You are on page 1of 18

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.

htm

Turnover intentions
Do leadership behaviors and satisfaction with the leader matter?
Janelle E. Wells
Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management, College of Health and Human Performance, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA, and

Turnover intentions

23
Received August 2010 Revised October 2010 Accepted October 2010

Jon Welty Peachey


Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to investigate the relationship between leadership behaviors (transformational and transactional), satisfaction with the leader, and voluntary turnover intentions. In particular, it aims to investigate the mediation effect of satisfaction with the leader on the relationship between leadership behaviors and voluntary turnover organizational intentions. Design/methodology/approach Participants were 208 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I softball and volleyball assistant coaches in the USA. Using the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X) and an organizational turnover intent questionnaire, participants evaluated their head coachs leadership behavior, satisfaction with the leader, and their own organizational turnover intent. Findings Results revealed a direct negative relationship between leadership behaviors (transformational and transactional) and voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Also, satisfaction with the leader mediated the negative relationship between leadership behaviors (transformational and transactional) and voluntary turnover intentions. Research limitations/implications The study was limited by the use of professional associations to contact participants, the timing of the data collection, and the exploration of only one of numerous possible mediating variables. Several management implications are discussed, such as managers recognizing that both leadership behaviors can be the basis for effective leadership of work teams and for mitigating voluntary turnover intentions. Originality/value The papers principal theoretical contribution is the addition of satisfaction with the leader as a mediating variable between transformational and transactional leadership behavior and voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Keywords Transformational leadership, Transactional leadership, Job satisfaction, Employee turnover, Team management, United States of America Paper type Research paper

Managers in the twenty-rst century business climate must design and implement a range of team-based tasks, processes and projects (Polychroniou, 2009), making effective leadership of work teams a salient endeavor for research and practice (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). The epistemology of leadership theories has evolved from focusing on the behaviors of effective leaders to more encompassing contemporary ideas that incorporate the strength of leadership behaviors, the relationship between leaders and their followers, and the interaction within a context and situation (Strang,

Team Performance Management Vol. 17 No. 1/2, 2011 pp. 23-40 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1352-7592 DOI 10.1108/13527591111114693

TPM 17,1/2

24

2005). In the context of sport, a highly team-based eld, scholars have investigated the effects of transformational and transactional leadership on the organization (Burton and Peachey, 2009; Choi et al., 2007; Doherty and Danylchuk, 1996), as well as the antecedents and consequences of voluntary occupational and organizational turnover (Cunningham and Sagas, 2004; Hill, 2009; Sagas and Ashley, 2001), but rarely have studies combined these lines of inquiry and looked at how leadership behavior can inuence voluntary organizational turnover among athletic team coaches.
Leaders establish direction by developing a vision of the future; then they align people by communicating this vision and inspiring them to overcome hurdles (Robbins, 2003, p. 313).

Given this assertion, recent sport management scholarship has focused on the outcomes of transformational and transactional leadership, with several studies nding that transformational leadership had a positive effect on perceived leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, extra effort, job satisfaction, altruistic behavior, and affective commitment (Burton and Peachey, 2009; Choi et al., 2007; Doherty and Danylchuk, 1996). In other cases, however, no relationship was found between transformational leadership and organizational effectiveness (Weese, 1996). Voluntary organizational turnover is often dysfunctional and can be detrimental to organizations (Mobley, 1982). For instance, several studies in sport management have found negative effects of voluntary turnover on organizational performance (Hill, 2009; Salomo and Teichmann, 2000; White et al., 2007). Surprisingly, though, the relationship between leadership and voluntary organizational turnover has not been explored to a great extent within sport management. Additionally, studies regarding leadership and turnover tend to look at the relationship through the lenses of various intermediary factors such as psychological climate and morale (Langkamer and Ervin, 2008), organizational ethics (Shapira-Lishchinsky and Rosenblatt, 2009), and components of job satisfaction (Clemens et al., 2009; Coomber and Barriball, 2007; Harris et al., 2009). As such, satisfaction with the leader (Bass, 1985, 1990) could play a mediating role between leadership behavior and voluntary organizational turnover intentions. The majority of studies on leadership and turnover in the sport context have focused upon professional sport, and head coaches and athletic directors in intercollegiate sport (see Burton and Peachey, 2009; Choi et al., 2007; Nezhad and Keshtan, 2010; Yusof and Shah, 2008). Given that intercollegiate athletics is inherently organized around teams, we deemed this an appropriate setting for this investigation. Specically, in the context of intercollegiate athletics, the perspective of assistant coaches has yet to be examined in detail. To address this gap, the purpose of our study was to investigate the direct effect of transformational and transactional leadership of the head coach on voluntary organizational turnover intentions of NCAA Division I non-revenue assistant coaches in the USA, and the indirect (mediating) effect of satisfaction with the leader on voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Our research questions framing the study were: RQ1. What is the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership behavior and voluntary organizational turnover intentions? RQ2. Does satisfaction with the leader mediate the relationship between leadership behavior and voluntary organizational turnover intentions?

