Está en la página 1de 92

THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, JOB SATISFACTION AND EMPLOYEE

PERFORMANCE - A MALAYSIAN PERSPECTIVE.

LEE HUEY YIING

FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTANCY UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA

JULY 2008

The Association between Organizational Culture and Leadership Behaviour and Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance - A Malaysian Perspective.

Lee Huey Yiing

Submitted to the Graduate School of Business Faculty of Business and Accountancy University of Malaya, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Business Administration

July 2008

Abstract Purpose This study seeks to investigate the association between different types of organizational culture and leadership behaviours and organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance in the Malaysian setting. Design/methodology/approach Data was gathered from 238 Malaysian UM MBA part-time students and the researchers working peers. Data on the respondents organizational culture and leadership behaviours, and how they affect organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance, were collected using the OCI (Wallach, 1983), leadership behaviour questionnaire (Harris and Ogbonna, 2001), ACS (Allen and Meyer, 1990), single global rating for job satisfaction (Robbins, 2005), and overall performance questionnaire (Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994), respectively. Descriptive statistics were reported, followed by factor analysis, reliability analysis, Pearson correlation and hypotheses testing using hierarchical multiple regression. Findings Generally and with a few exceptions, leadership behaviour was found to be significantly related to organizational commitment, and organizational culture played an important role in moderating this relationship. Organizational commitment was found to be significantly associated with job satisfaction, but not with employee performance. However, only supportive culture influenced the relationship between commitment and satisfaction. Possible causes and implications for managers are discussed. Originality/value This article contributes to the existing pool of knowledge on the relationships between leadership behaviours, organizational culture, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance. Different aspects of these

ii

variables were tested, so as to provide a wider and more comprehensive understanding on the factors which affect organizations and employees. Keywords Leadership, Organizational Culture, Commitment, Satisfaction, Performance, Malaysia. Category Research Paper

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Kamarul Zaman bin Ahmad for his guidance throughout this project and for the valuable input in completing this dissertation.

I am also grateful for the concern and support from my family members and friends during this time.

iv

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 2. Background ...................................................................................................1 Purpose and significance of the study..........................................................2 Research Questions/Objectives of the study.................................................3 Scope of the study..........................................................................................3 Limitations of the study ................................................................................4 Organization of the study..............................................................................4

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..............6 2.1. Antecedents and independent variables .......................................................6 Leadership behaviour ............................................................................6 Organizational culture.........................................................................11

2.1.1. 2.1.2. 2.2.

Dependent variables....................................................................................16 Organizational commitment.................................................................16 Job satisfaction ....................................................................................19 Employee performance ........................................................................20

2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.2.3. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 3.

Relationship between variables ..................................................................20 Demographics..............................................................................................23 Theoretical framework................................................................................24

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .....................................................................26 3.1. 3.2. Development of hypotheses.........................................................................26 Selection of instruments and measures......................................................27 Organizational culture.........................................................................27 Leadership behaviour ..........................................................................28 Organizational commitment.................................................................29 Job satisfaction ....................................................................................30 Employee performance ........................................................................31 Classification questions .......................................................................32

3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.2.3. 3.2.4. 3.2.5. 3.2.6. 3.3. 3.4. 4.

Sampling design and data collection..........................................................32 Data analysis techniques ............................................................................34

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................35 4.1. 4.2. Summary statistics of respondents .............................................................35 Analyses of measures ..................................................................................37

4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.2.3. 4.2.4. 4.3.

Descriptive statistics ............................................................................37 Factor Analysis ....................................................................................38 Reliability Analysis ..............................................................................40 Correlation Analyses ...........................................................................40

Testing of hypotheses ..................................................................................43 Leadership behaviour, organizational culture and organizational

4.3.1.

commitment ..........................................................................................................47 4.3.2. Organizational commitment, organizational culture, job satisfaction

and employee performance ..................................................................................49 4.4. 5. Summary of research results ......................................................................51

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................53 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. Summary of findings...................................................................................53 Suggestions for future research .................................................................57 Implications.................................................................................................58

REFERENCES...........................................................................................................60

vi

List of Figures Figure 2.1 : Theoretical Framework 25

List of Tables Table 4.1 : Summary statistics of respondents Table 4.2 : Descriptive Statistics Table 4.3 : KMO and Bartletts Test Table 4.4 : Reliability Analysis Table 4.5 : Correlation Table 4.6 : Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Organizational Commitment on Leadership Behaviours in Bureaucratic Culture Table 4.7 : Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Organizational Commitment on Leadership Behaviours in Innovative Culture Table 4.8 : Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Organizational Commitment on Leadership Behaviours in Supportive Culture Table 4.9 : Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance on Organizational Commitment in Bureaucratic Culture Table 4.10 : Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance on Organizational Commitment in Innovative Culture Table 4.11 : Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance on Organizational Commitment in Supportive Culture 46 46 45 45 44 44 35 38 39 40 42

vii

List of Symbols and Abbreviations

ACS CEO

= Affective Commitment Scale = Chief Executive Officer

KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin LBDQ = Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire MBA = Master in Business Administration OCI = Organizational Culture Index

OCQ = Organizational Commitment Questionnaire SPSS = Statistical Package for the Social Sciences UK UM = United Kingdom = University Malaya

viii

1. INTRODUCTION In this chapter, the background of this research project is presented, followed by an elaboration of the purpose and significance of the study. The main research question is stated, which is further clarified by defining the scope of the study. After that, the limitations of the study are stated. Lastly, the organization of the rest of the project will be described at the end of this chapter.

1.1. Background In 1998, a survey of most admired companies conducted by Fortune indicated CEO respondents belief that corporate culture was their most important lever in enhancing their key capabilities. Given the importance of organizational culture and its effects on organizational outcomes (such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance), it is currently one of the hottest business topics in both academic research and the popular business press. Today's business leaders are confronted with frequent unpredictable challenges, which require high degree of flexibility on their part. Recent organizational crises have emphasized the need for leadership and personal commitment from organizational decision makers which, then, become more critical for organization success (Earle, 1996). Hence, organizational culture and leadership behaviour, along with their effects on organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance are some of the crucial elements in determining the effectiveness, competitiveness and success of organizations in facing todays challenges. These have practical implications for managers and consultants in management development, and ultimately could enhance superior performance of the managers in the organization.

1.2. Purpose and significance of the study Organizational culture is known to have a significant effect on how employees view their organizational responsibilities and their commitment. The pioneering work of Deal and Kennedy (1982) incited the interest of researchers and consultants to the concept of corporate culture, and how these values and philosophy guide the employees behaviour in the organization towards greater success. Leaders affect their subordinates both directly through their interactions and also through the organization's culture (Li, 2004). With increasing globalization, greater knowledge of the interaction of these factors in non-western cultures can be beneficial for assessing the effectiveness of current theories as well as benefiting practicing leaders and decision makers. The commitment of the people in the organization is also essential to ensure the successful implementation of the organizational policies and plans. It is argued, that while shaping the appropriate values or culture that is important to the organization, ensuring the necessary level of commitment among employees or managers are unequivocally important so as to ensure successful implementation of the organizational strategies and plans of actions (Rashid et al., 2003). Job satisfaction is an important component in the field of organizational behaviour, as it is related to critical organizational outcomes such as absenteeism, turnover and performance. A search in major and leading business journals through databases such ProQuest and Emerald yielded much literature and findings from past research on antecedents and outcomes of organizational culture, leadership behaviour, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance. Much of the research are focused on independent relationships, such as culture performance, or
2

commitment and performance (Rashid et al., 2003). Only a handful looked into identifying precise relationships between multiple areas of organization behaviour and the application of such findings to the corporate firms. It is noted that even with the literature found from various databases, there is lesser amount that focuses on the Asian setting, and very few that are relevant or specific to Malaysia. This study intends to contribute to the existing knowledge base, in particular, from a Malaysian perspective.

1.3. Research Questions/Objectives of the study The objective of the research is to examine the association between different types of organizational culture and leadership behaviours and organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance in the Malaysian setting.

1.4. Scope of the study It is known that there are a number of other antecedents, moderators, mediators and/or consequents to the factors selected for this study. For example, work ethics (Yousef, 2001), person-organization fit (Silverthorne, 2004), national culture (Lok and Crawford, 2004), task structure and role ambiguity (Tan, 2005), and turnover (Poh, 2002). Much of these are focused on independent relationships, such as culture performance, or commitment and performance (Rashid et al., 2003). In fact, only a handful of research looked into identifying precise relationships between multiple areas of organization behaviour and the application of such findings to the corporate firms.

For the purpose of this study, Lis (2004) conceptualization of the relationships between leadership behaviour, organizational culture, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance is partially adapted. This is because there is a sizable number of past researches which has demonstrated the importance of these factors organization behaviour and performance, as reported by Yousef (2000), Lok and Crawford (2000) and Rashid et al. (2003). The scope of the study covers MBA students in Universiti Malaya as well as some working peers and colleagues, which the author considers to be, although not entirely, at least a representative of the Malaysian working population.

1.5. Limitations of the study It is noted that the use of convenience sampling is a major limitation of this study, as findings from the study sample cannot be confidently generalized to the population. However, the benefits of time and cost-effectiveness, and the fact that adequate information about the study population is not readily available for probability sampling, are taken into account when deciding the sampling method for this study.

1.6. Organization of the study The remaining of this report will include a comprehensive literature review of the independent and dependent variables that are considered in this study, which leads to the development of hypotheses and a theoretical framework. This is followed by a review on the research methodology, which encompasses the sub-sections of selection of instruments and measures, sampling design and data collection, and data analysis

techniques. Next, the results and discussion are reported, which includes a summary of the respondents statistics, analyses of measures, testing of hypotheses, and a summary of research results. Lastly, the conclusion and recommendations based on this study are presented, which includes a summary of findings, suggestions for future research, and practical implications for managers.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In this chapter, a literature review on the antecedents and/or independent variables will be presented first, followed by that of the dependent variables. In addition, a review of past research findings on the relationships between these variables, and a review of literature on the effects of demographics on the variables, are also included. Finally, the theoretical framework for this study is presented at the end of the chapter.

2.1. Antecedents and independent variables 2.1.1. Leadership behaviour Daft (2005) defined leadership as an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purposes. Over the course of time, a number of dimensions or facets of leadership behaviour have been developed and applied as researchers continue to discover what contributes to leadership success and failures. These included, among others, autocratic versus democratic, task-oriented versus people-oriented, and the contingency approaches.

The first studies on leadership behaviours, conducted by Kurt Lewin and his associates in the early 20th century, identified the autocratic and democratic leadership styles. An autocratic leader is one who centralizes authority and derives power from position, control of rewards, and coercion. A democratic leader, on the other hand, delegates authority to others, encourages participation, relies on subordinates knowledge for completion of tasks, and depends on subordinate respect for influence (Daft, 2005).
6

Subsequently, a series of studies on leadership behaviour (e.g. by Ohio State University, University of Michigan and University of Texas) were designed and conducted in the 1950s. This resulted in the development of reliable questionnaires (e.g. Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire, LBDQ) and models (e.g. Leadership Grid by Blake and Mouton) that would, in time, dominate much of leadership-related research and literature for years to come. Overall, the research into the behaviour approach culminated in two major types of leadership behaviours people-oriented and task-oriented. People-oriented leadership, which is equivalent to consideration (Ohio State University), employee-centered (University of Michigan) and concern for people (University of Texas), focuses on the human needs of subordinates, respects their ideas and feelings, and places importance on establishing mutual trust. Task-oriented leadership, which is equivalent to initiating structure (Ohio State University), job-centered (University of Michigan) and concern for production (University of Texas), focuses on directing activities towards efficiency, cost-cutting, and scheduling, with an emphasis on goal achievements and work facilitation. Theories of leadership then evolved to adopt a contingency approach when researchers failed to find universal leader traits or behaviours that would determine effective leadership. Following this school of thought, research focused on the situation in which leadership occurred. Leadership styles can be contingent upon situational variables, nature of the followers and the leader him- or herself. Many theories have been put forward, including Fiedlers contingency theory, Hersey and Blanchards situational theory, the Vroom-Jago contingency model, Leader-Member Exchange theory, and the Path-Goal theory.

