Influence of Leadership Behavior and Participatory Decision

Making on the Employees Organizational Commitment





Author
Muhammad Ismail Ramay
03-UET/PhD-CASE-EM-02


Supervisor
Dr. Rashid A. Khan

DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
TAXILA

September 2010




2


Influence of Leadership Behavior and Participatory Decision
Making on the Employees Organizational Commitment




A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
(PhD) in Engineering Management
Author
Muhammad Ismail Ramay
(03-UET/PhD-CASE-EM-02)

Checked and Recommended by


Dr . Shahi d Khal i l


Dr . Zahi d I qbal


Approved by:


______________________
Dr . Rashi d Ahmed Khan
Thesis Supervisor









3
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY TAXILA
September 2010



DECLARATION


The substance of this thesis is original work of the author and due references
and acknowledgements have been made, where necessary, to the work of
others. No part of this thesis has been already accepted for any degree, and it
is not being currently submitted in candidature of any degree.




Muhammad Ismail Ramay

(F-02-068)
Thesis Scholar

Countersigned:


Dr. Rashid Ahmed Khan
Thesis Supervisor








4





Acknowledgements

My acknowledgements are due to so many people who have not only been my
inspiration but a constant source of motivation and courage for me. First and foremost
among them is my chief supervisor, Professor Rashid Ahmed Khan, Dean Faculty of
Business Administration at National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad, to
whom I am particularly indebted for his expert guidance and meticulous supervision.
Without his invaluable direction and advice this study might not have been in its current
refined shape. I also pay my gratitude to him for the fact that the original inspiration for
conducting research in this area came from his insightful discussions during the classes
of Business Research Methodology, Issues in Technical Organization, Business Policy
and Strategic Management attended by me in Spring and Summer 2003 at Center for
Advance Studies in Engineering(CASE).

I am deeply appreciative to my family for their support and patience. I was living in
Wah Cantt, teaching in Wah Cantt, and late in the evening coming to CASE for classes,
traveling 80 kilometers every day. I was not on HEC or any institutional scholarship and
at times I did not contribute to my family budget as well. Their support, however,
remained so pure and sincere that it was even beyond the sense of economics per se.

I wish to register my gratitude to Dr. S.Alvi at University of Concordia Canada, Dr.Jason
Sha, at University of Kentucky USA, Dr. Henry Mintzberg, and his PS Santa Rodriguez
at McGill University Canada for their help in sending me the material during the critical
stage of this study. I am also thankful to Mr. Michael White of Policy Studies Institute,
London for sending me the material at the revision stage of my thesis in 2006.

Finally I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to CASE, its President Professor Ali
Haider, Dr. Ali Sajid, Dr Mamoona Rauf, and fellows at Muhammad Ali Jinnah
University who traveled with me to Gilgit, Quetta, Lahore and Dera Ismail Khan during
survey and interviews.





Muhammad Ismail Ramay







5



TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER 1–INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE OF THE STUDY (9-37)
Abstract 9
1.1 Introduction 10
1.2 Rationale for the Thesis 16
1.3 Objectives of Study Problem Setting 20
1.4 Issue of Commitment, Leadership Behavior and Faculty’s
Job Satisfaction in Pakistan
22
1.5 Conditions of Higher Education in Pakistan 22
1.6 Our Universities Working Environment 23
1.7 The Issue of University Ranking and Higher Education Commission 27
1.8 Definition of Terms and Concepts 31
1.9 Significance of the Study 34
1.10 Problem Statement 35
1.11 Research Questions 36
CHAPTER 2–THE LITERATURE REVIEW, AND OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH (38–68)

2.1 Leadership 39
2.2 Research and Findings about Leadership Behavior 42
2.3 Evolution of Relationship Oriented and Task Oriented Leadership
Behavior
46
2.4 Research on Task and Relation Oriented Leadership Behavior 48
2.5 Research on Organizational Commitment 53
2.6 Research on Affective, Normative and Continuance Commitment 54
2.7 Meyer and Allen’s Model of Commitment 56
2.8 Steers Model of Commitment 58
2.9 Relation between Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction 59
2.10 Decision Making 61
2.11 Types of Decisions 62
2.12 Participation Oriented Decision Making 62
2.13 Faculty Participation and Other Perspective 66
2.14 Development of Participants’ Skill 67

CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (69 – 89)

3.1 Introduction 69
3.2 Type of Study 70
3.3 Assumptions 70
3.4 Theoretical Framework and Variables 71
3.5 Empirical Model 72
3.6 Commitment and University Faculty 73
3.7 Relationship between Organizational Commitment and Leadership
Behavior
73
3.8 Job Satisfaction of University Faculty 74
3.9 Participative Decision Making and University Faculty 75


6
3.10 Morale of Faculty 78
3.11 Hypothesis 79
3.12 Data Collection 80
3.13 Sampling Strategy 80
3.14 Survey Questionnaire 81
3.15 Deriving Final Questionnaire from Pilot Study
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire
(Meyer & Allen‘s OCQ)
Job Satisfaction and Morale Questionnaire

82
3.17 Data Analysis
Correlation Analysis
Multiple Regression Analysis
88

CHAPTER 4 – RESULT OF THE RESEARCH (90-122)

4.1 Results of Questionnaire Survey 90
4.2 Characteristics of University Faculty 90
4.3 Sample Responses 91
4.4 Correlation between Major Types of Leadership Behaviors 94
4.5 Correlation among Organizational Commitment Scales 95
4.6 Correlation between the Task-Oriented and Relation-Oriented
Behavior and the Organizational Commitment Scales
97
4.7 Correlation between Participatory Decision Making and
Organizational Commitment
98
4.8 Correlation between Participatory Decision Making
and Job Satisfaction
100
4.9 Correlation between Commitment and Job Satisfaction 101
4.10 Correlation between Job Satisfaction and Morale 103
4.11 Results of Regression Analysis 105
4.12 Findings about Leadership behavior and Organizational Commitment 111
4.13 Findings about Participatory Decision Making 115
4.14 Findings about Job Satisfaction and Morale and Organizational
Commitment
119
4.15 Hypothesis Evaluation 121

CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION (123 – 133)

5.1 Introduction 123
5.2 Discussion 124
5.3 Research Questions 126
5.4 Conclusions 127
5.5 Limitations of the Thesis 128
5.6 Implications for Educators and Administrators 128
5.7 Implications for Higher Education Commission and Policy Makers 130
5.8 Future Research Needs 131
5.9 Summary of Major Findings 131
5.10 Contribution of this Thesis 132



7
References (134-152)

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Existing Framework of University Management in the Public Sector 26
Table 1.2 Faculty Profile of Engineering Universities (public sector), 2002 30
Table 1.3 Faculty Profile of Agricultural Universities, 2002 30
Table 2.1 Summary of the Main Theories of Leadership 43
Table 3.2 Questions on Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 86
Table 3.3 Questions on Organizational Commitment Questionnaire 86
Table 3.4 Questions on Participatory Decision Making Questionnaire 87
Table 3.5 Questions on Job Satisfaction and Morale of University Faculty 87
Table 3.6 Internal Consistency Cronbach’s Alpha 88
Table 4.1 Characteristics of University Faculty members 90
Table 4.2 Sample Responses of Universities 91
Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Major Variables 92
Table 4.4 Correlation Matrix of All Variables 94
Table 4.5 Commitment Correlation Matrix 95
Table 4.6 Commitment Correlation 96
Table 4.7 Correlation between Task, Relation-Oriented Behavior and OC 97
Table 4.8 Correlation of PDM with OC, Task Relation, LF, JS and Morale 99
Table 4.9 Correlation of OC, AC, CC & NC with Job Satisfaction 102
Table 4.10 Correlation of Job Satisfaction and Morale 103
Table 4.11 Regression Statistics 106
Table 4.12 Overall R Statistics 106
Table 4.12.1 ANOVA Faculty’s OC 107
Table 4.12.2 Coefficient of OC 107
Table 4.13 Results of OC (Male) 108
Table 4.13.1 ANOVA OC (Male) 108
Table 4.13.2 Results Of OC and LB (Male) 109
Table 4.14 Results of OC & LB (Female) 110
Table 4.14.1 Faculty’s Organizational Commitment (Female) 110
Table 4.14.2 Coefficient of OC (Female) 110
Table 4.15 Results of Faculty’s OC & Job Satisfaction 113
Table 4.16 Results of Faculty’s OC & Morale 113
Table 4.15.1 ANOVA Job Satisfaction 114
Table 4.16.1 ANOVA Morale 114
Table 4.15.2 Coefficient of Job Satisfaction 115
Table 4.16.2 Coefficient of Morale 115
Table 4.17 Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction (Male & Female) 116
Table 4.17.1 Organizational Commitment and Morale (Male & Female) 117
Table 4.18 Group Statistics 118
Table 4.19 Independent Test of Morale, Job Satisfaction and OC 118
Table 3.1 Correlation Analysis Pilot Study 162
Table 4.19 Reliability Analysis 163


8
APPENDICES
A- Covering Letter 152
B1-Questionnaire Personal Demographics 154
B2-Organizational Commitment Questionnaire 155
B3-Leadership Behavior, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 155
B4-Participative Management Decision Making 156
B5-Faculty Job Satisfaction and Morale 158
C-Interview Card 159
D-Reminder Letter 160
E- Acquiring of Instruments 161
F- HEC Ranking of Universities 162
G- Definitions and Theories 171
H- Chartered Universities of Pakistan 179
I - Private universities of Pakistan 184
J- Abbreviations used in text 186
K-Other Researchers Results and Explanations 187

List of Figures
Fig. 1 Overview and Structure of this Study 37
Fig. 2 Meyer and Allen’s Model 58
Fig. 3 Steers Model of Commitment 59
Fig. 4 Theoretical Framework 71
Graph 1 Employees Organizational Commitment 167
Graph 2 Task Oriented Leadership Behavior 167
Graph 3 Relation Oriented Leadership Behavior 168
Graph 4 Laissez-faire Behavior 168
Graph 5 Participatory Decision Making 169
Graph 6 Job Satisfaction 169
Graph 7 Morale 170




9
Abstract

A large number of studies have examined the antecedents of organizational
commitment in the western countries. Research in the area of leadership behavior,
organizational commitment and employees’ job satisfaction is noticeably absent in
Pakistan. The objective of this thesis is to examine the effect of leadership behavior,
participation of employees in the organizational decision making, and their effect on
organizational commitment. Job satisfaction and morale is also observed as an outcome.
The subject used in this study is faculty members of different private and public
universities of Pakistan.

A survey was conducted and then complemented by some semi structured interviews.
A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed to faculty in eighteen public and private
sector universities, from which 237 usable completed questionnaires were returned (79%
response rate). Correlation and regression were performed to investigate the
relationship between faculty’s commitment to their universities and the other variables
measured in the study. A model of commitment was developed using a multiple
regression analysis in which a link of the role of leadership behavior and employees’
participation in decision making with organizational commitment was explored.

It is observed that organizational leadership and participatory decision-making exert a
significant impact on commitment. The two leadership behaviors – task oriented
behavior and participative style of management – have a positive effect on commitment
while the laissez-faire style had a negative effect on commitment.

The results of this study are in agreement with the model proposed by Bass & Avolio
(1995) in which relation-oriented behavior is more significant. As compared to Steers
model, the continuance commitment shows higher significance than affective
commitment in this study. The results of this study also reveal that job satisfaction has a
strong association with faculty’s organizational commitment and also that the faculty’s
morale is affected by university leadership’s behavior.


Keywords: Leadership, Participatory Decision Making, Commitment, Faculty, Job
Satisfaction, Morale, Pakistan





10
Chapter 1
1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this research study was to investigate the influence of leadership
behavior and participatory decision making on faculty member’s commitment to their
respective Universities in Pakistan. Measures of leadership behavior, job satisfaction,
participation in decision making, commitment to their organization and morale were the
variables studied. Age, experience, and length of service with their respective
universities were few of the personal and demographic characteristics included in the
study.
Pakistan inherited a colonial education system (Tariq, 2009). In this system the best
students preferred to join the bureaucracy, while teaching was the second and third
preferred profession for many. Currently, the situation is very different and the higher
education system in Pakistan is facing some serious issues. The decision of the
overseeing public authority, the Higher Education Commission (HEC), to start
universities, is facing criticism from academia. Bukhari (2009) pointed out that, “we do
not need new universities at all; instead we need to rescue and standardize our current
academia”. Some burning issues however, are University autonomy, HEC’s introduction
of Model University Act and selection of Vice Chancellors. According to Hoodbhoy
(2009) “No one doubts the desperate need for reforms of Pakistan’s education sector”.
World Bank also, in its report in 1992, pointed towards the most pressing issues of
higher education in Pakistan including, among others, a flawed institutional framework,
inefficiency and ineffectiveness, problematic nature of design and delivery of service,
irrelevance and wastage of equipment, under-funding and low productivity in research.


11
To understand the issues of academia in Pakistan one has to look at the history of a key
institution, namely the university.
The first university established on the European model in Subcontinent was the
University of Calcutta. It started functioning in 1858. The Vice-Chancellor, who was the
chief executive officer (CEO) of the university, was a functionary of the state. He was a
judge. The Viceroy (executive head of subcontinent appointed by Queen of England)
was the Chancellor of the university. The syndicate of the university was the most
powerful decision making body and was dominated by the functionaries of the state.
The model of the modern university in India was a new model, the Colonial Model
(Rehman, 2006). In this model the faculty was entrusted with limited decision making at
best. Major decision making was done by the functionaries of the state. Thus, the model
of the modern, autonomous Universities in India was not similar to University of Oxford
and Cambridge or even London.
The Punjab University Lahore is the oldest university in Pakistan. After
independence, in 1947, many other universities came into existence, through Acts of the
National Assembly or Provincial Assemblies (Virk & Isani 2004). Universities are
incorporated, more or less on a uniform basis in accordance with a “Model Act” which
provides common features of university governance and management. Basically, other
universities copied the Punjab University Act, 1882. This Act was drawn up on the
pattern of the University of London, amended from time to time.
Typically a Chancellor, who is the Governor in the case of a provincial university
and the President in the case of a federal university, heads the university in Pakistan.
The Vice-Chancellor is the academic leader and the principal executive of the university.
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor is chosen from the senior professors of the university, and is


12
appointed by the Chancellor to assist the Vice-Chancellor. Other administrative heads
are the Registrar, the Treasurer, the Controller of Examination, the Resident Auditor and
the Librarian. The authorities, which control the universities, are generally the Senate,
the Syndicate, the Academic Council, the Board of Faculties and Studies, the Selection
Board, the Finance and Planning Committee etc. The Senate is considered to be the
supreme authority of the university. It is a large body and comprises university officers,
professors, members of syndicate, deans, principals of colleges, eminent persons and in
some cases representative of the students. It is responsible for the academic and financial
aspects of the university.
The Acts of most of the public sector universities in Pakistan were revised in 1973 to
democratize various authorities to include teachers through elections. With the passage
of time a number of problems emerged due to certain provisions or lack of provisions in
the Acts. The composition of the Senate, Syndicate, the Academic Council, the Finance
and Planning Committee, therefore did not meet the academic and administrative
requirements of the Universities.
On the international front the situation is different. The Carnegie Foundation
sponsored a study in 14 countries in 2002, through which different scholars offered
useful insights about the reforms in their academic systems. Mora (2002), while
discussing the academic conditions in Spain, states that because of restrictive legal
reforms enforced by the government, an extremely dynamic educational era in Spain
came to an end and the legal reforms have stopped the growth of the higher education
system. These reforms have also restricted the freedom of the faculty.
Askling (2002), while studying the Swedish educational system states that the
reforms of the regulative framework have addressed some problematic issues relating to


13
their academic system. Altbach (2002) points out that the academic freedom in many
countries is threatened. He further highlights the importance of academic freedom and
says that this freedom is not only essential to teaching and research, but should also be
the very mission of the university. Other academicians have argued that a fully
developed higher education system could not exist without academic freedom.
Virk and Isani (2004) have pointed out that the higher education in Pakistan was in
urgent need of reforms. They argue that Pakistani universities in their present form are
neither ready to create new knowledge, nor their graduate programmes equate the
international standards. Many top appointments in academics are made purely on
political bases; as a result, those who are responsible for leading and funding higher
education are either concerned with finance and management issues or making new
appointments to satisfy their voters. These practices negate academic freedom and hence
the universities are neither achieving their potential, nor contributing fully to the
emerging knowledge-based society. The other important fact ignored is that the
professors are at heart of the academic enterprise and regulative environment affects
their commitment. A university can not be successful without a committed faculty and
effective teaching and learning can not take place in the absence of commitment.
Industrially developed societies are giving higher education a central position in the
technological scene of the 21
st
century. But the academic profession still finds itself
under increasing pressure. Working conditions in the universities, especially for faculty,
have deteriorated and the traditional autonomy has decreased. Altbach, (2002) says that
even though the enrollments into universities have increased, yet it is not accompanied
by commensurate growth in faculty appointments, pays and perquisites.


14
Many researchers have warned about the efforts made by administration to regulate
faculty’s work. Researchers have worked upon many topics in the area of leadership and
participative management, but most of this work has been done in the western
countries. In Pakistan hardly any significant research has been done in the area of
leadership and commitment up till now. One can only find a few articles in magazines
and other press publications through which authors have normally addressed the issues
relating to the deteriorating working conditions and management of public sector
universities.
Hoodbhoy (2009) points out that Higher Education Commission and its authorities do
not involve academicians’ decision making in universities. Thus, the consequences of
one man decision making, haunt us, as expensive research equipment has been
purchased throughout the country, and university vice chancellors cannot pay salaries
for faculty and staff.
Other authors point out reasons for this situation, as low funding, lack of
infrastructure, lack of investment on research and non-academic leadership of the
universities. Researchers (Virk & Isani, 2004) point out that currently the higher
education in Pakistan is not contributing to the economic growth of the country.
Enrollment in the education sector has been growing at the rate of 6% per year, (Dushka,
2005). The problem is that Pakistan spends 2.7% of GNP on education; literacy is
increasing at 1% per year while population is increasing at the rate of 2.8% per year,
(Virk, Isani 2004). Under these circumstances it is the private sector that is investing in
universities, Rehman (2006). Compared to public sector universities, such as Punjab
University Lahore and University of Sindh Jamshoro, private universities such as
Institute of Business Administration (IBA) Karachi, and Lahore University of


15
Management Sciences (LUMS) rank first and second on the list of Higher Education
Commission. (HEC Report 2006).
Despite the fact that fees are three times higher in private universities, institutions
like LUMS and the Agha Khan University have become preferred choice for students in
certain disciplines. These and some other private institutions have attracted faculty on
very high pay scales as compared to those of public sector universities. The commitment
and democratic style of management too, have played a significant role in the success of
these institutions.
Research studies have indicated that the salaries, benefits, physical facilities and
roles in the universities decision-making affect faculty’s morale, commitment and job
satisfaction (Altbach 2002). Even though public sector universities carry pension and
other benefits after retirement, yet a trend of shifting jobs from public to private
universities has been visibly observed in Pakistan.
Madron, Craig and Mendel (1976), recommended that when faculty has low morale,
the behavior of departmental heads must come under scrutiny. Austin, Rice and Splete;
(1991), reported that faculty gets affected by the senior administrations management
style, and the degree to which they perceived that they participated in the institution’s
higher level decision-making processes. In Pakistan, authors like Dushka (2005),
Rahman (2006), Virk and Isani (2004), Hoodbhoy (2009), Bukhari (2009), have written
about faculty’s job satisfaction, working conditions, universities’ overall management
system and Higher Education Commission’s inability to implement its own selection
criteria for appointments of Vice Chancellors.




16
1.2 Rationale for the Thesis
The study of leadership behavior has gained importance in the literature of
management and organizational behavior in the last two decades. However very
recently the concept of organizational commitment has grown in popularity and is
receiving a great deal of attention from researchers. Numerous studies conducted in the
western industrialized societies by Alvi & Ahmed (1987), DeCotiis & Summers (1987),
Meyer & Allen (1997), Wasti (2004) and White (2006) have investigated many possible
antecedents of organizational commitment.
An important aspect of the current study is an investigation of University Leadership,
such as Vice Chancellors and Senior Administration and their task and relationship
oriented behavior and how it influences faculty and their job satisfaction. The morale of
faculty and their job satisfaction are investigated, besides finding out how far the
administration is willing to empower and include the faculty in institutional decision
making process.
An investigation by the researcher found very little literature relating to Pakistani
universities. Virk and Isani have written a book (2004) on the overall conditions of
Higher Education in Pakistan. In 1980s a paper was written on assessment of
organizational commitment of male and female employees towards their organizations
in Pakistan by Alvi and Ahmed. Lack of previous research on this important area in
Pakistan has necessitated this imperative research study. This research will be a
significant contribution to the body of knowledge by providing evidence to the literature
and theory from Pakistan on a subject which is very popular for many decades.
Different researchers have used different terms to describe leadership behavior.
Bass (1990), gave an overview of the terms used by researchers. For example, while


17
describing relationship-oriented leadership behaviors Hemphill (1950), included concern
for people as expressed by Blake and Mouton (1964), interaction-oriented behavior
emphasized by Bass (1967), people centered behavior emphasized by Anderson (1974),
leadership upon which Zaleznik (1977) stressed. Participatory decision making was
thought of by Ouchi (1981) as significant while Misumi (1985) thought building mutual
trust was important and being democratic was Misumi’s (1985) contribution.
Earlier researchers studied leadership style as transformational and transactional and
later on Hersey & Blanchard and Bass, (1990) focused on leadership behavior as task-
oriented and relation-oriented. The researchers have described these two types of
behaviors under different terms, i.e., person related behavior and goal focused behavior.
Even though different terms and names have been used by different researchers yet the
researchers have pointed out repeatedly, that leadership style and behaviors have
significant effects upon employee’s response to his or her work and organization.
Some researchers have also pointed out that management practices have effects beyond
an employee’s response to work. Burton, (2005) in her study indicated that management
practices can make employees sick. Among academics, researchers like Baldwin and
Blackburn (1983) have indicated that whatever threatens the health of the faculty
threatens the well being of higher education institutions (HEIs). Another researcher
states that the effectiveness of such institutions is dependent upon the quality, morale
and conviction of its faculty, (Hagedorn, 1994).
Even though a large number of studies have investigated numerous possible
antecedents of organizational commitment (DeCoits and Summers 1987, Iverson and
Roy 1994,), the influence of leadership behavior and decision making style of
management in education sector has received very little attention. For example, the


18
*Meta Analysis by Monge and Miller (1999) on the organizational commitment did
not include any reference to faculty or employee’s morale and organizational
commitment. Similarly, Cohen did a Meta analysis in 1993 and again examined the
models of Randel, Cotes (1991), and Morrow (1993) in 1999, but there was no mention of
organizational commitment and behavior of leaders as far as education sector was
concerned.
The popular Pakistani press has been reporting on the issues arising from the
management styles of those vice chancellors who have been appointed against the rules
set up by Higher Education Commission. Some of these Vice Chancellors consisted of
retired government officers, and bureaucrats. The arguments put forth for appointing
these retired army officers as vice chancellors was that they have substantial training in
administration. The presumption was that they could administer universities better than
academicians who, presumably, spent most of their time in archives, libraries,
laboratories or the classroom. This argument has not been substantiated or proven, nor
has anyone presented data to prove it (Rahman, 2006). The focus of these administrators
was on regulating the faculty’s conduct which proved to be problematic. Moreover,
according to Rahman (2006) the university faculty does not respect these administrators
as they are not known in the academic world.

*A meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses.






19
Researchers like Olswang & Lee (1984) have pointed out that autonomy and freedom
contribute most to faculty satisfaction; therefore, the trend toward greater regulation of
faculty conduct seriously affects the faculty’s job satisfaction and eventually their
commitment. It is possible for a person to report greater job satisfaction but no
institutional commitment (Hunter, Ventimiglia and Crow; 1980).
In Pakistan, private universities are making a reasonably good contribution to
academia and the job market, as they are able to pay higher salaries and attract faculty of
good quality. According to Hagedon (1994), job satisfaction is dependent on a number of
factors and a good predictor of satisfaction in academia consists of satisfaction with
salary. Nienhuis (1994) reported that “collegiality” as a factor increases a sense of
commitment and leads to increased job satisfaction. According to Hort & Oxley (1992),
job-related stress could be a contributor to faculty’s dissatisfaction and this
dissatisfaction, according to Moore & Gardner (1992), may move a faculty member to
disassociate himself from the organization. Increased regulation of faculty conduct and
poor administrator-faculty relationships can also cause dissatisfaction and low
commitment (Hort & Oxley, 1992).
Halford (1994) highlighted the crucial role of leadership style in determining faculty
morale in HEIs. It is the participatory leadership style that builds a supportive
institutional environment which is perceived favorably by faculty (Madron & Craig
1976).
It has been reported that wages, job security, promotion, union affiliation, tenure
and type of organization are some of the variables, which exert considerable influence
on commitment in industrialized societies. Steers (1977) points out that in western
countries, cross-validational studies, whereby hypotheses or models are tested and then


20
replicated in a different higher education environments are rarely done. However, many
studies have been done in Israel, India, China and Iran. In Pakistan there is a paucity of
jobs and job opportunities. Thus it would be interesting and useful to know if there are
some potential and significant differences in organizational commitment that exists in
Pakistan.
All three types of organizational commitments propagated by Meyer & Allen (1993),
were statistically significant in the Pakistani universities, namely, affective, normative
and affirmative commitments. Alvi & Ahmed (1987) suggested that, gender has a
negative relationship with organizational commitment. Thus female employees are more
likely to leave their university workplace than their male counterparts (Marsh &
Mannari, 1977). This may not hold good in Pakistan due to high unemployment and low
horizontal mobility for people and its male-dominated work environment (Alvi &
Ahmed, 1987). Age restrictions exist for eligibility to the large pool of government jobs,
so that even if people want to further their education, they loose their benefits if they do
so. On the other hand, in developed countries such as the USA, Canada; and UK the
discrimination based on age, gender and ethnicity is prohibited. In this study
respondents data was separated into two groups based on gender, and organizational
commitment of male and female was also examined.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
An important aspect of the study of commitment, participation and faculty’s job
satisfaction is an investigation of the factors that impact either positively or negatively
on them. In this regard considerations, like what causes job stress and its ultimate
impact on the physical and emotional health of faculty members in higher education, is
very relevant. So is the senior administrators’ leadership style, particularly the degree to


21
which administrators are perceived to be willing to empower faculty and include them
in institutional decision-making processes.
The term higher education institutions evoke a whole array of widely differing
establishments. Thus Kerr (1994), says that, “The rule of the game, the layouts and
conditions of the playing fields, the composition of the teams and the methods of
keeping score, all vary enormously from one segment of higher education to another.
This study strives to provide a greater understanding of the influence of leadership
behavior on commitment. Specifically, it provides information about the relationship
between relation-oriented and task oriented behaviors, participative decision-making
and different types of organizational commitments. It explores universities’ leaderships’
behavior and its influence on faculty’s commitment, job satisfaction and morale. It
assumes how and to what extent organizational commitment is related to participatory
decision-making, job satisfaction and morale in Pakistani universities.
Such insights into the determinants of faculty commitment, efficacy of various
leadership styles in university administrations and efficacy of faculty’s involvement in
decision making will contribute to the management paradigm of the Pakistani
University. There findings are important in determining where to make effective change
management strategies in the universities. The findings of this research are also aimed to
facilitate policy makers to develop policies that are targeted to improve working
conditions of University faculty and thus improve the effectiveness and vitality of
higher education institutions.







