLWLRQDO OHDGHUVKLS UROH LQWR WKDW RI D PDQDJHU RI
PHDQLQJ%U\PDQ et al ., 1996).

c)

Inspirational motivation (I M): which refers to the way in which

transformational leaders energise their followers by articulating a compelling
vision of the future WKXVFUHDWLQJHQWKXVLDVWLFH[FLWHPHQWUDLVLQJIROORZHUV
expectations, and communicating confidence that followers can achieve
ambitious goals;

d)

Intellectual stimulation

(IS):

which refers to the way in which

WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDOOHDGHUVTXHVWLRQWKHVWDWXVTXRDSSHDOWRIROORZHUVLQWHOOHFW

27

stimulate them to question their assumptions, and invite innovative and

creative solutions to problems.

e)

Individualised consideration (I C): which refers to leadership behaviour that

contributes to follower satisfaction by paying close attention to the individual
needs of followers, acting as a mentor or coach, and enabling them to develop
and self-actualise.

Transformational leaders are characterised by: a)

Raising the level of awareness of followers about the importance of achieving

valued outcomes, a vision, and the required strategy;

b)

Getting followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the team,
organisation, or larger collectivity, and

c)

([SDQGLQJIROORZHUVSRUWIROLRRIQHHGVE\UDLVLQJWKHLUDZDUHQHVVWRLPSURYH
themselves and what they are attempting to accomplish (Burns, 1978; Bass,
1985b).

As opposed to the purely transactional approach, followers now have a heightened view of
the probability of success and value the designated outcomes to a greater extent. The
IROORZHUVKHLJKWHQHGPRWLYDWLRQWRDFKLHYHWKHGHVLJQDWHGRXWFRPHV leads to performance
that is often beyond expectations, as followers exhibit what Bass (1985a; 1990b) calls extra
effort.

2.1.4.1 Limitation of Transformational Leadership

%DVVDDFNQRZOHGJHGWKDWWUDQVIRUPDWLRQDOOHDGHUVFRXOGZHDUZKLWHKDWVRUEODFN
hatV ,Q DGGLWLRQ RWKHUV KDYH DUJXHG WKDW ERWK WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO DQG FKDULVPDWLF OHDGHUV

28

can be self-centred and manipulative in the means they use to achieve their goals (Bass &
Steidlmeier, 2003). The irrational engagement of the followers through emotions in pursuit
of self-LQWHUHVWLVFRQWUDU\WRWKHIROORZHUVEHVWLQWHUHVWV6WHYHQV et al ., 1995). Bass and
Steidlmeier (2003) distinguished between pseudo-transformational leaders, who are selfLQWHUHVWHG DQG ODFN PRUDO YLUWXH DQG DXWKHQWLF transformational leaders, who are more
FOHDUO\PRUDOOHDGHUV

One of the weaknesses most frequently noted is the tendency among transformational
leadership researchers to idealise the transformational leadership approach to the extent
that too much credit is given to the leader, whereas other factors that lead to individual,
group or organisational development are ignored (Bryman, 2011).

Another criticism is that transformational leadership is elitist and anti-democratic (Bass &
Avolio, 1993). Related to this criticism is that transformational leadership suffers from a
KHURLFOHDGHUVKLSELDV<XNO

Diaz-Saenz (2011) maintains that transformational leadership also tends to favour the
exclusive use of either the MLQ developed by Bass, the measure developed by Podsakoff
and colleagues (1996) or Kouzes and Posner (1987) and ignore the studies that have used
other instruments. This method of research yields a very myopic view of the topic. There
are still a lot of different levels of analysis or a combination of them that is still unexplored
(Diaz-Saenz, 2011). Beyer (1999) adds that researchers use only the psychological
approach, ignoring the social one that was the most notably championed by Weber.

29

2.1.5

L aissez-faire L eadership

The Laissez-faire style of leadership is also referred to as management-by-exception (Bass

& Avolio, 1990a). Antonakis et al . (2003) defined laissez-faire leadership (LF) as the
absence of a leadership, where the leader avoids making decisions, abdicates
responsibility, and does not exert authority. This style is active to the extent that the leader
avoids taking action (Avolio & Bass, 2004). This leadership component or style is
considered the most passive and ineffective form (Antonakis et al ., 2003). Deluga (1990)
describes the laissez-faire leader as an extreme passive leader who is reluctant to influence
general employees or VXERUGLQDWHV FRQVLGHUDEOH IUHHGRP WR WKH SRLQW RI DEGLFDWLQJ
his/her responsibilities. Laissez-faire leaders offer no feedback or support to the follower.

According to Northouse (2009), laissez-IDLUH OHDGHUVKLS LV D KDQGV-RII DSSURDFK WR

leadership. Laissez-faire leadership is also termed a non-leadership style (Jones & Rudd,
2007). The laissez-faire leader avoids accepting responsibilities, is absent when needed,
fails to follow up on requests for assistance, and resists expressing his or her views on
important issues (Jones & Rudd, 2007). The laissez-faire leader gives the majority of
control in the decision-making process to the followers. Laissez-faire leadership assumes
that followers are intrinsically motivated and should be left alone to accomplish tasks and
goals; the leader therefore does not provide direction or guidance (Jones & Rudd, 2007).

2.1.5.1 Limitation of Laissez-faire leadership

If there are only rewards and no punishment, in no time, rewards become meaningless.
Motivation without management may just mean random sharing of the booty (Banerjee,
1995). According to Ngaroga (2008), laissez-faire is the least effective, wherein the goals
of the organisation may not be achieved.

30

Excess of freedom may degenerate into chaos. Different units and sections may work at
cross purposes. The enterprise as a whole may be moving backward rather than forward
(Banerjee, 1995). It leads to confusion and utter despair (Ngaroga, 2008). For example,
imagine attending a college class in which the professor asked the students to determine
what should be covered in the course, what the course requirements should be, and how
students should be graded. It would be a difficult and cumbersome way to start a semester;
students might spend the entire term negotiating these matters and never actually learn
anything (Kendall, 2008).For practical purposes, it amounts to buck passing on the part of
the leader; he virtually abdicates himself, and therefore his subordinates have little respect
for him (Banerjee, 1995).

Experiments have demonstrated that laissez-faire groups neither contribute much to

productivity nor provide necessary employee satisfaction (Banerjee, 1995). It thus lowers
the morale of workers (Ngaroga, 2008).

2.1.6

L eadership in South A frica

According to the World Economic Forum (2011), South Africa moved up by four places;
in the global competitiveness index, to attain 50th position this year, remaining the highestranked country in sub-Saharan Africa and the second-placed among the BRICS (Brazil,
Russia, India, China and South Africa) economies. However, in order to further enhance its
competitiveness the country will need to address some weaknesses (World Economic
Forum, 2011).

31

Within the context of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and Africa
in general, South Africa is the only country that has reached the advanced stage of a liberal
and open economy (Shokane et al ., 2004). In this advanced stage of a liberal economy,
South African markets for goods, services and capital have the depth, the liquidity, the
infrastructure and the sophistication needed for successful integration with the rest of the
global economy (Shokane et al , 2004).

Mester et al . (2003) noted that South African managers and organisations have realised
that they face a future of rapid and complex change. Yet, there is little shared
understanding amongst management of the qualities required for effective leadership in
South Africa (Naidoo, 2009). Many organisations in South Africa are over-managed and
under-led (April et al ., 2008), leading to many problems that are typical of a
developmental state, indicated by on-going protests and a patchy service delivery record
(Naidoo, 2009).

Grobler (1996) is of the opinion that leadership practices in South Africa are far from
satisfactory, and believes that, for South African business organisations to become globally
competitive, leadership should not only play a transactional but also a transformational
role. In 2000, Maritz did a benchmarking study of South African organisations against its
international counterparts. The results for the study highlighted that South African leaders
lack a sense of urgency to move away from a conventional transactional leadership.

Parker (1998) postulates that South African business organisations are hard on people and
hard on performance, instead of being soft on people and hard on performance. In line with
Parker (1998) and Prinsloo et al . (1999), the Productivity Development Survey of 280

32

South African organisations showed that one in 25 managers embraces a multi-skilled,

team-based work, collaborations in decision-making, and the involvement of teams
(Bennett, 1999), a stark divergence from Maritz (2000).

There is however, agreement in the literature (Maritz, 1995; Bass, 1997) that leadership is
a critical factor in the success or failure of an organisation; excellent organisations begin
with excellent leadership, and successful organisations reflect their leadership.
Unfortunately international literature about leadership and lessons learnt from other parts
of the globe cannot be applied in their entirety to South African conditions because they
are both insufficiently relevant and applicable to the unique challenges which confront
South African leaders today (Sham, 1999). Transformation of South African organisations
to include all South Africans, and to empower them managerially and economically, calls
for transformational leadership (Smit et al ., 2011). A uniquely South African perspective
on leadership might be of greater possible benefit to practitioners of management in South
Africa.

2.2

O rganisational Commitment

Organisational researchers agree that a consensus has not yet been reached over the
definition of organisational commitment (Mowday, 1998; Scholl, 1981; Suliman & Isles,
2000a; 2000b; Zangaro, 2001; Shah, 2012). Several distinct views of commitment have
evolved and have become well established over the years, making it unlikely that any one
approach will dominate and be unanimously accepted as the correct definition of
commitment (Meyer et al ., 1990).

33

Scholl (1981) indicates that the way organisational commitment is defined depends on the
approach to commitment that one is adhering to. According to Wallace (1995),
RUJDQLVDWLRQDO FRPPLWPHQW LV UHJDUGHG DV D PHQWDO FRQWUDFW FRQQHFWLQJ WKH LQGLYLGXDOV
identification and attribution with the organisation and performing his duty. Meyer and
Herscovitch (2001) proposed that commitment is a force that binds an individual to a
course of action of relevance to one or more targets. Buchanan (1974) defines commitment
DVDSDUWLVDQDIIHFWLYHDWWDFKPHQWWRWKHJRDOVDQGYDOXHVRIDQRUJDQLVDWLRQWRRQHVUROH
LQ UHODWLRQ WR JRDOV DQG YDOXHV RI DQ RUJDQLVDWLRQ WR RQHV UROHV Ln relation to goals and
values and to the organisation for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental worth.
Levy (2003) purports that organisational commitment can be defined as the strength of an
LQGLYLGXDOV LGHQWLILFDWLRQ ZLWK DQG LQYROYHPHQW LQ the organisation. According to
Scarpello and Ledvinka (1987), organisational commitment is the outcome of a matching
SURFHVVEHWZHHQWKHLQGLYLGXDOVMRE-related and vocational needs on the one hand and the
RUJDQLVDWLRQV DELOLW\ WR VDWLVI\ WKHVH QHHGV RQ the other. Despite the lack of consensus,
various definitions, conceptualisations and measurements, a common theme is shared
across all these deviations, namely that organisational commitment is considered to be a
bond or linkage of the individual to the organisation (Martin & Roodt, 2008).

The evolution of organisational cRPPLWPHQW KDV VSDQQHG RYHU  \HDUV )URP %HFNHUV
(1960) one-side-bet theory, to the Porter et al. (1974) affective dependence theory, to
2
5HLOO\ DQG &KDWPDQV  DQG 0H\HU DQG $OOHQV (1984, 1991) multi-dimension
period until WRGD\V&RKHQVWZR-GLPHQVLRQDQG6RPHUVFRPELQHGWKHRU\
each of which has had a strong impact on the current state of organisational commitment
(WeiBo et al ., 2010). According to Suliman and Isles (2000a), there are currently four
main approaches to conceptualising and exploring organisational commitment. There is the

34

behavioural approach, the attitudinal approach, the normative approach and the
multidimensional approach.

2.2.1 +RZDUG%HFNHUV (1960) Side-bet T heory (Behavioural A pproach)

Howard Becker (1960) defined organisational commitment as the side-bet theory (Cohen,
2007). This approach was one of the earliest attempts to study a comprehensive conceptual
framework about organisational commitment from the perspective on the individual's
relationship with the organisation (WeiBo et al ., 201$FFRUGLQJWR%HFNHUVWKHRU\WKH
UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ HPSOR\HH DQG RUJDQLVDWLRQ LV EDVHG RQ WKH FRQWUDFW RI HFRQRPLF
exchange behaviour, committed employees are committed because they have totally
KLGGHQ RU VRPHZKDW KLGGHQ LQYHVWPHQWV VLGH-EHWV WKH\ KDYH PDGH E\ UHPDLQLQJ LQ D
given organisation (Becker, 1960). He emphasises that this commitment only happens once
the employee has recognised the cost associated with discontinuing his association with the
organisation.

While the side-bet theory was abandoned as a leading commitment theory, the close
relationship between organisational commitment and turnover as advanced by Becker
affected most of the later conceptualisations of commitment and established turnover as the
main behaviour that should be affected by organisational commitment (Cohen, 2007). The
influence of the side-EHW DSSURDFK LV HYLGHQW LQ 0H\HU DQG $OOHQV (1991) Scale, which
might be named as the continuance commitment scale (Cohen, 2007). This scale was
advanced as a tool for the better testing of the side-bet approach and is one of the three
dimensions of organisational commitment outlined by Meyer and Allen (1991).

35

2.2.2

T he Porter et al. (1974) A ttitudinal A pproach

The focus of commitment shifted from tangible side-bets to the psychological attachment
one had to the organisation (Cohen, 2007). The attitudinal approach advanced by Porter
and his colleagues attempted to describe commitment as a focused attitude,
uncontaminated by other constructs such as behavioural intentions (WeiBo et al ., 2010).

Accordingly, commitment was defined by Porter and his supporters as the relative strength
of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organisation (Mowday

et al., 1979). The exchange theory was established as the main explanation for the process
of commitment (Mowday et al ., 1982). They advanced commitment as an alternative
construct to job satisfaction and argued that commitment can sometimes predict turnover
better than job satisfaction (Cohen, 2007).

Although Porter and his colleagues had contributed to the evolution of organisational
commitment, they still continued with one of the basic assumptions of Becker's theory,
namely, the strong ties between commitment and turnover and following the onedimensional guidance (WeiBo et al ., 2010).

2.2.3

T he Normative A pproach

The normative approach is the third approach, which argues that congruency between
employee goals and values and organisational aims make the employee feel obligated to
the organisation (Becker et al ., 1995). 7KLVDSSURDFKUHIHUVWRDQHPSOR\HHVFRPPLWPHQW
to continue working for the organisation based on the notion of weighing cost-benefits of
leaving an organisation (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). From this point of view,

36

RUJDQLVDWLRQDO FRPPLWPHQW KDV EHHQ GHILQHG DV WKH WRWDOLW\ RI LQWHUQDOLVHG QRUPDWLYH
pressures to act in a way which meets organisational goals DQGLQWHUHVWV:HLQHU).

2.2.4

M ulti-dimensional A pproach

%HFNHUVDQG3RUWHUVWKHRULHVDOOEHORQJWRWKHRQH-dimension era (WeiBo

et al., 2010). Two leading multi-dimensional approaches were advanced in the 1980s, one
from O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) and the other from Meyer and Allen (1984) (Cohen,
2007). There were some other multi-dimensional approaches, but these had much less
impact than the two main ones (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).

2.2.4.1 25HLOO\DQG&KDWPDQV0XOWLGLPHQVLRQD l Approach

O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) built their approach upon what they portrayed as the
problematic state of commitment research, namely the failure to differentiate carefully
among the antecedents and consequences of commitment on the one hand, and the basis
for attachment on the other (Cohen, 2007). They defined commitment as the psychological
attachment felt by the person for the organisation, reflecting the degree to which the
individual internalises or adopts the characteristics or perspectives of the organisation.
They argued that one's psychological attachment may be predicted by three independent
factors:
a) Compliance or instrumental involvement for specific, extrinsic rewards;
b) Identification or involvement based on a desire for affiliation; and
c) Internalisation or involvement predicated on the congruence between individual
and organisational values.

37

They believed that compliance would occur when attitudes and corresponding behaviours
are adopted in order to gain specific rewards. Identification would occur when an
individual accepts influence to establish or maintain a satisfying relationship. Lastly,
internalisation would occur when the attitudes and behaviours that one is encouraged to
DGRSWDUHFRQJUXHQWZLWKRQHVRZQYDOXHV

Although O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) presented an interesting approach to commitment,

for unclear reasons and because of its unclear questionable mechanism few researchers
have followed this approach (WeiBo et al ., 2010). Instead, the approach of Meyer and
Allen (1984) became the dominant one to the study of commitment.

2.2.4.2 0H\HUDQG$OOHQV7KUHH-Component Conceptualization of Employee

Commitment
Meyer and associates (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001) conceived the
three-component model of organisational commitment which incorporates affective,
continuance and normative as the three dimensions of organisational commitment.

0H\HU DQG $OOHQ  GHILQHG DIIHFWLYH FRPPLWPHQW DV DQ HPSOR\HHV HPRWLRQDO
attachment to, identification with and involvement LQ WKH RUJDQLVDWLRQ FRQWLQXDQFH
FRPPLWPHQWDVFRPPLWPHQWEDVHGRQWKHFRVWVWKDWHPSOR\HHVDVVRFLDWHZLWKOHDYLQJWKH
RUJDQLVDWLRQ DQG QRUPDWLYH FRPPLWPHQW DV DQ HPSOR\HHV IHHOLQJV RI REOLJDWLRQ WR
UHPDLQ ZLWK WKH RUJDQLVDWLRQ Employees with strong affective commitment remain
because they want to, those with strong continuance commitment because they need to,
and those with strong normative commitment because they feel they ought to do so (Allen
& Meyer, 1990).

38

Meyer and Allen (1991) found that the three forms of commitment are related yet
distinguishable from one another as well as from job satisfaction, job involvement, and
occupational commitment. Accordingly, some employees, for example, might feel both a
strong need and a strong obligation to remain, but no desire to do so; others might feel
neither a need nor obligation but a strong desire, and so on. The 'net sum' of a person's
commitment to the organisation, therefore, reflects each of these separable psychological
states (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Given their conceptual differences, it seems reasonable to
suggest that each of the three components of commitment develop somewhat
independently of the others as a function of different antecedents (Allen & Meyer, 1990).
Figure 2.5 presents the three-dimensional organisational commitment model.

Mathieu and Zajac (1990) found organisational commitment to be strongly related to the
LQWHQWLRQ WR OHDYH RQHV MRE DQG WR WKH LQWHQWLRQ WR VHDUFK IRU MRE DOWHUQDWLYHV 7KH\ DOVR
found a positive relationship between organisational commitment and lateness as well as
organisational commitment and turnover. Thus, a better understanding of the behaviour
and a better knowledge of the antecedents of organisational commitment will enable
organisations to manage these withdrawal behaviours.

39

Cor relates of O rganisational

Commitment
x
Job Satisfaction
x
Job Involvement
x
Occupational Commitment

A ntecedents of A ffective
Commitment
x
Personal Characteristics
x
Organisational
Characteristics
x
Work Experience

A ffective
Commitment

A ntecedents of C ontinuance
Commitment
x
Effective Alternatives
x
Investments

Continuance
Commitment

A ntecedents of Normative
Commitment
x
Psychological Contract
x
Social Experiences/
Early socialisation
x
Investments difficult to
reciprocate

Normative
Commitment

0 or 0 or -

- +
+

T urnover Intention
A nd
T urnover

O n-the-Job Behaviour
x
Attendance
x
OCB
x
Performance

E mployee H ealth
A nd
Well-Being

F igure 2.5: O rganisational Commitment M odel

Source: M eyer et al ., 2002

2.2.4.2.1 A ffective Commitment

Mowday et al . (1982:27) conceptualised affective commitment DVDQLQGLYLGXDOVDWWLWXGH
towards the organisation, consisting of a strong belief in, and acceptance of, an
RUJDQLVDWLRQVJRDOVZLOOLQJQHVVWRH[HUWFRQVLGHUDEOHHIIRUWRQEHKDOIRIWKHRUJDQLVDWLRQ
DQGDVWURQJGHVLUHWRPDLQWDLQPHPEHUVKLSLQWKHRUJDQLVDWLRQ

Organisational members that are committed to an organisation on an affective basis,

continue working for the organisation because they want to (Meyer & Allen, 1991), and
DFFRUGLQJWR5RP]HNWKHVHHPSOR\HHVZLOOJHQHUDOO\DFWLQWKHRUJDQLVDWLRQVEHVW
interest and are less likely to leave the company. Eisenberger et al . (1986) maintain that
individuals will expend different degrees of effort and maintain differing affective

40

responses to an organisation depending upon perceived commitment of an organisation to

an employee within the organisation. Therefore, employees will exhibit organisational
commitment in exchange for organisational support and rewards. Bagraim (2003) however,
PDLQWDLQV WKDW DIIHFWLYH FRPPLWPHQW GHYHORSV LI HPSOR\HHV DUH DEOH WR PHHW WKHLU
expectations and fulfil their nHHGVZLWKLQWKHRUJDQLVDWLRQ

The organisational commitment model of Meyer and Allen (1997) indicates that affective
commitment is influenced by factors such as job challenge, role clarity, goal clarity, goal
difficulty, receptiveness by management, peer cohesion, equity, personal importance,
feedback, participation and dependability. Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) found that
affective commitment had a positive relationship with regard to turnover, absenteeism, job
performance and organisational citizenship behaviour. These employees have less intention
of leaving their respective organisation and more willing to accept change (Iverson &
Buttigieg, 1998).

2.2.4.2.1.1 Antecedent variables associated with affective commitment

Mowday et al. (1982) suggested that the antecedents of affective attachment to the
organisation fall into four categories: personal characteristics, job characteristics, work
experiences and structural characteristics. As Meyer and Allen (1987) pointed out,
however, the strongest evidence has been provided for work experience antecedents, most
notably those experiences that fulfil employees' psychological needs to feel comfortable
within the organisation and competent in the work-role. Meyer and Allen (1991; 1997)
suggested that the variables associated with affective commitment can all be categorised
into three major categories: personal characteristics, organisational characteristics and
work experiences.