Currently, the most influential contingency approach to leadership is the PathGoal theory (Robbins, 2005). This theory was developed by Robert House, and extracts key elements from the Ohio State leadership research on initiating structure and consideration, and the expectancy theory of motivation. The theory states that the main goal of the leader is to help subordinates attain the subordinates' goals effectively, and to provide them with the necessary direction and support to achieve their own goals as well as those of the organization (Silverthorne, 2001). In this theory, the leader increases follower motivation by either (1) clarifying the followers path to the rewards that are available, or (2) increasing the rewards that the follower values and desires. Path clarification means that the leader works with subordinates to help them identify and learn the behaviours that will lead to successful task accomplishment and organizational rewards. Increasing rewards means that the leader talks with subordinates to learn which rewards are important to them, i.e. whether they desired intrinsic rewards from the work itself, or extrinsic rewards such as raises or promotions. The leaders job is to increase personal payoffs to subordinates for goal attainment and make the paths to the payoffs clear and easy to travel. The Path-Goal theory suggests a fourfold classification of leader behaviours : directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented styles. It is assumed that leaders are flexible, and that the same leader can display any or all of these behaviours depending on the situation. Directive leadership tells subordinates exactly what they are supposed to do. Leader behaviour includes planning, making schedules, setting performance goals and behaviour standards, and stressing adherence to rules and regulations. Mehta et al. (2003) added that this leadership style provides specific direction to subordinate work

activity by organizing and defining the task environment, assigning the necessary functions to be performed, specifying rules, regulations and procedures to be followed in accomplishing tasks, clarifying expectations, scheduling work to be done, establishing communication networks, and evaluating work group performance. Directive leadership behaviour is similar to the initiating structure or task-oriented leadership style described earlier. Supportive leadership shows concern for subordinates well-being and personal needs. Leadership behaviour is open, friendly, and approachable, and the leader creates a team climate and treats subordinates as equals. Mehta et al. (2003) further elaborated that a supportive leadership style is one in which the leader creates a facilitative task environment of psychological support, mutual trust and respect, helpfulness, and friendliness. Supportive leadership is similar to the consideration or people-oriented leadership described earlier. Participative leadership consults with subordinates about decisions. Leader behaviour includes asking for opinions and suggestions, encouraging participation in decision making, and meeting discussion and written suggestions, similar to the selling style in the Hersey and Blanchard model mentioned previously. Various studies in organizational behaviour have found that allowing subordinates to participate in decision-making leads to increased motivation (Mehta et al., 2003). Achievement-oriented leadership sets clear and challenging goals for subordinates. Leader behaviour stresses high-quality performance and improvement over current performance. Achievement-oriented leaders also show confidence in subordinates and assist them in learning how to achieve high goals. The two situational contingencies in the Path-Goal theory are (1) the personal characteristics of group members, and (2) the work environment. Personal

characteristics can include subordinates locus of control, experience, perceived ability, skills, needs and motivations. Work environment contingencies can include the degree of task structure, the nature of the formal authority system, and the work group itself. Task structure describes the extent to which tasks are defined and have explicit job descriptions and work procedures. The formal authority system includes the amount of legitimate power used by leaders and the extent to which policies and rules constrain employees behaviour. Work group characteristics consist of the educational level of subordinates and the quality of relationships among them. The outcome of matching the right leadership behaviour with the right situation, while taking into consideration the various subordinate and work environment contingencies, will result in favorable outcomes such as increased effort, improved satisfaction and performance (Daft, 2005). The study of leadership behaviours as conceptualized under the Path-Goal theory has been applied in many types of researches. For example, in the context of international marketing channels (Mehta et al., 2003), small and middle-sized firms (Li, 2004), company managers (Silverthorne, 2001), steel industry (Downey et al. 1975), automotive industry (Chang et al., 2003), and market orientation of UK firms (Harris and Ogbonna, 2001). Researchers of marketing channels in the distribution and logistics industry have attempted to show the path-goal theory's usefulness as a strategy to secure the compliance of channel members and have conceptually and empirically linked it to channel related phenomena such as manifest conflict, cooperation, channel efficiency and effectiveness, role clarity, role conflict, role ambiguity, and channel member satisfaction (Mehta et al., 1996) Not everyone agrees that a particular style of leadership will result in the most effective form of organizational behaviour. Different styles were needed for different

10

situations and each leader needs to know when to exhibit a particular approach. No one leadership style is ideal for every situation, since a leader may have knowledge and skills to act effectively in one situation but may not emerge as effectively in a different situation (Rad and Yarmohammadian, 2006). Past research on corporate leadership in Malaysia frequently focused on its unique, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and collectivist society. No one, distinct management style can be identified, and it is acknowledged that leadership in Malaysia is deeply entrenched and connected to its diverse Asian culture, traditions and values. Hence, commonly-accepted leadership theories from the west, and how it is thought to affect other organizational behaviour factors, may not be directly transferable to the Malaysian context. Organizational success in obtaining its goals and objectives depends on managers and their leadership style. By using appropriate leadership styles, managers can affect employee job satisfaction, commitment and productivity.

2.1.2. Organizational culture Organizational culture is generally seen as a set of key values, assumptions, understandings, and norms that is shared by members of an organization and taught to new members as correct (Daft, 2005). It is argued that organizational culture may be the critical key that managers can use to direct the course of their firms (Smircich, 1993). The organizational culture is likened to a double-edged sword. A culture creates distinctions between one organization and others, conveys a sense of identity for its members, facilitates commitment towards the organizations goals, enhances the stability of the social system, reduces ambiguity, and serves as a control
11

mechanism that guides and shapes the attitudes and behaviour of employees. However, a culture can also become a liability when it becomes too strongly entrenched within the norms, values and mindsets of the employees and resist changes a culture can become a barrier to change, diversity and other transformations required for the organization to adapt in todays dynamic, globalized business environment.

The study on organizational culture can take on a multitude of aspects. Robbins (2005) elaborated that there are seven primary characteristics that, in aggregate, capture the essence of an organizations culture : innovation and risk taking, attention to detail, outcome orientation, people orientation, team orientation, aggressiveness and stability. Each of these characteristics can exist on a continuum from low to high. Robbins (2005) furthermore explained that the organizational culture can be visualized as an intervening variable; employees form an overall subjective perception of the organization based on these seven factors, and these perceptions, favorable or otherwise, affects employee performance and satisfaction, with the impact being greater for stronger cultures. Daft (2005) discussed on the three levels of corporate culture, with each level becoming less obvious, i.e. visible, expressed values and underlying assumptions and deep beliefs. Culture can also be determined by its strength, which is the degree of agreement among employees about the importance of specific values and ways of doing things. A strong culture is one which core values are both intensely held and widely shared, and hence have greater impact on employee behaviour. Research has found that a strong culture is linked to high agreement among members, increases

12

behavioural consistency, builds cohesiveness, loyalty and organizational commitment, and more importantly, reduces turnover (Robbins, 2005). In addition, culture can be viewed as being adaptive or unadaptive. In adaptive cultures, leaders are concerned with customers and those internal people, processes and procedures that bring about useful change. Contrary to this, leaders in unadaptive cultures are concerned with themselves or their own special projects, and their values tend to discourage risk-taking and change. Thus, a strong culture is not enough; a healthy, adaptive culture is also essential to encourage the organization to progress towards the right direction (Daft, 2005). It is widely accepted that within an organization, a dominant culture that expresses the core values that are shared by a majority of the organizations members exist alongside with smaller subcultures which reflect common problems, situations, or experiences that certain groups of members face. Organizational cultures can be assessed along many dimensions, resulting in conceptually different, but fundamentally similar, models and theories. Daft (2005), in his review of a number of past research literature, presented one such model which focuses on two specific dimensions : (1) the extent to which the competitive environment requires flexibility or stability, and (2) the extent to which the organizations strategic focus and strength is internal or external. The four categories of culture associated with these differences resulting from this type of assessment are adaptability, achievement, clan and bureaucratic cultures. Each culture has a different set of values adaptability culture is characterized by values that support the organizations ability to interpret and translate signals from the environment into new behaviour responses; achievement culture is characterized by a clear vision of the organizations goals and leaders focus on the achievement of specific targets; clan

13

culture has an internal focus on the involvement and participation of employees to meet changing expectations from the external environment; and bureaucratic culture has an internal focus and consistency orientation for a stable environment. Several typologies for analyzing organizational culture have been proposed. For example, the competing values model introduced by Quinn and Cameron (1983), Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), and Cameron and Freeman (1991) which identified four types of culture : clan, adhocracy, hierarchy and market cultures. Another example was developed by Goffee and Jones (1998). Goffee and Jones (1998) categorized organizational culture into four main types based on two dimensions: sociability and solidarity. The four types of culture identified are communal culture, fragmented culture, networked culture and mercenary culture.

According to Wallach (1983), an organization's culture can be a combination of three categories bureaucratic, innovative or supportive to varying degrees. Wallachs (1983) framework is adapted for the purpose of this study. Wallach (1983) states that the Organizational Culture Index (OCI) profiles culture on the three stereotypical dimensions, and the "flavor" of an organization can be derived from the combination of these three dimensions. A bureaucratic culture is hierarchical and compartmentalized. There are clear lines of responsibility and authority. Work is organized and systematic, and this culture is usually based on control and power. Such organizations are stable, cautious, usually mature, power-oriented, established, solid, regulated, ordered, structured, procedural and hierarchical.

14

An innovative culture refers to a creative, results-oriented, challenging work environment. It is characterized as being entrepreneurial, ambitious, stimulating, driven and risk-taking. A supportive culture exhibits teamwork and a people-oriented, encouraging, trusting work environment. These places are warm, fuzzy places to work in, and people are generally friendly, fair and helpful to each other. Supportive cultures are characterized as open, harmonious, trusting, safe, equitable, sociable, relationshipsoriented, humanistic, collaborative, and likened to an extended family.

Wallach (1983) further elaborated that an employee can be more effective in his or her current job, and realize his or her best potentials, when there is a match between the individuals motivation and the organizational culture. For instance, by using McClellands three social motivators : a person with a high need of achievement will thrive in an innovative culture, an affiliative person will fare well in a supportive culture, and a power-oriented person will perform best in a bureaucratic culture. This has significant implications in recruitment, management, motivation, development and retention of employees. A comprehensive background review on each of the three dimensions of organizational culture as described by Wallach (1983) can be found in Shadur et al. (1999). Few published studies exist that describe the corporate culture of Malaysian companies, which are generally are more or less similar to other fast-growing, competitive, developing Asian countries. Government offices are generally considered to be bureaucratic, while public-listed and private companies are more entrepreneurial in nature. This is exemplified in a study done by Rashid et al. (2003),

15

where companies listed in the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange were found to be predominantly competitive, and value risk-taking, demanding goals, and market superiority. Another study by Rashid et al. (2004) showed that among manufacturers in the country, many had mercenary culture, which emphasized on strategy and winning in the marketplace. To balance this, there exists to a lesser degree consensual, network and supportive cultures within Malaysian companies, consistent to the cultural values of Malaysian managers. Tradition, loyalty, teamwork and personal commitment are among some of the values prevalent in Malaysian companies.

2.2. Dependent variables 2.2.1. Organizational commitment The topic of organizational commitment has received a great deal of interest in the past decade and numerous studies have been directed at determining its causal antecedents, as cited by Lok and Crawford (2001). The issue of commitment is particularly important for managers in organizations. With the increasing speed and scale of change in organizations, managers are constantly seeking ways to generate employees' commitment and competitive advantage. Organizational commitment has received substantial attention in past research due to its significant impact on work attitudes such as job satisfaction, performance, absenteeism, and turnover intentions. (Lok and Crawford, 2001; Yousef, 2000). Organizational commitment has been defined differently by different scholars depending on their backgrounds. Organizational commitment refers to an employees belief in the organizations goals and values, desire to remain a member of the organization and loyalty to the organization (Mowday et al., 1982). Such goals and

16

value identification serves as another focus of attachment to the organization. This identification can be enhanced by a clear specification of the rationales of organization goals and values, sharing the rewards of organization goal attainment and involvement in goals processes. Robbins (2005) too, defined organizational commitment similarly, i.e. a state in which an employee identifies with a particular organization and its goals, and wishes to maintain membership in the organization. Research has shown that there is a modest positive relationship between organizational commitment and job productivity, and evidence demonstrates negative relationships between

organizational commitment and both absenteeism and turnover. People who are committed to their organization are highly involved in their organization and identify at its goals and values. Such employees feel a readiness to exert considerable effect on behalf of the organization, and have a strong desire to remain an organization member. (Hackett et al., 2001). According to Cole (2000), a committed worker is one who is a team player, who is willing to make personal sacrifices for the goal of the company, who believes in the companys product, who will recommend the company as among the best places to work, and who is prepared to stay at the company for at least the next several years, even if offered a modest pay increase elsewhere.