Conceptual framework and literature review Transformational and transactional leadership Originally espoused by Burns (1978) then later rened by Bass (1985, 1990), the conceptual framework of transformational and transactional leadership has gained considerable traction among sport and business management scholars (Doherty, 1997). Whereas transactional leaders place an emphasis on exchanging rewards for accomplishment, transformational leaders meet the higher order needs of employees (Burton and Peachey, 2009; Yusof and Shah, 2008) by appealing to their moral and intellectual sensibilities (Kezar and Eckel, 2008, p. 380). Transformational leadership, then, is the process of inuencing major change in the attitudes and assumptions of organization members and building commitment for the organizations mission or objectives (Yukl, 1989, p. 204). Transformational leadership is visionary and appeals to the higher order psychological needs of employees of feeling valued and worthwhile in the organization (Bryman, 1992). It is comprised of four dimensions: (1) Charisma. Articulating a future vision and infusing trust and respect. (2) Inspiration. Using simple devices to communicate purposes and expectations. (3) Intellectual stimulation. Encouraging efcient problem solving, judgment and aptitude. (4) Individualized consideration. Teaching and motivating each employee individually and with personal attention (Bass, 1990). Transactional leaders, on the other hand, manage by an exchange process based on positive reinforcement, focusing on rules and procedures. Its dimensions are: (1) Contingent reward. Providing pre-determined arrangements of reward for effort. (2) Active management by exception. Policing work for deviations from standards, followed by corrective action. (3) Passive management by exception. Interceding in work only if/when standards are not met. (4) Laissez-faire. Ceding responsibilities and decision making (Bass, 1990). On the whole, sport and business management scholars have found that transformational leadership leads to more positive organizational outcomes than transactional leadership. For instance, Choi et al. (2007) found that transformational leadership of the athletic director was associated with head coaches altruistic behavior, affective commitment and job satisfaction, while Yusof and Shah (2008) found that an athletic director displaying transformational leadership led to greater job satisfaction among head coaches. Doherty and Danylchuk (1996) also demonstrated that athletic directors within the Ontario University System displayed a predominant transformational style, as perceived by their coaches, and that there was a strong positive relationship between transformational leadership and leader effectiveness. A more recent study in Division III intercollegiate athletics by Burton and Peachey (2009) showed that transformational leadership of the athletic director was positively associated with stimulating extra effort and satisfaction with the leader, and that transformational leadership was preferred overall, regardless of whether a woman or man was exhibiting this style of leadership. Outside of sport management research, Polychroniou (2009) found that emotional intelligence was

Turnover intentions

25

TPM 17,1/2

positively associated with transformational leadership, which in turn increased work team effectiveness, while a study by Strang (2005) revealed that moderate amounts of transformational leadership led to more positive perceptions of leader effectiveness among work team members. Wang and Huang (2009) demonstrated that transformational leadership more than transactional leadership was positively related to group as well as individual performance. Turnover Organizational turnover has been a central research topic for nearly 90 years (Cotton and Tuttle, 1986; Tse and Lam, 2008), and as most scholars have discovered, can result in severe negative consequences for the organization (Abbasi and Hollman, 2000; Watrous et al., 2006). Abbasi and Hollman (2000) estimated that the visible and hidden costs of turnover in organizations equaled approximately $11 billion annually. However, nancial costs are not the only repercussions of turnover. Organizations must also mitigate the effects turnover has on customer relations, disruption of efciency, decreases in morale (Abbasi and Hollman, 2000) and the resulting effect on organizational performance (Watrous et al., 2006). Turnover can be categorized as voluntary or involuntary, as well as functional or dysfunctional (Watrous et al., 2006), and each type of turnover can have varying effects on the organization. Voluntary organizational turnover, or a process in which an individual makes a decision to stay or leave the rm (McPherson, 1976), is usually dysfunctional and can be the most detrimental to the organization (Mobley, 1982). Abbasi and Hollman (2000) warn that it is the smartest and most talented employees [who] are the most mobile and the ones who are disproportionately more likely to leave (p. 333). As these employees choose to leave organizations, their experience, knowledge and talent leave with them resulting in output delays caused by their vacancy (Abbasi and Hollman, 2000), which can lead to organizational dysfunction. Involuntary turnover, on the other hand, is dened as a process in which the organization assumes control over an employees decision to stay or leave (McPherson, 1976). Here, the process typically focuses on removing under-performing employees (Price, 1989), so it is often labeled as functional turnover (Watrous et al., 2006). Recent studies in sport management have shown the dysfunctional aftermath of turnover in organizations. Studies focused on mid-season coaching succession in the National Hockey League (White et al., 2007), managerial succession in the German Premier Soccer League (Salomo and Teichmann, 2000), and the performance of baseball teams in the short- and long-run following general manager turnover (Hill, 2009) have all demonstrated the negative effect of involuntary turnover on short-term organizational performance. Other sport management scholars have used voluntary turnover intentions as a proxy for actual turnover, as many previous studies have shown that there is a strong relationship between turnover intentions and actual turnover (Lee and Mowday, 1987; Mobley, 1982; Rosser and Townsend, 2006). Cunningham and Sagas (2004) investigated the effects of group diversity on voluntary occupational turnover intentions among Division IA football coaching staffs, where results revealed that ethnic and tenure diversity were signicant predictors of occupational turnover intent. Earlier, Cunningham et al. (2001) found that there was an inverse relationship between affective occupational commitment and intent to leave the coaching profession among Division I assistant coaches. Within the sphere of organizational change, Cunningham (2006) found that coping with change mediated