41

2.2.4.2.1.1.1 Personal characteristics

The relationship between demographic variables and affective commitment are neither
strong nor consistent (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Variables associated with commitment that
may be significant for those employed in higher quality organisations generally include
personal characteristics such as age, tenure, gender, family status and educational level,
need for achievement, sense of competence and a sense of professionalism (Thornhill et

al., 1996).
Employee age Kalderberg et al. (1995) argue that as workers get older,
alternative employment options generally decrease, making their current job more
attractive. They pointed out that older individuals may have more affective
commitment to the organisation because they have greater history with the
organisation than younger workers.

Gender - As far as gender is concerned, the results are inconsistent (Nyengane,

2007). Mathieu and Zajac (1990) in a meta-analytic study of 14 studies with 7420
subjects involving gender and organisational commitment suggest that gender may
affect employees perceptions of their workplace and attitudes towards the
organisation.

Organisational tenure - Mathieu and Zajac (1990) reviewed 38 samples that

included 12290 subjects and found a positive link between organisational tenure
and affective commitment. Meyer et al . (1993) indicated that an analysis of
organisational tenure showed that middle tenure employees exhibited less measured
commitment than new or senior employees did.

42

Although the relationship between gender, age and tenure as well as educational level and
organisational commitment has been extensively studied, the literature has yet to provide
strong and consistent evidence to enable an unequivocal interpretation of the relationship
(Meyer & Allen, 1997; Chen & Francesco, 2000).

2.2.4.2.1.1.2 Organisational characteristic

Meyer and Allen (1991) suggest that affective commitment develops as a result of
H[SHULHQFHV WKDW VDWLVI\ HPSOR\HHV QHHG WR IHHO SK\VLFDOO\ DQG SV\FKRORJLFDOO\
comfortable in the organisation. Employees who perceive a high level of support from the
organisation are more likely to feel an obligation to repay the organisation in terms of
affective commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Hult (2005) maintains that if the fit between
a new employee and their organisational environment is high, the employee will display
high levels of commitment.

2.2.4.2.1.1.3 Work experience

Hartmann (2000) as well as Meyer and Allen (1997) concur that, work experience
variables have the strongest and most consistent correlation with affective commitment in
most studies. They also maintain that commitment develops as a result of experiences that
PHHW WKHLU QHHGV DFFRUGLQJ WR +HU]EHUJV  K\JLHQH-motivation theory (Meyer &
Allen, 1991). Affective commitment to the organisation is stronger among employees
whose leaders allow them to participate in decision-making (Rhodes & Steers, 1981) and
those who treat them with consideration (DeCottis & Summer, 1987).

43

2.2.4.2.2 Continuance Commitment

According to Allen and Meyer (1990), as well as Meyer and Allen (1991; 1997),
continuance commitment is conceived as a tendency to engage in consistent lines of
DFWLYLW\EDVHGRQWKHLQGLYLGXDOVUHFRJQLWLRQRIWKHFRVWVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKGLVFRQWLQXLQJWKH
activity and limited employment alternatives. Continuance commitment is thus the extent
to which employees perceive that they have to stay with the organisation, because the costs
of leaving are too high.

The costs associated with leaving are manifested in two distinct ways (Allen & Meyer,
1990)7KHILUVWPDQLIHVWDWLRQUHVXOWVIURPHPSOR\HHVGHFLVLRQWRUHPDLQHPSORyed in the
organisation because of personal investments (retirement benefits, seniority status, access
to a social network, specialised and un-transferable job skills, familial ties, and more.) that
they have made as a result of the number of years they have been employed in a particular
organisation. The second manifestation emanates from the perceived difficulty in finding a
comparable job elsewhere. Thus, Meyer and Allen (1991) propose that because of side-bets
and a lack of job alternatives elsewhere, employees with a strong continuance commitment
remain with the organisation because it provides them with desirable personal outcomes
and benefits that they are unwilling to sacrifice. This extrinsic form of commitment derives
from economic and instrumental principles that are based on compliance, such as people
remaining committed in order to obtain specific rewards or to avoid specific punishment
(Meyer et al ., 2004; Randall et al ., 1990).

A considerable number of studies suggest that continuance commitment consist of two

separate dimensions, namely the perceived sacrifice associated with leaving and the
perceived lack of employment alternatives (Johnson & Chang, 2006; Panacio &

44

Vandenberghe, 2009). Both personal sacrifice and perceived lack of employment

alternatives increase the costs associated with leaving the organisation. Thus, continuance
commitment is based on expectations of immediate or future rewards and cost
contingencies in comparison to available alternatives (Randall et al ., 1990).

2.2.4.2.2.1 Antecedent variables associated with continuance commitment

Continuance commitment can develop because of any action or event that increases the
costs of leaving the organisation, provided the employee recognises that these costs have
been incurred (Meyer & Allen, 1991). They summarise these actions and events in terms of
two sets of antecedent variables: investments and effective alternatives.

2.2.4.2.2.1.1 Investments
Investments refer to any actions that would result in considerable potential loss, should the
individual decide to leave the organisation (Allen & Meyer, 1990).

Work related investments include such things as the time spent acquiring non-transferable
skills, the potential loss of benefits and giving up a senior position and its associated
rewards (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Non-work related investments might include the
disruption of personal relationships and the expense and human cost of relocating a family
to another city. Investments can also take the form of time devoted to a particular career
track or development of work groups or even friendship networks (Romzek, 1990).
Leaving the organisation could mean that the employee would stand to lose or would have
wasted time, money or effort that was invested. These investments are assumed to increase
in number and magnitude over time. Thus, age and tenure are associated with the
accumulation of investments.
45

2.2.4.2.2.1.2 E ffective alternatives

0H\HU DQG $OOHQ  VXJJHVW WKDW DQ HPSOR\HHV SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH DYDLODELOLW\ RI
alternatives will be negatively correlated with continuance commitment. They reckon that
employees who think they have viable alternatives will have weaker continuance
commitment than those who think their alternatives are limited.

2.2.4.2.3 Normative Commitment

1RUPDWLYH FRPPLWPHQW UHIHUV WR HPSOR\HHV IHHOLQJV RI REOLJation and loyalty to the
organisation (Meyer & Allen, 1991; 1997). As noted by Mowday et al . (1979), normative
FRPPLWPHQW UHIOHFWV DQ LQGLYLGXDOV JHQHUDOLVHG YDOXH OR\DOW\ DV D UHVXOW RI SULPDU\
socialisation in a culture that emphasises loyalty to institutions, including organisations.
This very simply indicates that normative commitment reflects the notion that individuals
incorporate the organisational goals and values as well as WKHRUJDQLVDWLRQVmission into
their own identities. Hence it could be assumed that employees with high levels of
normative commitment feel that they ought to continue their association with the
organisation (Meyer & Allen, 1991).

According to Meyer et al . (2004), instances when employees feel an obligation toward

their employers are strengthened by the cultural values of loyalty and receipt of benefits,
they are more willing to stay with the organisation and repay their perceived debt. It is also
believed that employees who have been led to consider via various organisational
practices, early socialisation efforts, or their own personal history, that the organisation
deserves their loyalty will be likely to have a strong normative commitment (Meyer &
Allen, 1997). Therefore, employees who are committed to their organisation on a
normative basis engage in work activities on the basis of a sense of duty. They behave in

46

DFFRUGDQFHZLWKRUJDQLVDWLRQDOJRDOVEHFDXVHWKH\EHOLHYHLWLVWKHULJKW and moral thing

WRGR:LHQHU). For instance, if the organisation is loyal to employees, in turn, they
will exhibit a high degree of normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Bagraim,
2003; Meyer & Allen, 1991; 1997; Meyer et al ., 2002).

Consequently, employees with low levels of normative commitment might not feel any
obligation to support the organisation, unless motivated. Furthermore, non-committed
employees might describe the organisation in negative ways to outsiders thereby inhibiting
the organisation from recruiting highly qualified employees (Chughtai & Zafar, 2006;
Mowday et al ., 1982).

Several studies have demonstrated that normative commitment is distinguishable from

affective and continuance commitment, because it does not reject a need to associate with
the organisation's goals or missions, and that there is also no explicit extrinsic exchange
involved in the relationship (Jaros et al ., 1993; Meyer & Parfyonova, 2010). Furthermore,
normative commitment is different from the affective and continuance commitment solely
because it does not include intrinsic exchange in its relationship (Angle & Lawson, 1993).
On the contrary, Meyer et al . (2002) finds that normative commitment is strongly
correlated with affective commitment, and thus shares some of the antecedents and
consequences as compared to continuance commitment.

Meyer and Parfyonova (2010) propose that normative commitment constitutes moral duty
and indebted obligation. Drawing from the psychological contracts perspective, they argue
that employees who accept the norm of lifetime commitment consider such commitment to

47

be morally right for their determination to want to stay with the organisation, regardless of
how much status enhancement or satisfaction the organisation gives over the years.

2.2.4.2.3.1 Antecedent variables associated with normative commitment

Normative commitment might develop based on the psychological contract between an
employee and the organisation, early socialisation influences, and investments that are
difficult to reciprocate (Allen & Meyer, 1990).

2.2.4.2.3.1.1 Psychological contract

A psychological contract refers to the beliefs of the parties involved in an exchange
relationship regarding their reciprocal obligations. Although psychological contracts can
take different forms, Allen and Meyer (1990) suggest that the transactional and relational
might be closely related to continuance commitment. They describe transactional contracts
as more objective and based on principles of economic exchange while relational contracts
as more abstract and based on principles of social exchange. Furthermore, they consider
relational contracts more relevant to normative commitment while transactional contracts
might be involved in the development of continuance commitment.

2.2.4.2.3.1.2 E arly socialisation

Socialisation can carry with it all sorts of messages about the appropriateness of particular
attitudes and behaviours within the organisation (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Amongst these
attitudes could be the idea that employees owe it to the organisation to continue
employment. Meyer and Allen (1997) assume internalisation to be the process involved in
the development of normative commitment during the early days of assuming employment

48

with an organisation. They reason that through a complex process involving both
conditioning and modelling of others, individuals can develop normative commitment.

2.2.4.2.3.1.3 Investments difficult to reciprocate

It has also been suggested that normative commitment develops on the basis of a particular
kind of investment that the employees find difficult to reciprocate (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
For example, if an organisation sponsored tuition on behalf of an employee, the employee
might feel uncomfortable and indebted. Given the norms of reciprocity, employees might
develop feelings of obligation to the organisation as they try to rectify the imbalance.
Cultural and individual differences exist in the extent to which people will internalise
reciprocity norms and therefore in the extent to which organisational investments will lead
to feelings of indebtedness.

2.2.5

Consequences of O rganisational Commitment

The relationship between organisational commitment and various consequences has been
well established in the literature (Moshoeu, 2011). Several consequences of organisational
commitment have gained popularity in the organisational behaviour field, namely turnover
intention, performance, organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and attendance (Jaros,
1997).

2.2.5.1 Turnover intention

Several studies have documented that all three components of commitment correlate
negatively with turnover intentions among a variety of employees (Cooper-Hakim &
Viswesvaran, 2005; Powell & Meyer, 2004; Meyer et al ., 2002; Beck & Wilson, 2000;

49

Allen & Meyer 1996; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990) with affective
commitment correlating most strongly, followed by normative and continuance
commitment (Meyer et al (PSOR\HHVUHWHQWLRQLQWKHRUJDQLVDWLRQDSSHDUVWREH
one of the most studied consequences of organisational commitment, because when
employees resign they take with them their research, skills and experiences and this has
cost implications for the organisation in terms of recruitment, selection and training
procedures.

As noted by Zangaro (2001), the inability to retain highly qualified staff has an adverse
effect on organisational effectiveness and the costs thereof. As a result, Johnson and Chang
(2006) maintain that organisations must adopt practices and procedures that will be valued
by employees in order to ensure their commitment and retention. These findings suggest
that improving organisational commitment may be beneficial not only for employees
themselves but also for the productivity of the organisation.

2.2.5.2 Job performance

Meyer and Allen (1997) argue that affective commitment and normative commitment
relate positively to job performance and discretionary citizenship behaviour. That is,
employees who want to maintain membership in the organisation will also do what it takes
to make the organisation successful. This will also be true for employees who feel a sense
of obligation to remain with the organisation, although the willingness to do more than is
required might not be quite as strong as for affective commitment.

50

2.2.5.3 Organisational citizenship behaviour (O C B)

Organisational citizenship behaviour, also known as extra-role behaviour is generally not
considered a requirement of the work role in the organisation (Shore & Wayne, 1993).
Basically, OCB includes behaviours that employees choose to offer to the organisation
without concern for immediate formal rewards. In this instance, Meyer and Allen (1997)
note that employees with strong affective commitment are more likely to engage in
organisational citizenship behaviour in order to foster better interpersonal relationship
between themselves and especially to support the overall organisational functioning as
compared to employees with either continuance or normative commitment.

Other aspects that can cultivate and foster commitment in the organisation are internal
promotion policies and job security; performance based reward policies and job challenge
and autonomy might bolster perceptions of personal competence (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).
In addition, studies have shown that fostering commitment among the employees in the
organisation is important, because employees that are highly committed stay longer,
perform better, miss less work and engage in organisational citizenship behaviours (Chang

et al., 2007; Chughtai & Zafar, 2006; Hui & Lee, 2000; Jaros, 1997; Salami, 2008;
Suliman & Iles, 2000a). Consequently, Rothmann (2003) maintains that it is crucially
important for any organisation to streamline employees' effectiveness in coping with the
demands of the new world of work as well as stimulating their growth in areas that could
possibly impact on their well-being and organisational efficiency and effectiveness.

51

2.3

L eadership Style and O rganisational Commitment

In numerous studies, transformational leaders were found to generate higher commitment

in their followers (Bass, 1998; Avolio, 1999; Avolio & Yammarino, 2003). For instance,
Koh et al . (1991) noted greater organisational commitment of school teachers and students
if their principals were rated more transformational. Fuller et al . (1996) reported in a metaanalysis, greater follower compliance if their leaders were more transformational than
transactional.

Research, development and practical applications in the 25 years since Burns' (1978)
significant publication on transforming leaders, has shown that transformational leadership
generally generates greater follower effectiveness and satisfaction than does transactional
leadership, although effective leaders certainly perform using the full range of styles
(Avolio, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Bass, 1985a, 1998). For example, Bass et al . (2003),
reported that for 72 U.S. light infantry platoon leaders, those who were rated higher on
transformational leadership, led their platoons more effectively in near-combat readiness
missions one month later.

Hayward et al . (2004) noted that transformational leadership has a moderate positive

correlation with affective commitment. Lower correlation coefficients between
transformational leadership and normative and continuance commitment were also found.
The findings have further indicated that no correlation was found between transactional
leadership and affective, normative and continuance commitment.

Other researchers such as Kent and Chelladurai (2001) indicated that individualised
consideration has a positive relationship with both affective commitment and normative
52

commitment. Similarly, positive correlations were found between intellectual stimulation

and both affective commitment and normative commitment.

Bass and Avolio (1994) revealed that transformational leaders who encourage their
followers to think critically and creatiYHO\ FDQ KDYH DQ LQIOXHQFH RQ WKHLU IROORZHUV
commitment. This is further supported by Walumbwa and Lawler (2003) that
WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO OHDGHUV FDQ PRWLYDWH DQG LQFUHDVH IROORZHUV PRWLYDWLRQ DQG
organisational commitment by getting them to solve problems creatively and also
understanding their needs. Price (1997) further suggests that employees are far more likely
to be committed to the organisation if they have confidence in their leaders. However,
contingent reward behaviours that represent transactional leadership have been found to be
reasonably associated with performance and work attitudes of followers although at a
lower level than transformational leadership behaviours (Bass, 1990a; Bass & Avolio,
1990c).

Studies outside of the United States in diverse organisational settings revealed that context
and contingencies were of importance as a source of variance in observations of
transformational leadership, but the fundamental phenomena transcended organisations,
cultures and countries (Bass, 1997). In Spain, Molero and Morales (1994) completed a
study in 40 primary health care centres of the transformational leadership of the centre coordinators. They found that the leadership of the coordinators were more likely to be
legitimate in the eyes of team members in those centres in which coordinators earned
higher MLQ scores on each of the transformational factors. Team members found it was
more acceptable for such coordinators to organise, manage, control and evaluate their

53

performance. Role conflict was lower, interpersonal relations improved and a greater
feeling of autonomy existed when the coordinators were seen as transformational.

In the Philippines, Catanyag (1995) observed that schools prepared their students more
efficiently when school principals obtained higher transformational scores on the MLQ
than the scores from teachers. In Austria, Geyer and Steyrer (1998) demonstrated that
MLQ transformational ratings of 120 branch bank managers predicted long-term branch
market share and customer satisfaction. In Canada, Howell and Avolio (1993) noted that
the transformational, but not the transactional scores of department supervisors in a large
Canadian financial institution predicted consolidated departmental performance one year
later. Parallel findings were obtained in studies of managers in a Chinese state enterprise
(Davis et al ., 1997), Polish and Dutch managers (Den Hartog, 1997), and supervisors on
North Sea oil platforms off of Scotland (Carnegie, 1995).

Lee (2005) found that transformational leadership correlates significantly with

organisational commitment with samples of research and development professional in
Singapore. He also noted that, transactional leadership did not have a significant
relationship with organisational commitment.

In 2011, a study conducted by Alqudah (2011), noted that there was a strong positive
relationship between the transformational leadership behaviours and organisational
commitment in all three of its dimensions. Alqudah (2011) also noted that a weak but
significant correlation exists between laissez-faire leadership and both affective and
continuous commitment.

54

A few exceptions, however, were reported; for example, a study conducted by Dr Baloch
and associates (2010) in Pakistan amongst 312 private sector college teachers, indicated
WKDW WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO OHDGHUVKLS KDG  LPSDFW RQ HPSOR\HHV FRPPLWPHQW ZKLOH
WUDQVDFWLRQDOOHDGHUVKLSRQHPSOR\HHVFRPPLWPHQW7KHUHVXOWDOVRLQGLFDWHVWKDWthe
transactional leadership style is a stronger predictor of organisational commitment than
transformational leadership style (Baloch et al., 2010). Similarly, a study conducted in
Malaysia by Lo et al . WLWOHGLeadership styles and organizational commitment: a
WHVW RQ0DOD\VLDPDQXIDFWXULQJLQGXVWU\ concluded that there was a stronger impact on
organisational commitment for transactional leadership styles, and that managers may
anticipate lesser conflict between supervisors and general employees in organisations when
HPSOR\HHV YDOXHV UHIOHFW WKHLU FXlture, indicating a cultural bias to leadership and
organisational commitment.

Avolio and Bass (1991) proposed a hierarchical ordering of leadership constructs with
respect to their relationship with performance. They purported that transformational
leadership would be most highly correlated with effectiveness followed by transactional
and passive styles of leadership (passive management by exception and laissez-faire
leadership). Their assumption has been confirmed in meta-analyses by Gaspar (1992),
Fuller et al . (1996), Lowe et al . (1996), as well as Dumdum et al. (2002).

In a South African study, Nyengane (2007) indicated that there is a positive relationship
between transformational leadership behaviours and commitment. The correlation analysis
also indicated a weak but significant positive relationship between transactional leadership
behaviours and continuance commitmentZKLFKLVLQFRQWUDVWWR/HHV (2004) Singaporean

55

study. NyengDQHV correlation results also showed a weak but significant negative
correlation between laissez-faire leadership behaviours and affective commitment.

2.4 Summary
Various authors such as Stogdill (1974), Yukl (2009), Schilbach (1983), and others agree
that leadership is a critical factor in the success or failure of an organisation; excellent
organisations begin with excellent leadership and successful organisations reflect their
leadership (Bass, 1994; 1997).

Three major leadership theories that have been developed over time are the trait theories,
behavioural theories and situational/contingency theories. Each of these approaches
describes different dimensions of leadership and their effects on the relationship between
leaders and their followers. The full range of leadership, as measured by the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), implies that every leader displays a frequency of both
WKH WUDQVDFWLRQDO DQG WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO IDFWRUV EXW HDFK OHDGHUV SURILOH LQYROYHV PRUH RI
one and less of the other (Bass, 1999). Those leaders who are more satisfying to their
followers and who are more effective as leaders are more transformational and less
transactional (Avolio & Bass, 1991).

Based on the different components of commitment, organisational commitment can be

described as a multidimensional concept. According to Meyer and Allen, organisational
commitment can be classified into affective commitment (emotional attachment),
continuance commitment (costs associated with leaving the organisation) and normative
commitment (moral obligation to remain with the organisation).

56

The literature has shown that transactional and transformational leadership can get results
from subordinates that are beyond expectations (Bass, 1997). Leaders can contribute to an
HPSOR\HHV desire to remain committed to the organisation by inducing employees trust
and confidence in them. Bass (1990a) noted that the leadership research over the years has
proved that loyalty is more powerful than tangible inducements. Price (1997) further
suggests that employees are far more likely to be committed to the organisation, if they
have confidence in their leader.

The literature indicates that organisational commitment is linked to various variables,

which include both personal variables such as age and gender, leadership style and trust.
The literature also reveals that commitment entails a high level of identification with the
RUJDQLVDWLRQV JRDOV DQG YDOXHV D ZLOOLQJQHVV WR H[HUW H[WUD HIIRUW IRU WKH EHQHILW RI WKH
organisation and a strong desire to maintain membership in the organisation (Morrow,
1983). Organisational commitment has been identified as a useful measure of
organisational effectiveness, because high levels of commitment can lead to several
favourable organisational outcomes. Suliman and Iles (2000a) identify the following
important aspects of organisational commitment:
x

It fosters better superior-subordinate relationships;

It enhances organisational development, growth and survival;

It improves the work environment;

It negatively influences withdrawal behaviour such as turnover, lateness and

absenteeism; and

,WKDVDSRVLWLYHLPSDFWRQHPSOR\HHVUHDGLQHVVWRLQQRYDWHDQGFUHDWH

57

From a theoretical point of view, studies have shown that transformational leaders
generally outperform transactional leaders in employee satisfaction, intellectual
stimulation, and performance (Jung, 2001).