Allen and Meyer (1990) conceptualized a model of organizational commitment and identified three components : affective, continuance, and normative commitment. As defined by these Allen and Meyer (1990), the affective component of organizational commitment refers to the employees emotional attachment to,

17

identification with, and involvement in, the organization. Much of the research undertaken in the area of organizational commitment focuses on affective commitment. For example, the Brunetto and Farr-Wharton (2003) has reviewed a sizable literature and found that influence of affective commitment has been investigated in areas such as job satisfaction, communication, turnover, intent to leave and stress, perceived fairness and supportiveness of managers, perceived ability to be promoted and job performance. Studies have also been conducted under various contexts, such as in nursing, citizen behaviours and commitment to a particular community. The continuance component refers to commitment based on the costs that the employee associates with leaving the organization. In a study by Mayer and Schoorm (1992), they defined continuance commitment as the desire to remain a member of the organization. An individual who is high in continuance commitment is motivated to participate. Continuance commitment and the Side-Bet Theory of Commitment were popularized by Becker (1960). According to this theory, employees make certain investments or side-bets in their organization, for example, tenure towards pensions, promotions and work relationships. These investments are such costs which reduce the attractiveness of other employment opportunities. Commitment is, therefore, an outcome of inducements or exchanges between an individual and an organization. The normative component refers to the employees feeling of obligation to remain with the organization. Normative involvement has received less research attention. Many studies have revealed that the level of organizational and managerial support an employee feels, their involvement in decision making (Porter et al., 1974; Mowday et al., 1982) the amount of feedback received about job performance and job

18

role (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), leadership behaviours and organizational culture influence whether a person has high or low organizational commitment.

2.2.2. Job satisfaction Robbins (2005) defined job satisfaction as a collection of feelings that an individual holds towards his or her job. Numerous factors influence employee job satisfaction, including: salaries, fringe benefits, achievement, autonomy, recognition, communication, working conditions, job importance, co workers, degree of professionalism, organizational climate, interpersonal relationships, working for a reputable agency, supervisory support, positive affectivity, job security, workplace flexibility, working within a team environment and genetic factors. Sources of low satisfaction are associated with working with unskilled or inappropriately trained staff, laborious tasks such as documentation, repetition of duties, tensions within role expectations, role ambiguity, role conflict, job/patient care, feeling overloaded, the increasing need to be available for overtime, relations with co-workers, personal factors and organizational factors (Rad and Yarmohammadian, 2006). In a review of past literature, Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) justified the need to investigate job satisfaction is exemplified in the seemingly observed relationship between the levels of job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, grievance expression, tardiness, low morale and high turnover. Job satisfaction is an immediate antecedent of intention to leave the workplace and turnover. Unsatisfied workers will leave their jobs more than their satisfied colleagues. Furthermore, more satisfied employees have more innovative activities in continuous quality improvement and more participation in decision-making in organizations.

19

2.2.3. Employee performance Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) proposed two dimensions of employee performance. Task performance (or technical job performance) is the behaviour associated with maintaining and servicing an organization's technical core. Contextual performance (or interpersonal job performance) is a function of one's interpersonal skill knowledge that supports the broader social environment in which the technical core must function.

2.3. Relationship between variables Although a considerable number of researchers have argued that there is a constant interplay between organizational culture and leadership, there are limited empirical studies examining the relation between leadership and culture as well as their joint effect on important organizational outcomes (Hickman and Silva, 1984; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Schein, 1985; Sergiovanni and Corbally, 1984; Smith and Peterson, 1988; Tichy and Cohen, 1997; Trice and Beyer, 1993). More importantly, research has found that the harmonious combination of appropriate leadership behaviours with certain types of organizational cultures can positively influence employees performance (Harris and Ogbonna, 2000; Hickman and Silva, 1984; Lim, 1995). According to Appelbaum et al. (2004) and Yousef (2000), the relationship between leadership behaviour and job satisfaction has received a great deal of attention in past research, however, findings have been mixed (Pool, 1997; Savery, 1994; Yousef, 2000). Research therefore does not directly link employee satisfaction to a specific leadership style. Instead, many suggest that leadership style needs to adapt to the culture or situation as it attempts to reduce employee dissatisfaction.
20

According to a comprehensive literature review by Yousef (2000), several researchers have also looked into the relationship between leadership behaviour and job performance. Findings were inconsistent as well. A couple of studies in the steel industry and electronic meeting systems reported higher satisfaction and performance levels under directive leadership style when given a highly structured task, while supportive leadership style is preferred for unstructured problems (Downey et al., 1975; Kahai et al., 1997). Results from investigations of antecedents of commitment have not been entirely consistent (Yousef, 2000). Blau (1985) and Williams and Hazer (1986) reported that consideration leadership style had greater influence on commitment than a structured or task-oriented one, while Kim (2002) identified a positive relationship between participative management style and employees' job satisfaction and commitment. Organizational culture too, plays an important role in generating commitment and enhancing performance (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Lok and Crawford, 2001; Peters and Waterman, 1982). In particular, studies in various industries and countries showed that innovative and supportive cultures had strong positive effects on commitment and job satisfaction, while bureaucratic cultures had a negative impact (Brewer, 1993; Brewer, 1994; Brewer and Clippard, 2002; Kratrina, 1990; Krausz et al., 1995; Lok and Crawford, 2000; London and Larsen, 1999; Rashid et al., 2003; Silverthorne, 2004; Trice and Beyer, 1993; Wallach, 1983). Yousef (2000) investigated the role of organizational commitment as a mediator of the relationships between leadership behaviour with job satisfaction and performance, specifically in a multicultural, non-western country. Results from various organizations in the United Arab Emirates suggest (in support of many

21

western studies) that those who perceive their superiors as adopting consultative or participative leadership behaviour are more committed to their organizations, more satisfied with their jobs, and their performance is high. When employees are dissatisfied at work, they are less committed and will look for other opportunities to quit. If opportunities are unavailable, they may emotionally or mentally withdraw from the organization. Thus, organizational commitment and job satisfaction are important attitudes in assessing employees intention to quit and the overall contribution of the employee to the organization. Many studies across different industries and geographical regions revealed strong correlations between organizational commitment with job satisfaction (Benkhoff, 1997; Caykoylu et al., 2007; Chen, 2007; Iverson and Roy, 1994; Jernigan et al., 2002; Leong et al., 1996; Lok and Crawford, 2001; Mathieu and Hamel, 1989; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Michaels, 1994; Price and Mueller, 1981; Samad, 2005; Taunton et al., 1989; Williams and Hazer, 1986; Yousef, 2001), and organizational commitment with job performance (Baugh and Roberts, 1994; Brett et al., 1995; Kalleberg and Marsden, 1995; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 1989; Mowday et al., 1974; Putti et al., 1990; Ward and Davis, 1995; Yousef, 2000). However, Leong et al. (1994) found a weak correlation between the two variables, Lee and Mowday (1989) found negligible relationship, and Wright (1997) reported a negative relationship between the two. Very few relevant studies in the Malaysian context have been published to date. Samad (2005) studied 584 managerial-level of employees in Telekom Malaysia, and reported that job satisfaction did play a positive moderating role in the relationship between organizational commitment and job performance. Rashid et al. (2003) surveyed over 200 companies listed in the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange.

22

Different types of corporate cultures were found to influence affective commitment, but overall, corporate culture was found to significantly affect the financial performance of these companies (return on assets, return on investment). Combining these findings with studies from other countries, both western and non-western, it is reasonable to expect that different types of leadership behaviour does affect organizational commitment, which in turn, influences both job satisfaction and employee performance. It is anticipated that these relationships are dependent on the type of organizational culture exhibited by the companies. In summary, there have been a number of researches devoted to the relationship between leadership behaviour, organizational culture, organizational commitment, job performance and/or job satisfaction. The findings are, however, not entirely consistent. A Taiwanese study by Li (2004) confirmed that the effect of leadership behaviours on organizational commitment is differed by organizational culture. In addition, it was found that organizational commitment might mediate the relationship between leadership behaviours and job satisfaction and performance; however the presence of this mediating effect was contingent upon the type of leadership and organizational culture.

2.4. Demographics Demographics have been found to exert influence on organizational behaviour constructs. For example, age (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Michaels, 1994; Williams and Hazer, 1986), cultural background (Al-Meer, 1989), organizational tenure (Mathieu and Hamel, 1989; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), job position (McCaul et al., 1995) and position tenure (Gregersen and Black, 1992; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990) have been found to be positively associated with organizational commitment.
23

Kirchmeyer (1995) and Madsen et al. (2005) determined that organizational commitment was slightly related to gender (being female) and age. However, Goulet and Singh (2002) concluded that organizational commitment was not related to age but was instead related to gender. Educational level has been reported to be negatively correlated with organizational commitment (DeCotiis and Summers, 1987; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Mottaz, 1988; Mowday et al., 1982). It has been argued that this inverse relationship is attributable to the fact that more highly educated individuals have higher expectations. They are therefore more likely to feel that their employers are not rewarding them adequately, and so the level of organizational commitment is diminished (DeCotiis and Summers, 1987). Russ and McNeilly (1995) looked into the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction using experience, gender and performance as moderators. They discovered that experience and performance moderate the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction.

2.5. Theoretical framework Based on the literature review, the theoretical framework is proposed as shown in Figure 2.1. This framework is similar to that of Lis (2004), except that the directive, participative and supportive leadership behaviours are studied, instead of transformational and transactional leadership styles. Organizational commitment is considered as a dependent and independent variable, rather than a mediating factor.

24

Leadership behaviour Directive Participative Supportive

H1

Organizational commitment

H2

Organizational Culture Bureaucratic Innovative Supportive

H4

Organizational commitment

H3

Job satisfaction Job performance

Figure 2.1 Theoretical Framework

25

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY In this chapter, the development of hypotheses is described, followed by selection of instruments and measures. The sampling design, data collection procedure and data analysis techniques that are applied in this study are then presented.

3.1. Development of hypotheses As mixed findings are observed in prior studies as described in the literature review, null hypotheses are proposed to test the relationships between the variables, as shown in Figure 2.1.

H1 : Leaders directive, participative and supportive behaviours have no significant relationship with organizational commitment.

H2 : Organizational culture (bureaucratic, innovative and supportive) has no significant association on the relationship between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment.

H3 : Organizational commitment has no significant relationship with job satisfaction and job performance.

H4 : Organizational culture (bureaucratic, innovative and supportive) has no significant association on the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction and job performance.

26

3.2. Selection of instruments and measures The selection of instruments differed partly from Lis (2004) study due to consideration for the ease and time limitation for respondents to answer the questions, and space constraints in the questionnaire. Moreover, some of the instruments measured different dimensions of the variables to add originality value to this research.

3.2.1. Organizational culture Although a number of typologies, categorizations and instruments for measuring organizational culture exist, there is little agreement on which ones are more appropriate or superior to the other. Hence, the popular 24-item OCI by Wallach (1983) has been used for the purpose of this study, the reason being that it was also used in Lis (2004) research. Wallach (1983) classified organizational culture profiles as bureaucratic, innovative and supportive, and each of the three profiles is assigned 8 items in the OCI. The OCI has also been used by other researchers (Koberg and Chusmir, 1987, cited in Lok and Crawford, 2004; Lok and Crawford, 2004). Respondents were asked about how they perceive their organizations culture. A four-point Likert scale was used, ranging from does not describe my organization valued as a 1 to describes my organization most of the time valued as a 4. The scores were added up for every profile, and an observation was assigned to the profile with the highest mean score.

27

3.2.2. Leadership behaviour In this study, the 13-item measure of leadership behaviour has been adapted from Harris and Ogbonna (2001), which was based on previous research by House (1971), House and Dessler (1974), Fleishman (1957) and Stogdill (1963). This measure of leadership has been widely used in the marketing and strategy literatures and has been generally accepted as a good measure of subordinate's perceptions of leadership style and behaviour (Harris and Ogbonna, 2001). It has been used to identify the leadership behaviour as participative (5 items), supportive (4 items) and directive (4 items). Churchill (1991) argued that to determine the form of response to individual questions is a crucial aspect of empirical data collection. Consequently, it was decided to adopt the commonly used seven-point Likert-type scoring for all items. Past uses of measures of perceived leadership behaviours had previously utilized five-point scales. However, Barnes et al. (1994) argued that a switch to the seven-point scale has no effect on principal components analysis but often improves the reliability of answers. Thus, a seven-point scale was used for reasons of reliability and validity (Churchill and Peter, 1984), as well as for the ease of response and administration (Malhorta, 1993). This is similar to what was done in Harris and Ogbonnas study (2001). Respondents were asked to describe the leadership behaviour of their immediate supervisor. The seven-point Likert scale was used, ranging from strongly agree/very true valued as a 1 to strongly disagree/very unlikely valued as a 7. The mean scores for each leadership style were obtained.