26

the relationship between commitment to change and voluntary turnover intentions among employees in ten sport organizations. Relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and voluntary organizational turnover intentions The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and voluntary organizational turnover intentions has not been explored by sport management scholars, but has received some attention in the business management literature (Bycio et al., 1995; Martin and Epitropaki, 2001; Tse and Lam, 2008). These studies have generally shown that transformational leadership is an important factor in mitigating voluntary turnover intentions (Bass, 1998). Martin and Epitropaki (2001) found that transformational leadership was inversely related to voluntary turnover intentions among employees from seven for-prot businesses, while Bycio et al. (1995) showed that greater degrees of transformational leadership were associated with reductions in intentions to leave the nursing profession. Other business management scholars have found that servant leadership, which is similar to transformational leadership but focuses more on the followers needs, reduced voluntary turnover intentions through a moderating and mediating chain involving ethical level, person-organization t and organizational commitment (Jaramillo et al., 2009). Participative management style, also similar in focus to the shared decision-making fostered by transformational leaders, was found to reduce voluntary turnover intentions among employees in the US healthcare industry (Angermeier et al., 2009). The rationale underlying the relationship between leadership and voluntary turnover is that the behaviors exhibited by leaders can be perceived by subordinates as indicators of organizational intentions (Levinson, 1965), where leaders are the main source of information for employees about organizational goals and strategies (Martin and Epitropaki, 2001). Transformational leaders more than transactional leaders create a vision and foster a sense of pride and belonging to the organization, and communicate why membership in the organization is important, enabling followers to internalize group or organizational values (Bass, 1985). Also, certain types of leader behaviors can arouse followers positive emotions and psychological attachment, so they will remain with the rm if they perceive that the leader (i.e. the organization) cares for them and if they have strong identication with the leader (Tse and Lam, 2008). Transformational leadership behavior encourages an emotional attachment to the leader among followers, and can foster high levels of trust, because of followers attribution and admiration to the desirable behaviors of the leaders (Tse and Lam, 2008, p. 2). Essentially, transformational leaders develop a high quality leader-member exchange (LMX) with followers through heightened levels of trust. Thus, leaving the organization has a high cost for followers, as they do not wish to disengage from this quality relationship. Given this foundation, we hypothesize the following: H1. Transformational leadership will have a direct negative effect on voluntary organizational turnover intentions. The mediating role of satisfaction with the leader Several studies have explored the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and satisfaction with the leader. Within sport management, Burton and Peachey (2009) discovered that among Division III athletic directors,

Turnover intentions

27

TPM 17,1/2

28

transformational leadership led to more positive perceptions of satisfaction with the leader than transactional leadership. Outside of sport management, a number of studies in business management and education have found that there was a strong positive relationship between transformational leadership and satisfaction with the leader (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1990; Bass et al., 1987; Bycio et al., 1995; Grifth, 2004; Waldman et al., 1987). In fact, in a comprehensive meta-analysis of the transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership literatures, Judge and Piccolo (2004) found that, across studies, transformational leadership was more positively associated with satisfaction with the leader than either transactional or laissez-faire leadership. Another line of research has investigated the relationship between satisfaction with the leader/supervisor and voluntary turnover intentions. The rationale here is that the way people experience work can inuence intentions to quit or stay (George and Jones, 1996). Cunningham and Sagas (2003), for instance, found that when a coach planned to leave the profession was predicted by how he/she experienced work in the organization, and they called for further research on how relationship effects impact work experiences/outcomes. How an individual experiences work has much to do with the relationship with ones supervisor/leader. With regards to turnover, studies have generally demonstrated that there is a negative relationship between satisfaction with the leader and voluntary turnover intentions. In the rst meta-analysis of the turnover literature, Cotton and Tuttle (1986) highlighted 14 studies that demonstrated a negative relationship between satisfaction with the supervisor and actual turnover, while a later meta-analysis in 2000 conducted by Griffeth, Hom and Gaertner found the same negative association among 16 studies from the 1990s. None of these studies was set in the sport industry. Later, Fang (2001) found that satisfaction with the supervisor was one of the most important predictors of turnover intentions among nurses in Singapore, and a study by Abraham et al. (2008) showed that there was a signicant relationship between immediate supervisor satisfaction and intent to leave ones job. Surprisingly, there has been little research on the underlying mechanisms through which transformational and transactional leadership affects withdrawal cognitions and actual turnover (Tse and Lam, 2008), but recently, scholars have begun to investigate possible mediators. Tse and Lam (2008), for instance, found that transformational leadership inuenced withdrawal cognitions and actual turnover through the mediating effect of organizational commitment and LMX, while Bycio et al. (1995) suggested that affective commitment could mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and turnover intent. Job satisfaction has also been shown to mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and actual turnover among school staff (Grifth, 2004) and between transformational leadership and turnover intent among nurses (Larrabee et al., 2003). As Grifth (2004) suggested, the relationship between leadership and turnover is best described through satisfaction with the work environment, including satisfaction with the leader. If an employee has a high quality relationship and is satised with his or her leader, leaving the organization would entail psychological loss, making withdrawal costly (Mossholder et al., 2005). Likely, those employees who are satised with the leader will have higher quality relationships with the leader than those who are not satised, resulting in reduced turnover intent. As previously discussed, transformational leaders may engender greater follower satisfaction with the leader