22
Problem Setting

1.4 Issues of Leadership Behavior, Faculty’s Commitment and Job
Satisfaction in Pakistan

The state of HEIs in terms of job satisfaction, commitment and turn over,
necessitates that a study be done in the area. Under the current administrative structure,
there are reports that faculty turn over in some universities is on a higher side. This
study examines faculty’s commitment to Universities. As noted by Mahmood (1999), if
teachers have a voice in matters affecting them, they would be more likely to internalize
the decisions and implement them.
The salary difference in private and public sector institutions is significantly different.
Their organizational structures also differ. The question of higher education governance
is linked with the administrator’s leadership styles and faculty’s participation in
decision-making. A study conducted by Carnegie Foundation in different countries
found that there was high level of faculty dissatisfaction with the current level of
administrative and governance arrangements (Altbach & Lewis, (1995). Faculty was
unhappy about the hierarchical and rigid governance structures of their institutions. A
large number of faculty members reported dissatisfaction and doubts about the quality
of leadership provided by their top-level administrators. The majority of faculty
members in eight different countries reported that their senior administrators were
autocratic and a majority of respondents in six countries agreed that lack of faculty
involvement in governance was a problem.
1.5 Conditions of Higher Education in Pakistan

Over the years, many writers have reported on the conditions of higher education in
Pakistan. Articles appearing in popular press in Pakistan have been repeatedly urging


23
about provision of facilities, working conditions of faculty, governance practices and the
leadership style of administrators. A recent survey done by Ghuman DAWN
(2005) showed that more than one dozen universities are headed by non PhD retired
government officers, with titles such as Vice Chancellor, Rector or Director General.
These writings have also pointed out that due to limited number of PhDs and
experienced faculty, there has been a trend for faculty to switch between the universities
after every few years. The salaries are not good in the public sector, while the contract-
based employment is the problem in private sector. This situation is in stark contrast to
that in most developed countries. Schuster (1986), Miller (1992), and Middle Hurst (1993)
found that in higher educational institutes in America, Australia and United Kingdom,
faculty was satisfied with their jobs. In all three countries research reflected their strong
commitment to their institutions.
1.6 Our Universities Working Environment
The work of Weber (1948) has provided a valuable insight in to the workings of
complex organizations. Universities are generally large organizations, which are mostly
bureaucratically structured, fairly rigid, increasingly complex, and resistant to change.
The characteristics of a bureaucracy suggested by Weber (1948), include hierarchy,
continuity as in career structure of salaried professional, impersonality as in rules and
regulations, and expertise with officials being selected according to merit (Beetham
1987). The other element of this type of organizations includes control, order, efficiency
and stability. If these elements are taken as positive then there are certainly some
negativities attached with them too, and that is they are reluctant to change, employees
are dissatisfied, they lack innovation, there is lot of red taping, lot of procedural paper
work and a power seeking behavior exhibited by the administrators.


24
Bureaucracies emphasize authority and often managers within such organizations are
reluctant to relinquish any of their powers and authorities. That being a reality, it is not
surprising to find that our public sector universities fit into a well-established
bureaucratic culture. Although the size and complexity of many public universities and
the increasing specializations and new degree programs have made it difficult to
restructure the universities, in anyway, other than bureaucratically. Professionals, such
as senior faculty and PhD’s, who normally work in public sector universities, are
naturally subjected to the bureaucratic nature of the universities. On the other hand
professionals working in private universities are subjected to the different value systems
and practices of the universities. The socialization processes of professors in different
types of universities also determine how well these professors fit into these
organizations, that is, the cultural fit of these professors in their working environment.
Professors working in a professional bureaucracy, like a university, may accept the
broad organizational culture in which they work, but may disagree with the managerial
strategies applied in the organization. This is an example of mismatch or gap between
the expectations of employees and management strategies. Such a mismatch would have
considerable influence on employee’s commitment to the organization. Another reality
in Pakistani universities, as pointed out by deans in their interviews and by the
Federation of All Pakistan Universities Academic Staff Association (FAPUASA), is that
retired government officers with no academic, administration or teaching experience run
some of the major and oldest universities in the country.
An interesting fact as revealed by the HEC chairman is that the commission cannot
stop the Provincial Governors (Chancellors) from appointing theses people as Vice
Chancellors in nation’s public sector universities. Based on interviews and survey


25
results, it is clear that faculty’s job satisfaction and morale has suffered in most of the
universities headed by retired government officers with no academic institutions
administration experience.
History shows that academic freedom is not only a fundamental pre-requisite for
an effective university, but a core value for academia. Academic freedom must be at the
top of the agenda for everyone concerned with higher education. This new breed of
leadership in nation’s universities stresses more on regulating the faculty. They should
be doing all in their power to improve faculty job satisfaction and morale and some of
the public sector universities seriously need more traditional faculty autonomy, such
intrinsic factors as autonomy and freedom contribute optimum to faculty satisfaction,
but if that autonomy is challenged or restricted, the environment becomes less enjoyable
as a work place and increased regulation of faculty conduct does serious damage to
faculty job satisfaction and morale (Olswang & Lee: 1984). This further substantiates
previous studies, which show the leadership style of senior administrators to be a most
significant factor influencing faculty in terms of job satisfaction and morale. There are
other factors explained in chapter 4 of this study, but it appears that the way faculty
perceives its administrator’s leadership style is a factor, which relates to the job
satisfaction and commitment. When faculty finds the leadership style to be supportive,
its job satisfaction enhances.
There are two strong dimensions of university autonomy: One is academic dimension
and the other is administrative dimension. There is a need to look into to the area of
responsibilities regarding programming actions, setting standards, policies, degree
requirements, restructuring the departments and responding to accountability
requirements. The other dimension reflects campus flexibility regarding managing


26
revenues, setting tuition fees, appointing personnel, budgeting and expending funds.
The other important aspect is who should be running the universities, both in public and
private sectors?
Source: S. Haque, N. Ahmed, “Lower Expectation″ DAWN, October 1, 2006

Table 1.1 Existing Framework of University Management in the Public Sector
Body Main Functions Usual Composition
Board of Studies Academic matters at the
departmental level
*Senior faculty members of the department
concerned
*Eminent professionals of the field
concerned
Chaired by the chairman of the
department
Board of faculty All academic matters at the
faculty level
* Senior faculty members of the concerned
faculty
Chaired by the dean of faculty
Academic council All academic matters at the
university level, affiliated
colleges and institutions.
* Deans, Professors, Chairmen of teaching
departments, Nominees of the chancellor,
Principals of affiliated colleges, Librarian,
Representative/Secretary of Provincial
Education Department, Experts of the
fields pertinent to the university
Chaired by the Vice-Chancellor
Syndicate *Main executive body, *Manage
university funds and
properties
*Affiliate. Disaffiliate colleges
* Inspect affiliated institutions
* Appoint officers and
teachers
* Oversee service matters of
all the officers concerned
* Members of the provincial assembly
* Members of university senate
* Chief Justice of the concerned High Court
(or
a judge of the High Court nominated by
him)
* Secretary of the Provincial Education
Department
* Nominee of Higher Education
Commission
* Deans
* Representatives of University
professors/teachers
*Nominees of the chancellor
* Principals of affiliated colleges
Chaired by the Vice-chancellor
Senate *Statues
*Review annual performance of
the university
* Appoint members to various
bodies
* Budgets and finance overlays
*
* Members of Syndicate
* Officers
* University teacher’s representative (other
than professors)
* Principals of affiliated colleges
* Students representatives
* Alumni’s representatives
* Vice-chancellor
Pro-chancellor
Chaired by the chancellor


27
1.7 The Issue of University Ranking and Higher Education Commission
Universities in Pakistan do not share one basic philosophy and mission, and do not
operate under similar educational policies.
The HEC oversees the quality of university education in Pakistan. It replaced the
University Grants Commission (UGC) in 2002. HEC has taken key initiatives to overhaul
the conditions of universities in many ways. It started a program to increase the number
of PhDs in the universities by offering scholarships for studies abroad and encouraged
research programs within the country. It also introduced a model university ordinance
besides publishing a ranking of universities in Pakistan.
HEC stated that the primary purpose of the ranking exercise was to share
comprehensive data with the general public on the key issues that determine the state of
higher education in a particular institution. The rankings are published according to
broad institutional subject areas (HEC Report 2006). These subject areas consist of
Agriculture, Veterinary Sciences, Art and Design, Business and Information Technology,
Engineering, General and Health Sciences. *The report has generated a debate within the
academia in Pakistan. HEC also announced that this ranking is to be used simply as one
kind of reference to assist parents and potential students to choose the most suitable
institution to study. HEC based its ranking on data collected on certain key issues which
were given certain weights. Students were given a weight of 17 %, facilities 15 %,
finances 15%, faculty 27%, and research 26%. HEC collected data from 2001 to 2004 from
Universities through a questionnaire.
*HEC while issuing this list also warned people that, “University rankings are inherently controversial,
and no ranking is satisfying to all”. All readers should be cautious while reading these rankings, and should
not completely rely on the ranking list as definitive.




28
According to this information 58 Universities, both public sector and private sector were
included in the list of ranking. As many as 56 Universities, 20 public and 36 private
Universities were not considered for ranking, since they were granted their charters after
2001.
In the area of faculty excellence there are 4 universities scoring higher than 20 points.
The top ranking Universities were private including Agha Khan University, Karachi and
Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).
The report also clearly states the conditions and minimum requirements for faculty
selection and appointments. To be eligible for the position of a lecturer in a university
one must have Master’s Degree (First Class) in the relevant field with no third division
in one’s academic career. No publication or experience is required. For the position of
assistant professor, the HEC eligibility criteria is a PhD degree and no prior teaching
experience but very few PhDs are available. Thus, if one has a master’s degree from a
foreign country or an *M.Phil (two years degree after masters) from Pakistan, one is
eligible for the post of assistant professor. The positions of associate professors and full
professors also require PhD degrees with 10 to 15 years of teaching experience together
with 10 to 15 research publications. As there are very few faculty members who fulfill
this criterion, relaxation was given for faculty to fulfill the publication requirements by
July 31, 2009. HEC had asked the management of the universities to improve themselves
in all areas included in the ranking and had extended the date from 2007 until 2009.
*The Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.) is a postgraduate research degree requiring the completion of a thesis. It is a lesser
degree than the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) but greater than (or sometimes equal to) the Bachelor of Philosophy
(BPhil), and is of greater scope than the Master of Arts and Master of Science degrees
.
It is generally thesis only, and is
regarded as a senior or second master’s degree. In some instances the degree may be awarded to graduate students after
completing several years of original research, but before the defense of a dissertation, or as a substitute for a Ph.D.
thesis that is a marginal fail. In some cases it can serve as a provisional enrollment for the PhD.




29
There are faculty related problems such as faculty may not meet required
qualifications for appointment and promotion to the next position etc. HEC exceedingly
stresses that research should be conducted in the universities, but unfortunately very
little research has been carried out in universities. The quality of students is poor and
faculty is not well qualified or experienced even up to the national standards, not to
speak of international standards. HEC plans to appoint leading foreign professors at key
positions for 10 years in the upcoming 6 new engineering universities, to rectify the
situation (HEC, 2006). Those who disagree with HEC’s ranking criteria argue that the
best way to evaluate the performance of universities and other higher institutions of
educational learning is through self assessment (Haque & Ahmed, 2006). They contend
that, the ranking of universities simply passes judgment and reinforces the public
perception of the concerned universities. By and large, new private universities, less
than a decade old, have overtaken many established professional public sector
universities in a number of specialized disciplines.
The Agha Khan University, Karachi and Lahore University of Management Sciences
(LUMS) are ranked amongst the first two Universities by HEC, which indicates that the
private sector is progressing very fast in the field of higher education. The problems
within public sector universities are very much deeper than they appear (Virk & Isani,
2005).


30

Source: M.L.Virk, “Toil and Trouble”, DAWN, November 5, 2006.

Table 1.3 Faculty Profiles of Agricultural Universities, 2002
Name of University Total number
of teachers
Number
of PhDs
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 474 270
NWFP Agricultural University, Peshawar 170 89
Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam 219 64
University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi 88 39
Total 951 462
Source: M.L.Virk, “Toil and Trouble” , DAWN, November 12, 2006.




Table 1.2 Faculty Profile of Engineering Universities (Public Sector), 2002
Name of university Total number
of teachers
Teachers
with
PhD
National University of Sciences and Technology, Rawalpindi 365 103
University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore 233 89
Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro 238 36
Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Islamabad 69 31
NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi1 83 25
NWFP University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar 141 21
Quaid-i-Awam University of Engineering Sciences and Technology,
Nawabshah
84 8
University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila 49 7
Baluchistan University of Engineering and Technology, Khuzdar 45 0
Total 1,407 320


31
1.8 Definition of Terms and Concepts
The thesis involves concept and terms, which are defined in the preceding pages.
Leadership Style
Leadership style has been defined as a behavior that leaders use to influence a group
towards the achievement of goals. Stogdill, (1974) defines leadership to be a process of
influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and
goal achievement. Different leadership styles and models, such as Bass and Avolio’s
(1990), leadership model, Vroom and Yetton’s (1989), autocratic and participative model,
Hershey & Blanchard’s (1977), model of concern for task or people, the task and relation
oriented behavior model of Fielder’s (1967) have been studied extensively.
Organizational Commitment
The term commitment refers to an outcome in which a person agrees with a decision
or request and makes personal efforts to carry out the request or implement the decision
effectively. Meyer and Herscovitch (2002), define commitment as “a force that guides a
course of action towards one or more targets”. Meyer and Allen (1997), also presented a
“three-component model of commitment”, which refers to three forms of commitment
as affective, continuance and normative commitment. (Meyer, 2001; Herscovitch &
Meyer, 2002) suggest that operationalized measures of the three-component
commitment model have been shown to predict many important outcomes, such as task
performance, and job satisfaction.
Types of Organizational Commitment
The three types of organizational commitment are described below. Affective
commitment refers to employee’s emotional attachment, identification with, and


32
involvement in the organization. Employees with strong affective commitments stay
with the organization because they want to. (Brown, 2003)
Continuance commitment refers to employees’ assessment of whether the costs of
leaving the organization are greater than the cost of staying. Employees who perceive
that the cost of leaving the organization is greater than the cost of staying, remain with
the organization because they need to (Brown, 2003; Meyer & Allen, 1997)
Meyer & Allen (1997), define normative commitment as feeling of obligation which
employees have, to the organization. Employees with high level of normative
commitments stay with the organization because they feel they ought to.
Job Satisfaction
The term job satisfaction refers to, an attitude which individuals have about their
jobs. It results from perception of their jobs and the degree to which there is a good fit
between the individual and the organization (Ivancevich, 1997). Job satisfaction has
received a great deal of attention in the last few decades. Further more, job satisfaction
seems to have to do more with a single individual than a group. Locke (1976) has
defined job satisfaction as a “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the
appraisal of ones job or job experience”.
Personal and Demographic Characteristics
The variables of age, tenure, education and gender have been suggested in previous
studies as having significant influence on organizational commitment (Steers, 1977) and
were included in this study. Other demographic variables, such as length of time in the
current position and years of teaching experience were also included because of their
“importance in the higher education context” (Battersby, 1990).



33
Morale
The concept of faculty morale is a complex one which is closely related to other
concepts including job satisfaction and commitment. Morale is taken as the state of mind
which predisposes a group or individual at a particular time, to view the leader or
leaders, organization and its policies as contributing to, or thwarting, their need
satisfaction (Pestonjee, 1973).
Faculty
Faculty, in this thesis refers to the academic staff of a public or private university. It
includes not only those whose current primary purpose in a university or college is
teaching and research, but also personnel in the senior administration of higher
education who have arrived at that capacity having spent some time as academic staff
members.
Public and Private University
This is a term that, in the education sector, takes in all post secondary-level
educational institutions including degree granting universities and institutes. Public
Universities are those that receive funding from the federal or provincial governments
and follow uniform rules regarding faculty hiring, job tenure etc. Private Universities
are those that are either run by a trust, a board or a single owner, which do not receive
provincial or federal government funding. However, they are given a degree granting
authority and charter by the province or federal government. Their rules and regulations
pertaining to faculty hiring, job tenure etc may also vary from one university to another.
Administration
While this term often differs from institution to institution, administration is used to
refer to a group of higher management academic executives at the apex of the 18


34
Universities involved in this study. This group of senior administrators comprises the
president, vice chancellor, or rector and or director, or chairman of an institute or
university and includes the deans, heads of departments involved in the day-to-day
management and governance of the institution. It does not refer to the wider
administrative staff of office workers etc.
Institutional Autonomy
In matters of governance and administration, institutional autonomy describes the
relative freedom from constraints imposed by the relationship between the university
and society, particularly the government and other bodies that provide higher education
with its main source of funding.
Academic Freedom
This term refers to the degree of autonomy of the individual to pursue learning “free
of externally imposed dictates” (Brubacher 1977).
University Grants Commission (UGC) and Higher Education Commission
(HEC)
The Federal Government had designated the University Grants Commission to be the
authority for enforcing the provisions of UGC Act of 1974, according to which the UGC
was authorized to supervise the curricula, textbook and standards of education at the
University level. In 2002 the Higher Education Commission replaced the UGC. The HEC
was primarily set up for the improvement of the quality of academic programmes in
both, public and private sector Universities.
1.9 Significance of the Study
The attitude and relationship which teachers have towards their universities is
important to all stakeholders involved in education. The Universities are interested in


35
employee retention (Mobley, Griffeth, & Magelino, 1979). It has also been suggested by
researchers that employees who exhibit high organizational commitment should be least
likely to leave the organization and employees with low levels of commitment should be
the most likely to leave the organization, voluntarily (Huselid & Day 1991).
Managers are making efforts to enhance their employee’s commitment because they
believe that commitment has become a prerequisite for effective and well performing
organizations. In academics, commitment is considered an important factor which
increases the effectiveness of the educational enterprise. The leadership style of Vice
Chancellors of Higher Education Institutions has gained importance due to the recent
implies by HEC for conducting research in the Universities. Researchers have also tried
to find out which style of leadership is suitable for higher management of educational
institutions because the effectiveness of HEIs depends on the quality, morale and
conviction of its faculty (Lok, 1999).
1.10 Problem Statement
While these studies have shown that leadership behavior affects employees’
commitment towards the organization, but the literature does not offer guidance on how
relation-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors affect different types of
organizational commitment. In Pakistani universities, we do not know how faculty is
affected by their Vice-Chancellors relation-oriented and task-oriented behaviors and
what effect this has upon the organizational commitment of its faculty. Secondly, we
also do not know if participative decision making has any favorable effect on employees’
commitment to the organization. Finally, we do not know how the relation-oriented and
task-oriented leadership behavior is related to the organizational commitment of the
faculty. We also do not know whether task-oriented behavior has a more significant


36
effect than relationship oriented behavior on organizational commitment. Studies
conducted by Meyer and Allen (1997) and Steers (1977) have shown affective
commitment to be dominant in their settings of studies. This study has compared the
findings of above authors with its own findings in Pakistan.
1.11 Research Questions:
The researcher’s interest in the construct of commitment and leadership behavior raised
a number of issues. The basic research questions that have provided direction for the
present study, and which needed answers are,
1. Is faculty’s commitment influenced by behavior of university leadership and
does it affect male and female faculty members differently?
2. Among the three types of leadership behavior which one contributes more
towards faculty’s intention to stay with its university?
3. If faculty is consulted in the university’s decision making process,` would it
have positive influence on its loyalty towards university and what would
be its affect on their satisfaction from their job, organization and
profession?
4. What kind of relation exists between organizational commitments, Job
satisfaction and morale of faculty?
Chapter one of this study deals with the structure of the thesis, rationale and the
significance of the research conducted. A review of literature on organizational
commitment, decision-making types, leadership styles and job satisfaction is presented
in chapter 2. Chapter 3 describes the methodology of the thesis. Chapter 4 presents the
empirical results. Chapter 5 provides the discussion and conclusion of the thesis.



37
Figure 1: Structure of the Research Thesis























Chapter 1

Introduction, Rationale and
significance of the study
Statement of the problem
Purpose of research
Chapter 5
Discussion and Conclusion

Research question
Findings
Conclusion
Limitations and delimitations
Implications for practice
Future research needs
summary

Chapter 2

The Literature Review, Previous
research, Steers and Meyer and
Allen’s models
Chapter 3

Research Methods
Type of study
Sample description
Population instrument
Measurement of concept
Questionnaires
Data collection Procedure
Methods of Analysis
Data interpretation and
presentation methods
Summary
Chapter 4
Result of research

Sample
Results of questionnaire survey
Demographic data of responses
Demographics of OC
Commitment and university
Faculty
Correlations among task oriented
and relation oriented sub scales
Correlations among Organizational
Commitment subscales
Correlations between task subscale
and OC subscale
Correlations between relations and
OC subscales
Correlations between decision
making and OC


38
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
There are many contributions in the literature pertaining to leadership behavior. One
important contribution has been the use of relation-oriented and task-oriented terms to
explain different types of leadership behaviors (Brown, 2003). Bass and Avolio, Hersey
& Blanchard, Meyer and Allen, Lok, Marrow, Randal and Cote, and Steers are the most
renowned researchers in this area of study. A survey of literature by this researcher
revealed that although these researchers are from industrialized countries, yet their
proposed models have been tested in diverse countries, such as Israel, Australia, United
Arab Emirates, and Turkey. Cohen (1991, 1999) from university of Haifa Israel tested the
organizational commitment model of Marrow, Randal and Cote. In 1999 he conducted a
Meta analysis of research done on organizational commitment. Lok (1999, 2003) tested
different models of job satisfaction and morale in Australia. Yousuf (2004) and Wasti
(2003) did research on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Middle East
and Turkey. They found that leadership behavior, organizational commitment,
participatory decision-making, morale and job satisfaction were closely inter-related.
An examination of the literature revealed that EBSCO (Elton B. Stephens
Company) had added 136 published articles on leadership to its website from January
1970 to December 1971. By 2002 there were 10,062 published articles which consisted of
419 per month on an average each month. The US corporate sector spent $45 billion on
leadership and management development in 1997. Currently 900 programs are run in
colleges and universities on the topic of leadership alone. This is evidence, that
investment in leadership development has increased significantly (Vicere & Fulmer
1998; Fulmer 1997).


39
2.1 Leadership
It is important to examine the concept of leadership as well as relevant theories
pertaining to leadership in the academic sector. Prior to the 1980, “Leadership and
Management” were used synonymously. They were regarded as being the same or as
extensively overlapping. When leadership was taught or studied, it was regarded as a
small sub-set of management and the focus was on influencing the small groups. Then
in the 1980’s there was a paradigm shift and the mood shifted substantially. Researchers
started to identify the link between leadership behavior and performance of employees.
The message was that transformation was required and that this required a new type of
leader. The leaders who could, “encourage the development of positive identification
with the organization and create a degree of personal commitment”(Bass & Avolio
1995). Researchers like Angle and Perry (1983) concluded that the extent of employee
commitment may rest largely in management’s hands”. Since then, research studies
have consistently confirmed a positive relationship between leadership and
commitment.
Leadership in Academics
Madron, Craig and Mendel (1976) identified leadership performance as one of three
variables that affect faculty in higher education. They pointed out administrative
behavior as the best predictor of commitment. University heads, which were
participatory in their leadership style, were thought as being considerate, and the
commitment level of faculty members in such a university was high. In another study
Hunter (1982) found that leadership style made a real difference to faculty’s morale.
Tagai (1999) suggested that leadership style in academics fall into two categories,
and the style, which is compatible with academics values, is McGregor’s (1960) Theory X


40
of human nature. And the style, which is incompatible with academic values, falls under
Theory Y. In McGregor’s (1960) Theory X and Theory Y model, Theory X is labeled as
being negative and the managers, who practice this theory, assume that employees
dislike work and will avoid it if possible. Based on this type of assumptions, the
practioners of this theory would have a behavior of coercing employees. They would
like to control employees through tasks, activities, and would like to direct their
behavior. The other theory is labeled as Theory Y. The managers who believe on
practicing this theory assume that if employees are given right conditions and trusted,
they would look at work and responsibility very positively. Managers who believe on
Theory Y would like to provide employees with encouragement, positive reinforcement,
and rewards.
Another theory is known as Heresy and Blanchard’s (1977) situational leadership
theory. They claim that leadership behaviors have two areas of concern: one is that
leaders concern for task and the other is concern for relations. They suggest that leaders
with this behavior are mainly concerned with delegation, participation, selling, and
telling. When the leader believe that the employees have become mature and are
grown in capacity, ability, education, experience, and motivation, the need for socio-
emotional support increases. They also believe that employees continue to grow and
become mature and at certain stage they don’t need any type of orientation. And the
management should stop selling and telling and should involve them in decision
making process.
Olswang and Lee (1984) warned that increased regulation of faculty conduct could
have a serious impact on faculty’s job satisfaction and morale. Hurst (1993) suggested
that it is the leadership behavior that makes faculty feels important. Millet (1978)


41
referred the bureaucratic type leadership behavior as rigid and as incompatible with
academic scholarship. He further suggested that the faculty members should resist the
threat of bureaucratization in higher education. Kerr, (1994) expected that presidents,
vice-chancellors and others in administration of universities, should be people who
would allow greater involvement of faculty in decision making than exercising their
authority.
Bess (1988) argued that faculty members conditionally accept directives from the
leaders such as where academics are involved in the process of decision-making.
Theories of Leadership
For many years, the focus of leadership studies has been derived from
organizational psychology concerns to understand the impact of leader style on small
group behavior and outcomes. Moreover, the focus was further directed to just two
main dimensions, “task focus” versus “people focus” and there were various reworking
of this theme (for example Blake and Mouton 1964; Vroom and Yetton 1988).
In the 1980’s attention shifted dramatically to the elaboration and promotion of the
concept of transformational, charismatic, visionary and inspirational leadership. This
school was labeled the “New Leadership” theories (Brymen, 1992). This new approach
has shifted attention to leadership of entire organizations, rather than the leadership of
small groups. In the leadership literature a debate also started on the issue of role of
leader and manager. Leaders think about goals, they are active rather than reactive,
shaping ideas rather than responding to them. Managers on the other hand, aim to shift
balance of power towards solutions acceptable as compromises. Managers would try to
minimize the choices and leaders would encourage employee to develop new ideas and
fresh approaches. Evidently the controversy about the essential differences between


42
leadership and management will continue for some time. But the more practice-oriented
agenda is still evolving e.g., one significant development has been the linking of the idea
of leadership with that of strategic management (Westley & Mintzberg, 1989).
Preferred leadership styles evidently vary across time and place. On the time
dimension, there may even be varying degrees of reaction to previously experienced
approaches. Leadership style is thus path dependent. Leadership effectiveness therefore
depends upon the following two factors:
1) The extent to which people follow and give legitimacy
2) The extent to which the organization succeeds and survives.
Table 2.1 gives a short list of leadership theories, which have been developed over time.
One very important theory has been leader-style theory.
Leader-Style Theory
Vroom and Yetton presented there famous decision making model in 1973. This
model suggests different ways leaders can make decisions. This model also helps leaders
to determine when and how much input they can seek from employees in decision
making process. This model was expanded and is known as the, “Vroom, Yetton, Jago
Model”. This model, first time presented methods for determining the appropriateness
of leader style. This model suggests that organizational decisions should be of the
highest quality and when employees participate in this process they should accept and
remain committed.
2.2 Research and Findings about Leadership Behavior
While a review of leadership theory based on the chronological development of the
literature can be useful, it also has a number of limitations. The main problem is that the
evolutionary accounts tend to imply that previous theory has been refuted and


43
superseded. In reality, questions concerning leadership qualities and characteristics,
appropriate style, contingent conditions and transactional, as well as transformational,
continue to perplex and prompt debate.
Bass (1990) suggested some characteristics of leadership behavior and according to
him; the inspirational appeal of relation-oriented leaders can provide followers with
challenges and meaning for engaging in shared goals. This appeal primarily focuses on
the best qualities of the people. Qualities like harmony, charity and team work.
Source: Adapted from R.N. Lussier, “Leadership, theory, application, skill development” Thompson, South-Western 2004
The inspirational appeal of the pseudo-transformational leaders tends to focus on the
worst in people. It focuses on weaknesses, it tends to conspire, and it would show unreal
dangers. This type of leaders would not solve problems instead would make excuses,
and scare employees with threat of insecurities. This type of managers tends to mislead,
and deceive their subordinates. Sankowsky (1995), narrates that this type of leaders can
Table 2.1 Summary of the main theories of leadership
Theory Author
Trait theory; innate qualities; ‘great man theory Bernard (1926)
Behavioral theories; task related and relationship Ohio State University studies;

Related; style theory (autocratic vs. democratic) Michigan (Katz and Kahn 1978) (Likert
1961; Blake & Mouton (1964)
Situational and contingency theory; Fiedler (1967); Vroom and Yetton (1973)
Repertoire of style; expectancy theory Vroom (1964); Yukl (2002)
Hersy and Blanchard(1984)
Exchange and path-goal models (relationship
between leader and led as a series of trades)

Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995)
House (1971,1996)
‘New Leadership’; charismatic and visionary
leadership; transformational leadership
Burns(1978) Conger and Kanungo (1998):
Bass (1985)
Constitutive, constructivist theory Grint ( 1997,2000)
Leadership within Learning Organizations Senge (1990); Selmet (1989)
Leadership as a creative and collective process Brown and Gioia (2002)
Distributed leadership Tichy (1997)
Post-charismatic and post-transformational
Leadership theory
Khurana (2002) Macoby (2000);
Fullan (2001)