Clearly, employee commitment reflects the quality of the leadership in the organisation
(Stum, 1999). According to Nyengane (2007), it would be logical to assume that leadership
style has a significant influence on the growth of an organisation.

58

C H APT ER 3

3 T H E R ESE A R C H D ESI G N A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y
3.1

Introduction

The previous chapters reviewed the literature pertaining to leadership style and employee
commitment. This chapter describes the research methodology used in this study to test the
hypothesis and the rationale behind it. The population, sample and the sampling approach
are described. Furthermore, the two instruments that were used in the study are described
and their applicability discussed. Finally, a brief description of the relevant statistical
techniques used in the study is also provided.

According to Babbie and Mouton (2004), there are different types of social research
methods that can be identified from the literature, namely exploratory research, descriptive
research and explanatory research. Peil (1992) stated that much of the social research,
especially in developing countries, sets out to explore a new era or at least one about which
little is known in the local context. This very aptly describes the present research as a first
of its kind in a nuclear facility in South Africa. Thus, the nature of this study lends itself
towards exploratory research, an insightful, stimulating exploration of the relationship
between leadership styles being practiced within Necsa and employee commitment to the
organisation.

59

3.2

Research H ypothesis

The overall goal of the research was to identify different dimensions of leadership style
that have an influence on employee commitment in general and to be able to determine the
relationship between the two. Thus, the main objective of the study was to investigate the
relationship between various leadership styles and various employee commitment styles at
a nuclear facility in South Africa.

In this study transactional leadership referred to a leader-follower relationship that is based

on a series of exchanges or bargains between leaders and followers (Howell & Avolio,
1993); in contrast, transformational leadership referred to a leader that goes beyond
exchanging inducements for desired performance (Bass, 1985a) and involves stimulating
followers to transcend their own self-interests for a higher collective purpose, mission, or
vision (Bass, 1985a; Howell & Avolio, 1993). Laissez-faire leadership, referred to the
leader who is absent when needed, and who avoids making decisions (Bass & Avolio,
2000).

From the identification of the broad objectives of the research, the specific hypothesis was
formulated. The hypotheses were concerned with the relationship between the various
leadership styles being practiced within the organisation and its influence on the various
employee commitment styles. Therefore, the hypotheses (illustrated in Table 3.1) for this
study were as follows:

60

T able 3.1: T abulated H ypotheses of L eadership versus Commitment

T ransformational
L eadership
T ransformational
L eadership
T ransactional
L eadership
L aissez-faire
L eadership
A ffective
Commitment
Continuance
Commitment
Nor mative
Commitment

T ransactional
L eadership

L aissezF aire
L eadership

H01

H04

H07

H02

H05

H08

H03

H06

H09

A ffective
Commitment

Continuance
Commitment

Nor mative
Commitment

Ha1

Ha2

Ha3

Ha4

Ha5

Ha6

Ha7

Ha8

Ha9

Statistical
Significant
Relationship

No Statistical
Significant
Relationship

H01: There is no statistical significant relationship between transformational leadership

and affective commitment to the organisation.
Ha1: There is a statistical significant relationship between transformational leadership and
affective commitment to the organisation.

H02: There is no statistical significant relationship between transformational leadership

and continuance commitment to the organisation.
Ha2: There is a statistical significant relationship between transformational leadership and
continuance commitment to the organisation.

H03: There is no statistical significant relationship between transformational leadership

and normative commitment to the organisation.
Ha3: There is a statistical significant relationship between transformational leadership and
normative commitment to the organisation.

H04: There is no statistical significant relationship between transactional leadership and

affective commitment to the organisation.
Ha4: There is a statistical significant relationship between transactional leadership and
affective commitment to the organisation.

61

H05: There is no statistical significant relationship between transactional leadership and

continuance commitment to the organisation.
Ha5: There is a statistical significant relationship between transactional leadership and
continuance commitment to the organisation.

H06: There is no statistical significant relationship between transactional leadership and

normative commitment to the organisation.
Ha6: There is a statistical significant relationship between transactional leadership and
normative commitment to the organisation.

H07: There is no statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and

affective commitment to the organisation.
Ha7: There is a statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and
affective commitment to the organisation.

H08: There is no statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and

continuance commitment to the organisation.
Ha8: There is a statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and
continuance commitment to the organisation.

H09: There is no statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and

normative commitment to the organisation.
Ha9: There is a statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and
normative commitment to the organisation.

62

3.3

Research design

The study followed the following steps:

Firstly, the research method was determined based on the literature review, and on
previous research undertaken, in order to compare results. Secondly, the population was
determined for this research to be the entire staff component of Necsa, and the sampling
was determineGXVLQJ(piIQIRDVWDWistical program that determines the required sample
based on the entire population. It was assumed that if the worst acceptable result was a
minimum of 80% (worst case scenario), then a response rate of 26 managers and 32
subordinates will be required for a 95% confidence level. Data collection would therefore
be complete when 26 managers and 32 VXERUGLQDWHV forms have been handed in. Thirdly,
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and Organisational Commitment
Questionnaire (OCQ) were selected. Fourthly, the questionnaires were distributed
randomly, and the data collected. Fifthly, data was captured using Microsoft Excel, and
finally data statistical analysis was done using Stata.

3.4

E thics

Ethical considerations of confidentiality and privacy were addressed. A concerted and

conscious effort was made at all times to uphold this promise. Participation in this study
was voluntary. A guarantee was given to the Necsa respondents that their names would not
be revealed in the research report (see Appendices A, B and C). In order to ensure the
success of the research, managers were linked to subordinates in such a manner that each
subordinates response would remain anonymous apart from being linked to a particular
manager. The researcher also assured them that there would be no negative consequences
if they withdrew from the study or did not answer specific questions. The researcher has

63

reported the findings in a complete and honest fashion, without misrepresenting or

compromising the outcome of the study.

3.5 Population and sampling procedure

The targeted population for this study was the Necsa staff comprising professionals
(managers, engineers and technicians) and their subordinates. For the purpose of this study,
out of a population of 102 managers, a sample of 58 was randomly drawn to achieve a
FRQILGHQFH OHYHO RI  DV FDOFXODWHG XVLQJ (SL,QIR $V VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH  
managers successfully completed and returned the questionnaires, resulting in a response
rate of 58.62%. Only 26 responses were required for a confidence level of 95%.

T able 3.2: Population, sample and responses rates

M anagers Subordinates
Population 102

538

Sample

58

290

Responses

34

163

In order to obtain a holistic view of the overall leadership style present in the organisation,
three or more subordinates (per randomly selected manager) were also randomly selected
for the administration of the rater version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire . A
sample of 290 subordinates was targeted from a population of approximately 538 for a
required confidence level of 99% DV GHWHUPLQHG E\ (SL,QIR. A total of 163
questionnaires were completed and returned, resulting in a response rate of 56.2%. Only
108 responses were required for a confidence level of 95%. The total number of responses
analysed, including leaders and their corresponding raters, were 197.

64

3.6

M easuring instruments

Two questionnaires were used in this research to obtain information on leadership and
organisational

commitment,

respectively,

namely

the

Multifactor

Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ) and Organisational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ).

3.6.1

M ultifactor L eadership Q uestionnaire [M L Q]

The MLQ was formulated from the Full Range Leadership Development Theory (Bass &
Avolio, 1997), and has been improved and tested since 1985 with the result that many
versions of the questionnaire have been developed. The latest version, Form 5X (Revised),
was used in this study. The MLQ has been tested for reliability and validity in a number of
settings (Pruijn & Boucher, 1994). Yammarino and Bass (1990) have proved the content
and concurrent validity of the MLQ. Bass and Avolio (1997) also demonstrate the
construct validity of the MLQ. The reliability of the MLQ has also been proven on many
occasions through test-retest, internal consistency methods and alternative methods (Bass
& Avolio, 1997). Not only has the MLQ been tested in the international context (Bass &
Avolio, 1997) but also in the South African context (Ackerman et al ., 2000). The MLQ is
valid and reliable and has been used extensively worldwide (Bass & Avolio, 1997;
Whitelaw, 2001). It has proven to be a strong predictor of leader performance across a
broad range of organisations (Bass & Avolio, 1997; Tonelli, 2008). The results of these
test-retest studies indicate that the components of transformational, transactional and nontransactional leadership are reliably measured by the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1997;
Hayward, 2005). The Full Range Leadership Development Theory is a suitable theoretical
construct of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997; Sosik & Jung, 2012).

65

The MLQ takes the form of a number of statements about the leadership style of the
individual being tested. The questionnaire used in this study contains 45 statements that
identify and measure the key aspects of leadership behaviours. Each statement corresponds
to one of the nine components or sub-variables of either transformational, transactional or
laissez-faire leadership factors. Sub-variables representing transformational leadership
include Idealised Influence (attributed), Idealised Influence (behaviour), Inspirational
Motivation, Individualised Consideration and Intellectual Stimulation. Transactional
leadership style is represented by two sub-variables called Contingent Rewards and
Management-by-exception. Management-by-exception is also divided into Managementby-exception-active (MBEA) and Management-by-exception-passive (MBEP). Thus, MLQ
5X (Revised) contains nine factors; the eight sub-variables listed above and Laissez-Faire
as the ninth.

The MLQ comprises a 5 point Likert-scale and the respondents were instructed during the
administration of the questionnaires to mark the most suitable answer. The scale ranges
from 0 to 4; 0 representing Not at all, and 4 representing Frequently if not always.

Each respondent was required to assess and testify as to how frequently the behaviours
described by each of the statements are exhibited by their leader. The MLQ consists of two
YHUVLRQVNQRZQDVWKH5DWHU9HUVLRQDQGWKH6HOI-5DWHU9HUVLRQVHH$SSHQGL[ D and
Appendix E). These two versions consist of exactly the same statements, except that they
are written from different perspectives. The leader, for example, would be given the
VWDWHPHQW,VSHQGWLPHWHDFKLQJDQGFRDFKLQJZKHUHDVWKHVXERUGLQDWHVTXHstionnaire
ZRXOGVD\7KHSHUVRQ,DPUDWLQJVSHQGVWLPHWHDFKLQJDQGFRDFKLQJ

66

In this study, leaders completed the Self-Rater MLQ, by rating themselves in terms of the
transformational, transactional or laissez-faire leadership factors. Subordinates completed
the Rater version of the same questionnaire. The leaders were rated in terms of the same
FULWHULDRQZKLFKWKH\UDWHGWKHPVHOYHV,QRUGHUWRJDLQDQDFFXUDWHSLFWXUHRIWKHOHDGHUV
ability, the Rater MLQ was completed by three or more respondents (Bass, 1985b).
Examples of items from the transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership are
shown in Table 3.3 below:

T able 3.3: Items from the transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles
T R A NSF O R M A T I O N A L L E A D E RSH IP
Idealised influence (attributed)
Idealised influence (behaviour)
Inspirational motivation
Individualised consideration
Intellectual stimulation
T R A NSA C T I O N A L L E A D E RSH IP
Contingent rewards
Management-by-exception-active
Management-by-exception-passive
L A ISSE Z-F A I R E
Laissez-faire

E X A MPL E
I instil pride in others for being associated with me.
I specify the importance of having a strong sense of
purpose.
I talk optimistically about the future.
I spend time teaching and coaching.
I re-examine critical assumptions to question
whether they are appropriate.
I provide others with assistance in exchange for
their efforts.
I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes,
exceptions and deviations from standards.
I fail to interfere until problems become serious.
I avoid getting involved when important issues
arise.

3.6.1.1 Reliability and validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

The MLQ has been tested for reliability and validity in many settings (Pruijn & Boucher,
1994). Bass (1985b), Bass and Avolio (1989) as well as Yammarino and Bass (1990) have
proved the content and concurrent validity of the MLQ. Avolio and Bass (1997) also
proved the construct validity of the MLQ. According to Bass and Avolio (1997), further
reliability of the MLQ has been proven many times through test-retest, internal consistency
methods and alternative methods.

67

Avolio, Bass and Jung (1999) confirmed the reliability of the MLQ by using a large pool
of data (N = 1394). According to Avolio et al . (1999), the MLQ scales exhibited high
internal consistency and factor loadings. They reported reliabilities for total items and for
each leadership factor scale that ranged from 0.74 to 0.94.

Den Hartog et al . (1997) also investigated the internal consistency of the MLQ subscales.
Their study group consisted of approximately 1200 employees from several diverse
organisations (commercial businesses, health-care organisations, welfare institutions and
ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV 5HOLDELOLW\ &URQEDFKV $OSKD FRHIILFLHQW IRU WKH subscales of
transformational leadership ranged from 0.72 to 0.93; transactional leadership ranged from
0.58 to 0.78; and laissez-faire leadership was 0.49.

The MLQ has also been tested specifically in the South African environment. Ackermann,
Schepers et al . (2000) utilised the MLQ to determine whether the factor structure of the
MLQ, as a measure of transformational leadership, could be replicated in South Africa.
8VLQJ&URQEDFKV$OSKDFRHIILFLHQW$FNHUPDQQDQGKLVFROOHDJXHVGetermined the
reliability of the three main scales within the MLQ, namely transformational, transactional
or laissez-faire. The resultant scores of 0.944, 0.736 and 0.803 were obtained, respectively.

3.6.2

O rganisational Commitment Q uestionnaire [O C Q]

Meyer and Allen (1984) initially distinguished between two types of commitment:
affective commitment and continuance commitment. Affective commitment denoted a
sense of belonging and emotional attachment to the organisation, whereas continuance
commitment emphasised the perceived costs of leaving the organisation. Allen and Meyer
(1990) subsequently introduced a third component of commitment, normative

68

commitment, which reflected the perceived obligation to remain with the organisation.
They created a pool of 51 items for the scale. The scale was tested with approximately 500
employees from two manufacturing firms and a university. Clerical, managerial and
supervisory employees were represented in the sample. Females represented 57 percent of
the sample. Scale items for measuring affective, normative and continuance commitment
were selected for inclusion in the scales based on a series of decision rules that took into
consideration item endorsement proportions, item-total correlations, direction of scoring
and content redundancy (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Later, Meyer et al . (1993) revised the
normative commitment scale to clarify the distinction between affective commitment and
normative commitment.

While the earlier versions (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1984; 1991) of the OCQ
contained 24 items (8 items for each scale), the later version by Meyer and Allen (1997) as
well as Meyer et al . (1993) only contained 18 items (6 items for each scale). In this study,
the affective, continuance and normative commitment of employees were assessed through
WKHDGPLQLVWUDWLRQRI%DJUDLPVDGDSWDWLRQRI0H\HUDQG$OOHQVLWHPV
three-dimensional commitment measure. Bagraim (2004) found that his 12 item adaptation
of the multi-dimensional approDFKDVHYLGHQWLQ0H\HUDQG$OOHQVPHDVXUHWREH
warranted and appropriate in the South African context. Examples of items from the OCQ
include: (a) affective commitment ,IHHOOLNHSDUWRIWKHIDPLO\DWWKLVRUJDQLVDWLRQE
continuance commitment ,ZRXOGQRWOHDYHWKLVRUJDQLVDWLRQULJKWQRZEHFDXVHRIZKDW
I would stand to loseDQGFQRUPDWLYHFRPPLWPHQW ,ZRXOGYLRODWHDWUXVWLI,TXLW
P\MREZLWKWKLVRUJDQLVDWLRQQRZ

The OCQ comprised a 5-pointLikert-scale and the respondents were instructed during the

69

administration of the questionnaires by the researcher to mark the most suitable answer
(see Appendix F). The scale ranges from 0 to 4; 0 representing Strongly Disagree, and 4
representing Strongly Agree.

$OOHQDQG0H\HUV(1990) examination of the relationships between the commitment scales

revealed that the continuance commitment scale was relatively independent from affective
(p < 0.001, r = 0.06) and normative (p < 0.001, r = 0.14) commitment. However, the
correlations between the affective and normative scales were statistically significant and
relatively strong (p < 0.001, r = 0.51). Cohen (1996) reported similar findings: normative
and affective (p < 0.001, r = 0.54), normative and continuance (non-significant, r = 0.06),
and continuance and affective (non-significant, r = 0.02).

3.6.2.1 Reliability and validity of the Organisational Commitment Questionnaire

6HYHUDO VWXGLHV KDYH EHHQ FRQGXFWHG WR H[DPLQH WKH UHOLDELOLW\ &URQEDFKV $OSKD
coefficient) of the OCQ. Allen and Meyer (1990) reported the reliability of the affective
commitment scale as 0.87, continuance commitment scale as 0.75 and the normative
commitment scale as 0.79. Dunham et al . (1994) found alpha ranges of 0.74 to 0.87 for
affective, 0.73 to 0.81 for continuance and 0.67 to 0.78 for normative commitment. Cohen
(1996) discovered alphas of 0.79 for affective, 0.69 for continuance and 0.65 for normative
commitment.

Meyer et al . (2002) performed a meta-analysis of studies using both the 6-item and 8-item
OCQ. They collected data from people who had sought permission to use the OCQ during
the last 15 years as well as from computer databases dating back to 1985. The mean
reliability from all the studies was 0.82 for affective, 0.73 for continuance and 0.76 for

70

normative. These results showed that the three commitment constructs could be reliably
measured.

Meyer and Allen, 1991; Clugston et al ., 2000; Lee et al ., 2001 and Rashid et al ., 2003
reliability values (coefficient alpha) for each dimension are summarised in Table 3.4.

T able 3.4: T he reliability of the A llen and M eyer (1990) questionnaire

Commitment

A llen & Meyer

C lugston et

L ee et

Rashid et

Dimension

(1990)

al . (2000)

Affective

0.87

0.85

0.86

0.92

Continuance

0.75

0.88

0.61

0.93

Normative

0.79

0.80

0.74

0.72

al . (2001) al . (2003)

Source: A dapted from A llen & M eyer (1990:6); C lugston et al . (2000:13); L ee et al . (2001:600) and
Rashid et al . (2003:718).

This OCQ instrument has also been shown to have validity across various cultural contexts
and has been regarded as a measure of turnover intention. Wasti (2003) analysed the Allen
and Meyer (1990) instrument in a Turkish context and concluded that the results supported
the cross cultural validity of the instrument. This was confirmed by Lee et al . (2001) in a
South Korean environment. Their findings show that there is a good factorial validity in
the instrument together with validity with respect to turnover intention (Lee et al ., 2001).
This instrument has been successfully tested within the South African context by Manetje
(2005), Louw and Boshoff (2006), Nyengane (2007) and Van Stuyvesant-Meijen (2007).

71

3.7

Research variables

Responses to research statements were scaled and converted to quantitative data via a code
manual developed by Bass and Avolio (1991) for the MLQ and Allen and Meyer (1990)
for the OCQ, to enable segmentation of the data responses into various variables based on
leadership behaviours and associated performance variables. Table 3.5 lists the variables
that were part of this study. Three separate sub-variables of organisational commitment
were used. These sub-variables were the affective commitment scale, continuance
commitment scale and normative commitment scale of the OCQ. Sub-variables measuring
Full Range Leadership behaviours were considered separately. The sub-variables for these
variables are
Inspirational

Idealised Influence (Attributed), Idealised Influence (Behaviour),

Motivation,

Intellectual

Stimulation,

Individualised

Consideration,

Contingent Reward, Management-by-exception (Active), Management-by-exception

(Passive) and Laissez-faire.

T able 3.5: Research variables

Instrument
V ariables
Sub-variables
V ariables for O rganisational Commitment
Organisational
Commitment
Questionnaire

Organisational
commitment

Indicators

Affective Commitment

Questions 1, 4, 9, 10

Continuance Commitment

Questions 7, 8, 11, 12

Normative Commitment

Questions 2, 3, 5, 6

Idealised Influence (Attributed)

Questions 10, 18, 21, 25

Idealised Influence (Behaviour)

Questions 6, 14, 23, 34

Inspirational Motivation

Questions 9, 13, 26, 36

Intellectual Stimulation

Questions 2, 8, 30, 32

Individual Consideration

Questions 15, 19, 29, 31

Contingent Reward

Questions 1, 11, 16, 35

V ariables for L eadership

Transformational
Leadership
Multifactor
Leadership
Questionnaire
Transactional
Leadership

Laissez-faire

Management-by-exception
(Active)
Management-by-exception
(Passive)
Laissez-faire

Questions 4, 22, 24, 27

Questions 3, 12, 17, 20
Questions 5, 7, 28, 33

72

3.8

Data collection

A list of all managers and professional employees in the sample was obtained from the
Human Resource Manager. The researcher and the Human Resource Senior Manager then
drafted a letter (see Appendices A, B and C) that was sent via e-mail to the relevant
managers and professional employees in the sample. This letter informed the managers and
employees in the sample about the purpose and confidentiality of the research as well as
request voluntary consent forms to be signed. The researcher held meetings with certain
HR managers and senior managers, where the reasons and method of the study was
discussed and emphasised.

For the purposes of this research, the questionnaires were used to gather the necessary
information. In an attempt not to disrupt business operations and to ensure that the
respondents would receive the documents in the shortest possible time, questionnaires were
distributed through the internal mailing system. Each questionnaire was accompanied by a
further covering letter (see Appendix C) explaining the purpose of the study to the
prospective respondent. General instructions on completing the questionnaire and the
importance of completing all questions were included. The covering letter also explained
why it was important that the potential respondent personally complete the questionnaire.
This technique of data collection addressed issues of cost, time and geographical
constraints (since Necsa is a site spread out on a 35 Km2 plot).