more than transactional leaders. Thus, we propose the following regarding the mediating role of satisfaction with the leader: H2. Satisfaction with the leader will mediate the relationship between leadership behavior (transformational and transactional) and voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Method Procedures and participants We chose to situate our investigation in the intercollegiate sport context because of its inherent team-based structure and organizational models. Therefore, assistant coaches of NCAA Division I softball and volleyball teams were surveyed regarding the leadership behavior of their head coach, satisfaction with the leader, and their voluntary organizational turnover intentions. To access the collegiate assistant coaches, we contacted the respective professional associations the American Volleyball Coaching Association (AVCA) and the National Fastpitch Coaches Association (NFCA) to obtain e-mail and membership lists of their members. We used both an online and in-person survey methodology. A total of 465 current NCAA Division I softball and volleyball assistant coaches were contacted to participate in this study. The in-person survey occurred during the assistant coaches meeting at the AVCA Annual Convention in December, 2009. As participants entered the meeting, they were notied of the survey and completed the questionnaires, after reviewing and signing the approved Institutional Review Board informed consent form. A total of 108 volleyball assistant coaches (n 108) completed the survey for a response rate of 93.1 percent. A link to an online survey was sent to Division I assistant coaches of the NFCA. Initially, these participants were sent an email invitation notifying them of an upcoming online survey, with the e-mail invitation following two days later. Two weeks after the email invitation, a reminder e-mail was sent to non-respondents. A total of 100 softball assistant coaches (n 100) completed the online survey for a response rate of 28.7 percent. Overall, 208 surveys (n 208) were collected from the two sources, for a response rate of 44.7 percent. Sixty-seven participants were men (32 percent) and 141 were women (68 percent). Ages of the assistant coaches ranged from 23 to 64 years old, with an average age of 32 (SD 7:78). In terms of ethnicity, the majority of respondents identied themselves as White (77 percent), while 7.7 percent were African American, 4.3 percent were Asian, 2.9 percent were Hispanic and Hawaiian/Pacic Islander, 1.9 percent omitted the question, and the remaining 3.4 percent described themselves as other. On average, an assistant coachs organizational tenure was 3.3 years (SD 3:00), with a base salary of $30,001-$40,000. Age and gender demographics were consistent with previous assistant coach studies (Cunningham and Sagas, 2003; Sagas and Ashley, 2001). Instruments Using the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X, Bass and Avolio, 2000) and an organizational turnover intent questionnaire (Cunningham, 2007; Haggar et al., 2001), participants evaluated their head coachs leadership behavior on eight, four-item MLQ subscales and one, three-item organizational turnover intent scale. Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership behavior was measured by four items in each of the following dimensions: idealized inuence-attributes,

Turnover intentions

29

TPM 17,1/2

30

idealized inuence-behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Each item was rated on a ve-point Likert type scale (4 frequently, if not always, 3 fairly often, 2 sometimes, 1 once in a while, 0 not at all). Using scores from the MLQ, an overall transformational leadership score was calculated as an average of the ve transformational leadership subscales. Transactional leadership. Transactional leadership behavior was measured by four items in each of the following dimensions: contingent reward, active management by exception, and passive management by exception. The same ve-point Likert type scale was used by participants to rate the head coachs behavior (4 frequently, if not always to 0 not at all). Using scores from the MLQ, an overall transactional leadership score was calculated as an average of the three transactional leadership subscales. Satisfaction with the leader. A two-item subscale from the MLQ measured the assistant coaches satisfaction of their leader. The same ve-point Likert type scale was used (4 frequently, if not always to 0 not at all). An overall satisfaction score was calculated as an average of the two items. Voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Participants were also surveyed regarding their voluntary organizational turnover intentions (Cunningham, 2006; Meyer et al., 1993). Following Cunningham (2007) and other business management scholars (Lee and Mowday, 1987; Mobley, 1982; Rosser and Townsend, 2006), we used turnover intentions as a proxy for actual turnover. A three-item subscale measured the participants voluntary organizational turnover intention. These items were I plan on leaving this coaching staff within the next year; I intend to leave this coaching staff within the next year; and I will try to leave this coaching staff within the next year. An equivalent ve-point Likert type scale was used (4 frequently, if not always to 0 not at all), with an overall voluntary organizational turnover intention score derived as the average of the three items. Analyses Reliability was conducted to verify internal consistency of each leadership behavior (see below), as well as the satisfaction with the leader and voluntary organizational turnover intention scales. Descriptive statistics were calculated for transformational leadership behavior, transactional leadership behavior, satisfaction with the leader, and voluntary organizational turnover intentions. To examine the predictability of a head coachs behavior on inuencing satisfaction with the leader and voluntary organizational turnover intentions, multiple hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. Likewise, to explore the mediating inuence of satisfaction with the leader on the relationship between leadership behavior and voluntary organizational turnover intentions, we employed hierarchical regression to control for the assistant coachs age, gender, sport, and tenure in the position. Results Properties The reliability of the instrument met Nunnally and Bernsteins (1994) minimum internal consistency requirements. All of the subscales produced Cronbach alpha reliability scores between 0.70 and 0.96 (see Table I). An average transformational leadership score was calculated from the ve subscales (idealized inuence-attributes,

Variables 1 1. Transformational leadership 2. Transactional leadership 3. Satisfaction with the leader 4. Voluntary organizational turnover intention Cronbachs a M SD Note: *p , 0.01 0.70 * 0.79 * 20.30 * 0.93 2.71 0.74 2 3 4