28

3.2.3. Organizational commitment According to Mathieu and Zajac (1990) and Liu (2007), currently the most widely used measure of organizational commitment is the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) (Mowday et al., 1979). However, for the purpose of this study, the 11-item Affective Commitment Scale (ACS) (Allen and Meyer, 1990) has been used to assess the affective orientation of employees towards the organization. It is shorter than the OCQ, and Dunham et al. (1994) and Randall et al. (1990) found that the OCQ converged with the ACS. The ACS also has the advantage that its items were written to assess only affective orientation towards the organization and not employees' behaviour or behavioural intentions (e.g. intention to exert effort or leave the organization). Continuance and normative components of commitment were not assessed because : (1) employees' behaviour or behavioural intentions (e.g. intention to exert effort or leave the organization) are either beyond the scope of the research (e.g. turnover), or already measured as other variables (e.g. performance), and (2) there is still a lack of confidence and validity in the Normative Commitment Scale (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Ko et al., 1997). Furthermore, according to Liu (2007), it is more appropriate to use affective commitment as a measure of impressions and attitudes of new employees, because there is little chance to develop a meaningful continuance or normative commitment to the organization in the early employment stage. This happened to be suitable for this studys sample population, which was predominantly employees with less than 3 years tenure in their organizations. Most investigations of organizational commitment have been conducted using self-report measures, however, the veracity of self-reports is often questioned. Goffin

29

and

Gellatly

(2001)

assessed

affective

commitment

among

public-sector

administrative staff, by using different sources of raters to test the explanations of the factors influencing self-report measures. They found that self-report commitment measures are affected mainly by observations or experiences of the self-reporter rather than by systematic bias related to defensive responding. This increases confidence that scores from self-report measures of affective commitment are veridical. In this study, respondents were asked to describe their affective commitment towards their organizations. The seven-point Likert scale was used, ranging from strongly agree/very true valued as a 1 to strongly disagree/very unlikely valued as a 7. A higher mean score indicated a higher level of commitment. Negative items were reverse-coded prior to data analysis.

3.2.4. Job satisfaction According to Robbins (2005), job satisfaction can be measured using a single global rating by asking the question : All things considered, how satisfied are you with your job?. According to Yousef (2000), a number of researchers supported the usefulness of a single-item measure of global job satisfaction (Scarpello and Campbell, 1983; Begley and Czajka, 1993; Bhuian and Islam, 1996). Wanous et al. (1997) supported the use of a single-item measure unless a studys inquiries or circumstances direct toward selecting a well-constructed scale. They also argued that the single-item measure can be used if space on a questionnaire is limited.

30

Respondents were asked to describe their job satisfaction. The five-point Likert scale was used, ranging from not satisfied valued as a 1 to very satisfied valued as a 5. A higher mean score indicated a higher level of job satisfaction.

3.2.5. Employee performance To measure employee performance, the self-rating 3-item overall performance definition developed by Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) has been used, as described by Li (2004). Researchers have criticized that self-ratings tend to be inflated, suffering from leniency and social desirability bias. In fact, it is argued that a non-self-report or multi-rater approach would be more accurate (i.e. ratings from supervisors, peers, etc.). This downside of self-rating is due to self-serving bias, where people tend to ascribe their own successes to internal personal factors, and their failures to external situational causes. However, a self-appraisal approach for rating performance has been used for other types of performance measurements, as done previously by Al-Gattan (1983), Stevens et al. (1978) and Yousef (2000) with acceptable outcomes. Young and Dulewicz (2007), in a wider study into effective performance in the British Royal Navy, demonstrated that self-evaluation of own performance was significantly correlated with appraised (actual) performance using different psychometric questionnaires. Respondents have been asked to determine: (1) their standard of job performance as measured by self that ranged from does not meet standard valued as a 1 to exceeds standard valued as a 5, (2) performance as compared with others of the same rank that ranged from low level valued as a 1 to high level valued as a 5, and (3) job contribution to the organization as compared to other members of
31

the work unit that ranged from less contribution valued as a 1 to more contribution valued as a 5. A higher mean score represented a higher level of performance.

3.2.6. Classification questions Classification questions have been included at the end of the questionnaires. These were used for profiling the companies, for example, type of business, years of establishment, number of employees, and also for profiling the respondents, for example, age, gender, job position, education, number of years in present organization/position.

3.3. Sampling design and data collection Data was collected using self-administered questionnaires to examine the preceding issues because: (i) responses could be easily quantified and summarized, (ii) data could be collected quickly, inexpensively and efficiently, and (iii) a large number of participants could be reached in a short span of time. A small-scale piloting was conducted prior to distribution of the questionnaires. Several important aspects were checked (see Oppenheim, 2004, pp. 47-50), which resulted mostly in changes in the layout of the questionnaire. For the electronic version of the questionnaire, participants were asked to mark x in the appropriate yellow-colored boxes, rather than circling the responses. This is to ease the respondents work and to reduce non-response rates. Overall, the

wording/phrasing of the questions were preserved to maintain the measurements integrity.

32

A copy of the questionnaire (both manual and electronic versions) is appended in Appendix 1. Questionnaires were distributed via e-mail and personally-administered by hand to 400 participants consisting of Malaysian UM MBA part-time students and the researchers working peers. This non-probability convenience sampling was chosen for convenience and for time- and cost-effectiveness for the research. Approximately 70 percent of the questionnaires were distributed among MBA students, while the remaining 30 percent were handed to the researchers working peers. A total of 238 usable responses was received, giving a response rate of 59.5%. The response rates were roughly equal among MBA students and the researchers working peers. It is anticipated that there are no differences between the responses from the MBA students and the working peers. This is because the MBA students comprise of working people from various career backgrounds who, in the course of their work, encounter different leadership behaviours and organizational cultures, and experience different states of commitment, performance and job satisfaction which is similar to the researchers own work colleagues. Hence, they are in a position to give meaningful responses to the questionnaires as the researchers working peers. Moreover, it was not the intention of this research to compare any differences between these two groups of subjects. Therefore, any distinction between these two groups of subjects were not identified in the questionnaires that were handed out. A very small number of returned questionnaires had missing data in one or more sections, but these are taken into account to make full use of the available data, e.g. by using exclude cases pairwise option when assessing normality using the SPSS program.

33

3.4. Data analysis techniques Descriptive statistics such as frequency distributions, means, standard deviations and tests for normality are used to develop a profile of the respondents and to summarize the variables. Factor analyses are used to confirm that the concepts of each variable have been correctly measured. Reliability statistics (Cronbach Alpha) are also computed to assess the reliability of measurements for each variable. To better understand the relationship among the variables, Pearson correlation analysis is performed to generate the correlation matrix. And finally, to test the research hypotheses, hierarchical multiple regression analysis is used. This method was selected as the order in which independent variables are entered into the regression equation were known, and were based on logical or theoretical considerations (Kamarul Zaman Ahmad, 2001; Tabachnick and Fidell, 1983).

34

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In this chapter, a summary of the respondents statistics is first presented, followed by analyses of the selected measures. The hypotheses will then be tested and a summary of the results from the research are described.

4.1. Summary statistics of respondents Demographic variables of the respondent sample were extracted by asking questions on age, gender, marital status, job position, number of years worked with current employer, type and nature of organizations, number of years of establishment of organizations and size of organizations (number of employees). Table 4.1 summarizes the demographic information of the sample population for this study.

Table 4.1 Summary statistics of respondents Demographic variable Age 20-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50 and above Gender Female Male Education level Secondary Diploma Degree Postgraduate Marital status Single Married Job position Administrative or clerical Technician Percentage of sample 43.9 41.4 11.8 3.0 51.1 48.9 3.8 8.0 57.8 30.4 58.9 41.1 6.4 3.0
35

Executives or senior executive Assistant manager Managers or senior manager Others Number of years worked with current employer Less than 3 years 3-6 years 7-10 years More than 10 years Type of organization Manufacturing Service Others Nature of organization Private/proprietary Government Government-linked (GLC) Others Number of years of establishment of organization Less than 10 years 10-15 years More than 15 years Number of employees in organization Less than 100 100-300 301-700 More than 700

37.3 10.6 28.0 14.8 45.6 32.9 11.4 10.1 11.4 58.6 30.0 72.6 5.1 16.7 5.6 23.7 17.8 58.5 34.5 23.4 10.6 31.5

Majority of the respondents were single and young (aged 20-39 years), of nearly equal gender distribution, were degree holders and working as executives or senior executives in their organizations. Most were relatively new employees, having worked less than 3 years with their current employer. Many of the respondents worked in private or proprietary organizations that had been operating for more than 15 years. Most of these organizations were serviceoriented, such as in the sales, banking, education and consultancy lines. The size of the respondents organizations was predominantly small or very large (less than 100 employees, and more than 700 employees, respectively).

36

4.2. Analyses of measures 4.2.1. Descriptive statistics Table 4.2 shows that the standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis levels are low, thus showing that the data is robust, representative of the samples, and normal Hence, parametric analyses techniques are therefore possible in subsequent sections. The measures of organizational culture, job satisfaction and employee performance all exhibit mean scores notably above their respective mid-points. In contrast, the measures of leadership and organizational commitment are notably lower than their mid-points. Although few inferences can be gained from this analysis, however, it may be argued that demographics could be an important factor. As an example, drawing from past literature, the low mean scores of organizational commitment could be due to the majority of respondents being young, highlyeducated, and having short organizational tenures (DeCotiis and Summers, 1987; Mathieu and Hamel, 1989; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Michaels, 1994; Mottaz, 1988; Mowday et al., 1982; Williams and Hazer, 1986).

37

Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics Bureaucratic Culture Innovative Culture Supportive Culture Participative Leadership Supportive Leadership Directive Leadership Organizational Commitment Job Satisfaction Employee Performance
1

Valid Cases 238 238 238 238 238 237 238 235 237

Mean1 3.04 2.92 2.91 3.35 3.62 3.31 3.65 3.33 3.75

Std. Dev. 0.56 0.59 0.52 1.25 1.19 1.28 0.75 0.83 0.64

Skewness Kurtosis -0.56 0.48 -0.14 0.94 -0.33 -0.19 0.61 0.38 0.25 -0.20 -0.36 -0.22 0.08 0.17 -0.51 0.38 0.59 -0.11

The OCI was measured on a four-point scale, resulting in a mid-point of 2.5. Both job satisfaction and employee performance were measured on a five-point scale, hence a midpoint of 3. Leadership behaviour and organizational commitment were measured using seven-point scales, therefore they have a mid-point of 4.

4.2.2. Factor Analysis From the comprehensive review of the references, it was found that factor analysis was generally not conducted for items or dimensions in the instruments, as they were perceived as well-established and possessed well-documented reliability and validity. Sampling adequacy was conducted using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) analysis for all measures. Table 4.3 summarizes the KMO measurements and shows significant results for Bartletts test of sphericity (p = .000), which further supported sampling adequacy of the data.

38

Table 4.3 KMO and Bartletts Test KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.878 (great) 0.904 (superb) 0.784 (good) 0.692 (mediocre) Bartletts Test of Sphericity (Sig.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Organizational Culture Leadership Behaviour Organizational Commitment Employee Performance

Factor analysis was conducted using principal axis factoring extraction method, and factors with eigenvalues of greater than one were extracted and retained. In analyzing matrices, factors with loadings below 0.3 were suppressed. For organizational culture and leadership behaviour, it was expected that the factors extracted would be independent of one another according to pre-existing categories demonstrated in the original research by Wallach (1983) and Harris and Ogbonna (2001), respectively. Hence orthogonal rotation (varimax) was selected to interpret factor loadings. Analyses results described three factors which can be extracted for each measurement, hence corresponding exactly to the structure of the measurements used by Wallach (1983) and Harris and Ogbonna (2001). For organizational commitment and employee performance, as items were originally supposed to measure a single variable, therefore it was expected that the factors extracted would be dependent of one another. Hence oblique rotation (direct oblimin) was selected to interpret factor loadings. Analyses results showed that three factors could be extracted for the organizational commitment measurement, suggesting the possibility of further refinements on Allen and Meyers (1990) ACS. On the other hand, only one factor could be extracted in the employee performance measurement, which describes accurately the structure of the employee performance instrument used by Li (2004).