In both measuring instruments, the respondents were informed that they will be allowed to
leave a question/answer blank if the question appeared unclear or ambiguous. Contact
details were provided on the covering letter, offering the manager and employees the
opportunity to contact the researcher in the event of any queries or problems that may
73

arise. The covering letter requested the respondents to return the questionnaire and answer
sheet, via the internal mailing system or hand deliver, to the researcher.

3.9

Data capturing

Once the questionnaires had been completed, the researcher then coded the responses in
each questionnaire. These scores were captured in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for
statistical analysis with respect to Leader, Rater, and Organisational Commitment. The
managers were numbered L-1 to L-34. The subordinates were numbered L1-E1, L1-E2 and
so on, in this research. In this way the subordinates could be linked to the managers and
anonymity was also maintained. The scores captured onto a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
were then exported into STATA (data analysis software) for analysis.

3.10 Conclusions
The main objective of the study was to investigate the relationship between various
leadership styles and various employee commitment styles at a nuclear facility in South
Africa.

Avolio et al . (1999) confirmed the reliability of the MLQ, and the MLQ has been
successfully tested in the South African environment by Ackeman and colleagues (2000).
Bagraim (2004) found that his 12 item adaptation of the multi-dimensional approach to
RUJDQLVDWLRQDO FRPPLWPHQW DV HYLGHQW LQ 0H\HU DQG $OOHQV  PHDVXUH WR EH
warranted and appropriate in the South African context. Ethical considerations of
confidentiality and privacy were addressed as well as record will be kept for forty years. In

74

an attempt not to disrupt business operations and to ensure that the respondents would
receive the documents in the shortest possible time, questionnaires were distributed
through the internal mailing system. This technique of data collection addressed issues of
cost, time and geographical constraints.

The previous chapters discussed the theoretical background of the research topic, and this
chapter discussed the research process and methods of obtaining both the relevant
information and the subsequent results. The following chapter will present the results
obtained from correlation analysis conducted in an attempt to test the research hypothesis.

75

C H APT ER 4

4 A N A L YSIS O F R ESU L TS
The previous chapter discussed the methodology followed within this study. The goals of
the research and the hypothesis were presented. The chapter also alluded to ethical
considerations; the research population and sample; the instruments used and the
respective reliability and validity; the process of data collection, capturing and analysis; the
FDOFXODWLRQRI&URQEDFKV$OSKDFRHIILFLHQWDQGILQDOO\WKHK\SRWKHVLVWHVWLQJ7KLVFKDSWHU
presents and discusses the results of the correlation analysis of the research hypothesis and
the assessment of the reliability of the research data. Descriptive statistics were used to
summarise quantitative data and relationships which are not apparent in the raw data. This
helped to interpret and understand the results.

4.1

Response rate

As indicated in Table3.2, of the 58 leaders surveyed in the sample, 34 managers

successfully completed and returned the questionnaires, resulting in a response rate of
58.62%. A sample of 290 subordinates was targeted from a population of approximately
538. A total of 163 questionnaires were completed and returned, resulting in a response
rate of 56.2%. Finally, the total sample size, including leaders and their corresponding
raters, equals 197 respondents, amounting to a total response rate of 56.61%. Over 82.74%
of the 197 respondents were raters or subordinates.

76

4.2

Reliability

&URQEDFKV DOSKD FRHIILFLHQWVZHUH FDOFXODWHGWRHVWLPDWHWKH UHOLDELOLW\ RIWKH0/4DQG

OCQ instruments of this research. As advised by Sekaran (2000), and discussed earlier,
coefficients less than 0.6 are considered poor, coefficients greater than 0.6, but less than
0.8, are considered acceptable and coefficients greater than 0.8 are considered good.

4.2.1 &URQEDFKV$OSKD5HOLDELOLW\&RHIILFLHQW6FRUHVIRUWKH0/4
&URQEDFKV DOSKD UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQWV ZHUH FDOFXODWHG WR HVWLPDWH WKH UHOiability of the
0/4LQVWUXPHQWDQGUHVXOWVDUHJLYHQLQ7DEOHEHORZ7KHDYHUDJH&URQEDFKVDOSKD
reliability coefficient for the MLQ instrument is 0.973, which according to Sekaran (2000)
is good. According to Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), a reliability of 0.90 is the minimum
that should be tolerated, and a reliability of 0.95 should be considered the desirable
standard.

Table 4.2 illustrates the alpha coefficients for the individual factors of the MLQ.
$FFRUGLQJWR6HNDUDQVFULWHULDWUDQVIormational leadership as well as transactional
leadership is rated as good; however, laissez-faire is rated as acceptable. Accordingly, each
of the questions in the MLQ from Table 4.1 is reliable, and the MLQ instrument is a
reliable measure of transformational leadership, transactional leadership and laissez-faire
leadership. The item-test correlation shows how highly correlated each item is with the
overall scale. The item-rest correlation (which may be more helpful; SPSS calls it the
Corrected Item-Total Correlation) shows how the item is correlated with a scale computed
from only the other items.

77

7DEOH&URQEDFKV$OSKD5HOLDELOLW\&RHIILFLHQWVIRU0/44XHVWLRQV1 
C ronbach's A lpha: 0.9727
Interim C ovariance: 0.4729175
N of Items: 90
Item-test
Item-rest
Interitem
Item
Id
A lpha
cor relation
cor relation
covar iance
Leader
0.319
0.290
0.477
0.973
Q1
Rater
0.654
0.640
0.463
0.972
Q1
Leader
0.208
0.189
0.478
0.973
Q2
Rater
0.711
0.699
0.465
0.972
Q2
Leader
-0.150
-0.173
0.479
0.973
Q3
Rater
-0.444
-0.467
0.506
0.975
Q3
Leader
0.078
0.043
0.478
0.973
Q4
Rater
-0.123
-0.151
0.495
0.974
Q4
Leader
-0.009
-0.037
0.479
0.973
Q5
Rater
0.470
0.445
0.470
0.972
Q5
Leader
0.130
0.106
0.478
0.973
Q6
Rater
0.557
0.539
0.470
0.972
Q6
Leader
-0.011
-0.038
0.479
0.973
Q7
Rater
0.396
0.372
0.476
0.973
Q7
Leader
0.119
0.101
0.478
0.973
Q8
Rater
0.640
0.626
0.468
0.972
Q8
Leader
0.112
0.095
0.478
0.973
Q9
Rater
0.721
0.709
0.463
0.972
Q9
Leader
0.142
0.122
0.478
0.973
Q10
Rater
0.735
0.721
0.459
0.972
Q10
Leader
0.126
0.108
0.478
0.973
Q11
Rater
0.734
0.723
0.462
0.972
Q11
Leader
0.016
-0.007
0.478
0.973
Q12
Rater
0.597
0.576
0.466
0.972
Q12
Leader
0.029
0.012
0.478
0.973
Q13
Rater
0.724
0.713
0.461
0.972
Q13
Leader
0.036
0.017
0.478
0.973
Q14
Rater
0.796
0.788
0.460
0.972
Q14
Leader
0.197
0.176
0.478
0.973
Q15
Rater
0.736
0.723
0.462
0.972
Q15
Leader
0.044
0.016
0.478
0.973
Q16
Rater
0.730
0.716
0.460
0.972
Q16
Leader
0.241
0.206
0.477
0.973
Q17
Rater
0.084
0.055
0.487
0.974
Q17
Leader
0.275
0.250
0.477
0.973
Q18
Rater
0.703
0.691
0.460
0.972
Q18
Leader
-0.092
-0.119
0.479
0.973
Q19
Rater
0.517
0.497
0.468
0.972
Q19
Leader
0.205
0.175
0.478
0.973
Q20
Rater
0.562
0.543
0.471
0.972
Q20
Leader
0.434
0.422
0.477
0.973
Q21
Rater
0.746
0.735
0.460
0.972
Q21
Leader
0.247
0.218
0.477
0.973
Q22
Rater
-0.420
-0.440
0.505
0.975
Q22
Leader
0.111
0.095
0.478
0.973
Q23

C ronbach's A lpha: 0.9727

Interim C ovariance: 0.4729175
N of Items: 90
Item-test
Item-rest
Interitem
Item
Id.
A lpha
cor relation
cor relation
covar iance
Rater
0.677
0.664
0.467
0.972
Q23
Leader
-0.111
-0.148
0.479
0.973
Q24
Rater
-0.130
-0.160
0.492
0.974
Q24
Leader
-0.019
-0.039
0.478
0.973
Q25
Rater
0.496
0.478
0.472
0.972
Q25
Leader
0.071
0.054
0.478
0.973
Q26
Rater
0.754
0.743
0.461
0.972
Q26
Leader
0.196
0.161
0.477
0.973
Q27
Rater
0.448
0.427
0.474
0.973
Q27
Leader
0.021
-0.003
0.479
0.973
Q28
Rater
0.390
0.363
0.475
0.973
Q28
Leader
0.329
0.315
0.478
0.973
Q29
Rater
0.609
0.591
0.468
0.972
Q29
Leader
0.252
0.231
0.477
0.973
Q30
Rater
0.704
0.692
0.464
0.972
Q30
Leader
0.276
0.261
0.478
0.973
Q31
Rater
0.805
0.796
0.457
0.971
Q31
Leader
0.142
0.126
0.478
0.973
Q32
Rater
0.770
0.761
0.460
0.972
Q32
Leader
0.095
0.069
0.478
0.973
Q33
Rater
0.482
0.457
0.471
0.972
Q33
Leader
0.065
0.047
0.478
0.973
Q34
Rater
0.759
0.750
0.462
0.972
Q34
Leader
0.174
0.159
0.478
0.973
Q35
Rater
0.678
0.665
0.462
0.972
Q35
Leader
0.019
0.004
0.479
0.973
Q36
Rater
0.720
0.711
0.463
0.972
Q36
Leader
0.298
0.281
0.478
0.973
Q37
Rater
0.767
0.758
0.459
0.971
Q37
Leader
0.136
0.117
0.478
0.973
Q38
Rater
0.819
0.811
0.455
0.971
Q38
Leader
0.269
0.252
0.478
0.973
Q39
Rater
0.615
0.598
0.469
0.972
Q39
Leader
0.148
0.129
0.478
0.973
Q40
Rater
0.797
0.788
0.457
0.971
Q40
Leader
0.233
0.221
0.478
0.973
Q41
Rater
0.753
0.744
0.460
0.971
Q41
Leader
0.373
0.358
0.477
0.973
Q42
Rater
0.807
0.799
0.456
0.971
Q42
Leader
-0.039
-0.054
0.479
0.973
Q43
Rater
0.730
0.720
0.463
0.972
Q43
Leader
-0.044
-0.062
0.479
0.973
Q44
Rater
0.836
0.828
0.458
0.971
Q44
Leader
0.024
0.008
0.478
0.973
Q45
Rater
0.718
0.707
0.463
0.972
Q45

7DEOH&URQEDFKV$OSKD5HOLDELOLW\&RHIILFLHQWVIRU0/4IDFWRUV1 
&URQEDFKVDOSKD reliability coefficient for the M L Q
T ransformational
T ransactional
L aissezL eadership
L eadership
faire
0.97
0.83
0.74

A verage
0.97

78

4.2.2 &URQEDFKV$OSKD5HOLDELOLW\&RHIILFLHQW6FRUHVIRUWKH2&4
&URQEDFKVDOSKDFRHIILFLHQWVZHUHFDOFXODWHGLQRUGHUWRassess the reliability of the OCQ
instrument for this study 7KH &URQEDFKV DOSKD UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQWV IRU WKH 2&4 DUH
JLYHQ LQ 7DEOH  7KH DYHUDJH &URQEDFKV DOSKD UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQW IRU WKH 2&4
instrument is 0.942, which according to Sekaran (2000), is good. The item-test correlation
shows how highly correlated each item is with the overall scale. The item-rest correlation
(which may be more helpful; SPSS calls it the Corrected Item-Total Correlation) shows
how the item is correlated with a scale computed from only the other items.

7DEOH&URQEDFKV$OSKD5HOLDELOLW\&RHIILFLHQWVIRU2&4LQGLYLGXDOTXHVWLRQV1 
C ronbach's A lpha: 0.9416
Interim Covariance: 0.95325
Item

N of Items: 12

Item-test

Item-rest

Interitem

cor relation

cor relation

covariance

A lpha

Q1

0.711

0.655

0.980

0.939

Q2

0.770

0.718

0.950

0.937

Q3

0.790

0.741

0.942

0.936

Q4

0.844

0.813

0.956

0.934

Q5

0.759

0.705

0.953

0.938

Q6

0.665

0.599

0.985

0.941

Q7

0.836

0.796

0.929

0.934

Q8

0.768

0.717

0.951

0.937

Q9

0.852

0.818

0.936

0.934

Q10

0.814

0.774

0.952

0.935

Q11

0.813

0.770

0.941

0.935

Q12

0.760

0.710

0.964

0.937

The results in Table 4.3 indicate reasonably high alphas suggesting that the OCQ
individual questions generally are reliable.

79

7DEOH&URQEDFKV$OSKD5HOLDELOLW\&RHIILFLHQWVIRU2&4)DFWRUV1 
&URQEDFKVDOSKDUHOLDELOLW\FRHIILFLHQWIRUWKH2&4
A ffective
Normative
Continuance
A verage
Commitment
Commitment
Commitment
0.91
0.90
0.89
0.94

According to Sekaran (2000), the OCQ factors of Affective, Normative as well as

Continuance commitment are good. Therefore, for this research, the OCQ instrument is a
reliable measure of affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative
commitment. All the individual questions are well fitting since removal of any item would
decrease the alpha coefficient as indicated by the item-rest column.

4.3

Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistics are arranged as follows:

Part 1: Descriptive statistics of Leadership scores
Part 2: Descriptive statistics of Organisational Commitment scores
Part 3: Relationship

Part 1: Descriptive Statistics of L eadership Scores

Not at A ll

O nce in a
W hile

Sometimes

F ai rly O ften

F requently,
if not A lways

Total
Percentage

T ransformational Leadership

13%

10%

17%

31%

29%

100%

T ransactional Leadership

26%

14%

18%

23%

19%

100%

L aissez- F ai re Leadership

47%

21%

14%

11%

7%

100%

F igure 4.1: L eadership Scores (N=197)

80

From Figure 4.1, the total respondents, being subordinates and managers, rated 31% of
Necsa leadership )DLUO\2IWHQas Transformational, while only 26% regarded leadership
1RW DW $OO as Transactional. A majority of employees (47%) regarded leadership as not
being laissez-faire.

The mean and standard deviation of each variable are detailed in Table 4.5 below:

T able 4.5: Sample sizes, mean scores and standard deviations for the leadership style dimensions.
(N=197)
Dimension

Code

V alid
N

M ean

Modal

Standard

Bass & A volio (1997)

F req.

Deviation

Suggested Range
International
Average

South African
Average

Idealised influence (attributed)

IA

197

2.65

1.12

2.97

Idealised influence (behaviour)

IB

197

2.48

1.09

2.99

Inspirational motivation

IM

197

2.68

1.16

3.04

Individualised consideration

IC

197

2.35

1.17

3.09

Intellectual stimulation

IS

197

2.53

1.07

2.97

T ransfor mational L eadership

TF

197

2.53

1.05

3.01

Contingent rewards

CR

197

2.46

1.15

3.03

Management-by-exception-active

MBEA

197

2.14

1.02

1-2

2.31

Management-by-exception-passive

MBEP

197

1.21

0.94

1.09

T ransactional L eadership

TA

197

1.93

0.56

1-2

2.14

L aissez faire

LF

197

1.11

0.98

0.67

Table 4.5, contains descriptive data for the five transformational leadership subscales, three
transactional subscales, and one laissez-faire subscale. The distribution of scores for the
sample contained reasonable variance and normality for use in subsequent analyses.

All leadership variables hold a sample size of 197, while all commitment variables, where
leaders did not rate themselves (Table 4.6), have a sample size of 163, indicating that there
are no visible inconsistencies in the capturing of the data. The mean values for each of the

81

transformational leadership subscales are all relatively close to 2.5except Individualised

consideration, and those for transactional leadership ranges from 1.21 to 2.46. The mean
values for laissez-faire is 1.11. The greatest standard deviation in the leadership factors is
individualised consideration which attained approximately 1.17 standard deviation scores
with Inspirational motivation a close second. The standard deviation of the variables are
relatively high, indicating a wide spread of responses.

The Modal frequency for Idealised Influence (attributed), Individualised Consideration and
Contingent Reward is on average 4 indicating that both raters and leaders felt that these
attributes were frequently if not always displayed. Whilst attributes of Idealised
Influence (behaviour), Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Managementby-exception (active) were rated on average as 3 indicating that they were fairly often
displayed. Attributes that were on average indicated as not at all displayed were:
Management-by-exception (passive) and Laissez-faire.

For the most effective leadership, Bass and Avolio (1997) suggest mean scores of greater
or equal to 3.0 for Individualised Consideration, Intellectual Stimulation, Idealised
Influence (Behaviour), Idealised Influence (Attributed) and Inspirational Motivation. The
overall scores of leadership subscales obtained in this study (2.35, 2.53, 2.48, 2.65 and
2.68, respectively) are slightly less than what Bass and Avolio (1997) suggested, they are
also less than the average scores obtained from South African studies. This implies that
managers are not displaying the ideal levels of transformational leadership.

Bass and Avolio (1997) also suggested a mean score of 2 for contingent reward, which is
lower-than the cuUUHQWVWXG\V mean score of 2.46. The suggested range for management-

82

by-exception (active) was 1.0 to 2.0 and the mean score obtained for the current study was
2.14, which is slightly outside the range. Suggested scores for management-by-exception
(passive) and laissez-faire are 1.0 and 0.0; however, mean scores for the current study were
1.21 and 1.11, respectively. This indicated a greater level of transactional and laissez-faire
behaviours exhibited by managers.

The reference ranges for South African studies indicate values of 3.03 for Contingent
Reward, 2.31 for Management by exception (Active), 1.09 for Management by exception
(Passive) and 0.67 for Laissez-faire. Contingent Reward and Management by exception
(active) mean scores are below the South African average, whilst Management by
exception (Passive) and Laissez-faire mean values are significantly higher.

These scores in Table 4.5 suggest that managers are not displaying the ideal suggested
levels of transformational leadership behaviours. These behaviours included engendering
trust, inspiring a shared vision, generating enthusiasm, encouraging creativity and
providing coaching. The mean for contingent reward suggests that some employees
perceived their immediate managers as doing an above average job of clarifying
expectations and recognising accomplishments when compared to the international
reference mean. This was also the case for the management-by-exception (active) mean,
which implies that some employees perceived their immediate managers as taking
corrective action in a timely manner. Mean scores for management-by-exception (passive)
and laissez-faire suggests managers tended to wait too long before resolving a problem or
taking corrective action.

83

Part 2: Descriptive statistics of O rganisational Commitment scores

Not at A ll

O nce in a
W hile

Sometimes

F ai rly O ften

F requently,
if not A lways

Total
Percentage

A ffective Commitment

13%

14%

30%

29%

15%

100%

Normative Commitment

18%

24%

21%

25%

13%

100%

Continuance Commitment

16%

21%

22%

24%

16%

100%

F igure 4.2: Commitment Scores (N=163)

In Figure 4.2, 30% of raters or general employees of Necsa, viewed their commitment
6RPHWLPH as Affective whilst 25% ascertained their commitment )DLUO\ 2IWHQ as
Normative. Only 24% of raters or general employees rated their commitment )DLUO\
2IWHQas Continuance.

Meyer and Allen (1997) do not provide guidance about expected, desired, average or ideal
means for organisational commitment scales (namely affective, continuance, and
normative commitment). Instead, they and other researchers (Allen & Meyer, 1996;
Dunham et al ., 1994) examined whether there was a positive or negative relationship
between the different types of organisational commitment, the outcomes that are being
measured, as well as the pattern for those findings. The desired pattern is having the
highest scores for affective commitment, followed by normative commitment and then
continuance commitment.

84

T able 4.6: Sample sizes, mean scores and standard deviations for organisational commitment
dimensions
V alid

Code

Affective Commitment

AC

163

2.19

1.23

Continuance Commitment

CC

163

2.03

1.33

Normative Commitment

NC

163

1.91

1.31

O rganisational commitment

OC

163

2.05

1.29

M ean

Modal

Dimension

F requency

Standard Deviation

All commitment variables have a sample size of 163. The mean scores indicated in Table
4.6 for affective commitment is 2.19, which is significantly higher than normative
commitment at 1.91. Table 4.6 also indicates mean scores for continuance commitment
which are slightly higher than those for normative commitment. The mean scores indicate
the pattern postulated by Allen and Meyer (1996).

The modal frequency for commitment was on average 3 (agree) for Continuance
Commitment, Normative Commitment and Organisational Commitment as a whole. Raters
were neutral with regard to Affective Commitment, rating and average 2.

Part 3: Relationship

4.4

Comparisons between L eader and E mployee Responses

Leaders rated themselves higher in Transformational Leadership and Transactional

Leadership compared to the raters (subordinates) (Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4). 44% of all
Leaders rated themselves Fairly Often as transformational, whilst only 28% of raters
(subordinates) rated their managers Fairly Often as transformational (Figure 4.3). 23% of
/HDGHUVLQGLFDWHGWKDWWKH\GLVSOD\HGWUDQVDFWLRQDOOHDGHUVKLSNot at AllZKLOVWRI

85

their subordinates indicated that their managers did not display any form of transactional
leadership )LJXUH   RI /HDGHUV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH\ GLG 1RW DW $OO GLVSOD\
laissez-faire leadership, and 44% of raters agreed.

F igure 4.3: T ransformational L eadership (L eader versus Rater)

F igure 4.4: T ransactional L eadership (L eader versus Rater)

F igure 4.5: L aissez-F aire L eadership (L eader versus Rater)

86

T-tests were used to compare the means of the two samples (independent). In this case, the
significant differences, between the two samples on the dimensions of the questionnaires,
were determined. The tests carried two critical assumptions regarding data distribution.
The first assumption was that the values in the data set were independent (measured on
randomly selected units from the study area). The second was that the data was normally
distributed. The results are presented in Table 4.7.