Turnover intentions

0.70 * 2 0.33 * 0.70 2.43 0.56

20.35 * 0.88 2.64 1.05

0.96 1.12 1.31

31
Table I. Correlation, Cronbach alpha, and descriptive (M, SD) statistics

idealized inuence-behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) and had an internal consistency of (a 0:93). An average score for transactional leadership was calculated from the three subscales (contingent reward, active management by exception, and passive management by exception). Eliminating one item from the passive management by exception subscale signicantly improved inter-item consistency, so a decision was made to drop this item from the average transactional leadership scale to derive at an internal consistency of (a 0:70). Additionally, the participants satisfaction with the leader had an internal consistency of (a 0:88). The most recent MLQ study by Burton and Peachey (2009) documented the reliability of this instrument, reporting Cronbach alpha reliability scores of 0.75 or higher for all scales. Lastly, the voluntary organizational turnover intention scale had an internal consistency of (a 0:96). Impact of leadership style The correlation between transformational leadership behavior and voluntary organizational turnover intentions (r 20:30, p , 0.01) as well as the correlation between transactional leadership behavior and voluntary organizational turnover intentions (r 20:33, p , 0.01) revealed signicant negative associations (see Table I). Thus, initially, these results supported H1 prior to testing mediation, which stated that transformational leadership will have a direct negative effect on voluntary organizational turnover intentions. However, transactional leadership also had a direct negative effect on voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Prior to interpreting the regression analyses results, collinearity statistics were produced to determine if multicollinearity was an issue in the data set. Multicollinearity is indicated by variance ination factors (VIF) over 10.0 and tolerance values of 0.01 or less (Keith, 2006; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Results of the collinearity statistic for the leadership styles showed VIF values no greater than 3.05, as well as tolerance levels of 0.33 and above. Thus, multicollinearity was not an issue between transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. Mediation effect of satisfaction with the leader According to Baron and Kenny (1986), testing the mediating effect of satisfaction with the leader on the relationship between leadership behavior and voluntary organizational turnover intentions required a three-step regression analyses process

TPM 17,1/2

32

(see Table II). During step one of the analysis, the independent variables (leadership behaviors) were treated as the predictor variables and the dependent variable (voluntary organizational turnover intentions) was the outcome variable. This step was performed to determine if a direct relationship between the independent variables and dependent variable existed. Signicant negative relationships were found between transformational leadership and voluntary organizational turnover intentions (b 20:320, p , 0.01), and between transactional leadership and voluntary organizational turnover intentions (b 20:341, p , 0.01). Step two of the analysis was undertaken to determine if there was a direct relationship between the predictor variables (leadership behaviors), and the outcome variable, which was the hypothesized mediator (satisfaction with the leader). Step two also revealed signicant relationships between transformational leadership and satisfaction with the leader (b 0:579, p , 0.01), and between transactional leadership and satisfaction with the leader (b 0:295, p , 0.01). Lastly, in step three, the independent variables (leadership behaviors) and the mediator (satisfaction with the leader) were treated as the predictor variables on the dependent variable (voluntary organizational turnover intentions). Signicance was not found between transformational leadership and voluntary organizational turnover intentions (b 20:022, p 0:84) or between transactional leadership and voluntary organizational turnover intentions (b 20:156, p 0:10), but signicance was found between satisfaction with the leader and voluntary organizational turnover intentions (b 20:241, p , 0.05). Results in Table II show the signicant regression coefcients of steps one and two for the direct effect of transformational and transactional leadership style on each outcome variable. Mediation was suggested in step three when the direct effect of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors on voluntary organizational turnover intentions was not signicant, but was signicant for the effect of the mediator on voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Therefore, our results support H2, which stated that satisfaction with the leader will mediate the relationship between leadership behavior (transformational or transactional) and voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Discussion Our rst hypothesis, which stated that transformational leadership will have a direct negative effect on voluntary organizational turnover intentions, was supported by our results. However, we also found a direct negative effect between transactional leadership and voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Our signicant ndings for transformational leadership are in line with previous work in business management (Bass, 1998; Bycio et al., 1995; Martin and Epitropaki, 2001), which has produced

Variables Voluntary organizational turnover intention (DV) Transformational leadership Transactional leadership Satisfaction with the leader Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01

b1
20.320 * * 20.341 * *

b2
0.579 * * 0.295 * *

b3
2 0.022 2 0.156 2 0.241 *

Table II. Mediating effect of satisfaction with the leader

similar ndings. The literature on exit-voice theory (Freeman and Medoff, 1984) is helpful here in interpreting our results. Exit-voice theory posits that employees can address their dissatisfaction with their workplace in one of two ways; they can either express their dissatisfaction to their supervisor/organization (i.e. voice), or they can chose to leave the organization (Freeman and Medoff, 1984; Hirschman, 1970). Several studies in business management, undergirded by exit-voice theory, have demonstrated that if employees have the ability to express their concerns and feel like they have a voice in the organization, they will then be less likely to turnover of their own volition (Abraham et al., 2005; Iverson and Currivan, 2003). Within the leadership literature, studies have found that transformational leaders are likely to encourage employee participation in the decision-making process, and to encourage employees to express their opinions and concerns, even if these views are in opposition to or different from the prevailing norm (Eisenback et al., 1999; Lines, 2004). Therefore, transformational leaders may facilitate employee voice, and because employees feel like they can express their opinions or dissatisfaction, they may then be less likely to voluntarily leave the organization. This could mean that the assistant coaches who rated their head coaches as displaying transformational leadership behavior had reduced turnover intentions because they felt that their head coach respected their opinions, and that they could express their dissatisfaction with team strategies, goals and structure, providing them with a necessary voice. Also similar to ndings from a few studies in business management (Bycio et al., 1995; Martin and Epitropaki, 2001), we found that there was a direct negative relationship between transactional leadership behavior and voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Martin and Epitropaki (2001), for instance, concluded that transformational leadership predicted additional variance in turnover intentions over and above transactional leadership behavior. Similarly, Bycio et al. (1995) discovered that transformational leadership augmented the negative relationship between the contingent reward dimension of transactional leadership and voluntary organizational turnover intentions. The justication here is that according to Basss model of leadership (Bass, 1985, 1997; Bass and Avolio, 1997), transformational leadership augments transactional leadership in predicting work-related outcomes (Seltzer and Bass, 1990; Waldman et al., 1990). Certainly, then, for some assistant coaches in our study, the transactional leadership behavior of the head coach was a signicant factor in reducing their voluntary turnover intentions. The rationalization as to why transactional leadership behavior was related to reduced voluntary organizational turnover intentions can be framed within a brief discussion of justice theory (Cobb et al., 1995). Justice theory distinguishes between procedural justice, or a focus on process, and distributive justice, or a concentration on outcomes. If employees feel that organizational processes are fair, they will likely deliver a good outcome and be more satised with their workplace than if processes are regarded as being unfair. As transactional leadership emphasizes contingent reward for good performance, leaders displaying this behavior will likely have detailed, systematic and comprehensive reward and incentive policies in place at all levels of the organization which are applied to all employees without discrimination. Thus, if a head coach institutes fair, incentivized reward structures for assistant coaches, and the assistant coaches are satised with these policies, they may then be less likely to actively search for other employment options. Also, some assistant coaches may