44
be subtle and speak with forked tongue, for instance they would offer followers
empowerment, but would continue to treat them as dependent children. They talk about
empowerment but actually continue to seek control (Conger & Kaunungo, 1998).
Kanungo and Medonca (1996) have linked this to an empowerment process. For
them, empowerment is more than broadening the scope of participation by followers. It
is motivational and enabling, highlighting a new realization and transformation of the
person. The intellectual stimulation of relation-oriented leadership behavior
incorporates a more open dynamic into vision formulation and patterns of
implementation. Such openness has a spiritual dimension and this helps followers to
reject assumptions and generate more creative solutions to problems. It is especially
suited to the normative side of ethics, where human probing of the ground of being is
both fathomless and endless. To the point, this dynamic breaks the bond of
organizational and leadership cultures that ignores fundamental questions such as
altruism (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996). Avolio and Bass, (2002), Bass and Avolio, 1994)
explain in their study that the transformational leadership has a charismatic element
known as ideal influence, in which leaders become role models and followers tend to
admire and respect them. Jung and Avolio, (2000), describe this as a positive outcome in
which followers show lot of trust in such leaders. Idealized influence in leadership also
involves integrity in the form of ethical and moral conduct (Tracey and Hinkin, 1998).
Jung and Avolio, (2000), stressed that the role of relation-oriented leader is to develop
a shared vision, which is an integral component of idealized influence. Followers are
inspired and they would align personal values and interests to the collective interests of
the group’s purposes (Avolio and Bass, 2002, Bass, 2000)


45
Researcher suggest that “relation-oriented leaders are also willing to take and share
risks with followers” (Avolio and Bass, 2002). Leaders are able to asses individual needs
of follower’s, and are quick to disburse personal attention for follower’s achievements
and growth (Avolio and Bass, 2002). Leaders should act as a coach, developing followers
in a supportive climate to “higher levels of potential” (Bass, 1998).
This potential is developed by delegating tasks and then by monitoring those tasks
and giving additional support and direction when needed. Behling and McFillen,
(1996)., suggest that the net effect of relation-oriented leadership behaviors is
empowerment of followers and this type of leaders can develop a very powerful
influence over followers. Several other research studies have documented the power of
relation-oriented leadership in establishing value and trust (Jung and Avolio, 2000).
Yukl (2002), summarize relation-oriented leaders actions as very appealing, having
a clear vision, would empower employees to achieve the vision, they don’t just delegate
task but explain how to attain it. They show confidence in the followers, emphasize
values with symbolic actions and these leaders would lead by example. If followers
perform in accordance with contracts and put extra effort the leader provides them with
rewards.
Bass in 1985 presented a model of relation-oriented and task-oriented leadership
style. These styles according to Bass compliment each other. In his views relation-
oriented leaders are those who encourage followers to achieve goals and task-oriented
are those that ask for commitment to achieve those goals and offer a reward. Bass (1985)
also suggest that a leader could exhibit both styles. The model Bass presented in 1985
represents the recent descriptions of task and relation-oriented behaviors. In 1990 Bass
presented a theory and concept and tried to link relation and task behaviors to all other


46
types of leadership. In his theory he suggests that transformational leadership occurs
when a leader changes his followers in ways that together result in trusting the leader,
performing behaviors that contribute to the achievement of organizational goals, and
being motivated to perform at a high level.
2.3 Evolution of Relationship Oriented and Task Oriented Leadership
Behaviors
There are several distinct theoretical bases for leadership. At first, leaders were felt to
be born, not made. These early theories of leadership mainly focused on the
characteristics of great men and authors presented “the great men” theory. The great
men theory was mainly concerned with the power, intelligence, energy, and influence of
the great leaders. Inspired by the great men theory, it was Bass in 1990, who said that
“Without Churchill the British would have given up in 1940”
According to Yukl, (2004), the great men theory of leadership insisted that traits of
leadership cannot be learned and leaders are born not made. These traits allowed the
leaders to lead others. Later on more emphasis was made on the qualities and of leaders
and also the traits, which separated the leaders from the followers. According to Bass
(1990), these situations lead to the emergence of trait theory. The trait approach is
concerned mainly with identifying the personality traits of the leader.
Dissatisfied with this approach, and stimulated by research such as Ohio State
Theory, researchers switched their emphasis from the individual leader to the group
being led. In the group approach, leaders were viewed more in terms of their behavior
and how this behavior is affected by the group of followers. Trait theory was followed
by behavioral theory (Yukl, 2004), and then Fiedler’s contingency theory emerged.


47
This theory suggests that leadership styles must fit or match the situation in order to be
effective.
Leadership behavior was then, separated into two types, person oriented and task
oriented. Following the original Ohio State Studies and the grid approach, Hersey and
Blanchard’s (1993) approach identified two major behaviors namely task and
relationship-oriented behaviors. In task behavior the leader organizes and defines roles
for members of the work group; the leader explains the task that members have to do
and when, where, and how they have to do it. This type of behavior is primarily
concerned with accomplishing the task, utilizing personnel and resources efficiently,
and maintaining orderly, reliable operations. Some examples of leaders with task
oriented behaviors include organizing work activities to improve efficiency, planning
short-term operations, assigning work to groups or individuals, clarifying role
expectations and task objectives, explaining rules, policies, and standard operating
procedures, monitoring operations and performance, resolving immediate problems
that would disrupt the work, emphasizing the importance of efficiency, productivity,
and quality, and setting high standards for unit performance.
In relationship behavior the leader has close, personal relationships with the members of
the group, and there is open communication and psychological and emotional support.
This type of behavior is primarily concerned with improving relationships and helping
people, increasing cooperation and team work, increasing the job satisfaction of
subordinates, and building identification with the organization. Some attributes of leaders
with task oriented behaviors are given next. They provide support and encouragement.
They express confidence that people can attain challenging objectives. They socialize


48
with people to build relationships. They recognize contributions and accomplishments.
They provide coaching and mentoring.
They consult with people on decisions affecting them. They keep people informed
about actions affecting them. They use symbols, ceremonies, rituals, and stories to build
team identity. They lead by example and model exemplary behavior.
2.4 Research on Task and Relation Oriented Leadership Behavior
Early studies of leadership behavior were mainly concerned with making
comparison of the behaviors of different types of leaders: with a manager, the born or
made leader, the autocratic leaders versus the participative leader, and McGregor’s
(1960) Theory X with Theory Y. Generally there were efforts to show which style and
behavior was more effective, for example Blake and Mouton (1964) reported that
relationship oriented leaders encourage followers to participate in decision making,
while for task oriented leaders, nothing was more important than to accomplish the task
or goal. Similarly Meyer (1968) investigated the effect of leadership perception about
Theory X and Theory Y. And his findings revealed that as opposed to workers who were
exposed to theory X, workers who were exposed to Theory Y style of leadership
behavior were more positive in their attitude and were feeling greater responsibility in
achieving the factory goals. Based on the work of psychologists, organizational theorists,
and human relations specialists in the 1960s and 1970s, two distinct assumptions, called
Theory X and Theory Y, evolved about why and how people work for others. Theory X
posits that people do not like to work and will avoid doing so if the opportunity
presents itself. Because of this, most people need to be coerced into completing their
required job duties and punished if they don't complete the quantity of work assigned at
the level of quality required. Again, because of their dislike for work, most people do


49
not want responsibility, prefer to be directed by others, and have little ambition; all they
want is job security.
With an almost completely opposite perspective, Theory Y posits that people like to
work and see it as a natural event in their lives. Therefore, punishment and threats are
not the only means of motivating them to complete work assignments. People are
willing to work hard for an organization; indeed, they will use self-direction and control
to work toward goals that are understandable and communicated clearly. In this theory
of human behavior and motivation, people are seen as seekers of learning and
responsibility that are capable of and willing to be engaged with creative problem-
solving activities that will help the organization reach its goals. According to Theory Y,
leaders need to develop ways to expand the capabilities of their workers so that the
organization can benefit from this significant potential resource. Although Theory Y has
much to offer and is widely followed, many organizations still use a variety of policies
and practices that are based on Theory X principles.
In the area of management practice (Blake and Mouton, 1964) reported that managers
displaying both task and relation oriented behavior moved faster in their career than
those with other style of leadership.
Studies done by (Bowers & Seashore, 1966; Likert, 1961, 1967; Sorenson, 2000) also
show that when relation-oriented leaders are concerned about relationships, it tends to
increase teamwork, collaboration and cooperation, and followers start to associate them
with team and identify them with the organization. This type of leadership builds an
effective interpersonal relationships and help subordinates deal with job stress, which
can help to reduce job conflicts (Amason, 1996). In addition subordinates sometime try
to imitate their leaders’ supportive behaviors (Weiss, 1977) which in turn further


50
support positive interaction and working relationships, very likely leading to innovative
collaboration (Haskins et al., 1998).
Studies show that task-oriented leaders put lot of effort on task-oriented functions,
which could include planning, work scheduling, providing equipment, supplies,
coordinating follower’s activities, and providing technical assistance when needed.
These types of leaders usually define and structure their own roles and the roles of their
subordinates, and then they closely monitor and supervise subordinates (Likert, 1961,
1967). This practice helps to reduce job and task conflicts among subordinates. Findings
of earlier research also suggest that the task-oriented leader’s actions do not contribute
in confidence building among the employees since they tend to coordinate the activities
of their subordinates. Subordinate do not coordinate among themselves due to their
leader’s behavior. Task-oriented leaders do not design the work in such a way which
allows their subordinates to collaborate and interact among each other, thus resulting in
minimal synergy within their group.
Hersey and Blanchard (1993) identified task-oriented behavior as the extent to which
a leader engages in one sided communication by directing what each follower is to do
when, where, and how tasks are to be accomplished. They defined relation-oriented
behavior as the extent to which a leader engages in two-way communication by
facilitating behavior, providing emotional support and encouraging new ideas to
accomplish task. The research has provided evidence that some people are strong in one
area and ignore the other, some are well balanced and there are some who tend to
overlook both leadership dimensions.
Lewin & Lippitt, (1938) found that task-oriented behavior is more dictatorial and it
involves a focus on goals and tasks to be accomplished. It tends to deny others


51
involvement in the decision-making process, while relation-oriented is more similar to
democratic behavior which includes the invitation to participate, praise and encourage.
Research done on these two types of behavior have produced findings that both task
and relation oriented behaviors can be effective in different situations while the
combination of both styles is also effective. The focus of these studies has been to find
out which style of leadership behavior was most effective, task oriented, relation
oriented or combination of both.
Participatory leadership
Participatory leadership involves the use of different methods and procedures that
allow and invite other people to have some input and influence over leader’s decisions.
There are other terms used to refer to aspects of participative leadership, which include
consultation, collective decision-making, sharing power, delegating, and democratic
management.
Yukl, (1971), defined participative leadership as a distinct type of behavior, although
it may be used in conjunction with specific task-oriented and relation-oriented
behaviors. For example consulting with employees about the design of a flextime system
may simultaneously involve planning better work schedules, and showing concern for
employees needs. Participative leadership can take many forms.
A variety of different decision procedures may be used to involve other people in
making decisions. A number of leadership theorists have proposed different taxonomies
of decision procedures or the best way to define them, (Yukal, 1969; Vroom &Yetton,
1973).




52
Laissez-Faire Leadership (non task-oriented behavior and non relations-oriented)
Researchers have reported the laissez-faire behavior as the least effective style of
leadership (Bass, 1990). This leadership behavior has very little sense of
accomplishment, little clarity, no vision, and no sense of group unity. Such behaviors
include staying away from employees in isolated offices, avoidance to supervisory
duties, not taking any action until issues become crisis. One study that validates non
effectiveness of this type of behavior comes from Bass and Hater (1988) who found a
negative correlation between laissez-faire leadership behavior and employees’
performance. This behavior should not be mixed with participative or delegative
leadership behavior or management by exception. Participative leadership increases
interpersonal interaction, and encourages different ideas and opinions. A leader who
invites followers to the domain of decision authority will encourage team members to
invite their domain of work to other members and resulting in making the entire group
work more closely and holistically. The delegative leader’s main concern then is to
follow up and make sure that the task has been successfully completed. Laissez-Faire
leadership behavior represents a “do nothing” approach (Bass, 1990). Researchers have
repeatedly reported this behavior as a less effective style of leadership (Bass, 1990).
2.5 Research on Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment has been the subject of several researches in the past
and recent years (Griffin & Bateman 1986; Morrow, Porter, & Steers 1982; Reichers 1985;
Salancik 1977; Scholl 1981; Staw 1977, Cohen, 1999, William 2004). Among the issues of
major concern in these studies and findings has been the lack of consensus in
constructing the definition of commitment. This problem has been compounded by the
use of measures of commitment that do not always correspond to the definition being


53
applied (Morrow 1983; Meyer & Allen 1984). As a result, it is difficult to synthesize the
results of research done on commitment. A number of theoretical perspectives have
been used to study commitment and its determinants. Studies on the determinants of
organizational commitment may broadly be classified into three categories, affective,
normative and continuance commitment.
The study conducted by Alvi and Ahmed in 1987 in Pakistan examined
commitment of male and female employees to their organizations. It used a blend of
“Exchange” and “Role” theories as its basic framework. Result of this study indicated
that both groups of workers are highly committed to their organizations (Alvi, & Ahmed
1987). Unlike the results of most previous studies involving industrialized societies, the
degree of female commitment in Pakistan appears to be much higher than that of male
workers, and age seems inversely related with commitment. Also the psychological and
role-related factors seem to exert greater influence on commitment than the exchange-
based and personal factors. It is widely accepted that degree of organizational
commitment and job performance are positively correlated (Mowday, Porter, & Dubbin,
1974), even though tardiness, absenteeism (Steers, 1977), and turnover (Hom, Kateberg,
& Hulin, 1979) are inversely related, employees organizational commitment is still an
important predictor of organizational effectiveness and worker’s attitudes and beliefs
(Salancik, 1977; Steers, 1977).
In view of its importance, researchers have directed a great deal of effort to
identifying and analyzing meaningful determinants of employees’ commitment to their
work organizations.




54
2.6 Research on Affective, Normative and Continuance Commitment
Research on employee’s organizational commitment was further carried out into
three sub-scales. Common to all commitment components is that they serve to bind an
employee to an organization; otherwise, “it is clear that the nature of the psychological
states differ” (Meyer and Allen, 1991).
Researchers have been trying to link organization commitment to measures of
effectiveness which are very similar to those found when investigating the outcomes of
leadership behaviors. One such researcher was Loui, (1995), who found that
commitment was significantly related to trust, job involvement, and ones satisfaction
from his/her job. Angle and Perry (1981) found a relationship between commitment and
intentions to leave. According to them, committed employees would be less inclined to
leave the organizations they work for.
Jermier & Berkes (1979) found that employees who participated in decision-making
had high levels of commitment towards the organization. Other two researchers Wiener
and Verdi (1980) found a positive relationship between commitment and job
performance. There findings suggest that committed employees perform better than non
committed employees. DeCotiis & Summers (1987) reported that employees showed
greater levels of commitment when treated with consideration. Bycio & Hackett & Allen
(1995) found positive correlations between the leadership behaviors and affective,
continuance, and normative commitment.
Findings and research done on organizational commitment provides a broad
measure of the effectiveness of leadership behaviors and shows a significant relationship
among the two variables. This relationship demands that further exploration should be
done in the subject of leadership and commitment.


55
Affective commitment is thought to develop through a social exchange mechanism
(Meyer & Allen, 1997), whereby commitment to the organization develops in return for
workplace experience such as job quality (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Of the three
components, affective commitment has been researched the most. Affective commitment
have shown to be correlated with reduced turnover, increased job satisfaction, increased
job performance, and increased organizational citizenship behaviors (Meyers & Stanley,
Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).
The development of continuance commitment is usually viewed through the lens of
side-bet theory (Becker, 1960). Becker proposed that through the accumulation of “side-
bets” such as seniority and pension plans, the employee becomes committed to the
organization. Employees must be aware of the accumulation of side-bets; if employees
are not aware of the loss they might incur by switching organizations, they will not feel
committed to the organization. Research has shown continuance commitment to be
negatively correlated with outcomes such a job performance and job satisfaction (Meyer,
2002).
Normative commitment is thought to develop through the processes described in
social learning theory (i.e., internalization of cultural or familial norms) and reciprocity
norms (i.e., a felt debt as a result of investments made by the organization in the
individual) (Meyer & Allen, 1997). The higher levels of normative commitment do not
improve job-related outcomes for the highly committed group (Arzu Wasti, 2004). Job
satisfaction has been shown to have correlations with normative commitment lesser in
strength than, the correlations seen with affective commitment. Overall, however,
research on normative commitment has been relatively rare.


56
Angle and Perry (1986), traced the development of research studies that examined
the tensions between organizational and professional commitment. Earlier studies of the
role conflict suggested that organizations often place individuals in to two simultaneous
roles with incompatible demands, which indicates an inherent conflict between the two
commitment orientations (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn and Snodek, 1964; Rizzo et al, 1970).
Reichers (1985) also studied the role conflicts that arise when individuals are involved
with the groups, which pursue different goals. Also, concept of cosmopolitans and locals
lead some writers to focus on, “the dilemma facing professionals whose values and
loyalty to organization and profession sometimes collides” (Angle & Perry, 1986).
Gouldner (1957) implied that an individual couldn’t have a strong attachment to
both dimensions of commitment. Wallace (1993) summarized the early literature on
commitment as commonly assuming “an inherent conflict between professional and
organizational goals”.
Other researchers, however, have refuted the necessity of an either-or choice and
have rather advocated the potential for compatibility between the two orientations
(Ritzer & Trice, 1969; Thornton, 1970).
2.7 Meyer and Allen’s Model of Commitment
Meyer and Allen in 1984 proposed two sub scales of commitment namely affective
and continuance commitment, and later in 1990 suggested a third component called
normative commitment. Figure 2 on page 58 presents’ hypothesized links between the
three components of commitment proposed by Meyer and Allen and variables
considered in there study as antecedents, and consequences.
On the right side of the figure are variables named by the authors as consequences
of commitment. The argument given by the authors for the development of the model


57
was the belief that, although all three forms of commitment relate negatively to
turnover, yet they relate differently to measures of other work-relevant behaviors such
as attendance, organizational citizenship behavior and on the job performance.
As the research progressed over time in other countries more and more variables
have been included. Figure 2 also includes variables that, according to Mathieu and
Zajac (1990), “we considered correlates of commitment because there is no consensus
concerning causal ordering”. The model also shows correlates of commitment as job
satisfaction, job involvement and occupational commitment. These correlates have also
been frequently studied and tested by different researchers.
Moreover, Mathieu and Zajac (1990), while commenting on Meyer and Allen’s
model noted that researchers were now beginning to identify other forms of
commitment. They concluded that new findings are generally supporting the model.
Since 1990, when Meyer and Allen added another form of commitment, to their model,
many more studies have been conducted. Allen and Meyer in 1996 noted that the all
three sub scales of commitment were being used outside North America and more
validation were appearing on the commitment literature. Since 1996, there has been an
increase in the use of these sub scales, correlates and antecedents in countries around the
world. No one so for have pointed out the issues concerning the generalizability of the
model in other cultures.







58
Figure 2: Meyer & Allens Model
2.8 Steers Model of Commitment
Richard M. Steers (1977) did a study of hospital employees, scientists, and engineers
in USA and introduced a model of commitment. This study suggested that for all
samples personal characteristics, job characteristics, and work experiences influenced
commitment. And, commitment was found to be strongly related to the desire to remain
with current organizations for both samples and was moderately related to attendance
and turnover for one sample. Performance was generally unrelated to commitment.
Antecedents of
Affective
Commitment
Personal
Characteristics
Work Experience
Antecedents of
continuous
commitment
Personal
Characteristics
Alternatives
Investments
Turnover intentions and
turnover
On- the-job behavior
Attendance
OCB
Performance
Employee health and
well being
Antecedents of
normative
commitments
Personal
Characteristics
Socialization
Organizational
investment
experiences
Affective
Commitment
Correlates of Organizational
Commitment
Job Satisfaction
Job Involvement
Occupational Commitment
Continuous
Commitment
Normative
Commitment


59
Earlier Koch, Steers, and Porter, (1974) suggested that employee commitment was
important for several reasons, because it is a better predictor of turnover than job
satisfaction. Steers & Schein, (1970) in another study suggested that commitment
represents one useful indicator of the effectiveness of an organization. Steers (1977),
model has two parts: (1) antecedents of commitment; and (2) outcomes of commitment.
This model as well as Meyer and Allens (1997) model provide bases for organizational
commitment as part of this study.
Figure 3: Steers Model of Commitment

2.9 Relationship between Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has usually been defined as the extent to which an employee has a
positive affective attitude towards his job, either in general or towards particular facets
of it (Smith, Kendall and Hulin, (1969). Most models of turnover assume that greater job
satisfaction leads to greater organizational commitment (Mobley, 1977; Price & Mueller,
1981). The primary reason for this causal order appears to be that job satisfaction is a
more immediate affective response to one’s work which is established more quickly
Personal characteristics
(need for achievement, age,
education)
Job Characteristics
(Task identity, optional
interaction, feedback)
Work Experiences
(Group attitudes,
organizational dependability,
personal import)
Organizational
Commitment
Outcomes
Desire to remain
Intent to remain
Attendance
Employee Retention
Job Performance


60
after joining an organization, whereas commitment is slower to develop since it is based
not only on the job but on other aspects of working for the organization such as its goals
and values (Porter et al., 1974).
The explanation given by researchers that job satisfaction affects organizational
commitment confirms that job satisfaction is less stable than organizational commitment
(Porter et al., 1974). Porter (1974) studied the relationship between organizational
commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians and concluded
that organizational commitment discriminated better between stayers and leavers than
did the various component of job satisfaction. Mowday et al. (1979) concluded that
commitment focuses on loyalty to the organization, which also include its goals and
values while satisfaction emphasizes the task environment where an employee
performed his duties. The study done by Steers (1977) showed that having expectations
or needs met led to satisfaction, which resulted in greater commitment among
employees. Steers (1977), study also found that commitment and job satisfaction were
equally predictive of voluntary turnover.
Decotis and Summers (1987) did not agree and argued that job satisfaction only
acted as a mediator between organizational commitment and the antecedents of climate,
process, structure and personal and situational characteristics. They suggested that these
were predictive of organizational commitment. An important study Bateman & Strasser
1984) suggested that commitment is an antecedent to job satisfaction.
Mathieu and Zajac (1990) did a meta-analysis of variables related to commitment,
classified job satisfaction as a correlate, rather than an antecedent or consequence, of
commitment. The unresolved issue still is whether job satisfaction is an antecedent to
commitment or there is a correlation between them. Mathieu & Zajac (1990) used the


61
term correlate to suggest that the evidence so far on the causal ordering of job
satisfaction and commitment is inconclusive.
The general finding has been that organizational commitment has a stronger relation
with turnover than job satisfaction. And this study is not focusing on the issue of
turnover rather the aim of this research is to explore the nature of relationship between
faculty’s job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
2.10 Decision Making

Decision-making has been the topic of many studies in the last many decades.
Currently a lot of researchers are paying attention to its relation or influence on
organizational performance and employee’s commitment towards the organizations.
One similar study done by Steers and Porter (1975) proposed that participation in goal
setting affects employee attitudes including commitment. They found that levels of
participation in the decision process affect both the perceptions, which individuals have
of organization and their subsequence response to the organization. The research
conducted by Welsch and LaVan (1981) asserted that there is a positive relationship
between commitment and employee perceptions of the organizational climate being one
of participative decision-making.
Managers and administrators besides other activities are involved in planning,
sometimes solving employees problems and at other times solving technical problems,
making and implementing decisions, selecting and training subordinates, deciding pay
increases, assigning jobs, and so forth. Participative leadership involves efforts by a
leader to encourage and facilitate participation by others in making important decisions.
(Gary, Yukl, 2002). Decision-making generally has four distinct types.



62
2.11 The Types of Decisions
a) Autocratic Decision. The manager makes a decision in isolation without asking
for the opinion from subordinates or involving their suggestions. Since subordinates
have no participation, hence they have no direct influence on the decision.
b) Consultation. The manager makes the decision alone. He asks subordinates
for their opinions and ideas, and then after seriously considering their
suggestions and concerns.
c) Joint Decision. The manager meets with subordinates to discuss the issue on
hand and jointly a decision is made. The manager and participants have equal
say and influence on the final decision.
d) Delegation. The manager assigns an individual or groups the responsibility
authority and for making a decision. The manager also specifies limits within
which the final choice must fall. For this type of decisions a prior approval may
or may not be required before the decision is implemented.
2.12 Participation Oriented Decision Making.
This type of behavior is primarily concerned with improving strategic decision
making; adopting to change in environment; increasing flexibility and innovation;
making major changes in process, product, or services; and gaining commitment to
change, (McCormick and Meiners, 1997). Some benefits of this type of decision making
are given below:-
* Study of competitors and outsiders to get ideas for organizational improvement.
* Encourage people to view problems or opportunities in a different way.
* Encourage and facilitate innovation and entrepreneurship by others.
* Encourage and facilitate learning by individuals and teams.


63
* Experiment with new approaches.
* Build a coalition of employees to improve work quality and work environment.
* Empower people to implement new strategies.
Although participation has been defined conceptually and operationally in many
different ways (Cotton, 1988; Dachler & Wilpert, 1978), participation is generally defined
as a process in which individuals, who are otherwise hierarchically unequal, share the
influence among themselves (Locke & Schweiger, 1979; Wagner, 1994). Participatory
management balances the involvement of managers and their subordinates in decision
making, and problem-solving processes (Wagner, 1994).
Historically, management theories presented by (Hertzberg, 1966, Liker, 1967;
Maslow, 1954) has emphasized the significance of coordinating the human and
organizational relationship so that productivity is enhanced and human capital is
developed. Although some researchers have supported these efforts because of their
purported benefits to the organization, others have supported participation as a moral
imperative, viewing the quality of life movement as a means to improve employees’
motivation which in turn helps employees to feel good about their work (Spreitzer,
Kizilos, & Nason, 1977). Employee participation programs have gained considerable
positive appeal among managers, employees, and scholars alike.
Participative management practices have been commonly perceived to have
positive effects on employee performance (Bush & Spangler, 1990), satisfaction at work,
lower levels of absenteeism and turnover, and organizational effectiveness, (Lawler,
1986; Macy, Peterson, & Norton, 1989). Empirical evidence has provided moderate
support for these claims. For example, in a Meta analysis and survey of previous
reviews of the literature on participation, Wagner (1994) found that research “has


64
produced reliable evidence of statistically significant changes in performance and
satisfaction that are positive in direction but limited in size”.
These studies, however, have tended to operationalize a direct relationship between
participation and job satisfaction. In contrast, Daniels and Bailey (1999) argued that the
evidence regarding the impact of employee participation on job satisfaction has not been
consistent. And Cotton (1993) and (1995), suggested that the individual and situational
variables could affect relationship between participation and job satisfaction.
Since there is lot of emphasis on performance and result-oriented government
services, researchers in public administration and government services have stressed
effective Human Resources Management strategies such as empowerment and
participative management (Kim, 2002; Ting, 1996). These strategies maximize the
utilization of the organization’s human resources and have a direct effect on
organizational performance. Reduction of cost is an indirect effect associated with these
resources.
Several researchers (Freeman, Rush, & Lance, 1999) have argued that fair treatment
and enhancement of individuals’ empowerment may produce affective reactions
towards work and, ultimately, reduce rates of absenteeism and turnover. Studies have
also demonstrated that participative decision making can be beneficial to workers
mental health and satisfaction they get from their job (Cotton, Vollrath, 1988; Miller&
Monge, 1986). Locke, (1976), defined it as the, “positive emotional state which from the
appraisal of one’s job or job experience”. Job satisfaction represents an interaction
between employees and their work environment by measuring the congruence between
what employees want and what employees feel they receive from their jobs.