39

4.2.3. Reliability Analysis Table 4.4 shows that the results in the calculation of Cronbach Alpha coefficients ranged from 0.709 (for organizational commitment) to 0.921 (for participative leadership). The Cronbach Alpha coefficients obtained from this study were found to be relatively similar to reference studies. The high coefficient scores (more than 0.7) led to the conclusion that the scales were acceptably reliable. No items were deleted so as to maintain the integrity of these established, original instruments.

Table 4.4 Reliability Analysis No. of items Bureaucratic Culture Innovative Culture Supportive Culture Participative Leadership Supportive Leadership Directive Leadership Organizational Commitment Employee Performance
1 2

8 8 8 5 4 4 11 3

Cronbach Alpha (present study) 0.824 0.790 0.812 0.921 0.788 0.860 0.709 0.774

Cronbach Alpha (reference study) 0.861 0.701 0.971 0.92792 0.76932 0.66882 0.873 0.831

Referenced from Li (2004) Referenced from Harris and Ogbonna (2001) 3 Referenced from Allen and Meyer (1990)

4.2.4. Correlation Analyses To study the correlation between variables, Pearson coefficient was selected as it was designed for interval level or continuous variables. The correlation patterns in Table 4.5 only partially followed the findings from Lis (2004) study. That is, organizational culture was found be significantly and positively correlated to job

40

satisfaction, but not with employee performance. In addition, leadership behaviours were found to significantly and positively correlate to organizational commitment. However, the results differ from Lis (2004) study in a number of aspects. Organizational culture was found to be either not significantly or significantly negatively correlated to leadership behaviours. Organizational culture also had significant negative correlation with organizational commitment. Leadership behaviours did not affect employee performance significantly, but significantly affected job satisfaction negatively. Employee performance was found to be significantly and positively correlated to job satisfaction.

41

Table 4.5 Correlation


Bureaucratic Culture Bureaucratic Culture Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N Innovative Culture Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N Supportive Culture Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N Participative Leadership Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N Supportive Leadership Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N Instrumental Leadership Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N Employee Performance Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N Organizational Commitment Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N Job Satisfaction Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N 238 .427(**) .000 238 .307(**) .000 238 .019 .383 238 .006 .462 238 -.125(*) .027 237 -.065 .160 237 -.128(*) .024 238 .146(*) .012 235 238 .565(**) .000 238 -.126(*) .026 238 -.163(**) .006 238 -.105 .054 237 -.020 .378 237 -.375(**) .000 238 .253(**) .000 235 238 -.406(**) .000 238 -.401(**) .000 238 -.208(**) .001 237 .045 .244 237 -.454(**) .000 238 .300(**) .000 235 238 .688(**) .000 238 .452(**) .000 237 .068 .150 237 .500(**) .000 238 -.259(**) .000 235 238 .515(**) .000 237 .088 .089 237 .541(**) .000 238 -.246(**) .000 235 237 .033 .306 237 .450(**) .000 237 -.147(*) .012 234 237 -.119(*) .033 237 .305(**) .000 234 238 -.423(**) .000 235 235 1 Innovative Culture .427(**) .000 238 1 Supportive Culture .307(**) .000 238 .565(**) .000 238 1 Participative Leadership .019 .383 238 -.126(*) .026 238 -.406(**) .000 238 1 Supportive Leadership .006 .462 238 -.163(**) .006 238 -.401(**) .000 238 .688(**) .000 238 1 Instrumental Leadership -.125(*) .027 237 -.105 .054 237 -.208(**) .001 237 .452(**) .000 237 .515(**) .000 237 1 Employee Performance -.065 .160 237 -.020 .378 237 .045 .244 237 .068 .150 237 .088 .089 237 .033 .306 237 1 Organizational Commitment -.128(*) .024 238 -.375(**) .000 238 -.454(**) .000 238 .500(**) .000 238 .541(**) .000 238 .450(**) .000 237 -.119(*) .033 237 1 Job Satisfaction .146(*) .012 235 .253(**) .000 235 .300(**) .000 235 -.259(**) .000 235 -.246(**) .000 235 -.147(*) .012 234 .305(**) .000 234 -.423(**) .000 235 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

42

4.3. Testing of hypotheses To test the hypotheses using SPSS, hierarchical multiple regression was used following Coakes et al. (2006, pp. 140-143). This method was selected as the order in which independent variables are entered into the regression equation were known, and were based on logical or theoretical considerations (Kamarul Zaman Ahmad, 2001; Tabachnick and Fidell, 1983). Tables 4.6 to 4.11 show the results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses.

43

Table 4.6 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Organizational Commitment on Leadership Behaviours in Bureaucratic Culture
Independent Variables Directive Leadership Participative Leadership Supportive Leadership
a b 2

R excl. a interaction .203 .250 .293

Model Summary R incl. 2 R b interaction


2

ANOVA Sig. F change .005 .019 .017 .219 .014 .016 F 30.742 43.212 52.899

Coefficients Sig. .000 .000 .000 B -.098 -.185 -.177 Beta -.072 -.138 -.132

t -1.233 -2.473 -2.430

Sig. .219 .014 .016

.208 .269 .310

R with Leadership Behaviour and Organizational Culture, but excluding interaction Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture R2 including interaction term Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture c ANOVA Predictors: (Constant), Leadership Behaviour, Organizational Culture d Coefficients of Organizational Culture in the Model: (Constant), Leadership Behaviour, Organizational Culture

Table 4.7 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Organizational Commitment on Leadership Behaviours in Innovative Culture
Independent Variables Directive Leadership Participative Leadership Supportive Leadership
a

R excl. a interaction .203 .250 .293

Model Summary 2 R incl. 2 R b interaction .312 .349 .378 .109 .099 .085

ANOVA Sig. F change .000 .000 .000 F 52.983 62.938 71.330

Coefficients Sig. .000 .000 .000 B -.421 -.402 -.374 Beta -.332 -.317 -.295

t -6.081 -5.976 -5.653

Sig. .000 .000 .000

R2 with Leadership Behaviour and Organizational Culture, but excluding interaction Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture b R2 including interaction term Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture c ANOVA Predictors: (Constant), Leadership Behaviour, Organizational Culture d Coefficients of Organizational Culture in the Model: (Constant), Leadership Behaviour, Organizational Culture

44

Table 4.8 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Organizational Commitment on Leadership Behaviours in Supportive Culture
Independent Variables Directive Leadership Participative Leadership Supportive Leadership
a b 2

R excl. a interaction .203 .250 .293

Model Summary R incl. 2 R b interaction


2

ANOVA Sig. F change .136 .075 .067 .000 .000 .000 F 59.891 56.640 66.058

Coefficients Sig. .000 .000 .000 B -.545 -.435 -.408 Beta -.377 -.300 -.282

t -6.927 -5.125 -4.951

Sig. .000 .000 .000

.339 .325 .360

R with Leadership Behaviour and Organizational Culture, but excluding interaction Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture R2 including interaction term Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture c ANOVA Predictors: (Constant), Leadership Behaviour, Organizational Culture d Coefficients of Organizational Culture in the Model: (Constant), Leadership Behaviour, Organizational Culture

Table 4.9 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance on Organizational Commitment in Bureaucratic Culture
Dependent Variables Job Satisfaction Employee Performance
a b 2

R excl. a interaction .179 .014

Model Summary R incl. 2 R b interaction


2

ANOVA Sig. F change .009 .007 .113 .213 F 26.760 2.482

Coefficients Sig. .000 .086 B .141 -.093 Beta .095 -.081

t 1.591 -1.248

Sig. .113 .213

.187 .021

R with Organizational Commitment and Organizational Culture, but excluding interaction Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture R2 including interaction term Organizational Commitment * Organizational Culture c ANOVA Predictors: (Constant), Organizational Commitment, Organizational Culture d Coefficients of Organizational Culture in the Model: (Constant), Organizational Commitment, Organizational Culture

45

Table 4.10 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance on Organizational Commitment in Innovative Culture
Dependent Variables Job Satisfaction Employee Performance
a

R excl. a interaction .179 .014

Model Summary R incl. 2 R b interaction


2

ANOVA Sig. F change .011 .005 .082 .280 F 27.071 2.288

Coefficients Sig. .000 .104 B .155 -.081 Beta .111 -.076

t 1.744 -1.084

Sig. .082 .280

.189 .019

R2 with Organizational Commitment and Organizational Culture, but excluding interaction Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture b R2 including interaction term Organizational Commitment * Organizational Culture c ANOVA Predictors: (Constant), Organizational Commitment, Organizational Culture d Coefficients of Organizational Culture in the Model: (Constant), Organizational Commitment, Organizational Culture

Table 4.11 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance on Organizational Commitment in Supportive Culture
Independent Variables Job Satisfaction Employee Performance
a b 2

Model Summary R excl. a interaction .179 .014


2

ANOVA
2

Coefficients Sig. B .000 .184 .217 -.014 Beta .136 -.011

R incl. b interaction .193 .014

Sig. F change .015 .000 .041 .877

F 27.793 1.704

t 2.056 -.155

Sig. .041 -877

R with Organizational Commitment and Organizational Culture, but excluding interaction Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture R2 including interaction term Organizational Commitment * Organizational Culture c ANOVA Predictors: (Constant), Organizational Commitment, Organizational Culture d Coefficients of Organizational Culture in the Model: (Constant), Organizational Commitment, Organizational Culture

46

4.3.1. Leadership behaviour, organizational culture and organizational commitment H1 stated that a leaders directive, participative and supportive behaviours have no significant relationship with organizational commitment. From the analyses, leadership behaviours explained about 20 to 30 percent of the variance (R2) in organizational commitment, all of which were significant as indicated by the respective F-values (p < .05). Based on the R-values and t-values, all three types of leadership behaviours contributed positively and significantly to the prediction of organizational commitment (p < .05). Higher scores for each leadership behaviour led to stronger organizational commitment in the employees. Therefore, the null hypothesis H1 is rejected, that is, leaders directive, participative and supportive behaviours commitment. This finding is consistent with some previous studies (Blau, 1985; Williams and Hazer, 1986) and lends credibility to the notion that leadership does play an influential role in generating commitment. Employees who are committed are highly involved in their organization, and are more willing to put in considerable effort at work, and possess a strong desire to remain in their organizations. According to H2, the organizational culture (bureaucratic, innovative and supportive) has no significant association on the relationship between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment. From the R2 Change and Sig. F Change values, both innovative and supportive cultures made significant, unique contributions of 8.5 to 10.9 percent, and 6.7 to 13.6 percent, respectively, to the variance of organizational commitment after leadership behaviour had been taken into account (p < .05). The association was most pronounced with directive leadership, followed by
47

have

positive

and

significant

relationship

with

organizational

participative and least of all, supportive leadership styles. The association is less clear in bureaucratic environments; it did not make any significant contributions to the variance of organizational commitment under directive leadership, but significantly increased the variances by nearly 2 percent under participative and supportive leadership styles. The negative beta values indicated that higher scores in organizational culture was associated with lower commitment, with the exception of bureaucratic culture with directive leadership. Hence, organizational culture was generally found to be a significant moderator in the relationship between leadership behaviours and organizational commitment. Therefore, the null hypothesis H2 is partially rejected. Organizational culture generally has significant moderating influence on the relationship between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment, except for the relationship between directive leadership behaviour and organizational commitment under a bureaucratic environment. Bureaucratic, innovative and supportive cultures have significant moderating influence on the relationship between participative and supportive leadership behaviours and organizational commitment. The relationship between directive leadership behaviour and organizational commitment is significantly moderated by both innovative and supportive cultures; however, bureaucratic culture did not significantly moderate this relationship. This finding is in agreement with Lis (2004) study in that the effect of different leadership behaviors on organizational commitment is contingent upon organizational culture. Although all three types of organizational culture moderated the relationships between directive, participative and supportive leadership behaviours

48

with commitment by negatively impacting them, bureaucratic culture was found to exert the least influence. Leaders should recognize this as they seek to influence employees and achieve their organizational goals, of which success can be contingent upon the type of organizational culture being practiced. Regardless of conditions in the labor market, committed employees are always a necessary and valuable organizational resource (Li, 2004). The finding that directive leadership style is not affected by a bureaucratic environment in generating commitment contributes further evidence that a particular leadership style can be effective in one culture, but may not benefit (or become ineffective) in another culture.