Turnover intentions

33

TPM 17,1/2

34

simply be more satised with transactional leadership behavior than transformational behavior because this is what they are accustomed to, and because they may thrive in competitive, reward-based environments. We also found support for our second hypothesis, where we posited that satisfaction with the leader will mediate the relationship between leadership behavior (transformational and transactional) and voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Our ndings were thus similar to previous studies in education and business management which have found that leadership behavior inuences voluntary turnover intentions indirectly through various mediating variables (Bycio et al., 1995; Grifth, 2004; Larrabee et al., 2003; Tse and Lam, 2008). However, none of these previous studies investigated the possible mediating role of satisfaction with the leader. The role of satisfaction with the leader as a mediating variable makes intuitive sense. If an assistant coach is satised with the head coachs leadership behavior, either transformational or transactional, he or she will be less likely to contemplate leaving the team, and perhaps disengaging from a high quality LMX relationship with the head coach, which would make the cost of leaving higher (Mossholder et al., 2005). Implications Our principal theoretical contribution to the well-traveled literature on leadership and turnover is the addition of satisfaction with the leader as a mediating variable between transformational and transactional leadership behavior and voluntary organizational turnover intentions. As far as we know, our study was the rst to investigate satisfaction with the leader as a mediator in the business management, sport, or team environment. Therefore, it can provide additional insight and direction for researchers in developing comprehensive theoretical models of the mechanisms through which leadership behavior in teams inuences voluntary organizational turnover intentions, both within and outside of the sport context. Our study also offers several recommendations for practice. First, managers should recognize that both transactional and transformational leadership behaviors can be the basis for effective leadership of work teams, and that both leadership behaviors can be valuable in mitigating voluntary turnover intentions. Thus, a balance between both leadership styles should be exhibited by managers. Second, managers should strive to create healthy, vibrant work environments and pay close attention to how satised employees are with organizational and team leadership in order to reduce voluntary turnover. Turnover intentions could also be reduced by implementing 360-degree feedback programs, and other similar initiatives to provide employees with a voice in the organization. Finally, one way to increase satisfaction with the leader could be to include team members in the decision-making process (Grifth, 2004). If team members feel that a manager values their participation in decision-making, providing another avenue for expression of employee voice, satisfaction with the leader could increase, leading to reduced voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Limitations Although the current study made important theoretical contributions to our understanding of satisfaction with the leader as a mediator between leadership behavior and voluntary organizational turnover intentions, as in all studies, limitations must be noted. First, data was only collected from Division I assistant coaches of two

non-revenue generating sport teams. Since only team sport assistant coaches were surveyed, assistant coaches of individual sports or revenue generating sports may share different perceptions related to their leaders behavior, their voluntary organizational turnover intentions, and satisfaction with their leader. Secondly, professional associations were used to contact the respected assistant coaches. While members of these associations use them as a resource for professional development and networking opportunities, membership costs hindered our access to all assistant coaches of these two sports, as some assistant coaches are not members of these associations. Another limitation was the timing of the data collection. As we collected data in December 2009, volleyball season had just commenced, so job openings began to surface. However, softball assistant coaches were at the brink of their schedule, so they were committed to the season and their jobs. This timing variance may have inuenced ones perspectives of possible job opportunities and ones views on voluntary organizational turnover intentions, as volleyball assistant coaches could have been actively looking for jobs, while softball assistant coaches were immersed in the season and not thinking about the future. Lastly, this study only explored one of numerous possible mediating variables, which we elaborate upon below in our suggestions for future research. Future research directions Numerous recommendations for future research surfaced from this study. First, the study needs to be replicated in other business contexts, outside of the sport setting, that use work teams as an organizational tool, to ascertain if the ndings may vary by context. Within the sport environment, our study should be replicated in revenue generating sports. Results from revenue generating teams may provide information to better understand the impact of the unique environment of media attention and the pressure to win (Kramer, 2008) on the assistant coachs perception of leadership behavior, voluntary organizational turnover intentions, and satisfaction with the leader. This study should also be replicated at all intercollegiate levels, to see if similar results are revealed, or if the results vary because of the context. Likewise, this study should be conducted within one organization to see how leadership behavior impacts satisfaction with the leader and voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Another possible direction to explore is how other demographic variables (e.g. gender, age) factor into the equation. For example, research should examine how the leadership/gender relationship on a work team (e.g. a male assistant coach with a female head coach) inuences the perceptions of leader behavior. Finally, the exploration of other mediators, such as LMX and organizational commitment (Tse and Lam, 2008), affective organizational commitment (Lee and Mowday, 1987; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), and job satisfaction (Larrabee et al., 2003) should be conducted. Conclusion While leadership and turnover have both received signicant attention from management scholars, little previous scholarship in business management and the work team-based literature has investigated the connection between leadership and voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Therefore, we addressed this gap by studying the direct effect of transformational and transactional leadership behavior of head coaches on the voluntary organizational turnover intentions of non-revenue sport