65
Although job satisfaction has long been expected to have important implications for
organizational productivity, a review of empirical evidence fails to support the assertion
that job satisfaction directly effect productivity (Kahn & Katz, 1978; Vroom, 1964;
Wechsler, Kahane, & Tannenbaun, 1952). One study suggests that replacement costs are
about 50% to 60% of an employee’s annual salary (Wysocki, 1997). Other costs may be
even more important for government agencies. Understaffing because of excessive
turnover among jail officers, for example, may be linked to prison escapes (Blasé, 2001).
High turn over of university professors may cause a decline in the teaching quality.
Given the significant cost incurred from employees’ turnover and absenteeism for
organizational performance, scholars must clearly identify variables related to quality of
work life that affect employees job satisfaction in government sector organizations, such
as participative management, job characteristics, and supervisor support (Bruce &
Blackburn, 1992; Rainey, 1997)
Robins (2004) points out that, “Work specialization contributes to higher employee
productivity but it reduces job satisfaction. Participative decision making in
decentralized organizations is positively related to job satisfaction”.
Democratic societies uphold the right of people to influence decisions that will affect
them in important ways. Involving others in making decisions is often necessary part of
political process for getting decisions approved and implemented in organizations.
Delegation is a power sharing process that occurs when a manager gives subordinates
the responsibility and authority for making some decisions which were formerly made
by a manager. Empowerment involves the perception by members of an organization
that they have the opportunity to determine their work roles, accomplish meaningful
work, and influence important events.


66
2.13 Faculty Participation and other Perspective

While there are numerous papers and arguments in favor of faculty’s participation
in university’s governance, a recent (2005) paper is by William O, Brown in which he
examined the relationship between faculty participation in decision-making and their
performance. His findings suggest that, participation of faculty does have an effect on
performance and the overall impact can be determined by looking at the decisions in
which faculty participate. He concludes that the costs associated with collective decision
making are higher than the benefits which faculty gets in the shape of control.
McCormick and Meiners (1988) find that if faculty has more control in decision
making it would lower the institutional performance. Brown, (2005) argues that good or
bad effects vary by the type of decisions in which faculty participate.
The existing literature suggests that employee control over certain types of decisions
lead to improved organizational performance. McCormick and Meiners (1988) have
other views regarding faculty’s involvement in the university decision making. In their
views, “university performance suffers as the faculty’s control over decision-making
increases”. The reason is that the team formation in university set up is a difficult task
and this fact makes active faculty participation in university governance ineffective.
The predictions are that faculty participation in those decisions, where faculty may
have better information and incentives, will lead to improved job satisfaction and
organizational commitment.
Hansmann, (1996) argues that there are advantages and disadvantages of
employees’ participation in governance decisions. The advantage is that employees
generally have a non-recoverable investment in the success of the organization. There
information about the quality and success of many decisions would be better than the


67
owners. The disadvantage of employees’ participation in decisions is that they may
favor decisions that are detrimental to the enterprise if the gains for employee benefits
exceed the losses of the owners.
While some researchers suggest there are no true owners in the university, Brown
(1997), argues that the nature of academic employment contracts makes faculty members
responsible for the success of the institution. As a result, “the wealth of individual
faculty members will be tied to the success of the institution but faculty members have
an incentive to enrich themselves at the expense of the institution’s success”.
White and Gallie (1993), conducted a study for policy institute London and they
suggest that, “the most salient aspect we had identified in our study was concerning
employees skills, training, development, and participation”. They further narrate that
they are all linked to the preference which individuals give to the work task, and to their
attachment (commitment) to the organization. The most important reason why the
majority of employees take paid employment is the need to maintain a basic standard of
living. The criteria they use between specific jobs include, an acceptable level of pay,
work they like doing, job security, good relations with their supervisors and the
opportunity to make use of their abilities.
2.14 Development of Participant’s Skills
Management must not look at only the benefits of participatory decision-making but
also try to develop the skills needed for better decision-making, especially in the
university setting. According to Cooper (1964), one of the greatest obstacles to deciding
is fear of the consequences of a wrong decision. This can be overcome only in a climate
of tolerance, which recognizes the fallibility of people. The management must instill
within decision makers a feeling that their personal security and advancement do not


68
depend upon the outcome of each decision. Employees should have the feeling that they
will be judged mainly by the pattern of results rather than by how individual decision
turns out.
A climate for initiative encourages the free expression of opinions, even though they
may not seem to accord with those of others in authority. In case of university a faculty
member should feel free to argue, in good taste until the decision has been made. The
leader should do all in his power to effectuate it, although it may not be what he
preferred. This implies, also that there be techniques for resolving differences of opinion
without loss of face or without a feeling of defeat upon the part of any of the
participants. The faculty members should feel that their administration is actually trying
to help them make decisions. They should feel a sense of identification with
organizational goals so that thereby they will generate within themselves the
enthusiasm, which is a prerequisite to virile decision-making. As a corollary, they
should feel that there are rewards for such initiative.


69
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter provides information and explanation regarding the type of study
conducted as well as its assumptions followed by the theoretical framework. The
conceptual relationships underlying the theoretical framework are also given. Then the
empirical model and equations are presented. Further more there are details of sample,
means of data collection, data analysis, instruments of measurement and the variables,
which are examined. In conducting this study, information about task-oriented
leadership behavior, relation-oriented leadership behavior and levels of organizational
commitment was collected from faculty members. First, the relationship between the
faculty’s organizational commitment and four types of leadership behavior is examined.
Then, the relationship between participatory decision making and faculty’s
organizational commitment, and job satisfaction and morale is examined. Various
demographic attributes of the respondents such as age, education level, years of
experience, and gender were also collected. The research questions also refer to the
university as the workplace and the time spent by faculty working under the
supervision of Vice Chancellors or Rectors and Directors. This was done due to the
findings of previous researchers that employees tend to associate themselves with the
part of organization they work in, rather than the organization as a whole (Brown, 1996).
The researcher was surveying both private and public universities. In private
universities in some cases owners have adopted the designation of Chairman, Project
Director or President. This choice of terminology allowed greater flexibility to cover all


70
the categories of leadership encountered within the survey and also by acknowledging
the diversity of the different participant organizations.
3.2 Type of Study
This was an explanatory study and it focused on testing of hypothesis based on a
theoretical framework and establishing relationship between variables.
3.3 Assumptions
The scope and depth of the current research and investigation are given by a set of
assumptions. These assumptions were defined by a review of the related literature as
well from logical considerations. They consisted of the following:
1- Teaching is a unique profession and may be examined through research and
literature concerning professional commitment.
2- University faculty is expected to work daily within two significant areas of
responsibility, the first area consist of the overall professional enterprise of
education which includes the realm of curriculum and instructions. The second
area consists of academic administration.
3- Owing to the unique nature of the job, professional association has grown to
become a major psychological contribution in the life of a faculty member.
Professional association in turn has a distinct impact on organizational
professional relationship in terms of emotional attachment and professional
demands.
4- University faculty is able to provide valid and reliable data for research
purposes.


71
5- While survey questionnaires taken from other sources for the measurement of
variables are not completely relevant to the present study; they have been
adapted to this study so that the theoretical model and variables can be analyzed.
3.4 Theoretical Framework and Variables
The study analyses the relationship of variables in the conceptual model given below.
The dependent variable is employees’ organizational commitment because it is the
primary variable of interest to the researcher. Leadership behavior and participatory
decision-making are independent variables because these variables determine the
dependent variable. Job satisfaction and morale are also measured in the study as
outcomes. The theoretical framework is conceptualized based upon the literature review
which gives previous research done in the area of leadership behavior in section 2.7.
Figure 4: Theoretical Framework
Outcomes of Interest
Independent Variables Dependent Variable Additional Outcome

Task-Oriented
leadership behavior
Relation-Oriented
leadership behavior
Participatory Decision
Making
Laissez-faire Behavior
Employee’s
Organizational
Commitment

(Continuous)
(Normative)
(Affective)
Morale
Job Satisfaction



72
3.5 Empirical Model

The theoretical framework was estimated by means of three equations. In equation A,
the dependent variable was organizational commitment. There were four independent
variables, namely task-oriented leadership behavior, and relationship oriented behavior,
Laissez-faire behavior and participatory decision making.
Equation, A EOC
1
= o + |
1
_
1
+ |
2
_
2
+ |
3
_
3
+ |
4
_
4
+ c
_
1
= Relationship-Oriented Behavior
_
2
= Task-oriented Behavior
_
3
= Lassiz-Faire Behavior
_
4
= Participatory Decision Making
|
1
= Coefficient of _
1

|
2 =
Coefficient of _
2
|
3 =
Coefficient of _
3
|
4 =
Coefficient of _
4
o = intercept
c = error
In equation B, there were only two variables, namely job satisfaction which was the
dependent variable and organizational commitment which was the independent
variable. In equation C, organizational commitment was the independent variable and
morale was the dependent variable.
B - EQ (B
1
) = Job Satisfaction = α + β
1
X
1
+ ε
C - EQ (B
2
) = Morale = α + β
2
X
2
+ ε
Independent Variable = Employees Organizational Commitment
Dependent Variables = Job Satisfaction and Morale


73
3.6 Commitment and University Faculty
Faculty commitment in this study is directed towards the university. A university
provides resources, infrastructures, and necessary training to their employees to enable
them to accomplish its goals. It is important that its employees share the vision of their
university and be committed to its mission and goals. Since commitment is an
attitudinal construct, there are certain conditions that are necessary for its development.
The leadership behavior of the Principal or Vice Chancellor is taken to be the major
influence on the level of faculty commitment to a university (Campisano, 1992). Initially
the researchers examined the work of Lok, (1999) who found a negative correlation
(R = - 0.34) between commitment and teaching rank, suggesting, that as a faculty
member moves up the teaching ranks from lecturer to assistant professor, to professor,
his or her other commitments moves in the opposite direction. Why might this be?
Possibly because as one rises up the ranks as a teacher, in the university system, one not
only gets to know more of how the system works, but also acquires new knowledge
regarding universities and higher education. Such knowledge and skills may make one
question the way many things are currently done in the University. If these skills and
ideas, for whatever reason are not taken onboard by the University Administration and
the teacher feels he or she is not consulted, his or her commitment decreases.
3.7 Relationship between Organizational Commitment and Leadership
Behavior

Researchers have found a strong relationship between commitment and relationship
and task-oriented types of leadership behavior. Reichers undertook a study in 1986 in
United States and her study showed a significant correlation between organizational
commitment and senior management’s goals and values. Lok (1997) conducted a study


74
and his findings reveal that a positive managerial strategy (represented by leadership
style) would lead to greater employee commitment. Agarwal, DeCarlo and Vyas, (1999)
undertook a study on leadership behavior and employees organizational commitment.
This study involved a comparative analysis of American and Indian salespersons. The
study included 628 American salespersons and 181 Indian salespersons. The results
from both samples indicated a strong positive relationship between consideration and
organizational commitment. Their findings also suggest that American and Indian
salespersons exhibit very similar responses towards leadership behavior. Bycio, Hackett,
& Allen (1995) did a study of 1,376 nurses. Their findings suggested that relation-
oriented leadership behavior was a better predictor of commitment as compare to task-
oriented behavior. Meyer & Allen (1997) noted that when researchers are measuring
commitment to the organization, they are misdiagnosing at and are actually measuring
employees’ commitment to top management.
3.8 Job Satisfaction of University Faculty
Job satisfaction refers to: “the attitude that individuals have regarding their jobs. It
results from their perception of their jobs and the degree to which there is a good fit
between the individual and the organization” (Ivancevich 1997). Job satisfaction is a well
studied subject in organizational behavior. A common belief is that people who are
satisfied with their jobs will show a high level of productivity. When dealing with the
job satisfaction of the university faculty, it is important to note that university teaching
requires a great deal of effort and preparation. It requires many years of education,
research and teaching experience and publications. University faculty finds a number of
issues pertaining to their jobs both satisfying and unsatisfying. Locke (1984) conducted
an exploratory study of the job satisfaction of faculty at a university in USA. His results


75
showed that faculty wants similar outcomes from their jobs as employees in other
organizations, mainly a sense of achievement for their work, good working conditions,
fair pay and promotion, leaders and co-workers who facilitate effective work. The
faculty was most satisfied with their own work achievements and the behavior of their
department heads, and their fellow faculty members. They were satisfied with the
higher level academic and the level of pay and promotions. Kinicki (2002) showed that
there was a negative relationship between resigning and job satisfaction. One way of
determining what contributes to job satisfactions for faculty is to examine why faculty
members decide to stay at their current position or move either to a new university or to
the private sector. Chugtai & Zafar’s (2006), findings suggest that in Pakistan where
people struggle to make ends meet, satisfaction with personal outcomes, such as a high
pay raise, may be more important for faculty than the fairness of procedures.
Employee’s level of job satisfaction is higher if a job contains such characteristics as skill
variety and autonomy. Employees are less satisfied with jobs that show a greater degree
of role conflict and role ambiguity.
3.9 Participative Decision Making and University Faculty
The 1970 American Association of University Professors (AAUP) survey of faculty
governance used by McCormick and Meiners (1989) provides the only comprehensive
measure of faculty participation in governance and decision making available.
Measuring faculty participation in university governance is a challenging task.
According to McCormick and Meiners (1989), a decision made in the area of faculty
control is defined as an instance where a decision is reported as being made by the
faculty or jointly by the faculty and the academic administration. Generally faculty


76
members play a greater role in decisions concerning curriculum and student enrollment
in the courses which they teach.
Authors such as Blair, (1995) and Milgrom and Roberts (1992) have argued that
employees have the incentive and right to participate in organizational decision making.
The existing literature concerning agency problems and academics production suggests
that faculty control certain types of academic decisions may lead to improved
performance. McPherson and Schapiro (1999) provide an overview of this literature and
a useful discussion of authority delegation within the university. While centralized
decision making by administrators avoids the problems associated with collective
decision making, it also creates the potential for abuse by administrators.
Within the university there are several important stakeholder groups, namely
trustees, administrators, faculty, and students that have competing interests. The
difference is that the trustees, faculty members, and students are expected to have some
degree of participation within some of the broad range of decisions made within the
university.
There is a growing literature that focuses on the role of employees in organizational
governance. Hansmann (1996) points out that both the biggest advantage and the
biggest disadvantage of employee ownership springs from employee’s participation in
governance decisions. The advantage is that employees generally have a non-
recoverable investment in the success of the firm and better information about the
quality of many decisions than would other owners.
While there are no true owners in the university, Brown (2005), argue that the nature
of academics employment contracts makes faculty members partial residual claimants to
the success of the institution. As a result, the wealth of the individual faculty members


77
will be tied to the success of the institution but faculty member have an incentive to
enrich themselves at the expense of the institution’s success. In addition, faculty
members provide an inexpensive source of information concerning the performance of
the university and administrators. One expects that university governance decisions are
structured so that the faculty members will participate more heavily in those activities
where their informational advantages and expertise outweigh any malincentive effects.
Faculty members are likely to have better information for decisions concerning
curriculum, the creation of new academics programs and general faculty governance
decisions than do board of governors.
While faculty members have better information concerning curriculum decisions,
they may not always have the proper incentives for making these decisions at the
individual level. The monitoring of administrators by faculty members necessarily
creates conflicts. If administrators retain the right to hire/fire and otherwise determine
faculty rewards, then faculty members are unlikely to actively criticize administrative
decisions. In addition, faculty members and administrators may value different types of
output. Faculty members are likely to place more weight on outcomes including
research, professional recognition and departmental service. Administrators may be
more likely to reward administrative staff, e.g. car leasing, parking space, building, nice
office and other benefits.
The one area where the interest of majority of the faculty is likely to diverge from the
interests of the institution is in the case of budgetary decisions. In these decisions it is
more likely that the faculty as a whole can reach agreements to enrich themselves at the
expense of the university. Diverting financial resources to their personal use (i.e.
supporting smaller class sizes, reduced teaching loads, salaries, large offices, or nice


78
faculty clubs) is almost always in the best interest of faculty. Existing faculty members
also have an incentive to favor current uses of funds over future uses. In addition, the
average faculty member has considerably less expertise than trustees in these areas. As a
result, faculty members are not expected to participate in or be the primary monitors of
financial decisions.
The extent to which faculty members participate in administrative decisions is likely
to be related to the type of decisions. For example, decisions concerning admission,
student aid, buildings and grounds are best handled by specialized administrators with
expertise in these areas. The size of academic departments and resource allocation
decisions among departments are also likely to be left to administrators. This helps to
reduce political infighting and coalition building that might otherwise develop among
faculty groups.
3.10 Morale of Faculty
Morale has been defined as a feeling, a state of mind, a mental attitude, and an
emotional attitude (Tagai 2002). When a healthy environment exists faculty’s morale is
high. This creates an environment that is more conducive to learning. Work
environment, top managements style of lweadership, stress and other factors has been
highlighted by scholars for being reasons for low and high faculty morale at universities.
High level of morale level makes teaching more pleasant for teachers and low levels of
satisfaction and morale can lead to decreased teacher productivity and burnout, which is
associated with "a loss of concern for and detachment from the people with whom one
works, decreased quality of teaching, depression, greater use of sick leave, efforts to
leave the profession, and a cynical and dehumanized perception of students" (Mendall,
1980).


79
3.11 Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were developed,
1- The task-oriented behavior of a leader would increase faculty’s organizational
commitment.
In order to see whether male and female faculty members differ the way they see their
leaders behave in university settings I divided them into two groups and tried to see if
task behavior differs in impacting people based on gender.
a- The task-oriented behavior of a leader would increase organizational
commitment in male faculty members.
b- The task-oriented behavior of a leader would increase organizational
commitment in female faculty members.
2- Relation-oriented behavior increases faculty’s organizational
commitment.
3- Laissez-faire behavior has a negative relationship with employees organizational
commitment
4- Participative decision making has a positive relationship with faculty’s organizational
commitment.
Hypothesis five and six were developed to measure the consequences or outcome of
organizational commitment. Researcher’s intention was to examine the relationship of
OC with Job satisfaction and morale. Other researchers like Tagai (2002) and Lok (1999)
also measured them separately.
5- Organizational commitment has a positive correlation with Job Satisfaction.
6- Organizational commitment has a positive correlation with morale.



80
3.12 Data Collection
There is very little published material available in the area of organizational
commitment in Pakistan. To overcome this difficulty it was decided to collect this
information through primary data collection with the help of a survey questionnaire. A
sample of private and public Universities was carried out as explained in the next
section. Then the researcher contacted the Deans and Heads of universities by telephone
to determine if they were interested in participating in the research study He received
positive responses from all the universities and then personally visited some universities
to interview several Deans and Head of Departments located in the cities of Rawalpindi
and Islamabad. Then questionnaires were mailed to the faculty members of these
institutions. Potential respondents were asked to return the completed questionnaire in
two weeks. A reminder was mailed after three weeks. Questionnaires were mailed to
faculty members in the month of May, well before the start of the annual summer
vacation. The researcher also visited certain universities to collect the completed
questionnaires. A total of 237 questionnaires were returned in response to the 300
questionnaires mailed. There were 105 chartered universities in Pakistan and the
intended respondent consisted of 300 faculty members in the selected 18 public and
private universities including lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors and
professors.
3.13 Sampling Strategy
The unit of observation and analysis consisted of the faculty of selected institutions
and universities across Pakistan. The population consisted of faculty members in all of
the public and private Universities situated in Pakistan. The sample consisted of 300
faculty members in 18 selected public and private universities. There were 105 chartered


81
universities in Pakistan in 2005 and number of private universities amounted to 45 (see
Appendix H and I). Systematic sampling method was applied to select the sample of
universities. Most of the universities selected were geographically located in the central
and northern region of Pakistan. Within this area those universities were chosen which
were most accessible or most likely to respond, due to their prestige and commitment to
education.
3.14 Survey Questionnaire
The construction of the survey questionnaire for this study was primarily based
upon and derived from four survey questionnaires used in previous studies. To measure
leadership behavior, the “Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire” used by Bass (1995)
consisting of 45 questions was chosen. Use of this questionnaire was based on the
assumptions that university faculty is able to provide useful data for research. Faculty
work in two domains, one is administrative environment and the other is teaching. And
based on the questionnaire design it was possible to measure leadership behavior in
terms of task and relation. MLQ is considered a bench mark tool for assessing leadership
behavior and a variety of studies have shown the MLQ to be effective in settings as
diverse as savings banks, community action agencies, the United States army, Chinese
state run industry and universities.
In the pilot study the entire questionnaire was used but it was shortened, and
modified to suit the Pakistani university, for its use in the wider survey specifically
certain questions, which asked participants to evaluate their own leadership style were
removed. To measure the faculty’s organizational commitment, Meyer & Allen’s (1997)
“Organizational Commitment Questionnaire” (OCQ) was used. Job satisfaction as an
outcome was measured by the questionnaire used by Locke (1976). Participatory


82
management and morale was measured by means of a questionnaire developed by Lok
(1999). All of the questionnaires used contained close-ended questions. All variables
were measured on a five point likert scale. The likert scale is designed to examine how
strongly subjects agree or disagree with statements on a 5-point scale.

Strongly
Disagree
1


Disagree
2

Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
3


Agree
4


Strongly Agree
5

This is an interval scale and the difference in the responses between any two points on
the scale remains the same.
3.15 Deriving Final Questionnaire from the Pilot Study
Two universities were purposely selected for the pilot study of which one was a
public University and one was a private one. The researcher mailed 40 questionnaires to
faculty members. Both universities were in twin-cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad.
Respondents from the private university were very reluctant to fill the survey forms as
they were concerned whether the information would be confidential as it pertained to
the University management. To alley their fears the researcher explained the purpose of
the study to them and that confidentiality would be maintained as they were not to
write their name and their organization’s name in the survey. Another problem was that
none of the participants had seen this type of questionnaire before. The researcher
visited the public sector university and held a meeting with the potential respondents
and addressed their concerns. He also explained the objectives of the study and the
rationale underlying the questionnaire.
The questionnaire of the pilot study had 90 questions spread over six pages. Pilot study
contained the 45 questions of Bass and Avolio’s multifactor leadership questionnaire


83
and 15 questions from Meyer and Allen’s Organizational Commitment Questionnaire,
15 questions of job satisfaction and morale questionnaire and 15 questions of
participatory decision making questionnaire.
The pilot study was successful in attaining its two main goals. The questions
pertaining to Leadership and Organizational Commitment were reduced in number
based on whether the questions were redundant. The final questionnaire had 60
questions instead of 90, and numbers of pages were also reduced from six to four. Thus
the time to complete the final survey was reduced to less than or equal to fifteen
minutes. This modification and reduction of questions did not affect reliability and
validity of the items remaining in the questionnaire.
The pilot study also established that the questions pertaining to job satisfaction,
morale and decision-making were valid. This study intended to measure the leadership
behavior of management and not that of the respondents. Due to this reason, 15
questions from the Leadership Questionnaire and six questions from Organizational
Commitment Questionnaire were eliminated. The researcher examined leadership
behavior and commitment questionnaires and determined that questions relating to
laissez-faire and task and relation oriented behavior were redundant and did not serve
any special purpose in the Pakistani University. Participants reported that they were
causing them confusion. The deletion of questions from Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire helped to focus the direction of the scale specifically on the actual
relationship between the faculty and their University.
The pilot study showed the correlation coefficient between normative and
continuance commitment to be positively significant at 0.32 (r) and 0.46 (r).
Participatory decision making showed positive significant correlation with leadership


84
behavior to be 0.38 (r) and 0.43 (r). The correlation coefficient between the task and
relationship oriented leadership scales was 0.90, which was very high. Bass & Avolio
(1995) reported that it could go as high as .86 (r). As explained earlier the redundant
questions were taken out of the questionnaire so this correlation in this main study was
.86 (r). The alpha value of Job satisfaction and Morale were .60 and .69 respectively.
These results indicate that the variables of interest are significantly and positively
correlated.
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Several surveys were initially considered for possible measurements of task-oriented
and relation-oriented leadership behaviors. A questionnaire developed by Fleishman
(1951) and revised by Stogdill (1963) was not considered as this questionnaire did not
measure two behaviors separately. Bass’s (1985) multifactor leadership questionnaire
was selected as it has been improved and revised by Bass (1990, 1995, and 1997) to
measure additional dimensions of leadership including task, relation and lassiz fare
behavior. It has been used by many researchers in USA as well as in higher education
institutions outside the US. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire survey was used
after certain modifications were made to suit the local conditions in Pakistan. This
questionnaire distinguished clearly between task and relation-oriented leadership
behavior.
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire
Porter Steers, Mowday, & Boulian (1974) developed an Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed to measure employee’s satisfaction and
level of involvement in the organization. Alvi and Ahmed’s (1987) questionnaire was
not considered as it had a very limited scope. They used it for measuring male and


85
female OC in Pakistan, while I intended to measure OC’s relationship with leadership
behavior and other variables, so this questionnaire did not meet the requirements of this
research study. Meyer & Allen’s (1997) updated Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire was adopted. This questionnaire has been applied by researchers to other
countries especially in South Asian as it is considered to be the best measure of all three
types of organizational commitment. Previous researches suggest that commitment is
stronger if closely connected to work of individuals, the level of the work group, or the
supervisor (Becker, 1992). So the researcher included three specific questions to see that
employees may be committed to a number of different foci. The first one was related to
the organization, “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this
university”. The second question was related to the people, “I would not leave my
organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it”. And the
third one was, “I owe a great deal to my organization”.
Job Satisfaction and Morale Questionnaire
There were 13 questions on the questionnaire about job satisfaction and morale.
Locke and Schiwiger (1996) developed a questionnaire about job satisfaction. This
questionnaire was considered for this research. Also few questions were taken from the
questionnaires of Lok (1999) and Tagai (2002). As for other questionnaires this was also
tested in the pilot study and interestingly the questions relating to university and
students indicated the highest percentage in terms of respondents who answered that
they strongly agreed.





86
Table 3.2 Questions of leadership Behavior
1 He/She spends time coaching and teaching others
2 He/She treats others as individuals rather than just as a member of a group
3 He/She considers an individual as having different needs, abilities and
aspirations from others.
4 He/She helps others to develop their strengths.
5 He/She talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished.
6 He/She seeks differing perspectives in solving problems.
7 He/She acts in ways that build others respect for him/her.
8 He/She displays a sense of power and confidence.
9 He/She instills pride in others for being associated with him.
10 He/She is effective in meeting others’ job-related needs.
11 He/She considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions.
12 He/She emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission.
13 He/She is effective in representing others to higher authority.
14 He/She leads a group that is effective.
15 He/She uses methods of leadership that are satisfying.
16 He/She provides other with assistance in exchange for their efforts.
17 He/She expresses satisfaction when others meet expectations.
18 He/She focuses attention on irregularities, mistake, exceptions and deviations
from standards.
19 He/She keeps track of all my mistakes.
20 He/She directs my attention towards failures to meet standards.
21 He/She fails to interfere until problem become serious.
22 He/She waits for things to go wrong before taking actions.
23 He/She is absent from office when needed.
24 He/She avoids making decisions.
25 He/She delays responding to urgent questions.
Table 3.3 Questions of Organizational Commitment
1 It would be very hard for me to leave my department right now, even if I
wanted to.
2 I do not feel my obligation to remain with my current employer.
3 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this university.
4 I owe a great deal to my organization
5 Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my
department now
6 I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this university
7 I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this institution
8 This organization deserves my loyalty
9 If I had not already put so much of myself into this department, I might
consider working elsewhere.
10 I Would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of
obligation to the people in it.



87
Table 3.4 Questions of Participatory Decision Making
1 The administration tells me what needs to be done and how it should
be accomplished.
2 The administration in my university tries to eliminate situations that
can lead to disagreement.
3 Difference in opinions on how work should be done makes our
administration angry.
4 When changes in rules and procedures must be made, the ideas are
gradually introduced so that faculty does not get upset.
5 Our administration finds it difficult to understand why faculty resists
every change
6 When I am in supervisory role, I know I must not change my opinion
on a significant work situation.
7 Our management listens carefully to each person in my department
group when any significant change is being made.

8 I am able to influence decisions that affect my work..
9 I am satisfied with the level of faculty representation on the university
board of governance.
10 I am satisfied with the level of faculty participation in this Institution’s
decision-making process.
11 Enrollment of students in the courses I teach, is mostly my decision
12 I have a significant role in the academic policies of this university


Table 3.5 Questions of Job Satisfaction and Morale of University Faculty
1 I feel there is strong connection between my pay and my performance.
2 There is flexibility of work hours in this university.
3 Physical working environment at this university is appropriate.
4 I see a lot of opportunity for advancement in this university.
5 I have been recommended for higher education/seminars and trainings by
my university.
6 I frequently communicate with my supervisor
7 I frequently receive recognition from my supervisor on my performance.

8 The administration in my organization effectively leads the university.
9 My work in this institution gives me a great sense of achievement
10 I feel a strong sense of direction and purpose provided by the
administration of this institution.
11 The administration allows the faculty adequate academic freedom.
12 I am happy with the current system of faculty pay scale.
13 The administration of this institution has improved physical conditions for
faculty work.