4.3.2. Organizational commitment, organizational culture, job satisfaction and employee performance According to H3, organizational commitment is posited to have no significant relationship with job satisfaction and job performance. From the analyses, organizational commitment explained 17.9 percent of the variance (R2) in job satisfaction, which was significant as indicated by the F-value (p < .05). In contrast, organizational commitment explained 1.4 percent of the variance in employee performance, which was not significant as indicated by the F-value (p > .05). Based on the R-values and t-values, organizational commitment is a significant and negative predictor of job satisfaction (p < .05), but is not a predictor for employee performance (p > .05). The stronger the commitment, the lower the job satisfaction. Therefore, the null hypothesis H3 is partially rejected, that is, organizational commitment has a negative significant relationship with job satisfaction, and has an insignificant relationship with employee performance.
49

The findings are contrary to the reviewed literature with regards to the association between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. For instance, Mathieu and Zajac's (1990) research suggested that affective and continuance commitment are positively related with job satisfaction, but this was not observed in this study. One possible reason is that the sample population consists mostly of young, highly educated persons holding high executive or managerial positions. They may be involved and be enthusiastic about their work professionally, however, actual expectations and feelings about their work may differ, which may lead to dissatisfaction. On the other hand, the findings agree to Lee and Mowdays (1989) study, where there is negligible relationship between commitment and employee performance. There may be other more important factors which impacts performance and productivity besides organizational commitment. Managers can benefit by attempting to uncover underlying factors that are critical in determining job satisfaction and performance levels, as organizational commitment itself may not contribute as much as previously thought. H4 stated that organizational culture (bureaucratic, innovative and supportive) has no significant association on the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction and job performance. From the R2 Change and Sig. F Change values, only supportive culture made a significant, unique (albeit weak) contribution of 1.5 percent to the variance of job satisfaction after organizational commitment (p = .041). The positive beta (beta = .136) indicated that higher score in supportive culture was associated with higher job satisfaction. Hence, supportive culture was found to be a significant moderator in the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction.

50

Organizational culture was found not to contribute significantly to the variance of employee performance after organizational commitment (p > .05). Hence, in the sample population, organizational culture was not a significant moderator in the relationship between organizational commitment and employee performance. Therefore, the null hypothesis H4 is partially rejected, that is, only supportive culture has a significant moderating influence on the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Bureaucratic and innovative cultures did not significantly influence the relationship between organizational commitment with job satisfaction. In addition, all three types of organizational cultures did not moderate the relationship between organizational commitment and employee performance. This finding is in agreement with past literature, where a trusting, encouraging and team-oriented environment increased job satisfaction levels. In corporations where rigid bureaucratic, or challenging, aggressive innovative cultures exist, Malaysian managers may want to consider introducing softer and more peopleoriented elements into the working environment, so as to increase satisfaction, which in turn, may benefit productivity, stress levels or turnover rates.

4.4. Summary of research results The research results are summarized as follows :

Leaders directive, participative and supportive behaviours have positive and significant relationship with organizational commitment.

51

Organizational culture generally has significant moderating influence on the relationship between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment, except for the relationship between directive leadership behaviour and organizational commitment under a bureaucratic environment.

Organizational commitment has a negative significant relationship with job satisfaction, and has an insignificant relationship with employee performance.

Only supportive culture has a significant moderating influence on the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Organizational culture did not moderate the relationship between organizational commitment and employee performance.

52

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter begins with the summary of findings based on the results from this study. Suggestions for future research areas are then presented, and lastly implications from this study are described and at the end of this chapter.

5.1. Summary of findings The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between different types of organizational culture and leadership behaviours and organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance in the Malaysian setting. To date, little empirical research has been done to investigate the relationships and organizational outcomes of these constructs. This study, therefore, is unique in that it has helped to fill this gap in an effort to improve our understanding of the role of leadership and organizational in the Malaysian environment and beyond. With the advent of globalization in recent years, greater knowledge of the interactions of these factors specifically in the multiracial and multicultural Malaysian setting can be beneficial for assessing the effectiveness of current theory as well as benefiting practicing leaders and decision makers. Findings from this study can help leaders and scholars, especially those concerned with Malaysian companies.

By using questionnaires, data was gathered from 238 Malaysian UM MBA part-time students and the researchers working peers. Data on the respondents organizational culture and leadership behaviours, and how they affect organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance, were collected using the OCI (Wallach, 1983), leadership behaviour questionnaire (Harris and Ogbonna,

53

2001), ACS (Allen and Meyer, 1990), single global rating for job satisfaction (Robbins, 2005), and overall performance questionnaire (Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994), respectively. Descriptive statistics were reported, followed by factor analysis, reliability analysis, Pearson correlation and hypotheses testing using hierarchical multiple regression.

In this study, although the correlations were statistically significant (p < 0.05), the amount of correlation with each variable was relatively small. One of the reasons could be that there are other, possibly stronger, predictors and dependents for the variables investigated in this study. For example, there are numerous factors which influence, or are influenced by job satisfaction, as described by Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006).

Four hypotheses were developed based on the research objectives and from the existing literature. The hypotheses were tested and thus, the research objectives were achieved. H1 stated that a leaders directive, participative and supportive behaviours have no significant relationship with organizational commitment. However, based on the research results, the null hypothesis H1 is rejected. The leaders directive, participative and supportive behaviours were found to have positive and significant relationship with organizational commitment. These results were consistent with the pattern found in a number of western studies, as described by Yousef (2000). In his research on major United Arab Emirates organizations, he found that employees can be highly committed to their organizations when they perceive their superiors as adopting consultative or participative leadership behaviours.

54

According to H2, the organizational culture (bureaucratic, innovative and supportive) is not significantly associated with the relationship between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment. From the findings, the null hypothesis H2 is partially rejected. Bureaucratic, innovative and supportive cultures have significant moderating influence on the relationship between participative and supportive leadership behaviours and organizational commitment. The relationship between directive leadership behaviour and organizational commitment is significantly moderated by both innovative and supportive cultures; however, bureaucratic culture did not significantly moderate this relationship. This finding is somewhat reflected in previous western studies, where innovative and supportive cultures were found to exert stronger influence or even enhance employees commitment than a bureaucratic culture (Brewer, 1993; Brewer, 1994; Kratrina, 1990; Wallach, 1983). According to H3, organizational commitment is posited to have no significant relationship with job satisfaction and job performance. Following the data analysis, the null hypothesis H3 is partially rejected. Organizational commitment has a negative significant relationship with job satisfaction, but has an insignificant relationship with employee performance. This is contrary to findings from western studies with regards to the association between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. For instance, Mathieu and Zajac (1990) found that commitment is positively related with job satisfaction, but this was not observed in this study. On the other hand, this studys findings agree to Lee and Mowdays (1989), where there is negligible relationship between commitment and employee performance. This difference could be explained by the demographics of the study sample - young, highly-educated workers who may be enthusiastic about their work professionally, however, actual expectations and feelings about their work may differ, which may lead to

55

dissatisfaction. Their performance could be influenced by other factors aside from commitment alone. H4 stated that organizational culture (bureaucratic, innovative and supportive) is not significantly associated with the relationship between organization commitment and job satisfaction and job performance. From the analysis, it is concluded that the null hypothesis H4 is partially rejected. Only supportive culture has a significant moderating influence on the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Bureaucratic and innovative cultures did not significantly influence the relationship between organizational commitment with job satisfaction. In addition, all three types of organizational cultures did not moderate the relationship between organizational commitment and employee performance. This finding is somewhat in agreement with previous western studies, where supportive cultures were predominantly associated with higher levels of job satisfaction and performance, while bureaucratic cultures did the opposite (Brewer and Clippard, 2002; Krausz et al., 1995; London and Larsen, 1999; Silverthorne, 2004; Trice and Beyer, 1993).

There exists very few published research work of similar nature conducted in Malaysia. Findings from this study did not agree with Samad (2005)s, in that organizational commitment was found to be negatively related to job satisfaction and unrelated to employee performance. Hence, the sampled Malaysian employees who feel attached and involved in their companies did not feel more satisfied with their jobs, and did not perform better either. Although no direct comparisons could be made against findings from Rashid et al. (2003)s study, it can be loosely concluded that a bureaucratic environment does not affect organizational commitment and other consequents such as satisfaction and

56

performance in the Malaysian setting. Rashid et al. (2003) found that a consensual (supportive) culture positively influenced affective commitment, whereas an entrepreneurial (innovative) culture did otherwise. Such findings were not observed in this study, however.

5.2. Suggestions for future research Sampling was one of the limitations identified in this study. The fact that convenience sampling was used meant that results were not immediately transferable to the general working population. In addition, the sample subjects in this study were mostly young executives in the urban Klang Valley area, who worked less than three years in their companies, and were mostly from the private sector; thus, findings could not be generalized. Therefore, future research could look into extending the study population to include collect input from more experienced business managers and leaders who have better insight of the workings of the corporation. If samples were drawn from a wider range of demographics, then the results may become more meaningful. Moreover, if adequate population data can be obtained, probability sampling methods can be used. Future research could explore the differences in response towards the investigated variables among different groups of people of varied backgrounds and demographics. For example, comparisons can be made between workers from different industries, ethnicities, or countries. Another possible future direction is to use a more differentiated measure of job satisfaction, such as the Job Descriptive Index or Overall Job Satisfaction questionnaires, provided the benefits of using such lengthier measures outweigh the

57

disadvantages. Such measures can provide a more detailed analysis on the facets of job satisfaction that are affected by organizational behaviour variables.

5.3. Implications There can be a number of implications for Malaysian corporate leaders, managers and supervisors from this study. Leaders need to realize the impact of their personal leadership styles upon their employees' commitment to the workplace, and that the success of their endeavours is dependent on the shared values and norms within the organization. Hence, to enhance their effectiveness, leaders could consider changing their leadership style to synergize with the organization's culture, or initiate changes to the culture itself. In addition, this further reaffirms the use of the contingency approach in conceptualizing leadership styles and behaviours. For example, in Malaysia there are many bureaucratic organizations such as government institutions, large manufacturing plants, and traditional family-owned companies. In these organizations, directive leadership is still quite prevalent where supervisors continue to direct and plan work for employees, and rigid rules and policies are enforced. Such organizations continue to thrive today as demonstrated by years of continued financial success. Working conditions in such bureaucratic cultures may not immediately favour supportive leadership styles; where efficiency and strict adherence to rules are valued, a manager adopting a softer, caring approach risks losing respect from older employees, and gaining lazy workers who take advantage of the open, friendly atmosphere. Therefore, the supportive manager needs to change his leading style, perhaps by adopting a more directive leadership approach. Malaysian leaders should also realize that contrary to common belief, committed employees may not automatically equate to satisfied and high-performing
58

workers in the organization, even if a favourable environment exists for the employees. There could be other, more significant underlying reasons for an employee's commitment, which could subsequently affect other critical bottom-lines, such as absenteeism, turnover, profitability and productivity. Leaders need to investigate and find out what exactly keeps their employees happy and working hard. As an example, in Malaysia the sales and marketing divisions of many fastmoving industries, such as telecommunications, electronics, consumer goods and healthcare products, employ young people who are enthusiastic, driven and possess high-performing qualities. They are committed to their organizations, often bearing hopes of finding an ideal working environment, rewarding salary package and promotion opportunities, and an exciting job. However, it is also true that turnover among new recruits in sales teams and marketing departments in such industries is high, and targets are not always met. Managers should perhaps look into what affects their subordinates job satisfaction and performance, such as too much stress or inadequate training.

59

REFERENCES Ahmad, K. (2001). Corporate leadership and workplace motivation in Malaysia, International Journal of Commerce & Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 82-101.

Al-Gattan, A. R. A (1983), The path-goal theory of leadership: an empirical and longitudinal analysis, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.

Al-Meer, A. R. A. (1989), Organizational commitment: A comparison of westerners, Asians, and Saudis, International Studies of Management & Organization, vol. 19 no. 2, pp. 74-84.

Allen, N. and Meyer, J. (1990), The measurement and antecedents of affective, normative and continuance commitment to the organization, Journal of Occupational Psychology, vol. 63, pp. 1-18.

Anonymous (1998, October 26), What makes a company great?, Fortune, vol. 138 no. 8, pp. 218-9.

Appelbaum, S., Bartolomucci, N., Beaumier, E., Boulanger, J., Corrigan, R., Dore, I., Girard, C. and Serroni, C. (2004), Organizational citizenship behaviour: A case study of culture, leadership and trust, Management Decision, vol. 42 no. 1/2, pp. 13-40.