Turnover intentions

35

TPM 17,1/2

36

Division I assistant coaches. Additionally, we investigated the mediating role of satisfaction with the leader on the relationship between leadership and voluntary organizational turnover intentions. Our ndings, which convey our principal theoretical contribution, revealed that while both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors of the head coach were effective in mitigating voluntary organizational turnover intentions, satisfaction with the leader fully mediated this relationship. Future scholarship should endeavor to develop theoretical models of leadership and turnover that incorporate both mediating and moderating variables to more fully and comprehensively explain this phenomenon.
References Abbasi, S.M. and Hollman, K.W. (2000), Turnover: the real bottom line, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 29, pp. 333-42. Abraham, S.E., Friedman, B.A. and Thomas, B.K. (2005), The impact of union membership on intent to leave: additional evidence for the voice face of unions, Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 201-13. Abraham, S.E., Friedman, B.A. and Thomas, R.K. (2008), The relationship among union membership, facets of satisfaction and intent to leave: further evidence on the voice of unions, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 1-11. Angermeier, I., Dunford, B.B. and Boss, W. (2009), The impact of participative management perceptions on customer service, medical errors, burnout, and turnover intentions, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 54, pp. 127-40. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinctions in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82. Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1990), From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18, pp. 19-31. Bass, B.M. (1997), Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?, American Psychologist, Vol. 52, pp. 130-9. Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997), Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Redwood City, CA. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2000), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaires: Technical Report, Leader Form, Rater Form, and Scoring Key for MLQ Form 5Z-Short, 2nd ed., Mind Garden, Redwood City, CA. Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. and Goodheim, L. (1987), Quantitative description of world-class industrial, political, and military leaders, Journal of Management, Vol. 13, pp. 7-19. Bryman, A. (1992), Charisma and Leadership in Organizations, Sage, London. Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Burton, L.J. and Peachey, J.W. (2009), Transactional or transformational? Leadership preferences of Division III athletic administrators, Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, Vol. 2, pp. 245-59.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. and Allen, J.S. (1995), Further assessment of Basss (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 468-78. Choi, J., Sagas, M., Park, S. and Cunningham, G.B. (2007), Transformational leadership in collegiate coaching: the effects of transformational leadership on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior, International Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 8, pp. 429-45. Clemens, E.V., Milsom, A. and Cashwell, C.S. (2009), Using leader-member exchange theory to examine principal-school counselor relationships, school counselors roles, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions, Professional School Counseling, Vol. 13, pp. 75-85. Cobb, A.T., Wooten, K. and Folger, R. (1995), Justice in the making: toward understanding the theory and practice of justice in organizational change and development, in Pastore, W.A. and Woodman, R.W. (Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 8, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 243-95. Coomber, B. and Barriball, K.L. (2007), Impact of job satisfaction components on intent to leave and turnover for hospital-based nurses: a review of the research literature, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 44, pp. 297-314. Cotton, J.L. and Tuttle, J.M. (1986), Employee turnover: a meta-analysis and review with implications for research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 55-70. Cunningham, G.B. (2006), The relationships among commitment to change, coping with change, and turnover intentions, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 29-45. Cunningham, G.B. (2007), Perceptions as reality: the inuence of actual and perceived demographic dissimilarity, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 79-89. Cunningham, G.B. and Sagas, M. (2003), Occupational turnover intent among assistant coaches of womens teams: the role of organizational work experiences, Sex Roles, Vol. 49, pp. 185-90. Cunningham, G.B. and Sagas, M. (2004), Group diversity, occupational commitment, and occupational turnover intentions among NCAA Division IA football coaching staffs, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 18, pp. 236-54. Cunningham, G.B., Sagas, M. and Ashley, F.B. (2001), Occupational commitment and intent to leave the coaching profession, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, Vol. 36, pp. 131-48. Doherty, A.J. (1997), The effect of leader characteristics on the perceived transformational/transactional leadership and impact of interuniversity athletic administrators, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 11, pp. 275-85. Doherty, A.J. and Danylchuk, K.E. (1996), Transformational and transactional leadership in interuniversity athletic management, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 10, pp. 292-310. Eisenback, R., Watson, K. and Pillai, R. (1999), Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 80-9. Fang, Y. (2001), Turnover propensity and its causes among Singapore nurses: an empirical study, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12, pp. 859-71. Freeman, R.B. and Medoff, J.L. (1984), What Do Unions Do?, Basic Books, New York, NY. George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (1996), The experience of work and turnover intentions: interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 318-25.