88

3.17 Data Analysis
The SPSS Base 11.0 Applications Guide, 2005 was the statistical software program
used for analysis. Duly filled in survey questionnaires received were entered into SPSS
version 11.0 for Windows. The methods used to conduct data analysis and measure the
relationship between leadership behaviors; organizational commitment, job satisfaction
and morale were conducted in the following sequence. Initially the researcher used
descriptive statistics to examine the responses. They consisted of means, median and
mode. Then he conducted additional analysis to determine the statistical significance for
affective, continuance, and normative commitment by means of t-tests. Then he
estimated the Pearson Moment Correlation Coefficient for the variables in the structural
model followed by regression analysis. Finally he examined the reliability of all the
variables in the structural model by estimating the alpha values. In Table 3.6 the alpha
values of all the variables are between 0.63 and 0.84. This confirms the reliability of all
the variables.
Table 3.6 Internal Consistency Cronbach’s Alpha
Variables Items Number of
Responses
Estimate of
Alpha
Mean Standard
Deviation
Organizational
Commitment
10 237 0.634 3.23 0.51
Task Behavior 10 237 0.834 3.54 0.67
Relation Behavior 10 237 0.796 2.52 0.63
Lassiz-Faire 5 237 0.838 2.81 0.96
Participatory
Decision Making
12 237 0.696 3.15 0.49
Job Satisfaction 6 237 0.657 3.20 0.71
Morale 7 237 0.727 3.37 0.65


89

Correlation Analysis
To detect the degree of association among each pair of independent and dependent
variables the Pearson correlation matrix was estimated.
Multiple Regression Analysis
A major goal of regression analysis is usually to investigate the causal relationship
between a dependent variable and several independent variables. In the study, the
scores of organizational commitment as well as participatory decision making were
regressed on task, relationship–oriented and Laissez-faire behavior. The effect of each
independent variable was analyzed. Its statistical significance was assessed by the t test.
The overall significance of the regression equation was then assessed by the f test.















90
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH
4.1 Result of Questionnaire Survey
A total of 300 questionnaires were mailed of which, 237 (or 79%) completed
questionnaires were returned and used for the quantitative analysis. The following
results were obtained from these 237 completed questionnaires.
4.2 Characteristics of University Faculty
The researcher collected demographic data on age, gender, qualification, job title,
position and time spent by the respondents in their respective universities as shown in
table 4.1. Statistics derived from this data revealed that 65% of the respondents were
male and 35% females. The average time they worked in their current universities was
six years while the average time spent working under their current Vice Chancellors or
rectors was 3 years and 4 months. Out of 237 respondents 19% were PhDs, 34% were M
Phils, while 41% had a Masters’ degree.
Table 4.1 Characteristics of University Faculty Members
Variable Category Respondents Percent
Gender Male
Female
155
82
65%
35%
Age Bracket 24-30
31-45
45 and above

72
105
60
30%
44%
26%
Teaching Rank Lecturer
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
110
89
13
25
46%
38%
5%
11%
Qualification of

Respondents
Masters
MS/Phil
PhD
Other
98
81
44
14
41%
34%
19%
6%
N 237




91

Table 4.2 Sample Response of Universities
Institution Questionnaires Sent Returned Return Rate %
Punjab University Lahore 20 16 80
Institute of Leadership and Management
Lahore
15 15 100
GIFT University Gujranwala 15 13 86
M A Jinnah University Islamabad 20 19 95
IQRA University Islamabad 20 14 70
SZABIST Islamabad 10 05 50
Air University Islamabad 20 16 80
NUST Rawalpindi 20 14 70
Quaid-I-Azam University Islamabad 15 10 66
Gomal University D I Khan 15 10 66
University of Faisalabad 20 16 80
Agha Khan University Karachi 15 15 100
Baluchistan University Quetta 20 16 80
COMSATS Attock 15 11 73
COMSATS Abbotabad 15 10 66
University of Peshawar 15 13 86
Hamdard University Islamabad 15 10 66
Karakuram University Gilgit 15 14 93
Total 300 237 79%

4.3 Sample Responses
The universe of population consists of all universities in Pakistan. Full time faculty
members of eighteen public and private universities of Pakistan formed the sample for
the study. From the sample of 300, 237 respondents returned the questionnaires,
yielding an overall response rate of 79%. Table 4.2 gives details of questionnaires mailed
to each university and response received.









92
Table: 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Major Variables
5 point likert scale was used for data collection

Table 4.3 shows descriptive statistics for the various variables such as task-oriented,
relationship-oriented, participatory decision making, commitment, job satisfaction and
morale. The variance and standard deviation for all the variables are low. The suggested
score by Bass & Avolio (1997) for most effective leaders include a mean of 3.0 or higher.
The mean score derived from the variables in the data ranged from 2.52 to 3.54. The
pattern of scores of the variables suggests that some faculty members are dissatisfied to
some extent from their administrators. Relationship-oriented leadership behaviors
indicate a median of 3.6 but a mean of 2.52. This denotes that most faculty members
disagree with relationship oriented behavior. Such a high median also shows that while
50% of faculty likes relationship-oriented leadership, there are many other who have
divided opinion on university’s leadership behavior. The mean for task-oriented
leadership behavior (3.54) indicates that the faculty was getting the task and goals
accomplished to a certain extent. The median value for this variable is also 3.60.

O C
(Affect) (Cont) (Norm)
L B
(Task)) Relation L F PDM J S Morale

Mean 3.29 3.07 3.33 3.54 2.52 2.81 3.15 3.20 3.37
Median 3.33 3.00 3.25 3.60 3.60 2.80 3.17 3.33 3.43
Standard
Deviation 0.59 0.84 0.60 0.67 0.63 0.96 0.49 0.71 0.65
Sample
Variance 0.35 0.70 0.36 0.45 0.40 0.93 0.24 1.23 1.14
Skew ness 0.01 0.26 0.11 -0.48 -0.61 0.17 0.17 -0.26 -0.28
Minimum 2.00 1.00 1.75 1.30 1.30 1.00 1.67 1.00 1.43
Maximum 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.67 5.00 4.86
Count 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237


93
The findings indicate that affective commitment had a mean score of 3.29, followed
by continuance commitment with a mean score of 3.07 and normative commitment with
a mean score of 3.33. Chughtai &Zafar (2006) did a study of Pakistani university
teachers and studied antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment
among Pakistani university teachers. Their findings suggest that overall mean for
organizational commitment was 5.27 on a 7 point scale, which is higher than the results
obtained in this research, However their findings suggest that on the average faculty
members were satisfied with the actual work undertaken (4.04) and the amount of job
security they had (4.03).
4.4 Correlations between Major types of Leadership Behaviors

The researcher examined correlations for both task and relationship behaviors. He
entered responses regarding task oriented, relationship-oriented questions and laissez-
faire behaviors independently. There was very high positive correlation of 0.86 between
the task-oriented and relationship-oriented scales. This statistically significant result was
consistent with the findings of other researchers. Bass & Avolio (1997) reported
correlation coefficients of r = 0.68 to r = 0.87 between the task and relationship-oriented
behaviors. Their findings provided preliminary evidence and support for the theory
upon which relationship-oriented leadership is based and the theoretical link between
relationship-oriented and task-oriented leadership.



Table 4.4 Correlation Matrix of all variables





























94
Name of Variable
and its short form
O C T B R B L F B PDM J S Morale A C C C N C
Organizational
Commitment. (OC)
1.0 0.295 0.176 -0.185 0.340 .210 0.290 0.693 0.832 0.737
Task-Oriented
Leadership Behavior
(TB)
0.295 1.0 0.861 -0.463 0.458 0.437 0.499 0.297 0.263 0.119
Relation –Oriented
Leadership Behavior
(RB)
0.176 0.861 1.0 -0.367 0.485 0.402 0.463 0.211 0.164 0.038
Laissez-faire
Behavior (LFB)
-0.185 -0.463 -0.367 1.0 -0.041 -0.349 -0.413 -0.314 -0.141 0.017
Participatory
Decision Making
(PDM)
0.340 0.458 0.485 -0.349 1.00 0.493 0.580 0.208 0.317 0.255
Job
Satisfaction (JS)
0.210 0.437 0.402 -0.041 0.493 1.0 0.714 0.311 0.119 0.097
Morale
0.290 0.499 0.463 -0.413 0.580 0.714 1.00 0.318 0.179 0.223
Affective
Commitment (AC)
0.693 0.297 0.211 -0.314 0.208 0.311 0.318 1.0 0.352 0.340
Continuance
Commitment (CC)
0.832 0.263 0.164 -0.141 0.317 0.119 0.179 0.352 1.0 0.405
Normative
Commitment (NC)
0.737 0.119 0.038 0.017 0.255 0.097 0.223 0.340 0.405 1.0


95
Table 4.5 Correlation Matrix of Major Variables

Variables
OC TB RB LFB PDM
Organizational
Commitment
1.00
Leadership Behavior 0.30 1.00
Relation-Oriented
Leadership Behavior
0.18 0.86 1.00
Laissez-faire Behavior -0.19 -0.46 -0.37 1.00
Participatory Decision
Making
0.34 0.46 0.49 -0.04 1.00
Job Satisfaction 0.21 0.44 0.40 -0.35 0.49
Morale 0.29 0.50 0.46 -0.41 0.58

JS MORALE
Job Satisfaction 1.00
Morale 0.71 1.00

Variables Acronyms are given below

1. Organizational Commitment (OC)
2. Task-Oriented Leadership Behavior (TB)
3. Relation-Oriented Leadership Behavior (RB)
4. Laissez-faire Behavior (LFB)
5. Participatory Decision Making (PDM)
6. Job Satisfaction (JS)
7. Morale

4.5 Correlations among Organizational Commitment Scales
Organizational commitment had a very high correlation of 0.83 (table 4.4) with
continuous commitment. Its correlation with normative commitment was lesser at 0.74,
while the correlation coefficient with effective commitment was 0.69. These findings
represent overall organizational commitment of affective, normative and continuance
well. The researcher also examined correlations between the individual scales of
Organizational Commitment (Table 4.4). Between the scales of all three affective,
normative and continuance commitment, there was moderately significant and positive
correlation. The correlation between normative and continuance commitment was 0.40
and was slightly stronger than between the other two scales at


96
r = 0.34. The findings of Meyer and Allen (1990) and Cohen (1996) also showed positive
correlation among the OC scales but their findings suggested a stronger correlation
between affective and normative commitment. Thus, the researcher’s findings are
somewhat consistent with the results of Meyer and Allen (1990) and Cohen, (1996).
Meyer and Allen (1990) suggested that in the case of continuance commitment,
individuals remain with the organization because cost of leaving is too high whereas in
normative commitment employees feel a sense of obligation towards the organization.
As the study done by McFarlane, Shore & Wayne, 1993), suggests employees who have
both continuance and normative commitments demonstrate reduced levels of
citizenship behaviors and lack the initiative to do tasks beyond their job descriptions or
put in extra work effort. A stronger correlation of continuance commitment in my
finding also suggests that the faculty feels the cost of leaving is higher than staying, may
be because the opportunities in academia are limited to a large extent in Pakistan.
Alternatively in Allen and Meyer’s (1990) findings the correlation between normative
and effective commitment was statistically significant and high as it was 0.51.
Table 4.6 Commitment Correlations
Affective Normative Continuance

Affective 1.0 0 .34** 0.35**

Normative 1.0 0.41**

Continuance 1.0

N=237
** Correlation is statistically significant with p < .01.
* Correlation is statistically significant with p < .05.





97
4.6 Correlations between the Task-Oriented, Relationship-Oriented
Behavior and the Organizational Commitment Scales

The researcher investigated the correlation between task-oriented behavior and
relation-oriented behavior in conjunction with the three separate scales of organizational
commitment. The task-oriented scale had positive, statistically significant and fair
correlations with affective (0.30) and continuance (0.26) commitment and hardly any
relationship with normative commitment. Regardless overall organizational
commitment still was 0.30. The relationship-oriented scale had a statistically significant
positive correlation with the overall organizational commitment (0.18) derived from the
correlations of all the three scales of individual organizational commitment as well as
with the overall organizational commitment scale. The relationship-oriented scale was
highly correlated with the effective commitment (0.21) then with continuance
commitment (0.16) and normative commitment (0.04). This correlation between two
types of Leadership behaviors and affective commitment was consistent with earlier
researcher’s findings.
Table 4.7 Correlations between Task-oriented, Relation-oriented, and
Organizational Commitment


Affective
Commitment
Normative
Commitment
Continuance
Commitment
Organizational
Commitment
(all Scales together)
Task-
Oriented

0.30**

0.12**

0.26**

0.30**
Relation-
Oriented
0.21** 0.04** 0.16** 0.18**
N=237
**Correlation is statistically significant with p < .01.
* Correlation is statistically significant with p <.05.




98
These findings suggest that task-oriented leadership behavior of vice chancellors and
heads of institutions, which involve trust building, recognizing accomplishments,
sharing the same vision, are positively related to some extent, as to how their faculty
feels about wanting to stay with the universities they are currently working. However
task-oriented leadership behavior of head of institutions for normative commitment was
weakly related to the fact about how faculty felt about staying with their universities.
This relationship is confirmed by Meyer and Allen’s (1997) findings, that many of the
work experiences that influence affective commitment also influence normative
commitment. Findings in this study are not consistent with Bycio, Hackett, & Allen
(1995), which suggest that task-oriented behavior is negatively related to three scales of
organizational commitment. This indicates that faculty wants their leaders to take action
before the problems become serious. It also suggests that positive feedback contributes
to the desire of faculty to remain with the current universities.
The findings in the study also suggest a positive but weaker correlation between the
relationship-oriented behavior and three scales of organizational commitment. Relation-
Oriented behavior is significantly related to affective commitment but there is a weaker
correlation with continuance commitment.
4.7 Correlation between Participatory Decision Making and Organizational
Commitment

This study also examined the correlation between participatory decision making and
the three scales of organizational commitment (these scales put together), task-oriented
leadership behavior, relation-oriented leadership behavior, laissez-faire behavior, job
satisfaction and morale of faculty. (See table 4.8). The study had one questionnaire about


99
participatory decision making and its relationship with organizational commitment.
This questionnaire in (Appendix B 4) was designed to find the answers to questions such
as the following: What is it that faculty considers being participation in decision
making? What kind of decisions does the faculty think they should be part of? Many
specific decisional issues were presented to faculty and the members were asked to
answer on a scale from one to five in which one denoted strong disagreement while five
denoted as strong agreement. Results showed a positive and statistically significant
relation between PDM and OC (r = 0.34). The correlation between continuance
commitment and PDM was 0.32, which is positive and statistically significant.
The researcher tested organizational commitment scales separately with the intent to
examine its relationship with Participatory Decision Making. The findings showed
Participatory Decision Making to be significantly and positively related to the
employee’s perception of leadership behavior, both with relationship-oriented behavior
(0.49) and task-oriented behavior (0.46). The findings suggested a fair correlation of
PDM with the overall commitment scale.
Table 4.8 Correlation of Participatory Decision Making with Organizational
Commitment and other outcomes of interest


OC Affect
Com
Conti
Com
Norm
Com
Task Relation Job
Satisf
Morale
Participatory
Decision
Making (PDM)

0.34**

0.21**

0.32**

0.26**

0.46**

0.49**

0.49**

0.58**
N=size of sample 237
**Correlation is statistically significant with p < .01.






100
4.8 Correlation between Participatory Decision Making and Job
Satisfaction
The researcher also examined the correlation between Participatory Decision Making
and Job Satisfaction. Results showed a statistically significant positive correlation
between Participatory Decision Making and Job Satisfaction, (0 .493).
This is consistent with earlier studies. The findings of Shaw & Kim (2004), suggest that
Participatory Decision Making may improve organizational productivity by maximizing
the utilization of the organization’s human resources, and also by increasing job
satisfaction and reducing turnover and absenteeism. Consequently, employees are not
only more likely to succeed in their current positions, but are also more likely to see a
long term role in the organization that fulfills their own growth and development needs.
When the researcher asked the question, “I have been recommended by my
university management for higher studies and training programs”. Most of the faculty
members surveyed (97%) strongly disagreed with the statement. In the answer to
another question, “I have a significant role in the academic policies of this university”,
most of the respondents said they strongly disagree with the statement (90%). Therefore
it is suggested that faculty should be involved in the decision making process and
especially in the issues which directly or indirectly affect them. Participation can
improve an employee’s understanding of organizational processes and provide them
opportunities to develop certain problem solving and communication skills. If faculty is
provided the opportunity to take advantage of training programs and then to expand
their work role and responsibilities, their job satisfaction is likely to increase and they
are more likely to stay with their current organizations.


101
Thus hypothesis 4 was supported as Participatory Decision Making’s positive relation
with job satisfaction and commitment suggests, that faculty members feel valued and
their perception about being part of decision making affect their performance also.
While lack of training is a set back to satisfaction and commitment, PDM provides
faculty members with a survival tool to cope better in an adverse working environment.
PDM also has a positive correlation with morale, (r = 0.58) which is highly significant.
4.9 Correlation between Commitment and Job Satisfaction

The researcher’s findings suggest a significant correlation between organizational
commitment and job satisfaction, (0.21) where correlation of job satisfaction with
affective commitment is 0.31. The table 4.9 shows that the correlation between other
scales of commitment and Job Satisfaction is weakly positive. Comments from one dean
of a university are worth noting,
“In spite of all the problems we are having with this
vice chancellor who is a retired government officer,
and less qualified than all the heads of departments,
we continue our mission because we are
committed to our country”.
The dean of a public sector university pointed out:
“That morale was low in his university, and a
lot of foreign qualified and experienced professors
had left”. He thought the faculty was treated like
factory workers but they were dedicated to their
profession.


102
“We have spent almost a million rupees on full
page advertisement in the national news papers
for faculty hiring in the last two years but
the response is very disappointing. People are
accepted for a job after the interview but they
turn down our Vice Chancellors offer. For me the
commitment and loyalty to Pakistan is very
important. I give less time to my own children
but I stay here for long hours. I do it for the
students and love for my profession and country.
This keeps me going. Otherwise I would have
opted for immigration to Canada a long time
ago”.
Clearly faculty’s commitment to profession is important. It also appears that faculty
attributes their high morale to their commitment to students, the profession, and
country.
Table: 4.9 Correlations of OC, AC, CC and NC with Job Satisfaction

Organization
Commitment
(combine)
Affective
Commitment
Continuance
Commitment
Normative
Commitment
Job Satisfaction 0 .21** 0.31** 0.12 0.097

N=237
**Correlation is statistically significant with p < .01.







103
4.10 Correlation between Job Satisfaction and Morale

Table 4.10 Job Satisfaction and Morale
JS MORALE
Job Satisfaction 1.00
Morale 0.71 1.00

The positive correlation (r = 0.71) between job satisfaction and morale (table 4.10)
indicates that there is a significant positive relationship between these two measures.
The answer to the question, “The physical environment at this university is appropriate”
and “The administration of this institution has improved physical conditions for
faculty’s work”. The interesting finding was that 97% faculty members at private
universities showed strong satisfaction with these two responses. At the public
universities, satisfaction with physical conditions was very low. The morale at five
public sector universities headed by retired government officers was very low.
However, the higher correlation between job satisfaction and morale and low relation of
morale with commitment also suggest that those faculty members who are satisfied with
their job are not necessarily committed to their organization. The deans of some
universities I interviewed gave several reasons.
“The behavior of our rector is damaging our university
and faculty’s morale. I come to this university
everyday with commitment to my profession. I attend
frequent meetings headed by our rector. I often think
of resigning because he spends hours and hours
discussing non issues and does not want to discuss
faculty development and student focused issues. He


104
does not understand the business of education.
Everything seems discouraging after listening to him. I
have spent 29 years in this profession, and I believe
Allah will reward me for all the difficulties I faced. I
would not leave this place only because; there are 1200
students and the members of the faculty who need me
here”.
It is clear that even if faculty is dissatisfied with leadership behavior, they
are still committed to their, profession, students and country.















105
4.11 Results of Regression Analysis
Correlation analysis was followed by regression analysis. Regression analysis
analyses how a single dependant variable is caused by one or more independent
variables and they have linear relationship. The theoretical estimated equations are
presented in chapter 3 on page 72. The first estimation of the results which are shown on
the following page in table 4.11, the dependent variable, faculty’s organizational
commitment was regressed against four independent variables, namely task-oriented
and relationship-oriented, laissez-faire leadership behavior and participatory decision
making. Equation also shows that even if all other co-efficients become zero, even then
the EOC will remain 2.264 units. The researcher found that the four independent
variables captured 39% of the variation in OC. The t. statistics showed that three of the
four independent variables were statistically significant at the 99% level of confidence in
the model. The fourth variable, Laissez-faire behavior is statistically significant at the
90% level of confidence. However, the coefficient of laissez faire is effectively zero. Task-
oriented leadership behavior and participatory decision making are positively related to
organizational commitment, while relationship oriented behavior is negatively related to
organizational commitment.







106
Regression Results of faculty’s Organizational Commitment to Four Types of
Leadership Behavior (Over All Results)
Table 4.11
Regression Statistics Types of
Leadership
Behaviors
Coefficients T
Value
P Value
R Square 0.391 Task Oriented 0.332 3.506 0.000
Adjusted R Square 0.348 Relationship -0.327 -3.391 0.000
Laissez-Faire -0.068 -1.879 0.061
Participatory 0.361 4.982 1.23E-06
Intercept 2.64 8.511 .0000

The results indicate that when the leader’s task-oriented behavior increases by one
unit and the employee’s participation in decision making increases by one unit, the
organizational commitment will increase by 0.33 units and 0.36 units in an organization
respectively. If the leader’s relationship oriented behavior increases by one unit, OC
decreases by 0.32 units. The results of the regression analysis thus shed further light on
the effect of relationship oriented behavior.
Table 4.12

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.448
R Square 0.391
Adjusted R Square 0.347
Standard Error 0.295
Observations 237

In the equation the R Square

of 0.391 indicates that 39.1% of the variation EOC is
explained by the variation in Task-oriented Leadership Behavior (TOLB), Relation-


107
oriented Leadership Behavior (ROLB), Laissez-faire Behavior (LFB), and Participatory
Decision Making (PDM).
Table 4.12.1 Results of f test for determinants of faculty’s organizational
commitment

ANOVA
df SS F Significance F
Regression 4 12.70 14.64 0.000
Residual 233 50.35
Total 237 63.05

F-Test measures the overall significance level of the model. It shows if there is a linear
relationship between all of the independent variables (TOLB, ROLB, LFB and PDM) i.e.
X variables considered together, and the dependent variable i.e. Y (in this case EOC). In
our table the F value is highly significant. So we accept that all of the independent
variables affect the value of dependent variable. This result is expected as each of the
independent variables is statistically significant at a confidence level of 99% except for
laissez-faire behavior. Even this variable is significant at a confidence level of 90%.
Table 4.12.2

Coefficients
Standard
Error t Stat P-value
Intercept 2.26 0.27 8.51 0.000
Task Oriented 0.33 0.095 3.51 0.000
Relationship -0.33 0.097 -3.39 0.000
Laissez-Faire -0.07 0.036 -1.88 0.061
Participatory 0.36 0.072 4.98 0.000

From the table it is evident that relationship between EOC is highly significant with
all the independent variables except with the laissez-faire variable where significant
level is low i.e. the confidence interval is less than 95%.


108
Regression Results of Male Faculty’s Organizational Commitment with four
Types of Leadership Behavior

Table 4.13 Coefficients for Determinants of Male Faculty members Organizational
Commitment


Dependent Variable = Employees organizational Commitment
Independent Variable = Task-oriented Leadership Behavior
Relation-oriented Leadership Behavior
Laissez-faire Behavior
Participatory Decision Making

The Co-efficient of determination R Square reports the proportion of total variation in
dependent variable (Y) explained by all independent variables (X) is taken together. The
R Square

of 0.1326 indicates that 13.2% of the variation in faculty’s organizational
commitment (EOC) is explained by the variation in the four regression Coefficients.
Table 4.13.1

The f-test shows if there is a linear relationship between all of the independent
variables (TOLB, ROLB, LFB and PDM). In our Table the F value is not significant. We
have to accept that there is no linear relationship among the beta coefficients.

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.18
R Square 0.13
Adjusted R Square 0.11
Standard Error 0.26
Observations 155
ANOVA
df SS F Significance F
Regression 4 0.85 1.27 0.285
Residual 151 25.13
Total 155 25.97



109
Table 4.13.2 Results of Male Faculty’s Organizational Commitment and Four types of
Leadership Behavior



From the output of excel, our Multiple Regression equation is as under:-
EOC = 2.88- 0.04 Task Oriented + 0.06 Relationship Oriented – 0.036 Laissez-Faire
+ 0.11 Participatory Decision Making
This equation shows that EOC will decrease by 0.04 units with 1 unit increase in Task
Oriented Leader Behavior keeping the other three independent variables constant.
EOC will increase by 0.06 units with an increase of 1 unit in Relationship behavior,
keeping the other three independent variables constant. EOC will decrease by 0.036
units with an increase of 1 unit in Laissez-Faire, keeping the other three independent
variables constant. EOC will increase by 0.11 units with 1 unit increase in Participatory
Behavior keeping the other three independent variables constant. If all other co-efficient
become zero, even then the EOC will remain 2.88 units. From the table it is evident that
relationship between EOC is highly significant will all the independent variables i.e. the
confidence interval is greater than 95%.







Coefficients St. Error t Stat P-value
Intercept 2.88 0.30 9.58 2.991E-17
Task Oriented -0.04 0.11 -0.37 0.071
Relationship 0.06 0.10 0.60 0.055
Laissez-Faire -0.036 0.04 -0.85 0.039
Participatory 0.11 0.08 1.36 0.017


110
Regression Results of Females Faculty’s Organizational Commitment with
four Types of Leadership Behavior

Table 4.14 Regression Results

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.50
R Square 0.42
Adjusted R Square 0.38
Standard Error 0.26
Observations 82

Dependent Variable = Faculty’s Organizational Commitment
Determining Variables = Task-oriented Leadership behavior
Relation-oriented Leadership Behavior
Laissez-Faire Behavior
Participatory Decision Making
In the equation the R square indicates that 42% of the variation in the regression is
explained by the variation in TOLB, ROLB, LFB and PDM.
Table 4.14.1 F test for determinants of Female Faculty’s Organizational Commitment


The f-test measures the overall significance level of the model. In our regression the F
value is highly significant. So we accept that the independent variables affect together
the value of (EOC) Organizational Commitment.
Table 4.14.2 Co-efficient for Determinants of Female Faculty’s Organizational Commitment

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value
Intercept 2.85 0.45 6.39 0.000
Task Oriented 0.44 0.16 2.75 0.007
Relationship -0.57 0.19 - 2.99 0.003
Laissez-Faire -0.09 0.06 - 1.54 0.017
Participatory 0.36 0.13 2.87 0.005

ANOVA
Df SS F Significance F
Regression 4 5.39 6.32 0.000
Residual 78 16.42
Total 82 21.81


111
This equation shows that EOC will increase by 0.44 units with one unit increase in
task oriented leader behavior keeping the other three independent variables constant.
EOC will decrease by 0.57 units with an increase of one unit in relationship-oriented
behavior. EOC will also decrease by 0.0855 units with an increase of one unit in Laissez-
Faire, keeping the other three independent variables constant. EOC will increase by 0.36
units with one unit increase in Participatory Behavior keeping the other three
independent variables constant. Equation also shows that even if all other co-efficients
become zero, even then the EOC will remain 2.85 units. From the table it is evident that
relationship between EOC is highly significant will all the independent i.e. the
confidence interval is more than 95%.
4.12 Findings about All types of Leadership Behavior and Organizational
Commitment
The findings suggest that organizational commitment and its subscales, affective,
continuance and normative commitments are positively related to task oriented
behavior. This is not unusual for Pakistani universities setup. The research also suggests
that laissez-faire behavior is negatively related to all forms of commitment. This shows
that university management is strongly “keeping track of the faculty’s mistakes”, and
they are not giving the faculty any feedback. This shows poor leadership behavior
whereby the management does not interfere in the faculty’s issues unless their problems
become acute. Therefore timely feedback and action about the situation and problems
require improvement in university management’s actions. The responses on leadership
behavior pertaining to the questions, “He points out my mistakes”, “late action” and
would not interfere unless problems become chronic”, comes with disapproval from


112
faculty regarding the leadership behavior of university management. This behavior also
has an impact on how faculty is feeling regarding their obligation to stay with the
university. If management wants to give negative feedback about mistakes and below
standard performance; it can and should be done in a clarifying and encouraging way.
The other important point is that the leadership needs to improve normative
commitment level by improving their relationship-oriented behavior because all three
OC scales have positive but week relation with relationship-oriented behavior.
Therefore the suggestion for Vice Chancellors and management is that they do need to
work on their relation-oriented style of leadership. They should show trust and do
measures for trust building, confidence building and they should share a common
vision and they must recognize and encourage accomplishments. This was also
suggested by Chughtai & Zafar (2006) that trust in university management was
significantly related to commitment of faculty members. The research showed how
willing the universities heads were to share power with faculty and involve them in
academic decision making. If the faculty members are consulted in the matters affecting
their academic life, if they are given academic freedom, if they have adequate
representation on the board of studies, and if decisions are made on time, there is an
impact on faculty and organizational performance. These findings augment earlier
results which suggested that a bureaucratic environment often resulted in a lower level
of organizational commitment.
The result of this study shows that faculty satisfaction with participative decision
making process is important. A member who is committed to his job is also more
satisfied with his job and will have the intentions of remaining in the same university.