T able 4.7: T-tests results for the M L Q (leaders and employees) responses
Standard
Deviation
0.47

V ariable

G roup

M ean

Idealised influence (attributed)

(IA)

Leader

34

3.33

Rater

163

2.51

1.17

Idealised influence (behaviour)

(IB)

Leader

34

3.29

0.45

Rater

163

2.32

1.11

Inspirational motivation
(IM)

Leader

34

3.41

0.44

Rater

163

2.52

1.20

Individualised consideration
(IC)

Leader

34

3.37

0.42

Rater

163

2.14

1.16

Intellectual stimulation
(IS)

Leader

34

3.22

0.38

Rater

163

2.39

1.11

Transformational leadership
(TF)

Leader

34

3.32

0.34

Rater

163

2.37

1.07

Contingent rewards
(CR)

Leader

34

3.15

0.53

Rater

163

2.32

1.19

Management-by-exceptionactive
(MBEA)

Leader

34

2.27

0.98

Rater

163

2.11

1.03

Management-by-exceptionpassive
(MBEP)

Leader

34

1.01

0.75

Rater

163

1.26

0.97

Transactional leadership
(TA)

Leader

34

2.14

0.53

Rater

163

1.89

0.56

Laissez-faire
(LF)

Leader

34

0.66

0.71

Rater

163

1.20

1.01

Weighted
M ean
2.65

2.48

2.68

2.35

2.53

2.53

2.46

2.14

1.21

1.93

1.11

T
Equal Variance Assumed

4.04*

Equal Variance not

Assumed

6.73*

Equal Variance Assumed

5.02*

Equal Variance not

Assumed

8.40*

Equal Variance Assumed

4.24*

Equal Variance not

Assumed

7.36*

Equal Variance Assumed

6.05*

Equal Variance not

Assumed

10.53*

Equal Variance Assumed

4.33*

Equal Variance not

Assumed

7.68*

Equal Variance Assumed

5.14*

Equal Variance not

Assumed

9.39*

Equal Variance Assumed

3.99*

Equal Variance not

Assumed

6.37*

Equal Variance Assumed

0.82

Equal Variance not

Assumed

0.85

Equal Variance Assumed

-1.38

Equal Variance not

Assumed

-1.64

Equal Variance Assumed

2.45*

Equal Variance not

Assumed

3.99*

Equal Variance Assumed

Equal Variance not
Assumed

-2.98*
-3.73*

* Statistically Significant
Differences at p < 0.05

87

According to Table 4.7, transformational leadership and transactional leadership mean

scores for raters are significantly lower than those of the leaders. The values of the
standard deviation show that there is not much difference in variability of the scores of the
two samples in the components of transactional leadership except in the aspect of
contingent reward and Management-by-exception (Active), where there is a marginal
difference. Striking marginal differences in standard deviation also exist in laissez-faire, all
components of transformational leadership as well as transformational leadership as a
whole.

The p-values indicate that there were significant differences between the responses of the
leader and rater as their values were below the 0.05 significance value, except for
Management-by-exception (Active), and Management-by-exception (Passive), which was
above the 0.05 level of significance. This indicates that there is a major difference between
leadership behaviours that are purported to be being practiced by managers and the
behaviours that are being perceived by the employees except in the components of
Management-by-exception (Active), and Management-by-exception (Passive).

4.5

Results of the Cor relation A nalysis

As mentioned previously, the hypotheses of the study were concerned with establishing a
relationship between leadership style and employee commitment. The relationship between
leadership style and organisational commitment was investigated using a two-tailed
Pearson analysis. This provided correlation coefficients which indicated the strength and
direction of linear relationship. The p-YDOXHLQGLFDWHGWKHSUREDELOLW\RIWKLVUHODWLRQVKLSV
significance.

88

The results of the correlation analysis are presented below (Table 4.8). Devore and Peck
(1993) provided a guideline for assessing resultant correlation coefficients as follows:
coefficients less than 0.5 represent a weak relationship, coefficients greater than 0.5, but
less than 0.8, represent a moderate relationship and coefficients greater than 0.8 represent a
strong relationship.
T able 4.8: Cor relation A nalysis
IA
IA
IB
IC
IS
IM
TF
CR
MBEA
MB EP
TA
LF
AC
CC
NC

1.000
0.818
0.000
0.837
0.000
0.836
0.000
0.846
0.000
0.941
0.000
0.849
0.000
0.422
0.000
-0.519
0.000
0.576
0.000
-0.577
0.000
0.211
0.007
0.243
0.002
0.280
0.000

IB

IC

IS

IM

TF

CR

MBE
A

MBE
P

TA

LF

AC

CC

NC

1.000
0.775
0.000
0.773
0.000
0.862
0.000
0.915
0.000
0.853
0.000
0.486
0.000
-0.495
0.000
0.644
0.000
-0.489
0.000
0.198
0.011
0.159
0.043
0.257
0.001

1.000
0.809
0.000
0.808
0.000
0.917
0.000
0.860
0.000
0.396
0.000
-0.477
0.000
0.602
0.000
-0.490
0.000
0.191
0.015
0.239
0.002
0.248
0.001

1.000
0.800
0.000
0.913
0.000
0.851
0.000
-0.330
0.000
-0.597
0.000
0.528
0.000
-0.557
0.000
0.112
0.156
0.244
0.002
0.232
0.003

1.000
0.937
0.000
0.851
0.000
0.374
0.000
-0.501
0.000
0.571
0.000
-0.505
0.000
0.21
0.007
0.232
0.003
0.298
0.000

1.000
0.923
0.000
0.453
0.000
-0.560
0.000
0.638
0.000
-0.555
0.000
0.209
0.007
0.249
0.001
0.292
0.000

1.000
0.370
0.000
-0.529
0.000
0.652
0.000
-0.540
0.000
0.216
0.006
0.232
0.003
0.291
0.000

1.000
-0.237
0.002
0.766
0.000
-0.139
0.077
-0.014
0.864
0.051
0.383
0.081
0.304

1.000
0.065
0.409
0.711
0.000
-0.113
0.153
-0.126
0.111
-0.116
0.142

1.000
-0.044
0.579
0.106
0.178
0.146
0.064
0.211
0.007

1.000
-0.186
0.018
-0.112
0.153
-0.197
0.012

1.000
0.651
0.000
0.763
0.000

1.000
0.646
0.000

The individual research hypotheses as documented earlier in this research were tested. The
results of these hypotheses are given below.

T able 4.9: Summary of H ypotheses Results

A ffective Commitment

Normative Commitment

Continuance Commitment

r-value

r-value

r-value

T ransfor mational

T ransactional

L aissez-faire

L eadership

L eadership

L eadership

0.209*

0.106

-0.186*

Accept

Reject

Accept

0.292*

0.211*

-0.197*

Accept

Accept

Accept

0.249*

0.146

-0.112

Accept

Reject

Reject

* significant at p0.05

89

1.00

4.5.1

H ypothesis O ne

H01: There is no statistical significant relationship between transformational leadership

and affective commitment to the organisation.
Ha1: There is a statistical significant relationship between transformational leadership and
affective commitment to the organisation.

From Table 4.8 it is clear that there is a relatively weak, but significant, positive
relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment (r = 0.209, p <
0.007). The researcher rejects the null hypothesis (H01) and concludes that there is
significant evidence, between transformational leadership and affective commitment since
p < 0.05.

4.5.2

H ypothesis T wo

H02: There is no statistical significant relationship between transformational leadership

and continuance commitment to the organisation.
Ha2: There is a statistical significant relationship between transformational leadership and
continuance commitment to the organisation.

From Table 4.8, it is evident that there is a very weak, but significant, positive relationship
between transformational leadership and continuance commitment (r = 0.249, p < 0.001).
The researcher rejects the null hypothesis (H02) and concludes that there is sufficient
evidence, at the 95% level of significance, that there is a positive relationship between
transformational leadership and continuance commitment.

90

4.5.3

H ypothesis T hree

H03: There is no statistical significant relationship between transformational leadership

and normative commitment to the organisation.
Ha3: There is a statistical significant relationship between transformational leadership and
normative commitment to the organisation.

From Table 4.8, it is clear that there is a relatively weak, but significant, positive
relationship between transformational leadership and normative commitment (r = 0.292, p
<0.000). The researcher rejects the null hypothesis (H03) and concludes that there is
sufficient evidence, at the 95% level of significance, that there is a positive relationship
between transformational leadership and normative commitment.

4.5.4

H ypothesis Four

H04: There is no statistical significant relationship between transactional leadership and

affective commitment to the organisation.
Ha4: There is a statistical significant relationship between transactional leadership and
affective commitment to the organisation.

There is an extremely weak, positive but insignificant relationship between transactional

leadership and affective commitment (r = 0.106, p <0.178). The researcher therefore
accepts the null hypothesis (H04) and concludes that there is insufficient evidence, at the
95% level of significance, of a significant relationship between transactional leadership
and affective commitment.

91

4.5.5

H ypothesis F ive

H05: There is no statistical significant relationship between transactional leadership and

continuance commitment to the organisation.
Ha5: There is a statistical significant relationship between transactional leadership and
continuance commitment to the organisation.

There is a weak, positive relationship between transactional leadership and continuance

commitment (r = 0.146, p < 0.064). The researcher accepts the null hypothesis (H05) and
concludes that there is insufficient evidence, at the 95% level of significance, that there is a
significant relationship between transactional leadership and continuance commitment.

4.5.6

H ypothesis Six

H06: There is no statistical significant relationship between transactional leadership and

normative commitment to the organisation.
Ha6: There is a statistical significant relationship between transactional leadership and
normative commitment to the organisation.

There is a weak, but significant, positive relationship between transactional leadership and
normative commitment (r = 0.211, p <0.007). The researcher therefore rejects the null
hypothesis (H O6) and concludes that there is sufficient evidence, at the 95% level of
significance, of a significant relationship between transactional leadership and normative
commitment.

92

4.5.7

H ypothesis Seven

H07: There is no statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and

affective commitment to the organisation.
Ha7: There is a statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and
affective commitment to the organisation.

There is a weak, but significant, negative relationship between laissez-faire leadership and
affective commitment (r = -0.186, p <0.018). The researcher rejects the null hypothesis
(H07) and concludes that there is sufficient evidence, at the 95% level of significance, that
there is a significant negative relationship between laissez-faire leadership and affective
commitment.

4.5.8

H ypothesis E ight

H08: There is no statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and

continuance commitment to the organisation.
Ha8: There is a statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and
continuance commitment to the organisation.

There is a very weak, but insignificant, negative relationship between laissez-faire

leadership and continuance commitment (r = -0.112, p < 0.153). The researcher therefore
cannot reject the null hypothesis (H08) and concludes that there is insufficient evidence, at
the 95% level of significance, of a significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership
and continuance commitment.

93

4.5.9

H ypothesis Nine

H09: There is no statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and

normative commitment to the organisation.
Ha9: There is a statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and
normative commitment to the organisation.

There is a weak, but significant, negative relationship between laissez-faire leadership and
normative commitment (r = -0.197, p =0.012). The researcher therefore rejects the null
hypothesis (H09) and concludes that there is sufficient evidence, at the 95% level of
significance, of relationship between laissez-faire leadership and normative commitment.

Within the research design of this study, it was originally intended to perform a regression
analysis to test for the hypothesis. However, this could not be conducted due to the
correlation analysis results being weak, namely all correlation coefficients fall below 0.5,
indicating a weak relationship between the leadership dimensions and organisational
commitment within this study (Devore & Peck, 1993). Therefore, the weak correlation
results inhibited a regression analysis of the hypothesis.

4.6

Conclusions

The reliability of the MLQ can be regarded as good since the alpha coefficient is above
0.8. Table 4.3 indicated reasonably high alphas for the OCQ suggesting that the individual
questions are generally reliable.

94

Leaders rated themselves higher in Transformational Leadership and Transactional

Leadership compared to the raters (subordinates). Only 28% of raters (subordinates) rated
WKHLUPDQDJHUV)DLUO\2IWHQDVWUDnsformational, and 27% indicated that their managers
did not display any form of transactional leadership. 44% of raters indicated that their
OHDGHUVPDQDJHUV GLG 1RW DW $OO GLVSOD\ ODLVVH]-faire leadership. The combined mean
scores for the MLQ suggest that the leadership of managers are below the international as
well as the South African reference levels. The scores suggest that managers are not
displaying the ideal suggested levels of transformational behaviours. There was a
significant difference in the scores of leaders and raters. Leaders scored themselves higher
in transformational and transactional leadership compared to their subordinates, indicating
a major difference in behaviours being practiced by managers and behaviours being
perceived by subordinates. With regard to commitment, subordinates rated themselves as
having more affective commitment, and the least amount of normative commitment,
indicating a high emotional attachment but the least an amount of obligation or loyalty.

Correlation analysis found a weak, but significant positive linear relationship between
transformational leadership and affective commitment, continuance commitment and
normative commitment. Furthermore, a weak, but significant, positive linear relationship
between transactional leadership and normative commitment was found. Additionally, it
was found that there is a weak, but significant, negative linear relationship between laissezfaire leadership behaviour and all aspects of organisational commitment.

95

C H APT ER 5

5 D ISC USSI O N, R E C O M M E N D A T I O NS A N D C O N C L USI O NS

5.1

Reliability

Before discussing the research findings, with particular reference to the relevant literature
and previous research, it is necessary to discuss the reliability of the findings of this
research.

This reseaUFK IRXQG WKH DYHUDJH &URQEDFKV DOSKD UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQW IRU WKH 0/4
instrument to be 0.973, which, according to Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), are
desirable. Therefore, for the purposes of this research, the MLQ instrument was deemed
to be a reliable measure of transformational leadership, transactional leadership and
laissez-faire leadership.

7KH DYHUDJH &URQEDFKV DOSKD UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQW REWDLQHG IRU WKH 0/4 GRHV
substantiate the reliability of the MLQ. According to Bass and Avolio (1997) and
Whitelaw (2001), the MLQ is valid and reliable and has been used extensively worldwide.
Research conducted by Ackerman et al . LQ6RXWK$IULFD\LHOGHG&URQEDFKVDOSKD
reliability coefficients of 0.944, 0.736 and 0.803 for transformational, transactional and
laissez-faire leadership, respectively. A recent study conducted by Hayward et al . (2004)
DOVR SURGXFHG &URQEDFKV alpha reliability coefficients of 0.771 and 0.691 for
transformational and transactional leadership, respectively. However, research conducted
by Botha (2001), in South Africa, \LHOGHG &URQEDFKV DOSKD UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQWV RI
0.926, 0.372 and 0.660 for transformational, transitional and laissez-faire leadership,

96

respectively. Botha (2001) found the MLQ instrument to be a reliable measure of

transformational leadership and a poor measure of transactional leadership. The
&URQEDFKV DOSKD UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQWV RI WKLV research is 0.97 for transformational
leadership, 0.83 for transactional leadership and 0.74 for laissez-faire which is almost
similar to the reliability findings of Ackerman et al. (2000) and Hayward et al. (2004).

$GGLWLRQDOO\WKLVUHVHDUFKVDYHUDJH&URQEDFKVDOSKDUHOLDELOLW\FRHIILFLHQWIRUWKH0/4
supports the findings of authors such as Bass and Avolio (1997), Ackerman et al. (2000)
and Whitelaw (2001).

7KLV UHVHDUFK IRXQG WKH DYHUDJH &URQEDFKV DOSKD UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQW IRU WKH 2&4
instrument to be 0.94, which is good. The individual factors for the OCQ namely;
Affective commitment, Normative Commitment and Continuance commitment had alpha
scores of 0.91, 0.90 and 0.89 respectively. Therefore, for this research, the OCQ instrument
was a reliable measure of affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative
commitment.

Several studies have beeQ FRQGXFWHG WR H[DPLQH WKH UHOLDELOLW\ &URQEDFKV Alpha
coefficient) of the OCQ. Allen and Meyer (1990) reported the reliability of the affective
commitment scale as 0.87, of the continuance commitment scale as 0.75 and for the
normative commitment scale as 0.79. Dunham et al . (1994) found alpha ranges of 0.74 to
0.87 for affective, 0.73 to 0.81 for continuance, and 0.67 to 0.78 for normative
commitment. Cohen (1996) discovered alpha coefficients of 0.79 for affective, 0.69 for
continuance, and 0.65 for normative commitment. Research conducted by Meyer et al .
(2002) yielded alpha coefficients of 0.82 for affective, 0.73 for continuance and 0.76 for

97

normative commitment. Hayward et al. (2004) also produced alpha coefficients of 0.791,
0.843 and 0.889 for affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative
FRPPLWPHQW UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH &URQEDFKV DOSKD UHOLDELOLW\ coefficients of this research
with regard to affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment
support the reliability findings of Dunham et al. (1994) and Hayward et al. (2004).

$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHDYHUDJH&URQEDFKVDOSKDUHOLDELOLW\FRHIILFLHQWIRUWKH0/4LQWKLVVWXG\
supports the findings of authors such as Allen and Meyer (1990) and Cohen (1996).

5.2

Discussion of the Results

Transactional leadership refers to a leader-follower relationship that is based on a series of

exchanges or bargains between leaders and followers (Howell & Avolio, 1993). In
contrast, transformational leadership refers to a leader that goes beyond exchanging
inducements for desired performance (Bass, 1985a) and involves stimulating followers to
transcend their own self-interests for a higher collective purpose, mission, or vision (Bass,
1985a; Howell & Avolio, 1993). Laissez-faire leadership, refers to the leader who is absent
when needed, and avoids making decisions (Bass & Avolio, 2000).

For the most effective leadership, Bass and Avolio (1997) suggested mean scores of
greater or equal to 3.0 for Individualised Consideration, Intellectual Stimulation, Idealised
Influence (Behaviour), Idealised Influence (Attributed) and Inspirational Motivation. They
also suggested a mean score of 2 for Contingent Reward and 1.0 and 0.0 for Managementby-exception (passive) and Laissez-faire respectively. For Management-by-exception
(active), they suggested a score of 1 to less than 2.

98

The results of descriptive statistics indicated that whilst Necsa is more transformational
than transactional, the average combined scores for the individual factors were well below
the ideal scores. It was also noted that the average combined scores of the individual
factors were below the average South African scores. This means that managers are not
displaying the ideal levels of transformational leadership behaviours. These behaviours
included engendering trust, inspiring a shared vision, generating enthusiasm, encouraging
creativity and providing coaching. It also seems that some employees perceived their
immediate managers as doing an above average job of clarifying expectations and
recognising accomplishments and taking corrective action in a timely manner, whilst some
managers tended to wait too long before resolving a problem or taking corrective action.

The correlation results suggest that although the relationship is not strong, there is a
positive relationship between the transformational leadership behaviours and commitment
(affective commitment (r = 0.209), continuance commitment (r = 0.249) and normative
commitment (r = 0.292)). This suggests that leadership behaviours, which involve building
trust, inspiring a shared vision, encouraging creativity and emphasising development, is
somewhat positively related to employee commitment.

AIIHFWLYHFRPPLWPHQWLVWKHHPSOR\HHVHPRWLRQDODWWDFKPHQWWRLGHQWLILFDWLRQ with, and

LQYROYHPHQW LQ WKH RUJDQLVDWLRQ 0H\HU  $OOHQ  DQG UHIHUV WR DQ LQGLYLGXDOV
attitude towards the organisation, consisting of a strong belief in, and acceptance of, an
RUJDQLVDWLRQVJRDOVZLOOLQJQHVVWRH[HUWFRQVLGHUDEOHHIIRUWRQEHKalf of the organisation
and a strong desire to maintain membership in the organisation. This is critical to the
organisation, as affective commitment results in better performance and more meaningful
contributions than normative commitment and continuance commitment (Meyer & Allen,

99

1997). According to Meyer and Allen (1997), employees who stay with an organisation
because they feel obligated or need to, do not exhibit the same enthusiasm and
involvement as employees who stay with the organisation because they want to stay. Our
results indicate that employees lean more towards Normative and Continuance
commitment.

Continuance commitment is the extent to which employees perceive that they have to stay
with the organisation, because the costs of leaving are too high. Employees with a strong
continuance commitment remain with the organisation because it provides them with
desirable personal outcomes and benefits that they are unwilling to sacrifice. Employees
with high continuance commitment engage in certain behaviours, not because they feel that
it is the right thing to do or because they want to do it, but because they believe that they
will derive some reward(s) or minimise some cost(s) from doing so.

Employees also feel that they are morally obliged to remain with the organisation (Meyer

et al., 1993) despite better work opportunities elsewhere in the labour market. A sense of
OR\DOW\DQGGXW\XQGHUO\LQJDQHPSOR\HHVQRUPDWLYHFRPPLWPHQWLQIOXHQFHVHPSOR\HHV
decision to remain with the employing organisation because they feel they ought to do so
(Bagraim, 2003; Meyer et al ., 1993). Employees with normative commitment believe
people ought to be loyal to their employer and are obliged to remain with them (Cohen &
Kirenmey, 1995). The feelings of obligation and loyalty stop an employee with normative
commitment from leaving an organisation. Whatever happens to an organisation be it
positive or negative will affect employees with normative behaviour. Allen and Meyer
(1990), for example, found that an employee would have strong normative commitment to

100

the organisation if significant others (such as relatives) have been long-term employees of
the organisation and have stressed the importance of organisational loyalty.

Other researchers have also found weak positive relationships between transformational
leadership behaviours and affective commitment, normative commitment, as well as,
continuance commitment. Lo et al . (2010) found a positive direct relationship between
three dimensions of transformational leadership styles, namely intellectual stimulation,
idealised influence and inspirational motivation, and affective and normative commitment.
They also found that two dimensions of transformational leadership, namely intellectual
stimulation and individualised consideration, were found to have a positive relationship
with continuance commitment.