Turnover intentions

37

TPM 17,1/2

38

Grifth, J. (2004), Relations of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 42, pp. 333-56. Haggar, M.S., Chatzsarantis, N. and Biddle, S.J.H. (2001), The inuence of self-efcacy and past behavior on the physical activity intentions of young people, Journal of Sports Sciences, Vol. 19, pp. 711-25. Harris, K.J., Wheeler, A.R. and Kacmar, K.M. (2009), Leader-member exchange and empowerment: direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 371-82. Hill, G.C. (2009), The effect of frequent managerial turnover on organizational performance: a study of professional baseball managers, The Social Science Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 557-70. Hirschman, A.O. (1970), Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, President and Fellows of Harvard College, Boston, MA. Iverson, R.D. and Currivan, D.B. (2003), Union participation, job satisfaction, and employee turnover: an event-history analysis of the exit-voice hypothesis, Industrial Relations, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 101-5. Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D.B., Chonko, L.B. and Roberts, J.A. (2009), Examining the impact of servant leadership on salespersons turnover intentions, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 29, pp. 351-65. Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004), Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 755-68. Keith, T.Z. (2006), Multiple Regression and Beyond, Pearson Education, Boston, MA. Kezar, A. and Eckel, P. (2008), Advancing diversity agendas on campus: examining transactional and transformational presidential leadership styles, International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 11, pp. 379-405. Kozlowski, S. and Ilgen, D.R. (2006), Enhancing effectiveness of work groups and teams, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 77-124. Kramer, D.A. (2008), Huddle-up: a phenomenological approach to understanding the impact of intercollegiate athletic participation on the academic socialization of male revenue-generating student-athletes, Master thesis, College of Education, University of Southern California. Langkamer, K.L. and Ervin, K.S. (2008), Psychological climate, organizational commitment and morale: implications for Army captains career intent, Military Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 219-36. Larrabee, J.H., Janney, M.A., Ostrow, C.L., Withrow, M.L., Hobbs, G.R. and Burant, C. (2003), Predicting registered nurse job satisfaction and intent to leave, Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 33, pp. 271-83. Lee, T.W. and Mowday, R.T. (1987), Voluntarily leaving an organization: an empirical investigation of Steers and Mowdays model of turnover, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 30, pp. 721-43. Levinson, H. (1965), Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organization, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 9, pp. 370-90. Lines, R. (2004), Inuence of participants in strategic change: resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 193-215.

McPherson, B.D. (1976), Involuntary turnover and organizational effectiveness in the National Hockey League, in Gruneau, R.S. and Albinson, J.G. (Eds), Canadian Sport: Sociological Perspectives, Addison-Wesley, Don Mills, pp. 259-75. Martin, R. and Epitropaki, O. (2001), Role of organizational identication on implicit leadership theories (ILTS), transformational leadership and work attitudes, Group Process and Intergroup Relations, Vol. 4, pp. 247-62. Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, pp. 171-94. Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993), Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 538-51. Mobley, W.H. (1982), Employee Turnover, Causes, Consequences, and Control, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Mossholder, K.W., Settoon, R.P. and Henagan, S.C. (2005), A relational perspective on turnover: examining structural, attitudinal, and behavioral predictors, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 607-18. Nezhad, R.R. and Keshtan, M.H. (2010), The coachs leadership styles: team cohesion and team success in Iran football clubs professional league, International Journal of Fitness, Vol. 6, pp. 53-61. Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Polychroniou, P. (2009), Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership of supervisors: the impact on team effectiveness, Team Performance Management, Vol. 15 Nos 7/8, pp. 343-56. Price, J.L. (1989), The impact of turnover on the organization, Work and Occupations, Vol. 16, pp. 461-73. Robbins, S.P. (2003), Organizational Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Saddle River, NJ. Rosser, V.J. and Townsend, B.K. (2006), Determining public 2-year college facultys intent to leave: an empirical model, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 77, pp. 124-47. Sagas, M. and Ashley, F. (2001), Gender differences in the intent to leave coaching: the role of personal, external, and work-related variables, International Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 2, pp. 297-314. Salomo, S. and Teichmann, K. (2000), The relationship of performance and managerial succession in the German premier football league, European Journal for Sport Management, Vol. 7, pp. 99-119. Seltzer, J. and Bass, B.M. (1990), Transformational leadership: beyond initiation and consideration, Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 693-703. Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. and Rosenblatt, Z. (2009), Organizational ethics and teachers intent to leave: an integrative approach, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45, pp. 725-58. Strang, K.D. (2005), Examining effective and ineffective transformational project leadership, Team Performance Management, Vol. 11 Nos 3/4, pp. 68-103. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA. Tse, H.H.M. and Lam, W. (2008), Transformational leadership and turnover: the roles of LMX and organizational commitment, Academy of Management Proceedings, Anaheim, CA, 8-13 August, pp. 1-6.

Turnover intentions

39

TPM 17,1/2

40

Waldman, D.A., Bass, B.M. and Einstein, W.O. (1987), Effort, performance and transformational leadership in industrial and military settings, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 177-86. Waldman, D.A., Bass, B.M. and Yammarino, F.J. (1990), Adding to contingent-reward behavior: the augmenting effect of charismatic leadership, Group Organization Management, Vol. 15, pp. 381-94. Wang, Y.S. and Huang, T.C. (2009), The relationship of transformational leadership with group cohesiveness and emotional intelligence, Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 37, pp. 379-92. Watrous, K.M., Huffman, A.H. and Pritchard, R.D. (2006), When coworkers and managers quit: the effects of turnover and shared values on performance, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 103-26. Weese, W.J. (1996), Do leadership and organizational culture really matter?, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 10, pp. 197-206. White, P., Persad, S. and Gee, C.J. (2007), The effect of mid-season coach turnover on team performance: the case of the National Hockey League (1989-2003), International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, Vol. 2, pp. 143-52. Yukl, G.A. (1989), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Yusof, A. and Shah, P.M. (2008), Transformational leadership and leadership substitutes in sports: implications on coaches job satisfaction, International Bulletin of Business Administration, Vol. 3, pp. 17-29. About the authors Janelle E. Wells is a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida. Her research interests include leadership in collegiate athletics and organizational change management. Her experience in the sport industry and managerial sector has allowed her to contribute to the University of Florida teaching staff. Currently, she teaches Introduction to sport management, Administration of sport as well as Sport and society. Janelle E. Wells is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jmcverrywells@hhp.u.edu Jon Welty Peachey is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management at Texas A&M University. His research interests include leadership of sport organizations, organizational change, and sport for development and peace. He currently teaches sport nance, management, and facility and event management. Previously, he worked for 12 years as a Senior Administrator in non-prot international sport.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

You might also like