Barnes, J. H., Daswar, A. K. and Gilbert, F. W. (1994), Number of factors obtained by chance: a situation study, in Wilson, K. J. and Black, W. (eds), Developments in Marketing Science, vol. XVII, Academy of Marketing Science, Nashville, TN.

Baugh, S. G. and Roberts, R. M. (1994), Professional and organizational commitment among engineers: Conflicting or complementary?, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 41 no. 2, pp. 108-14.

Begley, T. M. and Czajka, J. M. (1993), Panel analysis of the moderating effects of commitment on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organizational change, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 78 no. 4, pp. 552-6.
60

Benkhoff, B. (1997), Disentangling organizational commitment: The changes of the OCQ for research and policy, Personnel Review, vol. 26 no. 1, pp. 114-20.

Bhuian, S. N. and Islam, M. S. (1996), Continuance commitment and extrinsic job satisfaction among a novel multicultural expatriate workforce, The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, vol. 32 no. 1, pp. 35-46.

Blau, G. (1985), The measurement and prediction of career commitment, Journal of Occupational Psychology, vol. 58, pp. 277-88.

Becker, H. S. (1960), Notes on the Concept of Commitment, American Journal of Sociology, 66, pp. 32-42.

Brett, J. F., Cron, W. L. and Slocum Jr, J. W. (1995), Economic dependency on work: a moderator of the relationship between organizational commitment and performance, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 38 no. 1, pp. 261-71.

Brewer, A. (1993), Managing for Employee Commitment, Longman, London.

Brewer, A. (1994), The Responsive Employee, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Brewer, E. W. and Clippard, L. F. (2002), Burnout and job satisfaction among Student Support Services personnel, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 13 no. 2, pp. 169-86.

Brunetto, Y. and Farr-Wharton, R. (2003), The commitment and satisfaction of lower-ranked police officers: Lessons for management, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, vol. 26 no. 1, pp. 43-63.

Cameron, K. S. and Freeman, S. J. (1991), Cultural congruence, strength, and type: relationships to effectiveness, Research in Organizational Change and Development, vol. 5, pp. 23-58.

61

Caykoylu, S., Egri, C. P. and Havlovic, S. (2007), Organizational commitment across different employee groups, The Business Review, Cambridge, vol. 8 no. 1, pp. 191-7.

Chang, T. Z., Polsa, P. and Chen, S. J. (2003), Manufacturer channel management behaviour and retailors' performance: An empirical investigation of automotive channel, Supply Chain Management, vol. 8 no. 2, pp. 132-9.

Chen, Y. J. (2007),Relationships among service orientation, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in the international tourist hotel industry, Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, vol. 11 no. 2, pp. 71-82.

Churchill, G. A. (1991), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, The Dryden Press, London.

Coakes, S. J., Steed, L. and Dzidic, P. (2006), SPSS version 13.0 for Windows: analysis without anguish, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

Cole, C. L. (2000), Building Loyalty, Workforce, 79 (8), pp. 42-48. Daft, R. L. (2005), The Leadership Experience, 3rd ed., Thomson-Southwestern, Canada.

Deal, T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. (1982), Corporate Cultures, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

DeCotiis, T., and Summers, T. (1987), A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment, Human Relations, vol. 40 no. 7, pp. 445-70.

Downey, H. K., Sheridan, J. E. and Slocum Jr., J. W. (1975), Analysis of relationships among leader behaviour, subordinate job performance and satisfaction: A path-goal approach, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 18 no. 2, pp. 253-62.

62

Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A. and Castenada, M. B. (1994), Organizational commitment: the utility of an integrative definition, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 79 no. 3, pp. 370-80.

Earle, V. (1996, November), Motivational leadership, Executive Excellence, vol. 13 no. 11, pp. 16-7.

Fleishman, E. A. (1957), A leadership behaviour description for industry, in Stogdill, R. M. and Coons, A.E. (eds), Leader Behaviour: Its Description and Measurement, The Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, Columbus, OH.

Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (1998), The Character of a Corporation: How Your Companys Culture Can Make or Break Your Business, Harper Business, London.

Goffin, R. D. and Gellatly, I. E. (2001), A multi-rater assessment of organizational commitment: Are self-report measures biased?, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 22 no. 4, pg. 437-51.

Goulet, L. R. and Singh, P. (2002), Career commitment: A reexamination and an extension, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, vol. 61, pp. 7391.

Gregersen, H. B. and Black, J. S. (1992), Antecedents to commitment to a parent company and a foreign operation, Academy of Managerial Journal, vol. 35 no. 1, pp. 65-90.

Hackett, R. D., Lapierre and L. M., Hausdorf, P. A. (2001), Understanding the links between work commitment constructs, Journal of Vocational Behaviours, vol. 58, pp. 392-413.

Harris, L. C. and Ogbonna, E. (2001), Leadership style and market orientation: An empirical study, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 35 no. 5/6, pp. 744-64.

63

Hickman, C. and Silva, M. (1984), Creating Excellence: Managing Culture and Change in the New Age, New American Library, New York, NY.

House, R. J. (1971), A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 16, pp. 321-38.

House, R. J. and Dessler, G. (1974), The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and a priori tests, in Hunt, J. G. and Larson, L. L. (eds), Contingency Approaches to Leadership, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.

Iverson, R. D. and Roy, P. (1994), A causal model of behavioural commitment: evidence from a study of Australian blue-collar employees, Journal of Management, vol. 20 no. 1, pp. 15-41.

Jernigan, I. E., Beggs, J. M. and Kohut, G. F. (2002), Dimensions of work satisfaction as predictors of commitment type, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 17 no. 7, pp. 564-79.

Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J. and Avolio, B. J. (1997), Effects of leadership style and problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment, Personnel Psychology, vol. 50 no. 1, pp. 121-46.

Kalleberg, A. L. and Marden, P. V. (1995), Organizational commitment and job performance in the US labor force, Research in the Sociology of Work, vol. 5, pp. 235-57.

Kamarul Zaman Ahmad (2001), The association between person, work environment, job satisfaction and performance : a study in light manufacturing assembly plants, University of Manchester, Ph. D. Thesis.

Kim, S. (2002), Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership, Public Administration Review, vol. 62 no. 2, pp. 231-41.

64

Kirchmeyer, C. (1995), Managing the work-nonwork boundary: An assessment of organizational responses, Human Relations, vol. 48 no. 5, pp. 51536.

Ko, J. W., Price, J. L. and Mueller, C. W. (1997), Assessment of Meyer and Allens 3 Component Model of Organizational Commitment in South Korea, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 82 no. 6, pp. 961-73.

Kratrina, S. (1990), Organizational culture and head nurse leadership: The relationship to nurses' job satisfaction and turnover in hospital settings, unpublished PhD thesis, College of Education, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.

Krausz, M., Koslowsky, M., Shalon, N. and Elyakim, N. (1995), Predictors of intention to leave the ward, the hospital and the nursing profession: A longitudinal study, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, vol. 16, pp. 277-88.

Lee, T. W. and Mowday, R. T. (1989), Voluntary leaving an organization: An empitical investigation of Steers and Mowdays's Model of Turnover, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 30, pp. 721-43.

Leong, C. S., Furnham, A. and Cooper, C. L. (1996), The moderating effect of organizational commitment on the occupational stress outcome relationship, Human Relations, vol. 49 no. 10, pp. 1345-63.

Leong, S. M., Randoll, D. N. and Cote, J. A. (1994), Exploring the organizational commitment-performance, Journal of Business Research, vol. 29 no. 1, pp. 57-63.

Li, Y. C. (2004), Examining the effect of organization culture and leadership behaviours on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance at small and middle-sized firms of Taiwan, Journal of American Academy of Business, vol. 5 no. 1/2, pp. 432-8.

Lim, B. (1995), Examining the organizational culture and organizational performance link, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol. 16, pp. 16-21.
65

Liu, C. M. (2007), The early employment influences of sales representatives on the development of organizational commitment, Employee Relations, vol. 29 no. 1, pp. 5-15.

Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (1999), The relationship between commitment and organizational culture, subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and development, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 20 no. 7, pp, 365-73.

Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (2001), Antecedents of organizational commitment and the mediating role of job satisfaction, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 16 no. 7/8, pp. 594-613.

Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (2004), The effect of organizational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A cross-national comparison, Journal of Management Development, vol. 23 no. 4, pp. 321-38.

London, M. and Larsen, H. (1999), Relationships between feedback and selfdevelopment, Group and Organization Management, vol. 24 no. 1, pp. 5-27.

Madsen, S. R., Miller, D. and John, C. R. (2005), Readiness for organizational change: Do organizational commitment and social relationships in the workplace make a difference?, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 16 no. 2, pp. 21333.

Malhotra, N. K. (1993), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, Prentice-Hall International, London.

Mathieu, J. and Hamel, D. (1989), A cause model of the antecedents of organizational commitment among professionals and non-professionals, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, vol. 34, pp. 299-317.

66

Mathieu, J. and Zajac, D. (1990), A review of meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 108 no. 2, pp. 171-94.

Mayer, R. C. and Schoorm, F. C. (1992), Predicting participation and production outcomes through a two-dimensional model of organizational commitment, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 35 no. 3, pp. 671-84.

McCaul, H. S., Hinsz, V. B. and McCaul, K. D. (1995), Assessing organizational commitment: An employee's global attitude towards the organization, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, vol. 31 no. 1, pp. 80-90.

Mehta, R., Dubinsky, A. J. and Anderson, R. E. (2003), Leadership style, motivation and performance in international marketing channels: An empirical investigation of the USA, Finland and Poland, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 37 no. 1/2, pp. 50-85.

Mehta, R., Larsen, T. and Rosenbloom, B. (1996), The influence of leadership style on co-operation in channels of distribution, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 26 no. 6, pg. 32.

Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gettatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D. and Jackson, D. N. (1989), Organizational commitment and job performance: its the nature of the commitment that counts, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 74 no. 1, pp. 152-6.

Michaels, P. (1994), An expanded conceptual framework on organizational commitment and job satisfaction for salesforce management, Journal of Business and Society, vol. 7 no. 1, pp. 42-67.

Motowidlo, S. J. and Van Scotter, J. R. (1994), Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 79, pp. 475-80.

67

Mottaz, C. (1988), Determinants of organizational commitments, Human Relations, vol. 41 no. 6, pp. 467-82.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. M. and Dubin, R. (1974), Unit performance, situational factors and employee attitudes in spatially separated work units, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, vol. 12, pp. 231-48.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. M. and Steer, R. M. (1982), Employee-Organization Linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover, Academic Press, New York.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M. and Porter, L. W. (1979), The measurement of organizational commitment, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, vol. 14, pp. 224-47.

Oppenheim, A. N. (2004), Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, New Edition, Continuum, New York, NY.

Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Pool, S. W. (1997), The relationship of job satisfaction with substitutes of leadership, leadership behaviour, and work motivation, The Journal of Psychology, vol. 13 no. 3, pp. 271-83.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. and Boulian, P. V. (1974), Organisational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 59 no. 5, pp. 603-9.

Price, J. and Mueller, C. (1981), Professional Turnover: The Case of Nurses, Medical and Scientific Books, New York, NY.

Poh, F. F. (2002), The relationship between employee intention to leave with job satisfaction and organizational commitment, Faculty of Business and Accountancy, Universiti Malaya, Dissertation (M.B.A.).
68

Putti, J. M., Aryee, S. and Phua, J. (1990), Communication relationship satisfaction and organizational commitment, Group & Organization Studies, vol. 15 no. 1, pp. 44-52.

Quinn, R. E. and Cameron, K. (1983), Organizational life cycles and sifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence, Management Science, vol. 29, pp. 3351.

Quinn, R. E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983), A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis, Management Science, vol. 29, pp. 363-77.

Rad, A. M. M. and Yarmohammadian, M. H. (2006), A study of relationship between managers leadership style and employees job satisfaction, Leadership in Health Services, vol. 19 no. 2, pp. 11-28.

Randall, D. M., Fedor, D. B. and Longenecker, C. O. (1990), The behavioral expression of organizational commitment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 36 no. 2, pp. 210-24.

Rashid, M. Z. A., Sambasivan, M. and Johari, J. (2003), The influence of corporate culture and organizational commitment on performance, Journal of Management Development, vol. 22 no. 8, pp. 708-28.

Rashid, M. Z. A., Sambasivan, M. and Rahman, A. A. (2004), The influence of organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, vol. 25 no. 2, pp. 161-79. Robbins, S. P. (2005), Organizational Behaviour, 11th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

69

Russ, F. A. and McNeilly, K. M. (1995), Links among satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intentions: The moderating effect of experience, gender and performance, Journal of Business Research, vol. 34 no. 1, pp. 57-65.