113
This creates a stable environment in the university and increases its chances of higher
educational achievements.

Regression Results of Faculty’s Commitment with Job Satisfaction and Morale

Linear Regression Analysis is applied to find the causal relationship between
employees’ organizational commitment and two dependent variables the job satisfaction
and Morale separately.

Independent Variable = Employees Organizational Commitment

Out Come (Dependent Variable) = Job Satisfaction and Morale

B - EQ (B
1
) = Job Satisfaction = α + β
1
X
1
+ ε
C - EQ (B
2
) = Morale = α + β
2
X
2
+ ε
The outcome variables, the job satisfaction and Morale, one by one were regressed
on Employees organizational commitment. The results of these regression analyses for
the main effect of Employees organizational commitment on job satisfaction and Morale
are shown below on table 4.15 and 4.16 respectively.
Table 4.15 Results of Faculty’s Commitment to Job Satisfaction

Regression Statistics
R Square 0.048
Adjusted R Square 0.044
Standard Error 0.694
Observations 237
Sig. F Change 0.001

Table 4.16 Results of Faculty’s Commitment to Morale

Regression Statistics
R Square 0.093
Adjusted R Square 0.089
Standard Error 0.624
Observations 237
Sig. F Change 0.000


114

Employees’ organizational commitment explained 4.8% variance in Job Satisfaction,
9.3% variance in Morale which is statistically significant.
Table 4.15.1
ANOVA
df Sum of Squares F Significance F
Regression 1 5.76 11.95 0.001
Residual 235 113.27
Total 236 119.04
Predictor: (Constant), EOC
Dependent variable: Job Satisfaction
The F value is 11.95 which is highly significant at 0.001. It indicates that the independent
variable is significantly explaining the variation in the dependent variable. So we reject
the null hypotheses and accept the alternative hypotheses. The regression results are very
significant (p = 0.001) but very high residual sum of squares (113.27) indicate that the
model does not explain a lot of the variation in the dependent variable, and there are other
factors that account for a higher proportion of the variation in the dependent variable.
Table 4.16.1
ANOVA
df Sum of Squares F Significance F
Regression 1 9.35 23.97 0.000
Residual 235 91.69
Total 236 101.05
Predictor: (Constant), EOC
Dependent variable: Morale
The significance value of the F statistic (F=23.97) is less than 0.001 which is highly
significant. It indicates that the independent variable is significantly explaining the
variation in the dependent variable. So we reject the null hypotheses and accept the
alternative hypotheses. Although the regression results are very significant (p < 0.001)
but comparatively high residual sum of squares (91.69) indicate that the model does not
explain a lot of the variation in the dependent variable, and many additional factors that
help account for a higher proportion of the variation in the dependent variable Morale.


115
Table 4.15.2


Coefficient
Beta
Standard
Error t Stat Sig. p-value
Intercept 2.214 0.287 7.709 0.000
EOC 0.220 0.088 3.458 0.001

Dependent variable: Job Satisfaction

JS = 2.214+ 0.220 EOC,
The equation shows that Job Satisfaction will increase by 0.220 units with 1 unit increase
in Employees Organizational Commitment.
Table 4.16.2

Coefficient
Beta
Standard
Error t Stat Sig. P-value
Intercept 2.122 0.258 8.212 0.000
EOC 0.304 0.079 4.896 0.000

Dependent Variable: Morale
Morale = 2.122+ 0.304 EOC,
The equation shows that Morale will increase by 0.304 units with 1 unit increase in
EOC. The results of the regression analysis revealed that Employees organizational
commitment was a significant predictor of job satisfaction
(β= 0.22, p =.001), and Morale (β = 0.30, p < .000). These results confirmed Hypotheses 5
and 6. From the above tables it is evident that relationship between EOC is highly
significant with Job Satisfaction and Morale. The t statistics can help to determine the
relative importance of each variable in the model. The results of regression analysis
show that when job satisfaction and morale were regressed against EOC, the t statistics
for Job Satisfaction was 3.45 and the t statistics for morale was 4.896, which are
statistically significant within a confidence interval of 99% and that implies that


116
organizational commitment has significant impact on both dependent variables but
comparatively higher impact on morale than job satisfaction.
Regression between Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction
(Male and Female)
To find the difference in regression results with respect to gender of the respondents,
the regression was applied on two groups, males and females separately. Firstly, Job
satisfaction is regressed on organizational commitment and secondly Morale is
regressed on organization commitment.
When responses were grouped into male and females, Regression analysis showed
statistically significant results for both male and female respondents. The R Square was
observed .037 for the males and .069 for the females with the same significance level
(p<0.05) with a difference in Beta coefficient (.192 for males and .263 for females) as
shown in the table given below.
Table 4.17

Regression Statistics Males Females
R Square .037 .069
Adjusted R Square .031 .058
Standard Error .66631 .741
Observations 154 82
Sig. F Change .017 .017
Beta coefficient .192 .263











117
Regression between Organizational Commitment and Morale
(Male and Female)

Regression analysis between OC and Morale showed statistically significant results
for both male and female respondents. The R Square was observed .076 for the males
and .121 for the females with the same significance level (p=0.001) with a difference in
Beta coefficient (.276 for males and .347 for females) as shown in the table given below.
Table 4.17.1

Regression Statistics Males Females
R Square .076 .121
Adjusted R Square .070 .110
Standard Error .629 .622
Observations 154 82
Sig. F Change .001 .001
Beta coefficient .276 .347

Results of T Test:

To find the relative difference in the variables due to the gender of the respondents, T
Test is applied. Independent sample method was applied for two groups of sample
respondents the female and the male groups. Results indicated no significant difference
in means between male and female for three of the variables (p>.05).The results are
shown in the given tables.








118
Table 4.18



Table 4.19
Independent Samples Test
.121 .728 .473 235 .637 .04234 .08950 -.13398 .2187
.472 163.7 .638 .04234 .08976 -.13489 .2196
.793 .374 .174 235 .862 .01677 .09667 -.17367 .2072
.167 148.8 .867 .01677 .10034 -.18150 .2150
.084 .772 1.300 235 .195 .09166 .07049 -.04720 .2305
1.297 163.9 .196 .09166 .07067 -.04788 .2312
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
MORALE
JS
OC
F Sig.
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference Lower Upper
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
t-test for Equality of Means


Discussion on Results
The tests were performed to find the causal relationship between Organizational
Commitment and two dependent variables the job satisfaction and Morale. As the
results indicated significant results between OC and the two dependent variables but
low values of R square (4.8% for job satisfaction and 9.3% for Morale) indicated that
Group Statistics
82 3.3990 .65940 .07282
155 3.3567 .65331 .05248
82 3.2071 .76370 .08434
155 3.1903 .67673 .05436
82 3.2933 .51906 .05732
155 3.2016 .51466 .04134
Gender
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
MORALE
JS
OC
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean


119
although Organization commitment is significant and important factor to explain
variation in job satisfaction and Morale but there could be many other factors that may
explain variance in the dependent variables.
It is also inferred from the regression results that OC explains more variance in morale(R
square: 9.3%) than job satisfaction(R square: 4.8%). It shows that employees who have
high organizational commitment, their morale will be relatively higher than job
satisfaction. Job satisfaction may be related to many other related factors of the job.
When results are analyzed with respect to gender of the respondents, there was no
significant difference observed for male and female for both of the dependent variables
in their causal relationships. Even relative importance of three variables i.e. OC, Job
Satisfaction and Morale with respect to gender, there was no significant difference in the
responses.
4.13 Findings about Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, Morale and
Participatory Decision Making
Overall results showed that there was significant relation between organizational
commitment and Job satisfaction but there are other factors which are contributing the
increase in faculty’s job satisfaction. When results were compared between male and
female faculty members, it appeared that both genders were satisfied with their jobs.
The equation showed R square = 0.42 for leadership behavior and R square for job
satisfaction as = .037 and morale = .076 for males. For females R square = .13 in
leadership behavior, for job satisfaction = .069 and morale R Square was = .121. Male
faculty members were more affected by relationship-oriented behavior and participatory
decision making and showed negative impact by task-oriented leadership behavior.


120
Interestingly females showed more commitment to organization with regard to task-
oriented behavior and PDM. And a negative impact was shown by laissez-fare and
relation-oriented behavior. In female faculty members the results of morale were
significant on 95% confidence level of value of coefficient was 0.347 and for males it was
.276. It also showed that morale was an outcome of organizational commitment. Both
genders were more committed to organization and more satisfied with their jobs. This
was not consistent with the findings of (Alvi & Ahmed, 1987), where they suggested that
females were more satisfied from their jobs in Pakistan. Another researcher Beth (2004)
explains the difference between male and female job satisfaction as, “the academic world
was predominantly a male occupation until the later half of the last century, and it is
possible that there are different predictors of satisfaction for males than for females.
Study done by Tang and Talpade (1999) showed that males tended to have higher level
of satisfaction with pay than females and females tended to have a higher level of
satisfaction with coworkers than males. Findings of this research also support these
earlier findings.
The high correlation of task-oriented behavior with organizational commitment and Job
satisfaction implies that university management has a better chance of increasing job
satisfaction through practices that are focused on task-oriented behavior. This means
that increasing the degree to which a task is personally important to individual is more
productive than increasing organizational ties. The findings included: significant
influence on teaching faculty’s morale from job satisfaction, participatory decision
making’s significant influence on morale, leadership behavior’s influence on job
satisfaction, participatory decision making, and relation of participatory decision makin


121
The result of this study shows that faculty satisfaction with participative decision
making process is important. A member who is committed to his job is also more
satisfied with his job and will have the intentions of remaining in the same university.
This creates a stable environment in the university and increases its chances of higher
educational achievements.
g with organizational commitment.
4.14 Hypotheses Evaluation
The following hypotheses were developed and were analyzed during research.
1- The task-oriented behavior of a leader would increase faculty’s organizational
commitment.
a- The task-oriented behavior of a leader would increase organizational commitment in
male faculty members.
b- The task-oriented behavior of a leader would increase organizational commitment in
female faculty members.
2- Relation-oriented behavior increases faculty’s organizational commitment.
3- Laissez-faire behavior has a negative relationship with employees organizational
commitment.
4- Participative decision making has a positive relationship with faculty’s organizational
commitment.
5- Organizational commitment has a positive correlation with Job Satisfaction.
6- Organizational commitment has a positive correlation with morale.
My First hypothesis was proven by regression and correlational analysis. Hypothesis
two showed that it has affect when regressed collectively but when loaded separately A


122
is rejected. And also that female’s organizational commitment is increased by task-
oriented behavior of leaders while decreased by relation-oriented behavior. The results
of males were opposite. Third hypothesis was proved that Laissez-Faire behavior has a
negative relationship with OC.
Fourth hypothesis was proven that participatory decision-making has positive
relationship with OC, and fifth hypothesis was proven that OC has positive
relationship with job satisfaction. Sixth hypothesis was that organizational commitment
has positive correlation with morale and it was also proven.
Four significant findings were identified from this research study;
1. Task oriented leadership factored scores were positively and significantly correlated
with commitment factored scores and therefore task leadership behavior added
significant variance in predicting the level of commitment, (affective, normative and
continuance).
2- Relations oriented leadership behavior factored scores were positively and
significantly correlated with commitment and job satisfaction. Therefore relation
oriented behavior added significant variance in predicting commitment and intention of
faculty to leave or stay.
3- Organizations have different working environment that displays leadership behavior
and had its effects on faculty’s morale.
4- The type of leadership style determines the job satisfaction of faculty.





123
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction

This research thesis examined university faculties’ commitment and how that
commitment is affected primarily by the leadership style of public university’s Vice
Chancellors and private university’s directors or owners. Research also examined affect
of participatory decision on faculty’s organizational commitment. The main purpose of
this thesis was to investigate the relationship between leadership behavior, participatory
decision making and organizational commitment. The research was prompted by lack
of attention in the literature to the influence of leadership behavior and university
faculty’s participation in decision making and its influence on organizational
commitment. It also measured faculty’s job satisfaction, morale, and its relationship with
organizational commitment. Previous work done by Bass & Avolio, Meyer & Allen,
Steers, Locke and Schweiger, Cohen, Brown, Lok, Tagai, Alvi & Ahmed provided the
basis for literature review.
The concept of Organizational Commitment played a central role in this study. There are
many factors that can have effect on organizational commitment, including age, gender,
personality, attitude, climate, and culture (Steers, 1977); Values, fairness of policies,
decentralization, competence, job challenges, degree of autonomy, and variety of skills
used (Meyer & Allen, 1997): Individuals come to organizations with certain needs,
desires, skills, and so forth, and expect to find a work environment where they can
utilize their abilities and satisfy many of their basic needs. When the organizations
provide such a vehicle, the likelihood of increasing commitment is apparently enhanced.
Beyond other factors involved, commitment to the organization is probably most


124
reflective of how employees feel about leaders and the behavior they exhibit (Brown,
2004). More highly educated people would be less committed to the organization and
perhaps more committed to their profession or trade (Steers, 1977).
Participation will lead to greater attainment of high order needs, such as self expression,
respect, independence, and equality, which will in turn increase morale and satisfaction
(Blake & Mouton, 1964, 1967; McGregor, 1960). Highly committed employees should
have a strong desire and intent to remain with the organization. Employees who are
highly committed to the goals of an organization and have positive attitude towards it
should be more likely to have a strong desire to come to work and contribute toward
goals attainment. The importance of decision making in educational institutions has
been recognized as a key function by this research. And a university where a clear
commitment to student learning is apparent, more faculty participation in decision
making is crucial to the overall effective operations of the universities. The increased
support for participatory management comes from a nation’s attention on education,
coupled with the current push for accountability and the increased pressure on Vice
Chancellors to run effective universities.
5.2 Discussion

The main results of this thesis were derived from a questionnaire based survey.
However, interviews and observational data were also gathered to complement the
findings of survey. Mowday et al. (1979) suggested that organizational commitment was
different from job satisfaction in a number of ways. They argued that commitment is a
more global concept, which reflected the general affective response to the organization
as a whole. Job satisfaction, on the other hand, reflected one’s response either to one’s


125
job or to certain aspects of one’s job. Job satisfaction was found to be less stable measure
overtime, reflecting a more immediate reaction to specific and tangible aspects of the
work environment such as pay and supervision (Porter et al. 1974, Smith et al. 1969).
Mowday et al. (1979) concluded that commitment focused on attachment to the
employing organization including its goals and values while satisfaction emphasized the
specific task environment where as employee performed his or her duties. This study
validated a study done by Steers (1977) that having expectations or needs met, led to
satisfaction which resulted in greater commitment among employees.
This research found that job satisfaction and commitment were equally predictive of
voluntary turn over. These were relatively important findings, which contributed
substantially to the development of theory of organizational commitment. Another
important finding from this thesis was that leadership style has positive effect on
commitment while bureaucratic style of leadership had a negative affect on
organizational commitment. The degree of female commitment in Pakistan appears to be
much higher than that of male workers, and age seems inversely related with
commitment (Alvi & Ahmed, 1987). My findings suggested that both male and female
faculty is committed but only the commitment of females is substantial and statistically
significant were on the higher side.
Participatory decision making takes time and time is what faculty might not be
willing to spare. But if this has to work and succeed, the faculty must be willing to spare
and spend time for it. That would also mean coming to campus on week ends.
Willingness and ability goes hand in hand in decision making. For both administrators
and faculty, review of workload, in service training and access to important information


126
is necessary. Faculty members should bear the consequences of their decisions and
actions. The results of current study showed that 90% of the faculty members responded
that they were not part of decisions which are pure academic related; they are not
members of curriculum committees. Faculty is willing to take this responsibility. Faculty
members are not sent for training but they are willing to go. Faculty must be ready for
accountability if they are willing to accept authority.
5.3 Research Questions

The four research questions and the responses that follow were the focus of the study.

1. Is faculty’s commitment influenced by behavior of university leadership?
2. Among the two types of leadership behavior which one contributes more
towards faculty’s intention to stay with their universities?
3. If faculty is consulted in the university’s decision making process would it
have positive influence on their loyalty towards university and what would
be its effect on their satisfaction from their job, organization and
profession?
4. What kind of relation exists between organizational commitment, Job
satisfaction and morale of faculty
The results indicated that significant positive relationship was present between
combined task and relation-oriented behavior and employees’ organizational
commitment. Female faculty members showed positive relationship with task and
negative with relation-oriented behavior. Male faculty members had positive
relationship with relation-oriented behavior and negative relationship with task when
compared separately. This research did provide answer to first question that faculty’s


127
OC is influenced by the university leadership behavior. The answer to second question
was that Task and participatory decision making would be a better model for Pakistani
universities. For third research question suggestions have already been given in chapter
4 on page 117 and 118. Fourth research question was proven that Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction and morale of faculty have a positive relationship and on
correlation matrix it was (0.72).
5.4 Conclusion

The results of this study have important implications for policy makers in the area of
higher education. The first is that faculty satisfaction with their involvement in
university governance is important and should be monitored by the university
administration and by the Higher Education Commission. A faculty member’s level of
satisfaction with the university directly influences his level of commitment to the
university. The reward that a faculty member receives, particularly the intrinsic rewards,
(recommended for higher education or positions) have an effect on their level of
commitment to the university.
Vice Chancellors’ leadership style is also a key to the satisfaction of faculty; his
leadership behavior has a direct effect on job satisfaction. Specially, the Vice
Chancellor’s ability to display “versatile” leadership behavior depending on the
situation is important. There are many ways a university leadership can improve the
level of satisfaction and subsequently the commitment and retention of its faculty. The
administrators should recognize faculty accomplishments both formally and informally,
complementing them on their success in conversations and recognizing success during
faculty meetings.


128
5.5 Limitations of the thesis

The overall response rate for this study was 79%, which is quite a high response rate.
The survey was also conducted at the end of the spring semester when most of the
faculty was going for their summer holidays. Other faculty members were busy with
new admissions. It may have been better to administer the survey when more faculty is
present and they are less busy. Second, the two variables of job satisfaction and morale
which were used in the survey had not been used by the researchers who had done
cutting edge research on the subject such as Bass and Avolio regarding multifactor
leadership and MLQ and Meyer & Allen’s’ organizational commitment.
However the researchers followed the method of convenience sampling which is a non-
random method. Hence the results can not be generalized. Further modification may
also be required to increase their applicability especially with regards to the Pakistani
university. Both sampling techniques and a larger sample might have yielded better
results.
5.6 Implications for Educators and Administrators
“The faculty is the heart of our institutions of higher learning”, (Schuster & Bowen:
1985) as the faculty is important. Smith (1978) pointed out that, “a university is its
faculty” and “the excellence of a university is the excellence of its faculty”. ”Lives and
work of faculty are central to institutional quality and students’ learning” (Austin, and
Splete: 1991). If this is all true then the administration of universities must do all in its
power to improve faculty’s working conditions. That also means listening to faculty and
taking their recommendations and suggestions in university governance issue and
academic decisions, and giving faculty adequate representation on universities board of


129
studies, board of governors, sharing authority, and involving them in policy making
issues. It also requires that faculty should be consulted openly.
Administrators should not play a blame game and should not blame faculty if due to
fulltime load they are not sparing time for the meetings. If that happens the
administrators should not say that the system does not work. “If democracy fails, you
need more democracy, if it fails again you again need more democracy, it does not mean
dictators should take over” (Shahab, 1981).
Administrators also need the skills of open communication, skill of sharing vision
with others, skill of relation and trust building and a skill of recognition and
appreciation. Administrator needs a skill of consensus building, respect for others
views, learn the skill to take criticism and teach them how to give positive feedback.
None of these require huge financial resources, all it needs is change of thinking in the
way faculty is treated and how things are handled.
The findings of this study have implications for people who sit in the interviews,
selection, and hiring panels and serious implications for those who make appointment
decisions of Vice Chancellors. They should appoint those with high qualification,
research background, must follow the guideline laid by HEC for appointing Vice
Chancellors. Those who are eminent scholars, have PhD degrees and research
background and Vice-Chancellors who can build trust and who can exercise authority
not domination, and who are confident enough of themselves to empower others, often
by sending them abroad for training.




130
5.7 Implications for Higher Education Commission and Policy Makers
The HEC wanted to increase the number of PhDs in Pakistan three fold at least. This
policy can only yield results when applied in a rational manner keeping in view the
particular conditions in Pakistan. PhD is the most advanced education, it prepare the
scholar to undertake research at an advanced level. Universities also need sound
academic administration to enable them to excel in their academic performance. Senior
faculty members have spent their lives devoted to good teaching and whatever research
they can do in the absence of required facilities, apart from sharing the very demanding
administrative responsibilities. Each of the three-teaching; research and administration-
are of equal importance. Making any criteria alone on the basis of research for
promotion and appointments would be negating the importance of the other two.
Instead of establishing new universities with foreign faculties there should have been
efforts to improve the existing public and private universities and their existing
faculties. Universities of the country cannot attain the same level of international
universities overnight. The policy makers must thus take in to account past and current
realities. The first engineering university of Pakistan was established 15 years after the
independence. The graduates of this university were very instrumental in the
manufacturing, engineering, technology, electricity, telephone and other related areas.
It took 50 years to establish 7 universities and by establishing 6 engineering universities
in the next 2 years, one wonders what kind of results they would yield, while Pakistan’s
job market has taken a turn around and its economy has become trade-oriented and lot
of jobs for business graduates are available in the marketing sector.


131
Private universities are offering twice or thrice the salary to PhDs as compared to
public sector universities. It may be inferred that only worldly unwise qualified persons
shall seek the job in Public Sector University and those who already have jobs may stay
for unknown reasons in public sector universities. It may not be out of place to mention
that some well qualified and well meaning incumbents have already left. So the need is
also to devise new and attractive pay-scales for university teachers.
5.8 Future Research Needs
While this study added to the literature on faculty’s satisfaction and commitment
with decision making and leadership behavior, there are still many areas for future
research. A major finding of this study was that the university’s top leadership has a
direct effect on faculty members’ commitment and satisfaction. Vice Chancellors or
owners are to provide direction and guidance to the faculty. A more thorough
examination of their role, their own qualification, experience and how it relates to the
benefits of faculty members is needed. One area is to do a comparison of public versus
private sector in the context of salaries, available resources, rewards, housing and
medical facilities and other benefits for the faculty. It would also be interesting to
evaluate gender differences within university faculty and examine the job satisfaction
and commitment. These comparisons could not be made in this study due to sample
size.
5.9 Summary of Major Findings
Much of the results and responses are explained in the results section of chapter 4,
however here are some major findings of the study. The study highlights the fact that
commitment and leadership style and its outcomes, job satisfaction and morale are


132
complex concepts. The basis for this complexity lies in the faculty’s opinion about their
universities leadership. This opinion, if positive, can take faculty to commitment to their
universities and making efforts to achieve the goals. There are examples of personal
sacrifices. It is evident that there is a significant relationship between Vice Chancellors
leadership styles and level of commitment and job satisfaction, the faculty’s morale
tends to rise and fall accordingly. And if we see job satisfaction as a certain element, then
faculty morale is something which requires non job elements such as informal, personal
and social interactions.
Another need arising from the study is that level of organizational commitment, job
satisfaction and morale need to be studied separately in the 18 universities based on
their status as private or public.
5.10 Contribution of This Thesis
The findings of this study highlight a number of contributions. First, it provides
evidence for the importance of Vice Chancellors and university management’s
leadership behaviors that it had direct relationship and effect on faculty’s commitment
toward universities. These results are of great importance for the university
management and policy makers in the higher education in Pakistan. These decision
makers can and should focus on the training and development of faculty, reward and
job involvement and participative decision making in the universities. They should
promote a trust building culture and take measures for the benefit of faculty to bring
more commitment and create a positive environment in the universities and better
working conditions. Another important area, which should be focused by the decision
makers of educational sector, is that the management must listen to senior faculty


133
members specially PhD professors and should see who should be truly running our
higher education institutions both in public and private sector. Professor Alvi’s
comments of Concordia University Canada are worth mentioning here, “the policy
makers in education sector should see it as a guiding light to focus their attention on the
real issues”.
The third contribution of my thesis is that it had brought into limelight the elements
that increase faculty’s job satisfaction, morale and commitment. Also an important
outcome is the finding that when faculty is involved in the decision making their job
satisfaction and morale also increases. And the policy makers can turn their attention to
determine the critical variables, which can improve job satisfaction and morale in our
universities. Earlier researchers like Mowday (1982) and this thesis’s findings are also
consistent on the issue that job satisfaction is an expression of attitude. And it is
organizational commitment, which is more stable over time than job satisfaction. So
focus should also be on increasing organizational commitment. The results also confirm
the theory of Hershy & Blanchards (1985), that there exists two significant types of
leadership behavior over cross cultures, and those are task and relation oriented
behaviors. Bass and Avolio (1995) suggested relation oriented behavior to be more
dominant in their findings and current research found task oriented behavior to be more
dominant in Pakistani settings. The findings also support theory Y of management that
employees should be consulted and trusted in delegations and in the matters which are
going to affect them. Lastly this thesis also revealed the non leadership behavior and
bureaucratic and biased discouraging environment which is being created by non
academic heads of universities.


134
References
1. Aaron, C. 1993. Organizational commitment and Turnover: A Meta analysis. The
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1140-1157.
2. AAUP Bulletin, 1971. Report of Sub committee. Spring, 69-124.
3. Alfie, K. 1995.Educational Leadership, Punished by rewards: 53(1)
www.ascd.org/reading room/ed lead.
4. Altbach, Philip, G. 1996. Academic Freedom, Portraits of fourteen countries,
Edited by Carnegie foundation for the advance of teaching. San Francisco: Josey – Bass,
1996.
5. Allen, N. and Meyer, J. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,
1-18.
6. Altbach, P.G., and Lewis, L. 1995. Professional attitudes: An international survey.
Change, Nov/Dec, 1995. 51-57.
7. Altman, D. 1980. A farewell to Sydney University. The National Times, April 27-
May 3, 1980.
8. Alvi Shafiq. & Ahmed, W. 1987. Assessing Organizational Commitment in a
Developing Country: Pakistan, A case study. Human Relations, Volume 40,
Number 5, 1987, pp 267-280
9. Amason, A. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional
conflict in strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management
teams. Academy of Management Journal. 39 (1).
10. Anderson, D. 1994. Organizational culture preference and personality in senior
retail managers. Masters Thesis, University of Western Ontario.
11. Angle, H. & Perry, J. 1981. An empirical assessment of organizational
Commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 26, 1-14.
12. Austin, A.E., & Rice, R. 1988. High faculty morale. Change, Mar/Apr, 1988. 51-
58. a
13. Austin, A.E., Rice, R.E., & Splete, A. 1991. The academic workplace audit.
Washington, DC: Council of independent Colleges, Eric Document ED 338.132.


135
14. Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A., and Yammarino, F. 1991. The four I’s of
transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training. 26, 22-33.
15. Bass, B. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York,
NY: Free Press. Resources in a period of constraint. New Directions for Institutional
Research. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc.
16. Bass, B. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations New York: Free
Press.
17. Bass, B.M., and Avolio, B.J. 1993. Transformational leadership and
organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, Spring 1993. Vol 17, 110-112.
18. Bass, B. & Avolio, B 1990. Transformational leadership development: Manual
for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
19.. Bass, B. 1998. Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and
Educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 64.
20. Bass, B. 1967. Some effects on a group, of whether and when the head reveals
his opinion. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2, 235-382.
21. Bass, B. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York,
NY: Free Press.
22. Bass, B. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: The Free
Press.
23. Bass, B. 1998. Transformational leadership: industrial, military, and educational
impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
24. Bass, B. & Avolio, B. 1995. MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire. Red Wood
City, CA: Mind Garden.
25. Bass, B. & Avolio, B. 1997. Full range leadership development: Manual for the
multifactor leadership questionnaire. Red Wood City, CA: Mind Garden.
26. Bass, B. 1960. Leadership, psychology and organizational behavior. New York,
NY: Harper.
27. Battersby, D. 1990. Factors influencing the turnover and retention of registered
nurses in NSW hospitals, a report to the NSW College of Nursing.’ New South
Wales College of Nursing, Sydney, Australia.