In a study undertaken by Kent and Chelladurai (2001) in inter-collegiate athletics at an

American University, it was found that individualised consideration has a positive
correlation with both affective commitment (r = 0.475, p <0.001) and normative
commitment (r = 0.354, p < 0.001). They also found positive correlations between
intellectual stimulation and both affective commitment (r = 0.487, p <0.001) and normative
commitment (r = 0.292, p < 0.05). Bycio et al . (1995) found a weak correlation between
the transformational leadership dimensions and affective commitment. They found
correlations of between r = 0.39 and r = 0.45. Also, Podsakoff and his colleagues (1996)
reported weak correlation ranges from r = 0.25 to r = 0.34 between commitment and
different dimensions of transformational leadership. In another study undertaken by
Hayward et al . (2004) in the South African electricity utility of Eskom Southern Region, it
was found that transformational leadership had a moderate positive correlation with
affective commitment (r = 0.5278, p < 0.000). They also found that there was no

101

significant linear relationship between transactional leadership and any of the commitment
types. Nyengane (2007) obtained similar results in a study done DW (VNRPV (DVWHUQ
Region. He found that transformational leadership had a weak positive correlation with
commitment ranging from r = 0.453 for affective commitment to r = 0.175 for continuance
commitment.

In this study the weak, but significant, positive correlation between transactional leadership
and normative commitment suggests that leadership behaviours involving clarification of
goals, exchange of rewards for meeting agreed-on objectives, highlighting problems,
specifying the standards for compliance, as well as what constitutes ineffective
performance, and punishing followers for being out of compliance with those standards, as
well as closely monitoring for deviances, mistakes, and errors and then taking corrective
action as quickly as possible when they occur, seem to inspire a sense of loyalty and duty,
thus encouraging the degree of normative commitment. There was no statistically
significant correlation between transactional leadership behaviours and affective
commitment as well as between transactional leadership behaviours and continuance
commitment. This is in contrast to Nyengane (2007) who found a weak, but significant,
positive relationship between transactional leadership and continuance commitment.

A weak, but significant and negative correlation between laissez-faire leadership behaviour
and affective commitment as well as normative commitment, suggest that leaders who
avoid getting involved when important issues arise, are absent when needed, avoid making
GHFLVLRQVDQGZKRGHOD\UHVSRQGLQJWRXUJHQWTXHVWLRQVQHJDWLYHO\DIIHFWDQHPSOR\HHV
emotional attachment to the organisation, as well as their decision to remain with the

102

organisation. Nyengane (2007) indicated a weak, but significant and negative correlation
between laissez-faire leadership behaviour and affective commitment.

Because transformational leadership has been found to have a significant positive

relationship with employee commitment, the organisation should attempt to develop this
leadership style, as committed employees are most desirable. By implementing
programmes that encourage leaders to develop transformational leadership style, the
organisation will be able to improve the commitment levels of its employees.

One of the reasons why there is a weak correlation between transformational leadership
behaviour and organisational commitment could be the fact that professionals derive their
rewards from inward standards of excellence, from their professional societies and from
the intrinsic satisfaction of their task (Toffler, 1990). Toffler (1990) argues that
professionals are committed to the task, not the job; to their standards, not their boss. And
because they have degrees or diplomas, they easily move from one company to another.
7KH\ DUH QRW JRRG FRPSDQ\ PHQ WKH\ DUH FRPPLWWHG WR WKH FKDOOHQJLQJ HQYLURQPHQWV
where they can play with problems. This reasoning might also explain the lower scores for
affective and continuance commitment.

+DXJDQG'RIQ\LQGLFDWHGWKDWSURIHVVLRQDOVJRDOVDUHGLUHFWHGSULPDULO\LQZDUG

at achieving the goals of the company and advancing within the company. The principal
motivator for a professional is to have an interesting job and a feeling of personal and
professional growth. They may be able to handle many shortcomings in the work situation,
if WKH ZRUN LWVHOI LV FKDOOHQJLQJ 5DXGVHSS  DUJXHV WKDW WKH SURIHVVLRQDOV DWWLWXGH
towards their job is self-directing and they are normally quite happy when given limited

103

supervision. They know they are part of a team, but they still prefer the company to have
confidence in their capabilities so that they can earn greater independence. Dunham et al .
(1994) suggest that thiVUHODWLRQVKLSFRXOGYDU\EDVHGRQHPSOR\HHV perceptions of their
ability to find another job with similar characteristics. Furthermore, it is the fear of loss
that commits the person to the organisation (Meyer & Allen, 1984).

In general, it may be concluded that respondents who are affectively committed to the
organisation are more willing to maintain their relationship with the organisation than
those who are normatively and continuance committed. Affectively committed employees
will thus portray feelings of identification with the organisation, and attachment to and
involvement in the organisation. This is in contrast with the other two dimensions of
commitment, which focus on commitment by virtue of the cost associated with leaving and
a feeling of obligation to remain with the organisation.

The results of the study have important implications for the company that participated in
the study as well as for other South African organisations, which can learn from these
results. An important deduction from the results is that by focusing on affective and
normative commitment, organisations will be able to positively influence the retention of
employees, productive behaviour and employee well-being. The opposite focus, namely
emphasising continuance commitment, or the cost of leaving, will not ensure the same
positive results.

Having now discussed the results of the research and commented on the relation to the
theory, it is necessary to discuss the limitations and implications arising from the study.

104

5.3

Implications for practice

Empirical evidence appears to support the view that leadership style can influence the
development of organisational commitment. These findings suggest that transformational
leadership behaviours are positively related to affective, normative and continuance
commitment. The findings also suggest that transactional leadership behaviours are
positively related to normative commitment.

Organisations that require their employees to develop organisational commitment should

provide comprehensive training that will encourage leadership to exhibit leadership
behaviours such as building trust, inspiring a shared vision, encouraging creativity,
emphasising development, and recognising accomplishments. Leaders can play a role in
building commitment by assuring that the organisation makes effort to address both the
work content and the work context by engaging in management practices to minimize
employee alienation. They should demonstrate their commitment to the employees by
sharing information, provide for the development and growth of employees within the
organisation and offer more than market related incentives. In this era of empowered
employees and teams, leaders still need to communicate to their subordinates the sense that
the organisation respects them and values the contributions that they make.

5.4

L imitations

The findings of this study should be viewed with certain limitations in mind. The limitation
of the current study relates to the characteristics or demographics of the sample as well as
that age was not collected as a control variable. Previous research (Hrebiniak & Alutto,
1972; Steers, 1977) has suggested that age can affect organisational commitment. Given

105

that age was not collected as a control variable, the impact of this omission is unknown.
The study was dominated by mostly male participants, thus, results might have been
different if percentages for race, age, marital status, gender, time with the organisation,
time with an immediate supervisor, ethnicity and education were different.

A third limitation of the empirical study is related to the sample or population group. All
the respondents were from a single organisation, which could influence their perceptions
due to its practices and other factors. The results can thus not be generalised to
organisations in any sectors other than the nuclear industry. However, these findings may
not be generalised to other nuclear utility settings or to other types of organisations within
the same industry. Generalisation of the present findings should therefore be examined in
future research in other regions, with mixed gender, older and more heterogeneous
samples.

Lastly, the survey used in the empirical study was a cross-sectional design, which entails
obtaining the results at a single point in time. A longitudinal study, conducted over time,
would be of greater value.

Despite these limitations, the study presents specific proposals to the organisation to
address the identified developmental areas. It is recommended that the organisation
communicate the findings of this study to all its employees in order to create awareness of
the leadership and the commitment of its employees. The organisation should formulate a
strong business-related need for change, based on this study, with the objectives of the
FKDQJH LQLWLDWLYH DOLJQHG ZLWK WKH RUJDQLVDWLRQV QHHGV ,Q RUGHU WR JDLQ WKH EX\-in of all
stakeholders in the organisation, including employees and the union, it is proposed that the

106

organisation encourages participation in or involvement of all stakeholders in the change

process. Communication and transparency about the change process would also help the
organisation to avoid inadequate dissemination of information and dysfunctional rumours.
Visible management commitment and a reward system that supports the change process
will have a positive influence on the process.

This study despite its limitations has contributed in extending the literature on the variables
associated with the development of organisational commitment.

5.5

Recommendations for F urther Research

As far as the sample is concerned, replication (and possible enlargement of the sample) of
the study in other regions would be highly desirable. In this regard, similar studies at other
nuclear facilities (such as Koeberg) would seem appropriate. An attempt should also be
made to determine the overall commitment experienced by professional employees.

We recommend that future research replicate this work with a larger sample size, over a
longer time, but more importantly, an exploration of mediating factors between
organisational commitment and leadership style needs to be conducted. Once these have
been identified, then, as a field, we will be in a better position to better understand the
conception of leadership and its relationship to employees sense of organisational
commitment.

107

Necsa should perform a detailed study to evaluate the exact leadership style currently
being practised so that relevant training can be provided to encourage a leadership style
which is conducive to the development of organisational commitment.

An additional area for future research focuses on the need to better understand the
implications that may stem from using different styles of leadership to lead different
groups of employees. Specifically, research is needed that examines the degree to which
managers can effectively adjust their leadership styles to reflect the concerns of employee
groups who may have different demands and expectations. It may be the case that effective
leaders are able to essentially turn on or off different leadership styles depending on the
circumstances, but the extent of this flexibility needs to be addressed by future research.
Switching styles may impact the amount of credibility that leaders maintain among their
followers. We would encourage research that examines the reactions of followers when
leaders adopt multiple styles for different employee groups within the same organisation.

From the leadership literature, employee personal characteristics (Jung & Avolio, 2000),
leader personality (Lord & Hall, 1992), quality of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
(Graen & Scandura, 1987; Wayne et al ., 1997), nature of the job (Hackman & Oldham,
1980; Herzberg, 1968), and the like might affect the leadership effectiveness for managing
different employment groups.

For example, the path-goal theory of leadership called for attention to such situational
moderators as the characteristics of the task and the environment, as well as of the
employees (Yukl, 1989). Similarly, from the strategic human resource management
literature, the human resource system in place (Huselid, 1995), the strategic orientation of

108

the firm (Miles & Snow, 1984), environmental characteristics (Devereaux-Jennings, 1994),
labour market conditions (Jackson & Schuler, 1995), and technology (Snell & Dean, 1992)
are likely to influence the appropriateness and effectiveness of certain leadership styles for
different groups of employees.

More broadly, Szilagyi and Schweiger (1984) proposed an integrative model that matched
leaders with strategies, suggesting certain leadership characteristics, such as personality
traits, skills, and behaviours, might be best suited for certain strategies.

While these factors are not exhaustive, they highlight the clear need for research to better
understand the relationships between leadership and employment as well as the role that
contextual factors play in these relationships. Further, these factors are likely to interact in
a multiplicative fashion such that different combinations of factors are likely to influence
the choices and effectiveness of different leadership types for different employee groups.

5.6

Conclusions

There is agreement in the literature (Maritz, 1995; Bass, 1997) that leadership is a critical
factor in the success or failure of an organisation; excellent organisations begin with
excellent leadership, and successful organisations reflect their leadership.

Swanepoel et al . (2000) emphasise that the ability of an organisation, to successfully

implement business strategies, to gain a competitive advantage and optimise human
capital, largely depends on the leadership styles that encourage employee commitment.

109

The benefits of organisational commitment have been well documented in the extant
management literature. Committed employees are less likely to develop patterns of
tardiness or to be chronically absent from work (Angle & Perry, 1981; Bateman &
Strasser, 1984; Porter et al ., 1974). Employees that are committed are also less likely to
leave the organisation to explore other opportunities (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Porter et al .,
1974). Organisational commitment has also been shown to positively affect motivation,
organisational citizenship, and job performance (Meyer et al ., 2002; Mowday et al ., 1974).

The main objective of the study was to investigate the relationship between various
leadership styles and various employee commitment styles at Necsa. This study found that
the transformational leadership behaviours were positively related with affective,
continuance and normative commitment, although not very strongly. This means that
leadership behaviours which involve engendering trust, inspiring a shared vision,
generating enthusiasm, encouraging creativity, providing coaching and recognising
accomplishments, had some impact on how employees feel about wanting to, needing to,
or feeling obligated to, stay with the organisation. The more they display these behaviours,
the more employees may want to, need to, or feel obligated to stay.

Transactional leadership behaviours had a positive relationship with normative

commitment. This indicates that leadership behaviours, which involve the clarification of
goals and objectives and providing of recognition once goals are achieved, specifying the
standards for compliance, as well as what constitutes ineffective performance, and
punishing followers for being out of compliance with those standards as well as closely
monitoring for deviances, mistakes, and errors and then taking corrective action as quickly

110

as possible seem to encourage how employees feel about needing to stay with the
organisation.

These findings also reveal that the laissez-faire leadership behaviour has a negative
relationship with affective, normative and continuance commitment. This emphasises that
leadership behaviours, which involve avoiding getting involved when problems arise, will
negatively impact on affective commitment. This also explains some of the variation in
how employees feel about not wanting to stay with the organisation.

The existing leadership and management research suggest that the leadership style of
managers can lead to higher measures of organisational commitment in their direct reports.
This research has demonstrated positive relationships between leadership styles and
organisational commitment. Overall findings from this study suggest that transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire leadership behaviours do play important roles in determining
levels of affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment.

7KHLQIOXHQFHRIOHDGHUVKLSVVW\OHWRHPSOR\HHV commitment to the organisation has not

been adequately addressed in the nuclear industry. Thus, there is a need for greater
understanding of the relationship between the leadership style and work-related attitudes
(such as employee commitment) in order to develop a leadership style that will encourage
organisational commitment thus creating a more competitive industry.

111

R E F E R E N C ES
ABBASI, S. & HOLLMAN, K. 2000. Turnover: The real bottom-line. Public Personnel

Management, 29(3):333-342.
ACCENTURE. 2009. Accenture global consumer behaviour study. London:LRP.
ACKERMANN, C.P., SCHEPERS, J.M., LESSING, B.C. & DANNHAUSER, Z. 2000.
Die Faktorstruktuur van Bass se Veelfaktor Leierskapsvraelys in die Suid-Afrikaanse
Konteks. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 26(2):58-65.
ALLEN, L. 2010. Communication and the full range leadership model: a study of the
relationship between leadership style and communication apprehension, communication
competence and listening styles. Masters dissertation, Sacramento CA.: California State
University.
ALLEN, N.J. & MEYER, J.P. 1990. The measurement and variables associated with
affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 63:1-18.

ALLEN, N. J. & MEYER, J. P. 1996. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment
to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational

Behaviour, 49:252.
ALQUDAH, T.G. 2011. Leadership style and organizational commitment. MBA
dissertation, Kuala Lumpur: Open University Malaysia.
AMOS, T. & RISTOW, A. 1999. Human Resource Management. Kenwyn: Juta.

112

ANGLE, H.L. & LAWSON, M.B. 1993. Changes in affective and continuance
commitment in times of relocation. Journal of Business Research, 26:3-15.
ANGLE, H.L. & PERRY, J. 1981. An empirical assessment of organizational
commitment and organization effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26:1-14.
ANTONAKIS, J., AVOLIO, B.J. & SIVASUBRAMANIAM, N. 2003. Context and
leadership: An examination of the nine factor full-range leadership theory using the
multifactor leadership questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3):261-295.
APRIL, K., MACDONALD, R. & VRIESENDORP, S. 2008. Rethinking Leadership.
Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.
AVOLIO, B.J. 1999. Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in

organizations. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

AVOLIO, B.J. & BASS, B.M. 1991. The full-range of leadership development: Basic and

advanced manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio & Associates.

AVOLIO, B.J. & BASS, B.M. 2004. Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Technical

Report. Palo Alto: Mind Garden.

AVOLIO, B.J., BASS, B.M. & JUNG, D.I. 1999. Re- examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72:441-462.
AVOLIO, B.J. & YAMMARINO, F.J. 2003. Transformational and charismatic

leadership: The road ahead. Oxford: Elsevier.

113

AVOLIO, B.J., ZHU, W.C., KOH, W. & BHATIA, P. 2004. Transformational leadership
and organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and
moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 25:95168.
AXTELL, C.M., HOLMAN, D.J., UNSWORTH, K., WALL, T.D., WATERSON, P. &
HARRINGTON, E. 2000. Shop-floor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and
implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
73:26585.
BABBIE, E. & MOUTON, J. 2004. The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford
University.
BAGRAIM, J.J. 2002. Organizational commitment amongst South African knowledge

workers: Some preliminary findings. Cape Town: University of Cape Town.

BAGRAIM, J.J. 2003. The nature of measurement of multiple commitment foci amongst
South African knowledge workers. Management Dynamics, 12(2):13-23.
BAGRAIM, J.J. 2004. Measuring organisational commitment: A South African

application. Cape Town: School of Management Studies, University of Cape Town.

BAGRAIM, J.J. 2010. Multiple affective commitments and salient outcomes: The
Improbable Case of information technology knowledge workers. The Electronic Journal

Information Systems Evaluation, 13(2):97-106.

BALOCH, Q.B., ALI, N. & ZAMAN, G. 2010. Measuring HPSOR\HHVFRPPLWPHQWDV
outcome of transformational and transactional leadership styles: an empirical study.

Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2):210-216.

BANERJEE, M. 1995. Organization Behaviour . Delhi: Allied.

114

BARRETT, A. & BEESON, J. 2002. Developing Business Leaders for 2010. R-1313-02RR.New York, NY: Conference Board.
BASS, B.M. 1985a. Leadership: good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 3(3):26-40.
BASS, B.M. 1985b. Leadership and perfor mance beyond expectations. New York, NY:
Free Press.
BASS, B.M. 1990a. %DVVDQG6WRJGLOOVKDQGERRNRIOHDGHUVKLS7KHRU\ research and

managerial applications. New York, NY: Free Press.

BASS, B.M. 1990b. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share
the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18:19-31.
BASS, B.M. 1994. Improving Organizational effectiveness through Transformational

Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

BASS, B.M. 1995. Theory of transformational leadership redux. Leadership Quarterly,
6:463-478.
BASS, B.M. 1997. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries? Journal of American Psychologist, 52(2):130-139.
BASS, B.M. 1998. Transformational leadership: Military and civilian impact . Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
BASS, B.M. 1999. Two decades of research and development in transformational
leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1):9-32.
BASS, B.M. & AVOLIO, B.J. 1989. Potential biases in leadership measures: How
prototypes, leniency, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of

115

transformational and transactional leadership construct. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 49:509-527.
BASS, B.M. & AVOLIO, B.J. 1990a. Transformational leadership development: Manual

for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto: CA Consulting Psychologist Press.
BASS, B.M. & AVOLIO, B.J. 1990b. Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and
beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5):21-27.
BASS, B.M. & AVOLIO, B.J. 1990c. Training and development of transformational
leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. In: Woodman, R.W. &
Passmore, W.A. (Eds.).Research in organizational change and development . Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
BASS, B.M. & AVOLIO, B.J. 1991. Assessing leadership across the full-range. (Paper
read at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Miami, FL).
Unpublished.
BASS, B.M. & AVOLIO, B.J. 1993. Transformational leadership: A response to
critiques. In: Leadership theory and research, perspective, and directions. San Diego:
Academic Press: 49-80.
BASS, B.M. & AVOLIO, B.J. 1994. Improving Organizational Effectiveness through

Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oakes, CA.: Sage.

BASS, B.M. & AVOLIO, B.J. 1997. Full range of leadership development: Manual for
the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire. Thousand Oakes, CA: Mind Garden.
BASS, B.M. & AVOLIO, B.J. 2000. Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Sampler set.
2nd ed. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

116

BASS, B.M., AVOLIO, B.J., JUNG, D.I. & BERSON, Y. 2003. Predicting unit
performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88:207-218.
BASS, B.M. & STEIDLMEIER, P. 2003. Ethics, Character, and Authentic
Transformational Leadership [online]. Available from World Wide Web:
http://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.html [Accessed 02/06/2011].
BATEMAN, T. & STRASSER, S. 1984. A Longitudinal Analysis of the Antecedents of
Organizational Commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27:95-112.
BECK, K. & WILSON, C. 2000. Development of affective organizational commitment:
A cross-sequential examination of change with tenure. Journal of Vocational Behavior ,
56:114-136.
BECKER, H.S. 1960. Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of

Sociology, 66:32-40.
BECKER, T.E., RANDALL, D.M. & REIGEL, C.D. 1995. The multidimensional view of
commitment and the theory of reasoned action: a comparative evaluation. Journal of

Management, 21(4):616-639.
BENNETT, J. 1999. A revolution of minds in the workplace. Sunday Times archives:
Johannesburg, 09 May 1999.
BENNIS, W.G. 1988. On becoming a leader . London: Hutchinson Business Books.
BENNIS, W.G. & NANNUS, B. 1985. Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New
York, NY: Harper and Row.

117

BENSON, M.J. 2006. New explorations in the field of leadership research: A walk on the
dark side of personality and implications for leadership (in) effectiveness. PhD. thesis,
Saint Paul: University of Minnesota.
BEUKMAN, T.L. 2005. The Effect of Selected Variables on Leadership Behaviour
within the Framework of a Transformational Organisation Paradigm. D.Com thesis,
Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
BEYER, J.M. 1999. Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations. The

Leadership Quarterly, 10(2):307-330.

BLAKE, R.R. & McCANSE, A.A. 1991. Leadership dilemmas: Grid Solutions. Houston,
TX: Gulf Publishing.
BLAKE, R.R. & MOUTON, J.S. 1964. The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
BONO, J. & JUDGE, T. 2003. Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the
motivational effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal ,
46:554-571.
BOTHA, J. 2001. The Relationship between the leadership, internal quality, and customer
satisfaction levels of dealerships in a South African motor vehicle organisation. M.Com.
dissertation. Grahamstown, Rhodes University.
BRYMAN, A. 2011. The SAG E Handbook of Leadership. London: Sage.
BRYMAN, A., GILLINGWATER, D. & McGUINESS, L. 1996. Leadership and
Organizational Transformation. International Journal of Public Administration, 19:849873.