Samad, S. (2005), Unraveling the organizational commitment and job performance relationship: Exploring the moderating effect of job satisfaction, The Business Review, Cambridge, vol. 4 no. 2, pp. 79-84.

Savery, L. K. (1994), Attitudes to work: The influence of perceived style of leadership on a group of workers, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol. 15 no. 4, pp. 12-18.

Scarpello, V. and Campbell, J. P. (1983), Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there?, Personal Psychology, vol. 36, pp. 557-600.

Schein, E. (1985), How culture forms, develops and change, in Kilman, P. H., Saxton, M. J., Serpa, R. and Associates (eds.), Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Sergiovanni, T. and Corbally, J. (1984), Leadership and Organizational Culture, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Shadur, M. A., Kienzle, R. and Rodwell, J. J. (1999), The relationship between organizational climate and employee perceptions of involvement: The importance of support, Group & Organization Management, vol. 24 no. 4, pp. 479-503.

Silverthorne, C. (2001), A test of the path-goal leadership theory in Taiwan, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 22 no. 4, pp. 151-8.

Silverthorne, C. (2004), The impact of organizational culture and personorganization fit on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 25 no. 7, pp. 592-9.

70

Smircich, L. (1983), Concepts of culture and organizational effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 28 no. 3, pp. 339-58.

Smith, P. B. and Peterson, M. F. (1988), Leadership, Organizations and Culture: An Event Management Model. Sage, London.

Stevens, J. M., Beyer, J. M. and Trice, H. M. (1978), Assessing personal role and organizational predictors of managerial commitment, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 21, pp. 380-96.

Stogdill, R. M. (1963), Manual for Leadership Description Questionnaire Form XII, The Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, Columbus, OH.

Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (1983), Using Multivariate Statistics, Harper & Row Publishers, New York.

Tan, W. L. (2005), A partial test of path-goal theory of leadership in the domain of Malaysia, Faculty of Business and Accountancy, Universiti Malaya, Dissertation (M.B.A.).

Taunton, R., Kramptiz, S. and Wood, C. (1989), Manager impact on retention of hospital staff, Part 1, Journal of Nursing Administration, vol. 19 no. 3, pp. 14-9.

Tichy, N. and Cohen, E. (1997), The Leadership Engine, Harper Business, New York, NY.

Trice, H. and Beyer, J. M. (1993), The Cultures of Work Organization, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Wallach, E. J. (1983, February), Individuals and organizations: The cultural match. Training and Development Journal, vol. 37, pp. 29-36.

Wanous, J., Reicher, A. E. and Hudy, M. (1987), Overall job satisfaction : How good are single-item measures?, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 82, pp. 247-52.
71

Ward, E. A. and Davis, E. (1995), The effect of benefit satisfaction on organization commitment, Compensation & Benefits Management, vol. 11 no. 3, pp. 35-40.

Williams, L. J. and Hazer, J. T. (1986), Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in turnover models: A re-analysis using latent variable structural equation methods, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71 no. 2, pp. 21931.

Wright, T. A. (1997), Job performance and organizational commitment, Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol. 85 no. 2, pp. 447-50.

Young, M. and Dulewicz, V. (2007), Relationships between emotional and congruent self-awareness and performance in the British Royal Navy, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 22 no. 5, pp. 465-78.

Yousef, D. A. (2000), Organizational commitment: A mediator of the relationships of leadership behaviour with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 15 no. 1, pp. 6-28.

Yousef, D. A. (2001), Islamic work ethic: A moderator between organizational commitment and job satisfaction in a cross-cultural context, Personnel Review, vol. 30 no. 2, pp. 152-69.

72

APPENDIX 1

UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA The Faculty of Business and Accountancy Master of Business Administration

Examining the association between organization culture and leadership behaviour and organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance a Malaysian perspective.

Dear Sir/Madam, This survey is conducted as part of an MBA Research Project, which shall be submitted in part completion of the Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Malaya. The general purpose of this study is to examine the association between organization culture and leadership behaviour and organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance from a Malaysian perspective. I would like to invite your participation in this survey by filling up the attached questionnaire. The said questionnaire is constructed in a straightforward manner and easy to answer, which should take not more than 10 minutes of your valuable time. Please be assured that all information will be treated with the strictest confidentiality and only the aggregate data will be analyzed. Please answer all the questions in the worksheet and return the completed questionnaire. Thank you for your valuable assistance in participating in the survey. Yours sincerely, Lee Huey Yiing Supervised by, Dr. Kamarul Zaman bin Ahmad Department of Business Strategy and Policy Faculty of Business & Accountancy University of Malaya

1.

ORGANIZATION CULTURE

Please circle the score which most closely corresponds with how you see your organization :
Does not describe my organization a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p) q) r) s) t) u) v) w) x) risk taking collaborative hierarchical procedural relationships-oriented results-oriented creative encouraging sociable structured pressurized ordered stimulating regulated personal freedom equitable safe challenging enterprising established, solid cautious trusting driving power-oriented 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Describe my organization a little 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Describes my organization a fair amount 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Describes my organization most of the time 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

2.

JOB SATISFACTION

Please circle the score that most describes yourself :


All things considered, how satisfied are you with your job? 1 2 3 Not Moderately satisfied satisfied 4 5 Very satisfied

3.

LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR

Please circle the score which most closely describes your immediate supervisor :
Strongly agree Very true Strongly disagree Very unlikely

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13)

Before making decisions, he/she considers what his/her subordinates have to say Before taking action he/she consults with subordinates When faced with a problem, he/she consults with subordinates He/she asks subordinates for their suggestions He/she listens to subordinate's advice on which assignments should be made He/she helps people to make working on their tasks more pleasant He/she looks out for the personal welfare of group members He/she does little things to make things pleasant He/she treats all group members as equals He/she explains the way tasks should be carried out He/she decides what and how things shall be done He/she maintains definite standards of performance He/she schedules the work to be done

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

4.

PERFORMANCE

Please circle the score that most describes yourself :


1) My standard of job performance : 1 Does not meet standard 2 3 Meets standard 4 5 Exceeds standard

2) Compared to another person of the same rank, I would rate my performance as : 1 Low level 2 3 Moderate level 4 5 High level

3) Compared to other members of my department/team, I would rate my contribution to the organization as : 1 Less contribution 2 3 Enough contribution 4 5 More contribution

5.

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Please circle the score that most describes yourself and your opinions of your organization :
Strongly agree Very true Strongly disagree Very unlikely

1) 2) 3)

In general, the work I am given to do at my organization is challenging and exciting This organization always makes clear what is expected of me In my organization, I often find myself working on assignments without a clear understanding of what it is I am supposed to be doing The requirements of my job are not particularly demanding The top management people in my organization pay attention to ideas brought to them by other employees Among the people in this organization there are few close relationships I feel I can trust this organization to do what it says it will do There are people in this organization who are getting much more than they deserve and others who are getting much less In this organization you are encouraged to feel that the work you do makes important contributions to the larger aims of the organization I am rarely given feedback concerning my performance on the job In my organization, I am allowed to participate in decisions regarding my workload and performance standards

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

6 6 6

7 7 7

4) 5)

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

6) 7) 8)

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

6 6 6

7 7 7

9)

10) 11)

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

6.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Please tick the response that describes yourself and your organization :
1. Age: 20 29 years 40 49 years 2. Gender: Female 3. Education level: Secondary 4. Marital status: Single 5. Current job position: Administrative/Clerical Technician Executive/Senior Exec 6. Assistant Manager Manager/Senior Manager Other please specify Married Diploma Degree Post Graduate Male 30 39 years 50 and above

How many years have you worked for your current employer? Less than 3 years 7 10 years 3 6 years More than 10 years

7.

What is the type of business of your organization? Manufacturing (e.g. production, assembly, etc.) Service (e.g. sales, banking, education, consultancy, etc.) Other please specify

8.

What is the nature of your organization? Private/Proprietary Government-linked (GLC) Government Other please specify

9.

How many years of establishment is your organization? Less than 10 years 10 15 years More than 15 years

10.

How many employees work in your organization? Less than 100 301 - 700 100 300 More than 700

UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA The Faculty of Business and Accountancy Master of Business Administration

Examining the association between organization culture and leadership behaviour and organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance a Malaysian perspective.

Dear Sir/Madam, This survey is conducted as part of an MBA Research Project, which shall be submitted in part completion of the Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Malaya. The general purpose of this study is to examine the association between organization culture and leadership behaviour and organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance from a Malaysian perspective. I would like to invite your participation in this survey by filling up the attached questionnaire. The said questionnaire is constructed in a straightforward manner and easy to answer, which should take not more than 10 minutes of your valuable time. Please be assured that all information will be treated with the strictest confidentiality and only the aggregate data will be analyzed. Please answer all the questions by typing x in the that correspond to your responses. yellow boxes

I would really appreciate if you could return the completed questionnaire to lhyresearch@gmail.com Thank you for your valuable assistance in participating in the survey. Yours sincerely, Lee Huey Yiing Supervised by, Dr. Kamarul Zaman bin Ahmad Department of Business Strategy and Policy Faculty of Business & Accountancy University of Malaya
1

1.

ORGANIZATION CULTURE

Please type x in the box that most closely corresponds with how you see your organization :
Does not describe my organization a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p) q) r) s) t) u) v) w) x) risk taking collaborative hierarchical procedural relationships-oriented results-oriented creative encouraging sociable structured pressurized ordered stimulating regulated personal freedom equitable safe challenging enterprising established, solid cautious trusting driving power-oriented Describe my organization a little Describes my organization a fair amount Describes my organization most of the time

2.

JOB SATISFACTION

Please type x in the box which that most describes yourself :


All things considered, how satisfied are you with your job? Not satisfied Moderately satisfied Very satisfied

3.

LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR

Please type x in the box which most closely describes your immediate supervisor :
Strongly agree Very true Strongly disagree Very unlikely

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13)

Before making decisions, he/she considers what his/her subordinates have to say Before taking subordinates action he/she consults with

When faced with a problem, he/she consults with subordinates He/she asks subordinates for their suggestions He/she listens to subordinate's advice on which assignments should be made He/she helps people to make working on their tasks more pleasant He/she looks out for the personal welfare of group members He/she does little things to make things pleasant He/she treats all group members as equals He/she explains the way tasks should be carried out He/she decides what and how things shall be done He/she maintains definite standards of performance He/she schedules the work to be done

4.

PERFORMANCE

Please type x in the box that most describes yourself :


1) My standard of job performance : Does not meet standard Meets standard Exceeds standard

2) Compared to another person of the same rank, I would rate my performance as : Low level Moderate level High level

3) Compared to other members of my department/team, I would rate my contribution to the organization as : Less contribution Enough contribution More contribution

5.

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Please type x in the box that most describes yourself and your opinions of your organization :
Strongly agree Very true Strongly disagree Very unlikely

1) 2) 3)

In general, the work I am given to do at my organization is challenging and exciting This organization always makes clear what is expected of me In my organization, I often find myself working on assignments without a clear understanding of what it is I am supposed to be doing The requirements of my job are not particularly demanding The top management people in my organization pay attention to ideas brought to them by other employees Among the people in this organization there are few close relationships I feel I can trust this organization to do what it says it will do There are people in this organization who are getting much more than they deserve and others who are getting much less In this organization you are encouraged to feel that the work you do makes important contributions to the larger aims of the organization I am rarely given feedback performance on the job concerning my

4) 5)

6) 7) 8)

9)

10) 11)

In my organization, I am allowed to participate in decisions regarding my workload and performance standards

6.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Please type x in the box that describes yourself and your organization :
1. Age: 20 29 years 40 49 years 2. Gender: Female Education level: Secondary Marital status: Single Current job position: Administrative/Clerical Technician Executive/Senior Exec 30 39 years 50 and above

Male

3.

Diploma

Degree

Post Graduate

4.

Married

5.

Assistant Manager Manager/Senior Manager Other please specify

6.

How many years have you worked for your current employer? Less than 3 years 3 6 years 7 10 years More than 10 years What is the type of business of your organization? Manufacturing (e.g. production, assembly, etc.) Service (e.g. sales, banking, education, consultancy, etc.) Other please specify What is the nature of your organization? Private/Proprietary Government-linked (GLC)

7.

8.

Government Other please specify

9.

How many years of establishment is your organization? Less than 10 years 10 15 years How many employees work in your organization? Less than 100 100 300 301 - 700 More than 700

More than 15 years

10.

También podría gustarte