136
28. Bateman, T. & Strasser, S. 1984. A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of
organizational commitment. Academy of Management journal, 27, 95-112.
29. Baldwin, R.G., & Blackburn, R. 1983. The condition of the professoriate: The
variables and the data bases in college faculty: Versatile Human.
30. Becker, H. 1960. Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of
Sociology, 66, 32-42
31. Beetham, D. 1987. Bureaucracy. Open University Press, Milton Keyness,
Scotland. UK.
32. Behling, O. & McFillen , J. 1996. A syncretical model of charismatic&
transformational leadership. Group & Organizational Management, Vol. 21 No. 2,
163-191.
33. Bernard M. Bass. 1990. From Transitional to Transformational Leadership:
Learning to Share the Vision. Organizational Dynamics, (Winter 1990).
34. Bernard M. Bass, & Avolio, B. 1993. Transformational Leadership and
Organizational Culture. Public Administration Quarterly, Spring (1993), Volume 17,
issue 1 pp 112.
35. Bernard M. Bass & Steidlmeier, P. 1999. Ethics, Character, and Authentic
Transformational Leadership Behavior. Leadership Quarterly, Summer (1999),
Volume 10, Issue 2.
36. Beth, M.C. 2004. Faculty satisfaction and organizational commitment with
industry-university research centers. Doctorate Dissertation, North Carolina
University, Raleigh, USA.
37. Bhagat, R.S., and Chassie, M. 1981. Determinants of organizational commitment
in working women: Some implications for organizational integration. Journal of
Occupational Behavior, 1981, 2, 17-30.
38. Blake, R. & Mouton, J. 1964. The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
39. Blake, R. and Mouton, J. 1978. The new management Grid. Gulf Houston. USA.
40. Blake & Mouton, J. 1985. The managerial grid III. Houston: Gulf Publishing,
1985.
41. Blair, M. 1995. Ownership and control. Washington. The Brookings Institution.
USA


137
42. Bowers & Seashore, S. 1966. Relation-oriented behavior. Journal of Educational
Administration and Management, 20 (3) 1972.
43. Bradley, E.W. & Kim, S. 2004. Participation’s influence on job satisfaction.
Review of Public Personnel Administration. 24, 18-24.
44. Bruce J. Avolio, B. 2000. E-Leadership: Implications for theory, research and
practice. Leadership Quarterly, winter 2000, Volume 11, Issue 4.
45. Bruce J. Avolio, Bernard M. Bass & Jung, D. 1999. Re-examining the
Components of Transformational and Transactional leadership using the
multifactor questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
December (1999), Volume 2, Part 4 pp 441.
46. Brooke, P.P, & Price, J. 1989. The determinants of employee absenteeism: an
empirical test of a causal model. Journal of Occupational Psychology 62 (1), 1-19.
47. Brown, W, O. 1997. University Governance and Academic Tenure: A
Property Rights Explanation. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics
153, 441-461.
48. Brown, B. 2003. Employees’ organizational commitment and their perception of
supervisors’ relation-oriented and task-oriented leadership behavior. Thesis
published 2003. Virginia Polytechnic Institute. USA.
49. Brown, A., 1995. Organizational Culture. Pitman London, U.K.
50. Brown, W. 2005. Faculty Participation in university governance and the effects
on university performance. Working papers on Economics, Claremont College,
Claremont, CA. USA.
51. Brown, R.B. 1996. Organizational Commitment: Clarifying the concept and
simplifying the existing construct typology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 230-
251.
52. Brubacher, J.S. 1977. On the philosophy of higher education. Australian
Universities Review, 1977.
53. Buchanan, B. 1974. Building organizational commitment: The socialization of
managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19, 533-546.
54. Buchanan, B. 1974. Building organizational commitment: the socialization of
managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.
55. Bukhari, M. 2009. Cultivating fields of gold. DAWN 25 January, 2009


138
56. Burns, J.M. 1978. Leadership. Harper and Row, New York. USA.
57. Burns, J.M. 1978. Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row
58. Bush, K, & Spangler, R. 1990. The effects of quality circles on performance and
promotions. Human Relations, 43, 573-582.
59. Bryman, A. 1992. Charisma and leadership in organization. Sage London.
60. Bycio, P., Hackett, R., & Allen, J. 1995. Further assessment of Bass’s 1985
conceptualization of transactional & transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 468-478.
61. Carnegie Foundation (for the advancement of teaching). 1986. Change,
March/Apr 1986.
62. Campbell, D.T., and Fiske, D. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by
the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, Vol 56, 81-105.
63. Campisano, F. 1992. A theoretical model for the effects of the schoolwork
environment in Jesuit high school. Abstract form: Pro Quest file: Dissertation
Abstracts International Item: 54/01.
64. Chao, Chi Yang; Huang, Yi Li, Lin; Chi W. 2006. The relationship between
behavior of a principal and quality of work life teachers in an industrial vocation
high school in Taiwan. Department of Industrial Education and Technology, National
Changua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan, R.O.C.
65. Chughtai, A.A. & Zafar, S. 2006. Antecedents and consequences of
organizational commitment among Pakistani university teachers. Applied Human
Resources Management Research, 2006, VII, no1, 39-64.
66. Cook, S. & Nigel, L. 2007. Management Decision Making. Pan Books Ltd.
London. 12-32.
67. Cotton, J. 1993. Employee involvement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
68. Cohen. A. 1999. Relationships among five forms of commitment: An empirical
assessment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 285-308.
69. Cohen, A. 1996. On the discriminant validity of the Meyer &Allen measure of
organizational commitment: How does it fit with the work commitment construct.
Educational & Psychological Measurement, 56, 494-503.


139
70. Cohen, A. 1993. Organizational commitment and turnover: A meta-analysis.
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol.36, 1140-1157.
71. Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. 1988. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in
organizational effectiveness. Josey Bass, San Francisco.
72. Cotton, J.L., David, A. Vollrath, Kirk, L. Froggatt, Mark, L. Lengnick-Hall,
Kenneth. R. 1988. Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes.
The Academy of Management Review. Vol 13, 8-22.
73. Cramer, D.1996. Job satisfaction and organizational continuance commitment:
A two-wave panel study. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 17, 389-400.
74. Daniels, K., & Bailey, A. 1999. Strategy development processes and
participation in decision making: predictors of role stressors and job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8(1), 27-42.
75. Danna, K., and Griffin, R.W. 1999. ‘Health and wellbeing in the workplace: A
review and synthesis of the literature.’ Journal of Management, 25, (3). 357-384.
76. Darwish A. 2000. Organizational Commitment: a mediator of the relationships
of leadership behavior with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western
country. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol, 15 No. 1, pp./ 6-28.
77. Davis, C. 1997. An analysis of selected variables regarding teacher absenteeism
in selected urban elementary school. Abstract from Pro Quest File: Dissertation
International Item: 58.09.
78. Davis, B.S., & Wright, B. 2003. Job satisfaction in the public sector: the role of
the work environment. American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 70-90..
79. Decotis, T.A., and Summers, T. 1987. A path analysis of a model of the
antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment’. Human Relations, 40:
445-470.
80. Fiedler, F. 1967. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
81. Fiedler, F. 1967. A theory of leadership effectiveness.’ McGraw Hill, New York.
82. Fisher, J. 1994. Reflections of Transformational Leadership, problem-oriented
policing. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York.
83. Fiedler, F. 1996. Research on leadership selection and training: One view of the
future. Administrative Science Quarterly (June 1996)


140
84. Fleishman, E.1951. Leadership climate and supervisory behavior. Columbus,
OH: Ohio State University, Personnel Research Board.
85. Fullmer, R. 1997. The evolving paradigm of leadership development.
Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 25(4), 59-73.
86. Gary S. I. & Moore, J. 1997. Content analysis in leadership research: Procedures,
and Suggestions for Future use. Leadership Quarterly, Spring 1997, Vol 8, Issue 1.
87. Gary Y. 1991, 2003. Participative leadership, Delegation, and
Empowerment, McGraw Hill, 80- 84
88. Goodwin L. V; Brian, M. & Whittington J. 2004. Transformational leadership,
goal difficulty, and job design: Independent and interactive effects on employee
outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 15, Issue 5, October (2004) pp 593-606.
89. Gouldner, A. 1957, 1958. Cosmopolitans and locals: toward an analysis of latent
social roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 281-306, 444-480.
90. Griffin, R.A., & Bateman, T. 1986. Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 157-
188.
91. Grosorf, M., Sardy, H. 1985. A research primer for the social and behavioral
Sciences. Orlando: Academic Press.
92. Hacket, R., Bycio, P. & Hansdorf, P. 1991. Further assessment of a three-
component model of organizational commitment. Proceedings of the Academy of
Management, 212- 216.
93. Hacket, R.D., Bycio, P. and Hausdorf, P. 1994. Further assessment of Meyer and
Allen’s (1991) three component model of organizational commitment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 15-23.
94. Hagedorn, L. 1994. Retirement proximity’s role in the prediction of satisfaction
in academe. Research in Higher Education, 35 (6) 711-728.
95. Halford, A. 1994. Faculty morale-enhancing it in spite of diminishing resources
and challenges, paper presented at the international conference for community
college chairs, dean, and other instructional leaders. Phoenix, AZ. Feb 23-26, 1994.
96. Hansmann, H, B. 1996. The ownership of Enterprise. Cambridge, Harvard
University Press.


141
97. Hater, J.J., Bass, B. 1998. Supervisor’s evaluation and subordinates perceptions
of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
73(4), 695-702.
98. Hater, J.J., Bass, B. 1998. Supervisor’s evaluation and subordinates perceptions
of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
73(4), 695-702.
99. Haque, S., Ahmed, N. 2006. Lower expectation. Dawn, Sunday, October 1. 2006.
100. Hemphill, J.K. 1952. Leader behavior description. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
Leadership Studies.
101. Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. 1982. Management of organization behavior:
utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliff., NJ: Prentice-Hall.
102. Hersey, R. & Blanchard, T. 1969. Management of organizational behavior. 4
th

ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
103. Holly H. Brower, David F. Schoorman, & Hwee Hoon T. 2000.A model of
Relational Leadership: The integration of Trust and Leader-member exchange.
Leadership Quarterly, summer (2000), Volume 11, Issue 2.
104. Hom, P.W., Kateberg, R. & Hulin, C. 1979. Comparative commitment of three
approaches to the prediction of turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1979, 64,
280-290.
105. Hoodbhoy, P.2009. A poisoned chalice. DAWN 18 January 2009
106. Hort, l. and Oxley, H. 1992. Academic perceptions of their roles pre and post
the new higher education policy. Australian Universities Review, 35, (2) 13-16.
107. House, R. 1971. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 43, 321-328.
108. House, R. Filley, A., & Kerr, S. 1971. Relation of leader consideration and
initiating structure to R and D subordinates satisfaction. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16(1), 19-30.
109. Hunter, M., Ventimiglia, J., Crow, Mary. L. 1980. Faculty morale in higher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), March-April, 1980.
110. Huselid, Mark A & Day, Nancy E. 1991. Organizational Commitment, job
involvement and turnover, A substitute and methodological analysis, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76, 380-394.


142
111. Ivancevich, J. 1977. Different goal setting treatments and their effects on
performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 406-419.
112. Iverson, R.D., and Roy, P. 1994. A causal model of behavioral commitment:
Evidence from a study of Australian Blue-Collar employees. Journal of Management,
20(1), 15-41.
113. Jason D. Shaw, Abdulla, M. 2003. Organizational Commitment and
performance among guest workers and citizens of an Arab country. Journal of
Business Research 56 (2003) 1021-1030
114. Jean, L.B. & Jossey, B. 1999. The connective Edge: A review by John K.
Kennedy Jr. Leadership Quarterly, Spring (1999), Volume 10, Issue 1.
115. J. Edward Russo & Schoemaker, P. 1989. Decision Traps, Ten Barriers to
decision making and how to overcome them. Routledge London. 3-11.
116. Jermier, J, & Berkes, L. 1979. Leader behavior in a police command
Bureaucracy: A closer look at the quasi-military model. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24, 1-23.
117. Jermier, M. 1996. The path-Goal theory of Leadership: A sub textual Analysis.
Leadership Quarterly, fall 1996, Volume 7, Issue 3.
118. Joan B, 2004. The leadership factor: Management Practices can Make
employees sick. Public Sector Quality Fair, National Quality Institute Canada,
October (2004), www.psqf.org.
119. John S. 2004. Leadership in Organizations, Current Issues and Key Trends.
Routledge, London.
120. John L. Cotton; David A. Vollrath; Kirk L. Froggatt; Mark L. Lengnick-Hall;
Kenneth R. J 1988. Employee Participation: Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes.
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 1 Jan., 1988, 8-22
121. Joseph D. 1961. The Art of Decision-Making. The World’s Work Ltd, UK
122. Jung, D. & Avolio, B. 2000. Opening the black box: An experimental
investigation of the mediating effects of trusts and value congruence on
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,
949-964.
123. Kacmar, K.M., Carlson, D.S., and Brymer, R. 1999. Antecedents and
consequences of organizational commitment: A comparison of two scales. Educational
and Psychological Measurement,59, 976-994.


143
124. Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P. Snoek, J.D. and Rosenthal, R. 1964.
Organizational Stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Wiley, New York.
125. Kanungo, R.N. 1998. Leadership in organizations: looking ahead to the 21
century. ‘Canadian Psychology, 39(1-2), 71-82. 45.Kotter, J. 1990. ‘What leaders really
do’? Harvard Business Review, 103-105
126. Kanungo, R.N. 1982. Measurement of job and work involvement.’ Journal of
Applied Psychology, 67, 341-349.
127. Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and
measurement. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 22, 375-403.
128. Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and
measurement. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 22, 375-403.
129. Kinicki, A.J., McKee-Ryan, F.M., Schriesheim, CA. & Carson, K. 2002.
Assessing the construct validity of the job descriptive index: a review and Meta
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 87, 14-32.
130. Koch, J.L., and Steers, R. 1978. Job attachment, satisfaction, and turnover
among public employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol 12, 119-128.
131. Kotter, J. 1990. What leaders really do? Harvard Business Review, 103-105.
132. Kramer, R.M., Brewer, M.B., and Hanna, B.J. 1996. Collective trust and
collective action: The decision to trust as a social decision. In R.M. Kramer and T.R.
Tyler (Eds.) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
133. Kuresa, T. 1999. Factors affecting faculty morale in Seventh - day Adventist
tertiary institutions. Research dissertation, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
134. Leonard R. 1999. Managerial Behavior and a Journey Through Time.
Leadership Quarterly, Spring (1999), Volume 10, Issue 1.
135. Lewin.K. & Lippitt, R. 1938. An experimental approach to the study of
autocracy and democracy: A preliminary note.’ Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-
300.
136. Likert, J. & Sorenson, 1967, 2000. The human organization: its management and
value. New York: McGraw-Hill’s


144
137. Loui, K.T., & Nyhan, R. 1994. Dimensions of organizational commitment in
the public sector: An empirical assessment. Public Administration Quarterly. 18, 99-
118.
138. Locke, E. 1991. The essence of leadership. New York: Lexington Books.
139. Lok, P. 1999. The relationship between commitment and organizational
culture, subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction. Doctoral Dissertation,
Graduate School of Business, University of Technology, Sydney. Australia.
140. Loui, K. 1995. Understanding employee commitment in the public
organization: A study of the juvenile detention center. International Journal of
Public Administration. 18(8), 1269-1295.
141. Madron, T.W., Craig, J.R., and Mendal, R. 1976. Departmental morale as a
function of the perceived performance of department heads. Research in Higher
Education, Vol 5, 83-94.
142. Mahmood, S. 1999. Techniques to involve teachers in schools decision making
process. Journal of Elementary Education. 1999, 9 1-2)University of The Punjab, Lahore
Pakistan
143. Marsh & Mannari, H. 1977. Organizational Commitment and turnover: A
prediction study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1977, 22. 57-75.
144. Martin, C.L., & Bennett. N. 1996. The role of justice judgments in explaining
the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Group
and Organization Management, 21, 84-104.
145. Martin G. E. 1996. R.J.House’s path-goal theory of leader effectiveness.
Leadership Quarterly, Volume 7, Issue 3 pp 305
146. Masih C. J., & John W. 1999. Leadership style, school climate, and the
institutional commitment by Teachers. International Forum April 1999; Vol 2, No
1.
147. Maslow, A. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,
370-396.
148.Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
149. Mathieu, J. and Zajac, D. 1990. A review and meta analysis of the antecedents,
correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin,
108, 171-194.


145
150. McCormick, R.E. and Meiners, R. 1989. University Governance: A property
Rights Perspective. The Journal of Law and Economics 1, 423-442.
151. McDaniel, A.k. 1992. A comparison of elementary and secondary school with
respect to level of conflict, conflict resolution behavior, teacher commitment, and
organizational climate. Abstract from Pro Quest File: Dissertation Abstracts
International Item, 53/07.
152. McFarlene, S.L., & Wayne, S. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior:
comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, (5), 774-780.
153. McFarlene, S.L., & Wayne, S. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior:
comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, (5), 774-780.
154. McGregor, D. 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
155. McPherson, M.S., & Schapiro, M. 1999. Tenure issues in higher education.
Journal of Economics Perspective. 13) 1), 85-98.
156. Meyer, J., Allen, N., & Smith, C. 1993. Commitment to organizational and
occupations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551.
157. Meyer, J. &Allen, N. 1984. Testing the ‘side-bet’ theory organizational
commitment; reexamination of the continuance and affective scales. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.
158. Meyer, M. 1968. The two authority structures of bureaucratic organization.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 211-228.
159. Meyer, J.,Stanely, D., Herscovitch, L. & Topolnytoky, L. (in the press).
Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A Meta
analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences.
160. Meyer, J. & Allen, N. 1984. Testing the side-bet theory of organizational
commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
69, 372-378.
161. Meyer, J.P., & Herscovitch, L. 2001. Commitment in the workplace: towards a
general model. Human Resources Management Review, 11, 299-326.
162. Meyer, J. &Allen, N. 1991. A three component conceptualization of
organizational commitment. Human Resources Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.


146
163. Middlehurst, R. 1993. Leading Academics. The Society for research into
Higher Education and Open University Press, Buckingham. UK.
164. Milgrom, P., and Roberts, J. 1992. Economics, organization and management.
Englewoods Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
165. Miller, K.I., and Monge P. 1986. Participation, Satisfaction, and Productivity: A
Meta analytic Review. Academy of management Journal, 29 (4), 727-753.
166. Miller, H. 1992. The state of academic profession: An Australia-United
Kingdom comparison. Australian Universities Review, 35(2), 21-25.
167. Misumi, J. 1985. The behavioral science of leadership: An interdisciplinary
Japanese research Program. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
168. Mobley, W.H., Griffith, Hand, N.H, Meglino, B. 1979. Review and conceptual
analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522.
169. Mobley, W., Griffith, R., & Meglino, B. 1979. Review and conceptual analysis
of the employer turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522.
170. Moore, K.M., and Gardner, P. 1992. Faculty in a time of change: job
satisfaction and career mobility. A Research and Technical Report, East Lansing,
Michigan State University.
171. Morrow, P. 1983. ‘Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of
work environment. Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 486-500.
172. Morrow, P. 1983. The theory and measurement of work commitment. JAI
Press. Greenwich, CT.
173. Morrow, P. 1993. The theory and measurement of work commitment.
Greenwich, CT: JAL.
174. Morris, J.H., & Sherman, J. 1981. Generalizability of an organizational
commitment model. Academy of Management Journal. 1981, 24, 512-526.
175. Morrow, P.C., Eastman, K. and McElroy, J. 1991. Concept redundancy and
rater naivety in organizational research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 21, 219-
232.
176. Mowday, R.T., Porter, I.W., & Dubbin, R. 1974. Unit performance, situational
factors and employee attitudes in spatially separated work units. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 1974, 12, 231-248.


147
177. Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. 1982. Employee organization linkage.
Academic Press, New York.
178. Mowday, R. Steers, R. & Porter, L. 1979. The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
179. Mowday, R.Y., Steers, R., &Porter, L. 1979. The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
180. Mowday, R.J., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R. 1982. Employee organization linkage:
The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic
Press.
180. News and Views, Higher Education Commission, February 2006.
181. Noel M. T., & Mary, A. 1986. The Transformational Leader. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1986).
183. Nienhuis, R. 1994. Satisfied faculty and Involved chairpersons: Keys to faculty
retention, paper presented at the annual meeting of the association for the study of
higher education. (Tucson, AZ. Nov10-13, 1994).
184. Ouchi, W. 1981. Theory Z. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
185. Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. 1996. Great Ideas: Revisiting the Life Cycle
Theory of Leadership. Training & Development Journal. January 1996.
186. Paul Pigors, Charles A. M. 1951. Personnel Administration: A point of View
and a Model. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. New York
187. Pestonjee, D. 1973. Organizational Structures and job attitudes. Calcutta, The
Minerva Associates.
188. Peter G 1995. The Current Obsession with Transformational Leadership.
Leading & Managing, 1(1),14-27, 1995.
189. Peter, L. 1997. The influence of organizational culture, subculture, leadership
style and job satisfaction on organization commitment’. Doctoral Dissertation,
Graduate School of Business, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
190.Porter, Lyman. W., Richard, M. Steers, Richard, T. Mowday, and Paul. V. 1974.
Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric
technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59: 603-609.


148
191. Porter, L.W., Campton, W.J. and Smith, F. 1976. Organizational commitment
and managerial turnover: Longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 15: 87-98.
192. Potter, R. 1983. Faculty participation in university governance: Australia and
the United States. The Journal of Educational Administration, 21, (1) 52-68.
193. Porter, L.W., & Smith, F. 1971. Etiology and organizational commitment.
Graduate School of Administration, University of California. USA.
194. Price, J., & Mueller, C. 1981. Professional turnover: the case of nurses. Medical
and Scientific Books, New York.
195. Rahman, A. 2006. Who should head a university? Dawn December 05,2006
Islamabad, Pakistan.
196. Randal, D. 1987. Commitment and the organization: the organizational man
revisited. Academy of Management Review, Vol 12, 460-471.
197. Reichers, A. 1985. A review and reconceptualization of organizational
commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 3, 465-476.
198. Rhodes, S. & Steers, R. 1981. Conventional vs. workers owned organizations.
Employees and responsibilities Journal, 2, 121-139.
199. Rice, R.E., & Lovett. G. 1987) .Electronic emotion: Socio-emotional content in a
computer mediated network. Communication Research, 15, no 1, 85-108.
200. Rice, R.E., and Austin, A. 1988. High faculty morale: What exemplary colleges do
right? Change, March/April, 1988, 51-58.
201. Ritzer, G., & Trice, H. M. 1969. ‘An empirical study of Howard Becker’s side bet
theory’. Sociological Forces, 47, 475-477.
202. Ritzer, L. 1992. Organizational commitment: A construct validation of two
measures and an examination of antecedents and consequences. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 53.
203. Ritzer, G., & Trice, H. 1969. An empirical study of Howard Becker’s side bet
theory. Sociological Forces, 47, 475-477.
204. Rizzo, J., House, R. and Lirtzman, S. 1970. Role conflict and Ambiguity in
complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,15, 150-163.


149
205. Robert, R. & McCanse, A. 1991. Leadership Dilemmas-Grid Solutions.
Houston: Gulf Publishing,
206. Robert J 1971. A Path-Goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly. September 1971.
207. Robbins, S. 1989. Organizational behavior: concepts, controversies, and
applications. NJ: Prentice Hall.
208.Ronald R. 2002. Using a Notion of acceptable in uncertain ordinal decision
making. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge based Systems,
Vol, 10 No3. 241-256.
209. Salancik, G. 1977. Commitment and the control of organizational behavior.
New Direction in Organizational Behavior, Chicago, St. Clair Press, 1977, 1-55.
210. Sanjeev, A., Thomas E. De C., & Shyam B. 1999. Leadership Behavior &
Organizational Commitment: A comparative study of American and Indian Sales
persons. Journal of International business Studies, 30, 4 (fourth quarter 1999), pp 727-
743.
211. Sankowsky, D. 1995. The charismatic leader as narcissist: understanding the
abuse of power. Organizational Dynamics, 23(4), 57-71.
212. Schuster, J.H., and Bowen, H. 1985. The faculty at risk. Change, September &
October, 1985, 13-21.
213. Schein, E. 1970. Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
214. Scholl, R. 1981. Differentiating commitment from expectancy as a motivating
force. Academy of Management Review. 6, 589-599.
215. Shahab, Q. 1980. Shahab Nama. Karvan-i-Adab Lahore 1980
216. Shore, L., & Wayne, S. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior:
Comparison of effective commitment and continuance commitment with
perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 774-780.
217. Smith, Peter B; Wang Z. 1997. Leadership, Decision Making and Cultural
Context. Event Management within Chinese Joint Ventures. Leadership Quarterly,
winter 1997, Vol 8, issue 4.
218. Smith, P., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. 1969. The measurement of satisfaction in
work and retirement. Chicago: rand McNally & Co.


150
219. Smith, B. 1982. An initial test of theory of charismatic leadership based on the
responses of subordinates. Faculty of management, University of Toronto, Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation.
220. Staw, B., & Salancik, G. 1977. New directions in organizational behavior.
Chicago: St Clair press.
221. Stogdill and Coons. 1991. Leadership behavior quadrants. Educational
Administrations: Concepts and practices, 1991, Belmont CA: Wad worth 98-
222. Steers, R. 1977. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 46-56.
223. Stevens, J. M., Beyer, J. M., and Trice, N. 1978. Assessing personal role, and
organizational predictors of managerial commitment. Academy of Management
Journal, 21, 380-396.
224. Stevens, B. 1978. The head nurse as manager. Journal of Nursing Administration,
4(1), 36-40.
225. Stogdill, R. 1963. ‘Manual for the leader behavior questionnaire-Form XII.
Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
226. Stone, F.E., and Porter, L. 1975. Job characteristics and job attitudes: A
multivariate study. Journal of Applied Psychology,6, 57-64.
227. Stevens, J., Beyer, J., & Trice, H. 1978. Assessing personal role, and
organizational predictors of managerial commitment. Academy of Management
Journal, 21(3), 380-396.
228. Tariq, R 2009. Higher education in crises. DAWN January 2009
229. Tabachink, B.G., & Fidel, L.S. 2001. ‘Using multivariate statistics.’ (4
th
ed).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
230. Tang, T.L. & Talpade, M. 1999. Sex differences in satisfaction with pay and co-
workers: Faculty and staff at a public institution of higher education. Public
Personnel Management, 28, 345-349.
231. Thornton, R. 1970. Organizational involvement and commitment to
organization and profession. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(4), 417-426.
232. Tom P. 1990. Get innovative or get dead. California Management Review, fall
1990 pp 9-26.


151
233. Tracey, J.B., T.R. Hinkin, S. Tannebaum., & Mathieu, J. 2001. The influence of
individual characteristics and the work environment on varying levels of training
outcomes. Human Resources Development Quarterly. 12(1), 5-23.
234. Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J. 1993. The culture of work organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
235. Victor. V., & Philip Y. 1973. Leadership and decision making Pittsburg:
University of Pittsburg Press.
236. Vicere, A. 2000. Ten observations on e. learning and leadership development.
Human Resource Planning, 23(4), 34-47.
237. Vicere, A. 2000. Ten observations on e. learning and leadership development.
Human Resource Planning, 23(4), 34-47.
238. Virk. M. 2006. Toil and Trouble. Dawn, Sunday. November 5 and 12. 2006.
239.Virk,.m & Issani, “Higher Education In Pakistan” 2004
240. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. 1988. The new leadership: Managing participation
in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
241. Vroom, V. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.
242. Vroom, V. 1987. Some personality determinants of the effects of participation.
New York: Garland Publication. 1987, c1960. 158.7.
243. Vroom, V.H., Yetton, W. 1973. Leadership & decision making. University of
Pittsburgh Press. (1973) 303-340.
244. Vroom, V.H., & Jago, A.G. 1988. ‘The new leadership: Managing participation in
organizations.’ Engle wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
245. Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. 1973. Leadership and decision making. University of
Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg.
246. Wallace, J. 1995. Organizational and professional commitment in professional
and non-professional organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 228-255.
247. Waldman, D.A., & Yammarino, F. 1999. CEO and charismatic leadership:
Levels of management and levels of analysis effects. Academy of Management
Review; 24(2), 266-286.