118

BUCHANAN, B. 1974. Building organizational commitment. Administrative Science

Quarterly. 19:543-546.
BUHLER, P. 1995. Leaders versus Managers. Supervision, 56(5):4.
BULL, I.H.F. 2005. The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organisational
Commitment amongst high school teachers in disadvantaged areas in the Western Cape.
M.Sc. (Psyc) dissertation, Cape Town, University of the Western Cape.
BURNS, J.M. 1978. Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
BYCIO, P., HACKETT, R. & ALLEN, J. 1995. Further assessment's of Bass's (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 80:468-478.
CARLOS, M.P. & FILIPE, C. 2011. From personal values to creativity: evidence from
frontline service employees. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8):1029-1050.
CARNEGIE, D. 1995. Performance of North Sea offshore platform supervisors. PhD
thesis, Aberdeen: Aberdeen University.
CATANYAG, D.V. 1995. Effects of transformational leadership behaviours of public
secondary school principals in the national capital region on school effectiveness. Doctoral
dissertation, Manila, University of the Philippines.
CHANG, H.T, CHIN, N.W. & MIAO, M.C. 2007. Testing the relationship between threecomponent organisational/occupational commitment and organisational/occupational
turnover intention using a non-recursive model. Journal of Vocational Behaviour , 70:352368.

119

CHEN, Z.X., & FRANCESCO, A.M. 2000. Employee Demography, Organisational

Commitment, and turn over intentions in China: do cultural differences matter? Human

Relations, 3(6): 869-87.

CHUGHTAI, A.A. & ZAFAR, S. 2006. Antecedent and consequences of organisational
commitment among Pakistani University teachers. Applied HRM Research, 11(1):39-64.
CLAYTON, B.M. & HUTCHINSON, M.R. 2001. Organisational commitment of
accountants in Australia and South Africa. South African Journal of Accounting Research,
16(01):1-17.
CLUGSTON, M., HOWELL, J.P. & DORFMAN, P.W. 2000. Does Cultural Socialization
Predict Multiple Bases and Foci of Commitment? Journal of Management, 26(1):530.
COHEN, A. 1996. On the discriminant validity of the Meyer and Allen measure of
organisational commitment: How does it fit with the work commitment construct?

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56:594-503.

COHEN, A. 2007. Commitment before and after: A reconceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management, 17:336-354.
COHEN, A. & KIRENMEY, C.L. 1995. A Multidimensional approach to the relationship
between organisational commitment and non-work participation. Journal of Vocational

Behaviour, 49:189-2002.
COOPER-HAKIM, A. & VISWESVARAN, C. 2005. The construct of work
commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2):241-259.

120

DAVENPORT, J. 2010. Leadership style and employee commitment: The moderating

effect of locus of control. Conference held in Las Vegas in February 2010. ASBBS, 17(1):
277-290.
DAVIS, D.D., GUAW, P., LUO, J. & MAAHS, C.J. 1997. Need for continuous
improvement, organization citizenship, transformational leadership, and service climate in
a Chinese state enterprise. (Paper read at the conference on Society for Organizational and
Industrial Psychology, August, St. Louis, MO). Unpublished.
DECOTTIS, T. & SUMMERS, T. 1987. A path analysis of a model of the antecedents
and consequences of organizational commitment. Human Relations, 40:445-470.
DELUGA, R.J. 1990. The effects of transformational, transactional, and laissez faire
leadership characteristics on subordinate influencing behaviour. Basic & Applied Social

Psychology, 11(2):191-203.
DEN HARTOG, D.N. 1997. Inspirational leadership. Academisch Profschrift.
Amsterdam: Free University of Amsterdam.
DEN HARTOG, M., VAN MUIJEN, J. & KOOPMAN, P. 1997. Transactional versus
transformational leadership. Analysis of the MLQ , 70:19-43.
DESS, G.G. & PICKENS, J.C. 2000. Changing Roles: Leadership in the 21st Century.

Organizational Dynamics, 28:1834.

DEVEREAUX-JENNINGS, P. 1994. Viewing macro HRM from without: political and
institutional perspectives. In: Ferris, G. (ed.).Research in personnel and human resource

management, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press:140.

121

DEVORE, J. & PECK, R. 1993. Statistics the exploration and analysis of data .
California: Wadsworth.
DIAZ-SAENZ, H.R. 2011. Transformational Leadership. In: Bryman, A. 2011. The Sage

Handbook of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DIXON, M.L. & HART, L.K. 2010. The Impact of Path-Goal Leadership on Work Group
Effectiveness and Turnover Intention. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(1):52-69.
DRAZIN, R. & SCHOONHOVEN, C.B. 1996. Community Population, and
Organizational Effects on Innovation: A Multi-level Perspective. Academy of Management

Journal, 39:106583.
DU BRIN, J.A. 2012. Leadership: Research F indings, Practice and Skills. Ohio: SouthWestern.
DUBINSKY, A.J., YAMMARINO, F.J., JOLSON, M.A. & WILLIAM D.S. 1995.
Transformational Leadership: An Initial Investigation in Sales Management. Journal of

Personal Selling and Sales Management, 15(2):17-31.

DUMDUM, U.R., LOWE, K.B. & AVOLIO, B.J. 2002. A Meta-analysis of the
transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction:
An update and extension. In: Avolio, B.J. (ed.). Transformational and Charismatic

Leadership. Amsterdam: JAI Press:35-66.

DUNHAM, R., GRUBE, J. & CASTANEDA, M. 1994. Organisational commitment: The
utility of an interaction definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79:370-380.
EISENBERGER, R., HUNTINGTON, R., HUTCHINSON, S., & SOWA, D. 1986.
Perceived organisational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71:500-507.

122

FIEDLER, F.E. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York, NY: McGrawHill.
FLEISHMAN, E.A., MUMFORD, M., ZACCARO, S.J., LEVIN, K., KOROTKIN, A.L.,
& HEIN, M.B. 1991. Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behaviour: A
synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2:245-287.
FULLER, J.B., PATTERSON, C., HESTER, K.& STRINGER, D.Y. 1996. A quantitative
review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78:271-287.
GASPAR, S. 1992. Transformational leadership: An integrative review of the literature.
PhD. thesis, Kalamazoo, MI, Western Michigan University.
GBADAMOSI, G. 2003. HRM and the commitment rhetoric: Challenges for Africa,

Management Decision, 41(3): 274280.

GERBER, P.D., NEL, P.S. & VAN DYK, P.S. 1996. Human Resource Management. 3rd
ed. Johannesburg: Thompson International.
GEYER, A.L. & STEYRER, J. 1998. Transformational leadership, classical leadership
dimensions and performance indicators in savings banks. Leadership Quarterly, 47:397420.
GRAEN, G.B. & SCANDURA, T.A. 1987. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing.
In: Cummings, L.L. & Staw, B.M. (eds.).Research in organizational behaviour.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press:175-208.
GROBLER, P.A. 1996. In search of excellence: leadership challenges facing companies in
the new South Africa. SAM Advanced Management Journal , 61(2):22-44.

123

GUANG-LU, D., PU, L. & YONG, Z. 2012. Organizational justice as a moderator of

relationship between the transformational leadership and organizational commitment.

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(15):116-122.

GUNNIGLE, P., HERATY, P. & MORLEY, M. 1997. Personnel and Human Resource

Management: Theory and Practice in Ireland. Ireland: Macmillan Press.

HACKMAN, J.R. & OLDHAM, G.R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
HARTMANN, C.C. 2000. Organizational Commitment: Method Scale Analysis and Test
of Effects. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8:89-109.
HAUG, M.R., & DOFNY, J. 1997. Work and Technology, Sage studies in international

sociology. London: Sage.

HAYWARD, B.A. 2005. Relationship between employee performance, leadership and
emotional intelligence in a South African parastatal organisation. M.Com. dissertation,
Grahamstown. Rhodes University.
HAYWARD, Q., GOSS, M. & TOLMAY, R. 2004. The Relationship between
Transformational and Transactional leadership and employee commitment. Grahamstown,
Rhodes University: Business Report.
HERSCOVITCH, L. & MEYER, J 2002. Commitment to organizational change:
Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87:474 487.
HERSEY, P. & BLANCHARD, K.H. 1993. Management of organizational behaviour:

utilizing human resources. Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Simon and Schuster.

124

HERZBERG, F. 1968. Work and the Nature of Man. London: Staples.

HIXON, L.W. 2012. IAEA- Vietnam and 4 other countries to incorporate nuclear energy
after Fukushima. [Online]. S.I.: Enformable.com. Available from:
http://enformable.com/2012/02/iaea-vietnam-and-4-other-countries-toincorporate-nuclearenergy-after-fukushima/ [Accessed: 05/05/2012].
HOWELL, J.M., & AVOLIO, B.J. 1993. Transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated
business business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78:891-902.
HREBINIAK, L. & ALUTTO, J. 1972. Personal and role-related factors in the
development of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17:555572.
HUI, C. & LEE, C. 2000. Moderating effects of organisational-based self-esteem on
organisational uncertainty: employee response relationships. Journal of Management,
26(2):215-232.
HULT, C. 2005. Organisational commitment and person-environment fit in six Western
countries. Organisation Studies, 26(2):249270.
HUSELID, M. 1995. The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover,
Productivity and Corporate Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal ,
38(3):635-674.
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY. 2010. International Status and

Prospects of Nuclear Power: report by the Director General, Board of Governors General
Conference, held in Vienna on 2 September , 2010. Vienna: IAEA.

125

IVERSON, R.D. & BUTTIGIEG, D.N. 1998. Affective, normative and continuance
FRPPLWPHQWFDQWKHULJKWNLQGRIFRPPLWPHQWEHPDQDJHG? Working Paper, No. 7 in
HRM and IR, Department of Management, University of Melbourne:1-25.
JACKSON, S.E. & SCHULER, R.S. 1995. Understanding human resource management in
the context of organizations and their environments. Annual Review of Psychology,
46:237-264.
JAROS, S. J. 1997. $QDVVHVVPHQWRI0H\HUDQG$OOHQVWKUHH-component model
of organisational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behaviour ,
51:319-337.
JAROS, S.J., JERMIER, J.M., KOEHLER, J.W. & SINCICH, T. 1993. Effect of
continuance, affective and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: an evaluation of
eight structural equation models. Academy of Management Journal , 36(5):951-995.
JENKINS, W.O. 1947. A review of leadership studies with particular reference to
military problems. Psychological Bulletin, 44:54-79.
JESITUS, J. 2000. World-class perspectives defining the optimum in manufacturing
operations remains, at best an inexact science. Industry Week, 249(20):35-38.
JOHNSON, R.E. & CHANG, C.H. 2006. ,LVWRFRQWLQXDQFHDVZHLVWRDIIHFWLYHWKH
relevance of the self-concept for organisational commitment. Journal of Organisational

Behaviour, 27:549-570.
JONES, D.W. & RUDD, R.D. 2007. Transactional, Transformational, or Laissez-F aire

Leadership: An assessment of College of Agriculture Academic Program Leaders (Deans)

126

Leadership Styles: proceedings of the 2007 AAAE Research Conference, held in U SA on

16-18 May, 2007. Minnesota: Texas ATM University College Station.
JUNG, D. I. 2001. Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on
creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal , 13(2):185- 195.
JUNG, D.I. &AVOLIO, B.J. 2000. Opening the black box: an experimental investigation
of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and
transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behaviour , 21:949964.
KALDERGBERG, D.O., BECKER, B.W. & ZVONKOVIC, A. 1995. Work and
commitment among young professionals: A study of male and female dentists. Human

Relations, 48(11):1355-1377.
KENDALL, D. 2008. Sociology in our times: the essentials. Wadsworth: Cengage
Learning.
KENT, A. & CHELLADURAI, P. 2001. Perceived transformational leadership,
organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviour: a case study in intercollegiate
athletics. Journal of sport management, 15(2):135-159.
KINNEAR, S. 2000. Determinants of organisational commitment among knowledge
workers. South African Journal of Business Management, 31(3):106-112.
KIRKPATRICK, S.A. & LOCKE, E.A. 1991. Leadership: do traits matter? The

Executive, 5:48-60.
KOH, W.L., STEERS, R.M., & TERBORG, J.R. 1995. The effects of transformational
leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of

Organizational Behaviour, 16:319-333.

127

KOH, W.L., TERBORG, J.R. & STEERS, R.M. 1991. The impact of transformational
leadership on organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviour, teacher
satisfaction and student performance in Singapore. (Paper read at the 51st Annual Meeting
of the Academy of Management, August 9-12, Miami Beach, FL.). Unpublished.
KOUZES, J. & POSNER, B. 1987. The Leadership Challenge, How to get extraordinary

things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

LEE, K., ALLEN, N.J., MEYER, J.P. & RHEE, K.Y. 2001. The three-component model
of organisational commitment: An application to South Korea. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 50(4):596614.

LEE, J. 2005. Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 26(7/8):655-673.

LEVY, P.L. 2003. Industrial/organisational psychology: Understanding the workplace .
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
LO, M., RAMAYAH, T. & MIN, H.W. 2009. Leadership styles and organizational
commitment: a test on Malaysia manufacturing industry. African Journal of Marketing

Management, 1(6):133-139.
LO, M. C., RAMAYAH, T., MIN, H.W. & SONGAN, P. 2010. The Relationship
between Leadership Styles and Organizational Commitment in Malaysia: Role of LeaderMember Exchange. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(1):79-102.
LORD, R.G., De VADER, C.L., & ALLIGER, G.M. 1986. A meta-analysis of the
relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity
generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71:402-410.

128

LORD, R.G., & HALL, R.J. 1992. Contemporary views of leadership and individual
differences. Leadership Quarterly, 3:137157.
LOUW, M.J. & BOSHOFF, C. 2006. Cacadu organisational culture survey: 2005.
Unpublished report for Harvard Management Consultants CC. Port Elizabeth: Cacadu
District Municipality.
LOWE, K.B., KROECK, K.G., & SIVASUBRAMANIAM, N. 1996. Effectiveness
correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytical review of the
literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7:385-425.
LUMLEY, E.J., COETZEE, M., TLADINTANE, R. & FERREIRA, N. 2011. Exploring
the job satisfaction and organisational commitment of employees in the information
technology environment. Southern African Business Review, 15(1):100-118.
LUSSIER, R.N. 2012. Management fundamentals: concepts, applications, skill

development. 5th ed. Springfield, MA: South-Western Cengage.

MANN, R.D. 1959. A review of the relationship between personality and performance in
small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56:241-270.
MANETJE, O.M. 2005. Impact of organisational culture on organisational commitment.
Unpublished thesis for Master of Arts. University of South Africa. Pretoria.
MANETJE, O. & MARTINS, N. 2009. The relationship between organisational culture
and organisational commitment. Southern African Business Review, 13(1):87-111.
MARITZ, D. 1995. Leadership and mobilising potential. Human Resource Management,
10(1):8-16.

129

MARITZ, D. 2000. South African leDGHUVHPHUJHQFHWRZDUGVWUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO

leadership. Management Today, 7:16-18.
MARMAYA, N.H., HITAM, M., MUHAMAD TORSIMAN, N. & BALAKRISHNAN, B.
2011. Employees SHUFHSWLRQRI0DOD\VLDQPDQDJHUVOHDGHUVKLSVW\OHVDQGRUJDQL]DWLRQDO
commitment. African Journal of Business Management, 5(5):1584-1588.
MARTIN, A. & ROODT, G. 2008. Perceptions of Organisational Commitment, JobSatisfaction and Turnover intentions in a Post-Merger South African Tertiary Institutions.

South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 34(1):23-31.

MARTURANO, A. & GOSLING, J. 2007. Leadership: The key concepts. New York,
NY: Routledge.
MASLOW, A.H. 1970. Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
MATHIEU, J.E. & ZAJAC, D.M. 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin,
108:171-194.
MESTER, C., VISSER, D. & ROODT, G. 2003. Leadership style and its relation to
employee attitudes and behaviour. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(2):72-80.
MEYER, J.P. & ALLEN, N.J. 1984. 7HVWLQJWKHVLGH-bet theory" of organizational
commitment: some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
69:372-378.
MEYER, J.P. & ALLEN, N.J. 1987. Organizational commitment: Toward a threecomponent model. In: Research Bulletin No. 660.London: The University of Western
Ontario, Department of Psychology.

130

MEYER, J.P. & ALLEN, N.J. 1991. A three-component conceptualisation of

organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1):61-89.
MEYER, J.P. & ALLEN, N.J. 1997. Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA.:
Sage.
MEYER, J.P., ALLEN, N.J. & GELLATLY, I.R. 1990. Affective and continuance
commitment to the organisation: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and
time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6):710-720.
MEYER, J.P., ALLEN, N.J. & SMITH, A. 1993. Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 78:538-555.

MEYER, J.P., BECKER, T.E. & VANDENBERGHE, C. 2004. Employee commitment
and motivation: a conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89:999-1007.
MEYER, J.P. & HERSCOVITCH, L. 2001. Commitment in the workplace: Toward a
general model. Human Resources Management Review, 11:299-326.
MEYER, J.P. & PARFYONOVA, N.M. 2010. Normative commitment in the workplace:
a theoretical analysis and re-conceptualisation. Human Resource Management Review,
20:283-294.
MEYER, J.P., STANLEY, D.J., HESCOVITCH, L. & TOPOLNYTSKY, L. 2002.
Affective Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization. A meta- analysis
of antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour , 61(1):2052.

131

MILES, R.E. & SNOW, C.C. 1984. Designing strategic human resource management
systems. Organizational Dynamics, 13(1):36-52.
MOLERO, R. & MORALES, J.F. 1994. A study on leadership in a healthcare
RUJDQL]DWLRQXVLQJ%DVV Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). (Paper read at the
23rd International Congress of Applied Psychology, July 17-22, Madrid, Spain).
Unpublished.
MORROW, P. 1983. Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work
commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8:486-500.
MOSHOEU, A.N. 2011. Job Insecurity, Organisational Commitment, and Work
Engagement amongst staff in a Tertiary Institution. M.A. dissertation, Pretoria, UNISA.
MOWDAY, R.T. 1998. Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 8(4):387-401.
MOWDAY, R.T., PORTER, L.W. & DUBIN, R. 1974. Unit Performance, Situational
Factors and Employee Attitudes in Spatially Separate Work Units. Organizational

Behaviours and Human Performance, 12: 231-248.

MOWDAY, R.T., PORTER, L.W. & STEERS, R.M. 1982. E mployee-organizational

linkage. New York, NY: Academic Press.

MOWDAY, R.T., STEERS, R.M. & PORTER, L.W. 1979. The measurement of
organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour , 14:224-247.
MUTERERA, J. 2008. The relationship between leadership theory behaviors, follower
attitudes and behaviors and organizational performance in United States County
Governments. PhD. thesis. Michigan, Western Michigan University.

132

MWANDA, J. 2010. South Africa revives ambitious atomic energy plans. [Online]. S.I.:
Jamaicaobserver.com. Available from: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/South-AfricaRevives-Ambitious-Atomic-Energy-Plans_8061431 [Accessed: 16/10/2012].
NAIDOO, G. 2009. Strengthening senior management skills in the South African public
service: A rationale for strategic leadership. Journal of Public Administration. 44(1):3-14.
NECSA ANNUAL REPORT. 2010. Necsa Annual Report. Pretoria: South African
Nuclear Energy Corporation.
NGAROGA, J.M. 2008. Education: For Primary Teacher Education. Nairobi: East
African Educational Publishers.
NORRIS, G.W. 2000. Exploring the Trait-Behaviour Relationship in Leadership. PhD.
thesis, Columbus, Ohio State University.
NORTHOUSE, P.G. 2009. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
NUNNALLY, J.C. & BERNSTEIN, I.H. 1994. Psychometric Theory. 3rded. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
NYENGANE, M.H. 2007. The relationship between leadership style and employment
commitment: An explorative study in an electricity utility in South Africa. MBA thesis,
Grahamstown, Rhodes University.
OLDHAM, G.R. & CUMMINGS, A. 1996. Employee Creativity: Personal and
Contextual Factors at Work. Academy of Management Journal , 39:60734.

133

25(,//<& &+$70$1- 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological

attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalisation on pro-social
behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology. 71:492-499.
PANACIO, A. & VANDENBERGHE, C. 2009. Perceived organisational support,
organisational commitment and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of

Vocational Behaviour , 75:224-236.

PANAYIOTIS, S., PEPPER, A. & PHILLIPS, M.J. 2011. Transformational change in a
time of crisis. Strategic HR Review, 10(5):2834.
PARHAM, A.C. 1983. Basic Psychology for the work life. Cincinnati, OH.: SouthWestern Publishing Co.
PARKER, A.J. 1998. The role of Employment Relations Management in the business
strategy of South African organisations in pursuit of world-class. M. HRM thesis,
Johannesburg, Rand Afrikaans University.
PEARSON, B. & THOMAS, N. 2004. The Shorter MBA: A practical approach to the key

business skills. London: Profile Books.

PEIL, M. 1992. Social Science Research Methods: An African Handbook . London:
Hoddes & Stoughton.
PINDER, C.C. 1998. Work Motivation in Organizational Behaviour . Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
PODSAKOFF, P.M., MACKENZIE, S.B. & BOMMER, W.H.R. 1996. Transformational
leadership behaviours as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and
organizational citizenship behaviours. Journal of Management, 22:259-298.

134

PORTER, L.W., STEERS, R.M., MOWDAY, R.T., & BOULIAN, P.V. 1974.
Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Turnover among Psychiatric
Technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5):603-609.
POWELL, D.M. & MEYER, J.P. 2004. %HFNHUVVLGH-bet theory revisited: A test of the
WKHRU\ZLWKLQWKHFRQWH[WRI0H\HUDQG$OOHQVthree-component model of organisational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour , 65:157-177.
PRICE, J.L. 1997. Handbook of organizational measurement. International journal of

manpower, 18(4/5/6):305-558.
PRINSLOO, J.J., MOROPODI, M.J., SLABBERT, J.A. & PARKER, A.J. 1999. A

perspective on the world-class company. Johannesburg: Strat-Excell.

PRUIJN, G.H.J. & BOUCHER, R.J. 1994. The relationship of Transactional and
Transformational Leadership to the Organisational Effectiveness of Dutch National Sports
Organisations. European Journal of Sport Management, 2:72-87.
RANDALL, D.M., FEDOR, D.B., & LONGENECKER, C.O. 1990. The behavioural
expression of organisational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour , 36:210-224.
RASHID, Z.A., SAMBASIVAN, M. & JOHARI, J. 2003. The influence of corporate
culture and organisational commitment on performance. Journal of Management

Development, 22(8):708728.
RAUDSEPP, E. 1977. Motivating the Engineer: The direct approach is best. Machine

Design, 11:59-61.
RHODES, S. & STEERS, R. 1981. Conventional vs. worker-owned organizations.

Human Relations, 12:1013-1035.

135

RISTOW, A., AMOS, T. & STAUDE, G. 1999. Transformational leadership and

organisational effectiveness in the administration of cricket in South Africa. South African

Journal of Business Management, 30(1):1-5.

ROBBINS, S.P. 1996. Organizational Behaviour . 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall.
ROBBINS, S.P. 2003. Organizational Behaviour. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River. NJ:
Prentice Hall.
ROGER, E.W. 2001. A theoretical look at firm performance in high technology
organisations. What does existing theory tells us? Journal of High Technology

Management Research, 12:39-61.

ROMZEC, B.S. 1990. Employee investment and commitment: The ties that bind. Public

Administration Review, 50:374-382.

ROTHMANN, S. 2003. Burnout and work engagement: A South African perspective. SA

Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(4):16-25.

ROTHWELL, W.J. 2012. Encyclopaedia of Hum an Resource Management, Critical and

E merging Issues in Hum an Resources. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
SABIR, M.S., SOHAIL, A. & KHAN, A. 2011. Impact of leadership style on
organisational commitment: In a mediating role of employee values. Journal of Economics

and Behavioural Studies, 3(2):145-152.

SALAMI, S.O. 2008. Demographic and psychological factors predicting organisational
commitment among industrial workers. Anthropologist, 10(1):31-38.

136

SCARPELLO, V.G. & LEDVINKA, J. 1987. Personnel/Human Resource Management:

Environment & Functions. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.

SCHEIN, E.H. 1980. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, CA.: Josey
Bass.
SCHERMERHORN, J.R., HUNT, J.G. & OSBORN, R.N. 1994. Managing

Organizational Behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

SCHILBACH, C. 1983. Die ontwikkeling van leierskapvaardighede by middelvlakbestuurders. D.Phil thesis, Pretoria, University of Pretoria.
SCHMINKE, M. & ARNAUD, A. 2005. Organisational Justice. In: Encyclopaedia of

Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage:1124-1129.

SCHNEIDER, M. & FROGGATT, A. 2012. World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012.
Paris: Mycle Schneider Consulting.
SCHOLL, R.W. 1981. Differentiating commitment from expectancy as a motivational
force. Academy of Management Review, 34(2):163-184.
SEKARAN, U. 2000. Research methods for Business: a skills building approach. New
York, NY.: Wiley.
SHAH, M. 2012. 7KH,PSDFWRI7HDFKHUV&ROOHJLDOLW\RQWKHLU2UJDQL]DWLRQDO
Commitment in High- and Low-Achieving Secondary Schools in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Journal of Studies in Education. 2(2):130-156.

SHAM, B. 1999. The contemporary role of leadership in organizational transformation: a
qualitative approach. D.Phil thesis, Pretoria, University of Pretoria.

137

SHOKANE, M.S., STANZ, K.J. & SLABBERT, J.A. 2004. Description of Leadership in
South Africa: Organisational context perspective. SA Journal of Human Resource

Management. 2(3):1-6.
SHORE, L.M. & WAYNE, S.J. 1993. Commitment and employee behaviour:
Comparison of affective and continuance commitment with perceived organisational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78:774-780.
SMIT, P.J., CRONJE, G.J., BREVIS, T. & VRBA, M.J. 2011. Management Principles: A

contemporary edition for Africa. 5th ed. Lansdowne: Juta.

SNELL, S. & DEAN, J.W. 1992. Integrated Manufacturing and Human Resource
Management: A Human Capital Perspective. Academy of Management Journal , 35:467504.
SOMERS, M.J. 2009. The combined influence of affective, continuance and normative
commitment on employee withdrawal. Journal of Vocational Behaviour , 74:75-81.
SOSIK, J.J. & JUNG, D. 2012. Full Range Leadership Development. New York, NY:
Taylor and Francis.
STEERS, R. M. 1977. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 22:46-56.

STEVENS, C.U., D'INTINO, R.S. & VICTOR, B. 1995. The moral quandary of
transformational leadership: Change for whom? Research in Organizational Change and

Development, 8:123-143.
STOGDILL, R.M. 1948. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the
literature. Journal of Psychology, 25:35-71.

138

STOGDILL, R.M. 1974. Handbook of Leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.
STRETCHER, M.D. & ROSSE, J.G. 2005. The distributive side of interactional justice:
the effects of interpersonal treatment on emotional arousal. Journal of Managerial Issues,
17:229-246.
STUM, D.L. 1999. Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitment pyramid.

Strategy and Leadership, 29(4):4-9.

SULIMAN, A.M. & ISLES, P.A. 2000a. Is continuance commitment beneficial to
organizations? Commitment-performance relationship: A new look. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 15(5):407-426.
SULIMAN, A.M. & ISLES, P.A. 2000b. The multi-dimensional nature of organizational
commitment in a non-western context. Journal of Management Development, 19(1):71-82.
SWANEPOEL, B., ERASMUS, B., VAN WYK, M. & SCHENK, H. 2000. South African

Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice. 2nded. Kenwyn: Juta.

SZILAGYI, A. D., & SCHWEIGER, D.M. 1984. Matching managers to strategies: a
review and suggested framework. Academy of Management Review, 9, 626637.
TANNENBAUM, R. & SCHMIDT, H. S. 1957. How to choose a leadership pattern.

Harvard Business Review, 36(2):95-101.

TANNENBAUM, R. & SCHMIDT, W.H. 1973. How to choose a leadership pattern.

Harvard Business Review, 51(3):162-175.

TAVANTI, M. 2008. Transactional Leadership. In: Marturano, A & Gosling, J. (eds.)

The Key Concepts. London: Routledge: 166-170.

139

THOMPSON, M. & HERON, P. 2005. The difference a manager can make:

organizational justice and knowledge worker commitment. International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 16(3):383-404.

THORNHILL, A. LEWIS, P. & SAUNDERS, M.N.K. 1996. The role of employee
communication in achieving commitment and quality in higher education. Quality

Assurance in Education, 4(1):12-20.

TOFFLER, A. 1990. Power Shift. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
TONELLI, B. 2008. Leadership Styles and Funding: An analysis of California Juvenile

Delinquency Prevention Programs Receiving Federal Grants. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.
ULRICH, D. 1998. A new mandate for human resources. Harvard Business Review,
76(1):124-134.
ULRICH, D. 2002. Human Resources have to create real business value. Management

Today, 18(3):12-18.
VAN STUYVESANT-MEIJEN, J. 2007. The influence of organisational culture on
organisational commitment at a selected local municipality. M.Com. dissertation.
Grahamstown: Rhodes University.
VISAGIE, M.C. 2010. The relationship between employee attitudes towards planned
organisational change and organisational commitment: an investigation of a selected case
within the South African telecommunications industry. M.Tech. dissertation, Cape Town,
Cape Peninsula University of Technology.
WALLACE, J.E. 1995. Organizational and professional commitment in professional and
non-professional organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40:228-255.

140

WALUMBWA, F.O. & LAWLER, J.J. 2003. Building effective organizations:

transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes, and withdrawal
behaviors in three emerging economies. International journal of human resource

management, 14:1083-1101.
WASTI, S.A. 2003. The influence of cultural values on antecedents of organizational
commitment: An individual level analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
52(4): 533554.
WAYNE, S.J., SHORE, L.M., & LIDEN, R.C. 1997. Perceived Organizational Support
and Leader-Member Exchange: A Social Exchange Perspective. Academy of Management

Journal, 40:82-111.
WEIBO, Z., KAUR, S. & JUN, W. 2010. New development of organizational
commitment: A critical review (1960 2009). African Journal of Business Management,
4(1):12-20.
WEINER, Y. 1982. Commitment in organizations: A normative view . Academy of

Management Review, 7:418-428.

WHITELAW, P.A. 2001. Reliability and validity: the terrible twins of good research.

MLQ network newsletter , November: 108-110.

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. 2011. Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012.
Geneva: World Economic Forum.
WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION. 2012. Nuclear Power in South Africa. [Online].
S.I.: World-Nuclear.org. Available from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf88.html.
[Accessed: 16/10/2012].

141

YAMMARINO, F.C. & BASS, B.M. 1990. Transformational leadership and multiple
level analyses. Human Relations, 43:975-995.
YUKL, G.A. 1989. Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research. Journal of

Management, 15(2):251-289.
YUKL, G.A. 1998. Leadership in Organisations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
YUKL, G.A. 1999. An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1):33-48.

YUKL, G.A. 2009. Leadership in Organizations. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.
YUKL, G.A. & VAN FLEET, D.V. 1992. Theory and research on leadership in

organizations. Palo Alto: CA Consulting Psychologists.

ZACCARO, S.J., KEMP, C., & BADER, P. 2004. Leader traits and attributes. In:
ANTONAKIS, J., CIANCIOLO, A. T. & STERNBERG, R. J. (eds.). 2003. The nature of
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 101124.
ZANGARO, G.A. 2001. Organizational commitment: A concept analysis. Nursing

Forum. 36(2):14-23.

142

A PP E N D I X A : SU R V E Y N O T I F I C A T I O N
Dear Sir/Madam
05 July 2011
This is to notify you that you have been selected for a survey, which will be conducted during the month of
August. Questionnaires will be administered for the purpose of research. These questionnaires are part of a
research into the relationship between leadership style and employee commitment to the organisation. This
research is aimed to contribute to the scientific knowledge in the organisational behaviour and management
fields.
The first questionnaire is called the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and consists of two versions, the
leader and the rater version. The leader version is to be completed by the managers and the rater version is to
be completed by the subordinates. This questionnaire should take approximately 20 minutes to complete.
Instructions on how to complete will be provided on the covering page of the questionnaire.
The second questionnaire is called the Organisational Commitment Questionnaire, which will be completed
by the subordinates only. This questionnaire should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Instructions
on how to complete will also be provided on the covering page of the questionnaire.
H O W W I L L C O N F I D E N T I A L I T Y A N D A N O N Y M I T Y B E E NSU R E D I N T H E ST U D Y?
All information obtained during the course of this survey is strictly confidential. The study data will be
coded so that it will not be linked to your name. Your identity will not be revealed while the study is being
conducted or when the study is reported in scientific journals. All the data sheets that have been collected
will be stored in a secure place. Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can
be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required
by law. The information received during the survey will only be used for research purposes and not released
for any employment-related performance evaluation, promotion and/or disciplinary purposes.
Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact your HR practitioner.
W H A T A R E Y O U R R I G H TS AS A P A R T I C IP A N T I N T H IS S T U D Y?
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at any stage without
DQ\ SHQDOW\ RU IXWXUH GLVDGYDQWDJH ZKDWVRHYHU  <RX GRQW HYHQ KDYH WR SURYLGH WKH UHDVRQV IRU \RXU
decision. Your withdrawal will in no way influence your continued relationship at Necsa. Note that you are
not waiving any legal claims or rights because of your participation in this research study.
Thank you for giving up your valuable time to assist me in the research.
Yours sincerely,
___________________

Head of Human Resources

143

A PP E N D I X B : SU R V E Y C O NSE N T F O R M
I hereby confirm that I have been adequately informed by the researcher about the nature, conduct,
benefits and risks of the study. I have also received, read and understood the above written
information. I am aware that the results of the study will be anonymously processed into a research
report. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I may, at any stage, without
prejudice, withdraw my consent and participation in the study. I had sufficient opportunity to ask
questions and of my own free will declare myself prepared to participate in the study.
5HVHDUFKSDUWLFLSDQWVQDPH

(Please print)

5HVHDUFKSDUWLFLSDQWVVLJQDWXUH
Date:
5HVHDUFKHUVQDme:

(Please print)

5HVHDUFKHUVVLJQDWXUH
Date:

V E R B A L C O NSE N T
(Applicable when participants cannot read or write)
I hereby declare that I have read and explained the contents of the information sheet to the research
participant. The nature and purpose of the study were explained, as well as the possible risks and
benefits of the study. The research participant has clearly indicated that he/she is aware of the right
to withdraw from the study at any time, for any reason and without jeopardizing his/her
relationship with the research team. I hereby certify that the research participant has verbally
agreed to participate in this study.

5HVHDUFKSDUWLFLSDQWVQDPH
5HVHDUFKHUVQDPH

(Please print)
(Please print)

5HVHDUFKHUVsignature:
Date:

144

A PP E N D I X C : C O V E R I N G L E T T E R
05 July 2011
Dear Sir/Madam
Attached please find a copy from the HR manager of questionnaires mentioned previously. These
questionnaires are part of a study into the relationship between leadership style and employee
commitment to the organisation. The questionnaires are being administered for the purpose of
research. This research is aimed at contributing to the scientific knowledge in the organisational
behaviour and management fields.
M ultifactor L eadership Q uestionnaire (L eader and Rater version)
Developed by B. M. Bass and B. J. Avolio (1997), this questionnaire consists of two versions, the
leader and the rater version. The leader version is to be completed by the managers and the rater
version is to be completed by the subordinates. This questionnaire should take approximately 20
minutes to complete. Instructions on how to complete it are provided on the covering page of the
questionnaire.
O rganisational Commitment Q uestionnaire
Developed by J. P. Meyer and N. J. Allen (1997), this questionnaire measures the type and level of
employee commitment. Only subordinates are to complete this questionnaire. This questionnaire
should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Instructions on how to complete it are provided
on the covering page of the questionnaire. The candidate completing this questionnaire should
indicate who their leader is.The results of these questionnaires are for research purposes only and
the anonymity/confidentiality of respondents is guaranteed. All completed forms will be coded and
names of respondents will be erased to ensure this. Should you have any queries please do not
hesitate to contact your HR practitioner or myself. When you have completed all the questions,
please SE N D the completed questionnaires back to me via Workflow.
Thank you for giving up your valuable time to assist me in this research.
Yours sincerely,

145

A PP E N D I X D: M U L T I F A C T O R L E A D E RSH IP

Q U EST I O N N A I R E (R A T E R)
R A T E R: --------------------

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

Rater Booklet (MLQM)

by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio
D I R E C T I O NS: This questionnaire is to describe the leadership style of your manager/supervisor.
Describe the leadership style, as you perceive it. Please answer all items below by entering in the
block a number from the rating scale that best reflects your perception. If an item is irrelevant, or if
you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave the answer blank. Please answer this questionnaire
anonymously.
Forty-five descriptive statements are listed on the following pages. Judge how frequently each
statement fits the person you are describing. When you have completed all the questions, please
SE N D this questionnaire back to me via Workflow.
THANK YOU
Use T he Following Scale:
0
Not at all

1
Once in a while

2
Sometimes

3
Fairly often

4
Frequently if not
always

T H E P E RSO N I A M RA TI N G...(please write the managers name above)

1. Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts

2. Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate
3. Fails to 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. Is absent when needed
146

8. Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems

9. Talks optimistically about the future
10. Instils pride in me for being associated with him/her
11. Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving
performance targets

12. Waits for things to go wrong before taking action

13. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished
14. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose
15. Spends time teaching and coaching
16. Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance
goals are achieved

17. 6KRZVWKDWKHVKHLVDILUPEHOLHYHULQLILWDLQ
WEURNHGRQ
WIL[LW

18. Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group

19. Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group
20. Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking
Action

21. Acts in ways that builds my respect

22. Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes,
complaints, and failures

23. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions

24. Keeps track of all mistakes
25. Displays a sense of power and confidence
26. Articulates a compelling vision of the future
27. Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards
28. Avoids making decisions
29. Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations
from others

147

30. Gets me to look at problems from many different angles

31. Helps me to develop my strengths
32. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments
33. Delays responding to urgent questions
34. Emphasises the importance of having a collective sense of mission
35. Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations
36. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved
37. Is effective in meeting my job-related needs
38. Uses methods of leadership that are satisfying
39. Gets me to do more than I expected to do
40. Is effective in representing me to higher authority
41. Works with me in a satisfactory way
42. Heightens my desire to succeed
43. Is effective in meeting organisational requirements
44. Increases my willingness to try harder
45. Leads a group that is effective

148

A PP E N D I X E : M U L T I F A C T O R L E A D E RSH IP

Q U EST I O N N A I R E (L E A D E R)
L E A D E R : -------------------

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

L eader Booklet (MLQM)

by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio
D I R E C T I O NS: This questionnaire is designed to help you describe your leadership style as you
perceive it. Please answer all items below by entering in the block a number from the rating scale
that best reflects your perception. Judge how frequently each statement fits you. The word "others"
may mean your peers, clients, direct reports, supervisors, and/or all of these individuals. If an item
is irrelevant, or if you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave the answer blank. When you
have completed all the questions, please SE N D this questionnaire back to me via Workflow.
THANK YOU
Use T he Following Scale:
0
Not at all

1
Once in a while

2
Sometimes

3
Fairly often

4
Frequently if not
always

1. I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts

2. I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate
3. I fail to interfere until problems become serious
4. I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards
5. I avoid getting involved when important issues arise
6. I talk about my most important values and beliefs
7. I am absent when needed
8. I seek differing perspectives when solving problems
9. I talk optimistically about the future
10. I instil pride in others for being associated with me
11. I discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets
12. I wait for things to go wrong before taking action

149

13. I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished

14. I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose
15. I spend time teaching and coaching
16. I make clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved
17. I show that I am a firm believer in 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
18. I go beyond self-interest for the good of the group
19. I treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of a group
20. I demonstrate that problems must become chronic before I take action
21. I act in ways that build others' respect for me
22. I concentrate my full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures
23. I consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions
24. I keep track of all mistakes
25. I display a sense of power and confidence
26. I articulate a compelling vision of the future
27. I direct my attention toward failures to meet standards
28. I avoid making decisions
29. I consider an individual as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others
30. I get others to look at problems from many different angles
31. I help others to develop their strengths
32. I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments
33. I delay responding to urgent questions
34. I emphasise the importance of having a collective sense of mission
35. I express satisfaction when others meet expectations
36. I express confidence that goals will be achieved
37. I am effective in meeting others' job-related needs
38. I use methods of leadership that are satisfying
39. I get others to do more than they expected to do
40. I am effective in representing others to higher authority
41. I work with others in a satisfactory way
42. I heighten others' desire to succeed
43. I am effective in meeting organisational requirements
44. I increase others' willingness to try harder
45. I lead a group that is effective

150

A PP E N D I X F : O R G A N ISA T I O N A L C O M M I T M E N T
Q U EST I O N N A I R E
Name: ----------------------

O R G A N ISA T I O N A L C O M M I T M E N T Q U EST I O N N A I R E

I NST R U C T I O NS
Please describe your personal views of the following statements as objectively as you can, by
entering in the block a number from the rating scale that best reflects your views. The information
requested from you is being collected for research purposes. This questionnaire is not a test, and all
information collected will be anonymous, so please respond honestly. When you have completed
all the questions, please SE N D this questionnaire back to me via Workflow.
THANK YOU

Use the following rating scale:

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

1. I feel like part of the family at this organisation

2. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided that I wanted to leave this
organisation now

3. I would not leave this organisation right now because of what I would stand to lose
4. This organisation has a great deal of personal meaning for me
5. It would be very costly for me to leave this organisation right now
6. For me personally, the cost of leaving this organisation 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

organisation now

8. I would violate a trust if I quit my job with this organisation now

9. I feel a strong sense of belonging to this organisation
10. I feel emotionally attached to this organisation
11. I would feel guilty if I left my organisation now
12. I would not leave this organisation right now because I have a sense of
obligation to the people in it

151

A PP E N D I X G : M U L T I F A C T O R L E A D E RSH IP

Q U EST I O N N A I R E SC O R I N G K E Y

Description

L eadership

Raw F actors

Transformational

Idealised Influence (Attributes)

10

18

21

25

Transformational

Idealised Influence (Behaviour)

14

23

34

Transformational

Inspirational Motivation

13

26

36

Transformational

Intellectual Stimulation

30

32

Transformational

Individual Consideration

15

19

29

31

Transactional

Contingent Reward

11

16

35

Transactional

Management-by-Exception

22

24

27

12

17

20

33

F actors

Constructive
Transaction
Corrective Transaction

(Active)
Corrective Transaction

Transactional

Management-by-Exception
(Passive)

Non-Transactional

Laissez-Faire

28

Outcome 1

Extra Effort

39

42

44

Outcome 2

Effectiveness

37

40

43

Outcome 3

Satisfaction

38

41

45

Source: Bass and A volio (1994)

Organisational Commitment Factor # # #

Affective Commitment

1 4 9

10

Normative Commitment

7 8 11 12

Continuance Commitment

2 3 5

Source: M eyer and A llen (1997)

152