152
248. Wasti, S. 2004. Combinations of organizational commitment forms and job
outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior 1-19
249. Weber, M. 1947. The theory of social and economic organizations.’ Translated by T.
Parsons. New York: Free Press.
250. Weiss, H.M., & Cropanzeno, R. 1996. Affective events theory: a theoretical
discussion of the structure causes and consequences of affective experiences at
work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74.
251. Weiner, Y. and Verdi, Y. 1980. Relationships between job, organization and
work outcomes: An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 26, 81-96.
252. Westley, F & Mintzberg, H. 1989. Visionary leadership and strategic
management. Strategic management Journal, 10: 17-32.
253. White. M. 1993. Employee commitment and the skills revolution. Policy Studies
Institute London UK.
254. WWW.dawn.com/weekly.education/education 1.htm.
255. Yair, B. & Bruce J. 2004. Transformational leadership and the dissemination of
Organizational Goals: A case study of a Telecommunication firm. Leadership
Quarterly 15(2004) pp 625-646.
256. Yammarino, F., Spangler, W., & Bass, B. 1993. Transformational leadership
and performance: A longitudinal investigation’. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 81-102.
257. Yoon, J., & Thye, S. 2002. A dual process model of organizational commitment,
Job satisfaction and organizational support. Journal of Work and Occupations, 29, 97-
124.
258. Yukl, G. 1989. Leadership in organization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
259. Yukl, G. 2002. Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
260. Zalezinik, A. 1977. Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard
Business Review, 55(5).







153
APPENDIX A, Covering Letter
Center for Advance Studies in Engineering
G-5
Islamabad

22 May 2006

Dear Colleague,

You are invited to participate in a study of leadership behavior and participatory
decision makings effect on employee’s organizational commitment, a study of
Pakistani higher education. I hope to find out factor that effect job satisfaction and
morale and commitment in Pakistani universities. I have selected 18 universities
across the country and your university is one of them.
Would you please take a little time from your busy schedule to respond to the
questionnaire – if at all possible within the next two weeks? It is confidential, and I
am hoping that it would only take 15 to 20 minutes of your time. When completed
please return it in the stamped envelope provided.
After receiving back the questionnaire I plan to follow it up with several semi-
structured interviews done face-to-face. If after responding to the questionnaire
you decide that, I can interview you, and then please return the enclosed interview
card in the same envelope. I would be contacting you after I receive the
questionnaire.
If you would like to receive the findings of this research, then please tick at the box
on the interview card, I will Inshallah send you a summary of the findings.

Thank you sincerely for your time and cooperation



Muhammad I. Ramay










154
APPENDIX B, Questionnaire Personal Demographics

Survey Questionnaire for Research

Respected Sir/Madam
I am working on my thesis for PhD and title of my research is:
Leadership Behavior and Participatory Decision Making Influence the Employees
Organizational Commitment: A case of Pakistani Higher Education
In this regard I am contacting faculty members of selected private and public universities.
You are requested to participate in this survey to provide the following information that will help
me complete this research and eventually the findings would help improve the working
environment of Pakistani Universities. Participation in this survey is voluntary and
confidentiality is assured. No individual data will be reported. If you wish to get the summary of
findings kindly note my email. Please do not put your name or Organizations name on this
questionnaire.
Thank You!

Muhammad I. Ramay
Email: miramay_64@yahoo.co.uk May 15, 2006

Appendix: B1

The following questions concern your position and other personal information.
1. Age:-_________________Years
2. Gender
Male / Female
3. Current Job Title:
Professor / Associate Professor /Assistant Professor /
Lecturer / Other __________
4. Qualification: Masters / M Phil / PhD
5. Do you supervise others? Yes / No
6. How long have you worked for this University / Institute?
Years___ Months_____
7. How long have you worked with current Vice Chancellor /Dean/
Director/Rector? _______________
8. Any work experience outside of Pakistan? _____________________________







155
The following statements concern how you feel about the organization you work. Please indicate
the extent of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by circling a number from 1 to
5.

Appendix B2: Organizational Commitment Questionnaire

Strongly Disagree

1
Disagree

2
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
3
Agree

4
Strongly Agree

5

1) It would be very hard for me to leave my university right now, even
if I wanted to ……………………..………………………..……………...1 2 3 4 5
2) I do not feel my obligation to remain with my current institution ….1 2 3 4 5
3) I would be very happy to spend rest of my career with this
university. …………………………………………………………………1 2 3 4 5
4) I owe a great deal to my university……………………………………..1 2 3 4 5
5) Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to
Leave my department now………………………………………………1 2 3 4 5
6) I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this university..1 2 3 4 5
7) I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this institution……………….1 2 3 4 5
8) This university deserves my loyalty…………………………………….1 2 3 4 5
9) If I had not already put so much of myself into this university,
I might consider working elsewhere……………………………………1 2 3 4 5
10) I Would not leave my university right now because I have a
Sense of obligation to the people in it. …………………………………1 2 3 4 5

Appendix B3: Leadership Behavior, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ)
In this section, you are asked to describe your immediate supervisors (that could be
Dean/Rector/Vice Chancellor) leadership style as you perceive it.

Strongly Disagree

1
Disagree

2
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
3
Agree

4
Strongly Agree

5
11) He/She spends time teaching and coaching others. …………………..1 2 3 4 5
12) He/She treats others as individual rather than just as a member of
a group……………………………………………………………………...1 2 3 4 5
13) He/She considers an individual as having different needs, abilities
and aspirations from others……………………………………………...1 2 3 4 5
14) He/She helps others to develop their strengths………………………...1 2 3 4 5


156
15) He/She talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished..1 2 3 4 5
16) He/She seeks differing perspectives in solving problems……………1 2 3 4 5
17) He/She acts in ways that build others respect for him/her…………..1 2 3 4 5
18) He/She displays a sense of power and confidence…………………….1 2 3 4 5
19) He/She instills pride in others for being associated with him………..1 2 3 4 5
20) He/She is effective in meeting others’ job-related needs………….…..1 2 3 4 5
21) He/She considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions...1 2 3 4 5
22) He/She emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense
of mission……………………………………………………………….…. 1 2 3 4 5
23) He/She is effective in representing others to higher authority…….…1 2 3 4 5
24) He/She leads a group that is effective………………………………..…1 2 3 4 5
25) He/She uses methods of leadership that are satisfying………………..1 2 3 4 5
26) He/She provides others with assistance in exchange for their efforts..1 2 3 4 5
27) He/She expresses satisfaction when others meet expectations………..1 2 3 4 5
28) He/She focuses attention on irregularities, mistake, exceptions
and deviations from standards…………………………………………….1 2 3 4 5
29) He/She keeps track of all my mistakes………………………………...…1 2 3 4 5
30) He/She directs my attention towards failures to meet standards……...1 2 3 4 5
31) He/She fails to interfere until problem become serious………………...1 2 3 4 5
32) He/She waits for things to go wrong before taking actions…………....1 2 3 4 5
33) He/She is absent from office when needed…………………………...….1 2 3 4 5
34) He/She avoids making decisions…………………………………….……1 2 3 4 5
35) He/She delays responding to urgent questions…………………...……..1 2 3 4 5
Appendix B4: Participative Management and Decision Making

The statements below relate to you and your supervisors supervisory orientation and decision
making style.

Strongly Disagree

1
Disagree

2
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
3
Agree

4
Strongly Agree

5
36) The administration tells me what needs to be done and how
it should be accomplished….…………………………………………1 2 3 4 5
37) The administration in my university tries to eliminate situations
that can lead to disagreement……………………………………….1 2 3 4 5
38) Difference in opinions on how work should be done makes
our administration angry ……………………………………………1 2 3 4 5


157
39) When changes in rules and procedures must be made, the ideas
are gradually introduced so that faculty do not get upset………..1 2 3 4 5
40) Our administration finds it difficult to understand why faculty resist
every change. …………………………………………………………..1 2 3 4 5
41) When I am in a supervisor role , I know I must not change my opinion
on a significant work situation…………………………………………1 2 3 4 5
42) Our administration listens carefully to each person in my department
group when any significant change is being made. …………………1 2 3 4 5
43) I am able to influence decisions that affect my work………………1 2 3 4 5
44) I am satisfied with the level of faculty representation on the
university board of governance………………………………….…...1 2 3 4 5
45) I am satisfied with the level of faculty participation in this
institution’s decision-making process. ……………………………….1 2 3 4 5
46) Enrollment of students to the courses I teach, mostly is my
decision…………………………………………………..…………….1 2 3 4 5
47) I have a significant role in the academic policies of this university1 2 3 4 5


158
Appendix B5: Faculty Job Satisfaction and Morale

Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements

Strongly Disagree

1
Disagree

2
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
3
Agree

4
Strongly Agree

5


48) I feel there is strong connection between my pay and my
Performance…………………………………………………………….….1 2 3 4 5
49) There is flexibility of work hours in this university…………………....1 2 3 4 5
50) Physical working environment at this university is appropriate……..1 2 3 4 5
51) I see a lot of opportunity for advancement in this university……….....1 2 3 4 . 5
52) I have been recommended for higher education/seminars and trainings
by my university…………………………………………………………..1 2 3 4 5
53) I frequently communicate with my supervisor…………………………1.. 2 3 4 5
54) I frequently receive recognition from my supervisor on my
performance……………………………………………………………….1 2 3 4 5
55) The administration in my organization effectively leads the
university.……………………………………………………………….…1 2 3 4 5
56) My work in this institution gives me a great sense of achievement…1 2 3 4 5
57) I feel a strong sense of direction and purpose provided by the
administration of this institution…………………………………….….1 2 3 4 5
58) The administration allows the faculty adequate academic
freedom……….……………………………………………………….…...1 2 3 4 5
59) I am happy with the current system of faculty pay scale…………….1 2 3 4 5
60) The administration of this institution has improved physical conditions
for faculty work…………………………………………………………..1 2 3 4 5

Thank you for participating in this survey



159
APPENDIX: C

Interview Card
I am willing to be interviewed by Muhammad Ramay
within the next four weeks. I understand Muhammad Ramay
will contact me to arrange a suitable time and venue for the interview.

Name………………………………………………………..
University………………………………………………….
Phone ………………………………………………………

Would you like to receive the findings of this study Yes / No











160
APPENDIX: D
Reminder Letter
Center for Advance Studies in Engineering 10 June 2006
Ataturk Avenue, G-5
Islamabad

Dear Colleague,
Please disregard this note if you have already returned the questionnaire on Leadership
behavior and participatory decision making I sent you earlier this month.
However, if you have not done so, would you kindly take a little time from your busy
program to respond to the questionnaire and then return it – preferably in the next day or
so?
I will greatly appreciate your help and co-operation with this request coming at a
particularly busy time of the year for you when some faculty members are busy in fall
admissions and some might be planning to take some time off for summer.

Sincerely

Muhammad I. Ramay







161

APPENDIX: E

Why Regression Analysis was done?
This was done for several reasons: To obtain a partitioning of the total sums of squares
(variance) into regression and residual components; to reveal the effect coefficients (beta
scores) for each variable and multiple correlation coefficients (r values) for variables
entered into the equation; and to indicate the percent of total variance (R square)
explained by all of the relevant variables. In order to use multiple regressions,
dependent variable should have a normal distribution. Multiple regressions and
correlation were used in this study since this study was more concerned with finding
relationship and effect between variables.
Acquiring the Instrument
Researcher s can purchase all forms of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire from
publishers in United States, and these questionnaires are also available online with
payment. This researcher asked permission from the original authors.

















162

APPENDIX: F
Higher Education Commission and University Ranking
The university ranking list , published by the Higher Education Commission, has been
divided into 6 subject categories: Agriculture/ Veterinary, Art/ Design, Business/ I.T,
Engineering, General and Health Sciences
Ranking of Universities by Type of University

Agriculture / Veterinary
1. University of Agriculture (UAF), Faisalabad
2. NWFP University of Agriculture, Peshawar
3. University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi
4. Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam
Art / Design
1. National College of Arts, Lahore
2. Textile Institute of Pakistan, Karachi
3. Indus Valley School of Art & Architecture, Karachi
Business / I.T.
1. Lahore Uni. of Management Sciences (LUMS), Lahore
2. Institute of Business Administration (IBA), Karachi
3. Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Sci. & Tech. Karachi
4. Iqra University, Defence View, Karachi
5. Lahore School of Economics (LSE) , Lahore
6. Institute of Business Management (IBM), Karachi
7.CECOS Peshawar
8. City University of Science and technology Peshawar.
Engineering
1. Pakistan Institute of Engg. and Applied Sciences, Islamabad


163
2. National University of Sciences & Technology Rawalpindi
3. Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering, Swabi
4. University of Engg. & Technology (UET), Lahore
5. Mehran University of Engg. & Technology (MUET), Jamshoro
6. University of Engg. & Technology (UET), Taxila
7. National University of computer and emerging sciences Islamabad
8. COMSATS Institute of Information Technology Islamabad
9. University of Engineering and technology Peshawar
10. NED University of Engineering and technology Karachi
11. Quaid-i-Awam University Nawabshah.
12. Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology Karachi.
13. Baluchistan University of Engineering and Technology Khuzdar
General
1. Quaid-i-Azam University (QAU), Islamabad
2. University of the Punjab, Lahore
3. University of Karachi, Karachi
4. University of Peshawar, Peshawar
5. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan
6. Government College Lahore University, Lahore
7. Isra university Haiderabad
8. International Islamic University Islamabad
9. University of Sindh Jamshoro
10. Hamdard university Karachi
11. University of Baluchistan Quetta
12. Gomal University Dera Ismail khan
13. Islamia University Bahawalpur
14. University of AJK Muzafarabad
15. Lahore College for Women University Lahore
16. Hazara University, Dhodial Mansehra
17. Mohammad Ali Jinnah University Karachi
18. Fatima Jinnah Women University Rawalpindi


164
19. Bahria University Islamabad
20. Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur
21. University of Malakand, Chakdara, Malakand
22. Kohat University of Science and Technology Kohat
23. National University of Modern languages Islamabad.
Health Sciences
1. Aga Khan University, Karachi
2. Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro
3. Baqai Medical University, Karachi
4. Zia-ud-din Medical University, Karachi
(HEC Report 2006)



























165
Table 3.1 Correlation Analysis Pilot Study



























Variables
Affective
Commitment
Continuance
Commitment
Normative
Commitment
Task
Oriented
Relation
Oriented
Laissez-
Faire
Participative
Decision
Making
Job
Satisfaction Morale
Affective
Commitment 1.00
Continuance
Commitment 0.15 1.00
Normative
Commitment 0.32 0.46 1.00
Task
Oriented 0.07 0.26 0.14 1.00
Relation
Oriented 0.01 0.27 0.11 0.90 1.00
Laissez-Faire -0.26 -0.36 0.03 -0.57 -0.54 1.00
Participative
Decision
Making 0.05 0.14 0.13 0.38 0.43 -0.27 1.00
Job
Satisfaction 0.23 -0.26 0.25 0.27 0.31 0.49 0.31 1.00
Morale 0.31 -0.25 -0.06 0.40 0.49 -0.57 0.54 0.63 1.00


166
Table 4.20 Reliability Analyses – Scale (Alpha) Method (covariance matrix)

1. Organizational Commitment
2. Task-Oriented Leadership Behavior
3. Relation-Oriented Leadership Behavior
4. Laissez-faire Behavior
5. Participatory Decision Making
6. Job Satisfaction
7. Morale

Covariance Matrix

OC LB_TO LB_RO LZF PDM
OC .2651
LB_TO .1017 .4473
LB_RO .0573 .3631 .3977
LZF -.0916 -.2983 -.2234 .9296
PDM .0859 .1504 .1501 -.0193 .2407
JS .0767 .2074 .1800 -.2388 .1719
MORALE .0978 .2183 .1909 -.2605 .1861


JS MORAL
JS .5044
MORAL .3319 .4282

Explanations

The matrices given above are covariance matrices which is different than correlation
matrix. In correlation matrix, the inter correlation among the variables is given in the
form of a matrix. The correlation is a pure number without any units and its value varies
between -1 and +1 depending on the strength of relationship between the variables. In
contrast, the covariance tells us that how much a variable varies with respect to the other
variables. It’s not a pure number and does possess units.







167

Graph 1: Employees Organizational Commitment
OC
5.00
4.75
4.50
4.25
4.00
3.75
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Std. Dev = .51
Mean = 3.24
N = 237.00

Graph 2
Task-Oriented Leadership Behavior
LB_TO
5.00
4.75
4.50
4.25
4.00
3.75
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
40
30
20
10
0
Std. Dev = .67
Mean = 3.54
N = 237.00






168

Graph 3: Relation-Oriented Leadership Behavior

LB_RO
5.00
4.75
4.50
4.25
4.00
3.75
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
50
40
30
20
10
0
Std. Dev = .63
Mean = 3.52
N = 237.00

Graph 4: Laissez-faire Behavior

LZF
5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Std. Dev = .96
Mean = 2.81
N = 237.00




169

Graph 5: Participatory Decision Making
PDM
4.75
4.50
4.25
4.00
3.75
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Std. Dev = .49
Mean = 3.16
N = 237.00

Graph 6: Job Satisfaction

JS
5.00
4.75
4.50
4.25
4.00
3.75
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
50
40
30
20
10
0
Std. Dev = .71
Mean = 3.19
N = 237.00




170


Graph 7

Morale





MORAL
4.75
4.50
4.25
4.00
3.75
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
50
40
30
20
10
0
Std. Dev = .65
Mean = 3.37
N = 237.00











171
Appendix G
Definitions and Theories
Decision Quality
Decision quality would improve if certain points are taken into account. If management
could collect all of the pertinent facts bearing on a decision, within reasonable time, they
would be having few problems of difficult decision- making and the decision quality
would improve. They must therefore concentrate on obtaining the key pertinent facts.
This brings in the element of personal judgment in the determination of need and
relevance, (Brown, 2005). Different people at work on the same problem may be
expected to bring different facts, different interpretations and different conclusions, the
risk which this entails may be a procedural approach which assures that the right people
are assigned to get to the facts and that they have a method for obtaining them which is
most likely to produce what is needed. It is also important for the quality of the decision
that the fact-finders get as close as possible to the primary sources of information,
(William, Morris, Bierman, Taylor, Green, Couts, 1969).
Decision Acceptance
People who have considerable influence in making a decision tend to identify with it to
be their decision. This feeling of ownership increases their motivation to implement it
successfully. (Gary Yukl, 2002). Participation in decision-making also provides a better
understanding of the nature of the decision problem and the reasons why a particular
alternative was accepted and others rejected. Participants gain a better understanding of
how they will be affected by a decision, which is likely to reduce any unwarranted fears
and anxieties about it. When adverse consequences are likely, participation allows


172
people an opportunity to express their concerns and help to find a solution that deals
with these concerns. Finally, when a decision is made by participative process
considered legitimate by most members, then the group is likely to apply social pressure
on any reluctant members to their part in implementing the decision (Yukl,2002).
Satisfaction with the Decision Process
There could be many points to think during inviting others to participate in the decision
making, such as giving them enough time to think, enlistment of the positive talent of
many people in the decision-making process, and an atmosphere of freedom to maintain
a critical position. Absence of pressure from top management for false unanimity among
those participating in or contributing to the decisions, genuine participation in the
decision-making process by those who would have to carry out the decision, and in
short this type of environment will generate and foster a climate for initiative and action.
Meyer & Allen’s Model
Although they argued that the model was generally supported, Allen and Meyer (1996)
identified a few issues that warranted further investigation. Specifically, they
recommended that additional attention be given to investigating
(a) the strength of relation between the components of commitment, most notably
affective and normative commitment;
(b) the dimensionality of the CCS; and
(c) The generalizability of the model outside North America.
The dynamics of organizational commitment outside of North America has received
only scant attention (Alvi and Ahmed, 1987).


173
In arguing for their framework, Meyer & Allen (1991) contended that affective,
continuance and normative commitment were components rather than types because
employees could have varying degrees of all three. For example, one employee might
feel both a strong attachment to an organization and a sense of obligation to remain. A
second employee might enjoy working for the organization but also recognize that
leaving would be very difficult from an economic standpoint. Finally a third employee
might experience a considerable degree of desire, need and obligation to remain with
the current employer (Meyer, Allen, 1997). Even though the authors present this
argument, they do not imply that there is a rationale for summing all scales to obtain an
overall score for organizational commitment.
Studies have linked organization commitment to measures of effectiveness that are
similar to those found when investigating the outcomes of leadership behaviors. Loui,
(1995) for instance found that commitment was significantly related to trust, job
involvement, and job satisfaction. Angle and Perry (1981) uncovered a relationship
between commitment and turnover. Wiener and Verdi (1980) uncovered a relationship
between commitment and job performance.
Research has also linked organizational commitment to leadership behaviors that are
relation-oriented and task-oriented. Jermier & Berkes (1979) discovered that employees
who were allowed to participate in decision-making had higher levels of commitment to
the organization. DeCotiis & Summers (1987) found that when employees were treated
with consideration, they displayed greater levels of commitment. Bycio & Hackett &
Allen (1995) reported positive correlations between the leadership behaviors of


174
charisma, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and contingent reward
and affective, continuance, and normative commitment.
Organizational commitment provides a broad measure of the effectiveness of
leadership behaviors. This relationship offers a way to further explore the subject of
leadership.
Alvi and Ahmeds Model and its approach
Exchange Approach.
There are studies, which view commitment to be largely a result of all benefits and
advantages, which accrue to a worker for being part of an organization. Stevens, Beyer,
and Trice (1978) categorize them as those based on “exchange approach.”
Becker (1960) was the pioneer in the study of exchange approach. This study points out
that there are certain extrinsic benefits, such as seniority rights, pension and other
accumulated benefits, and the possibility of upward mobility, which induce workers to
stay with the organization. Becker calls them “side bets”. These benefits are lost once the
membership in the organization is terminated. Thus the degree of commitment becomes
largely, though not entirely, a function of the extent to which workers’ psychological,
safety, and security needs are met. Fulfillment of psychological and other needs, though
not denied, are relegated a secondary importance. This approach has also found support
in Stevens, Beyer, and Trice (1978) and, to some extent, in Bhagat and Chassie (1981).
Psychological Approach
The studies based on this approach treat commitment as a more active and positive
orientation toward the organization (Porter & Smith, 1971) including loyalty to it
(Buchanan, 1974) and identification with its goals and values (Porter, Steers, Mowday, &


175
Boulin, 1974). In contrast to the exchange approach, this one relies heavily on role-
related and organizational factors such as work overload, managerial level,
organizational size, union presence, and so on. Stevens (1978), for instance, found that
the role related factors are more important predictors than other variables of workers’
commitment to their organizations. The importance of psychological variables (role-
related, organizational, and personal) in determining commitment has further been
confirmed by Morris and Sherman (1981).
Blended Approach
The above-mentioned approaches are based on Maslow’s contention that human needs
are hierarchically inborn in rank of importance. At the top are physiological needs,
followed by psychological ones. It is assumed that the main preoccupation of relatively
less affluent workers is the satisfaction of physiological, safety, and security needs. As
affluence grows, basic needs met, most workers turn to satisfying their psychological
needs. Clearly in this form, this view divides societies, workers, and their needs in terms
of the degree of affluence. Further, it suggests a pattern of needs selection and their
satisfaction from basic to psychological.
There is a growing awareness among many researchers (Morris & Sherman, 1981) that
neither approach alone is sufficient to explain the degree of workers’ commitment to
their organizations in any society regardless of its degree of affluence. Workers in an
advanced economy may attach as much, if not more, importance to the satisfaction of
their basic needs as do those in a less developed nation. Likewise, psychological factors
may be equally important for less affluent workers. Hence, there is the need to blend the
two prevailing approached in order to explain this phenomenon.


176
As Steers (1977) points out, individuals have certain needs, desires, skills, and
expectations. An organization, which provides its workers with a work environment
conducive to realizing their expectations, meeting their just demands, and properly
utilizing their skills will, in all likelihood, attract a workforce largely, committed to it.
An organization which fulfills its employees’ psychological, financial, or other needs
alone will find itself with workers who are less likely to stay, frequently abstain
themselves from work, or show other manifestations of their lack of commitment.
Leadership Theories
Managerial Grid
Robert R. Blake and Anne Adams McCanse, (1985) refined the leadership grid which
identified various types of managerial leadership based on concern for people. While
they consider the “team Management” style of leadership to be ideal, they recognize that
it may be difficult to implement in some work situations. Effective managers have great
concern for both people and production. They work to motivate employees to reach
their highest levels of accomplishment. They are flexible and responsive to change, and
they understand the need to change.

High



Low
Low Initiating Structure High
Quadrant III

High Consideration
and Low initiating
Structure
Quadrant II
High Consideration and
High Initiating Structure
Quadrant IV
Low Consideration
Low Initiating
Structure
Quadrant I
Low Consideration
High Initiating Structure


177
Stogdill and Coons’ from Ohio State University (Stogdill, 1962) suggested that leaders
exhibiting consideration and initiating structure behavior can be grouped into four
quadrants. To briefly summarize, a Quadrant I leader is production-oriented and
interested in getting the work done, and often forgets that he is dealing with human
beings. The quadrant II leader is efficient and effective in managing both people and
tasks. The Quadrant III leader maintains a friendly relationship with the subordinates
and concerned about subordinate welfare, but is ineffective in getting things done. The
Quadrant IV leader’s management is characterized by group chaos and effectiveness.
Contingency Theory
Fred Fiedler (1965), developed a contingency theory or situational theory of leadership.
Fiedler postulates that three important situational dimensions are assumed to influence
the leader’s effectiveness. They are:
Leader-member relations, the degrees of confidence subordinates have in their leader. It
also includes the loyalty shown to the leader and leader’s attractiveness.
Task structure: the degree to which the followers’ jobs are routine as contrasted with
non routine.
Position power: the power inherent in the leadership position. It includes the rewards
and punishments typically associated with the position, the leader’s formal authority
(based on ranking in the managerial hierarchy), and the support that the leader receives
from supervisors and the overall organization.





178
Path-Goal Theory
The path goal theory postulates that the most successful leaders are those who increase
subordinate motivation by charting out and clarifying the paths to high performance.
According to Robert House’s path-goal theory, effective leaders:
Motivate their followers to achieve group and organizational goals.
Make sure that they have control over outcomes their subordinates desire.
Reward subordinates for performing at a high level or achieving their work goals by
giving them desired outcomes.
Raise their subordinates’ beliefs about their ability to achieve their work goals and
perform at a high level. Take into account their subordinates’ characteristics and the
type of work they do. John Storey in his study suggested that leadership is different in
many ways from management.
A summary dichotomy: Manager versus Leaders (John Storey, 2004)
Managers Leaders .
They are transactional They are transformative
Seek to operate in the current system Create new visions and new
Meanings
Control & Monitor Empower
Trade on exchange leaderships Seek to inspire and transcend
Have a short-term focus Have a long-term focus
Focus on detailed procedure Focus on the strategic big picture










179
Appendix H

Chartered Universities of Pakistan
Punjab University, New Campus, Lahore
University of Engg. & Technology, Lahore
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
Quaid-e-Azam University, P.O.Box 1090, Islamabad
Allama Iqbal Open University, Sector H-8, Islamabad
Gomal University, D.I.Khan
B.Z.University, Multan, 60800.
Islamia University, Bahawalpur
International Islamic University, P.O. Box 1243, Islamabad
National College of Arts, 4 Shahrae Quaid-I-Azam, Lahore,
Lahore University of Management Sciences, Opp. Sector U, Lahore Cantonment Co-operative
Society, Lahore, 54792.
National University of Sciences & Technology, Tameez-ud-Din Road Lal Kurti, Old Defence
College Building, Rawalpindi Cantt. Rawalpindi
University of Arid Agriculture, Murree Road, Rawalpindi
Government College, Lahore
Lahore School of Economics, 105-C-2, Gulberg III, Lahore
Lahore College for Women University, Lahore
Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi
Bahria University, Islamabad.
Pakistan Institute of Engineering & Applied Sciences, Islamabad
National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad


180
National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, FAST House,
Rohtas Road, G-9/4, Islamabad
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Plot No. 30, Sector H-8, Islamabad.
Institute of Management Sciences, 23 E-III, Gulberg-III, Lahore
Imperial College of Business Studies, Zafar Ali Road, Lahore
National College of Business Administration & Economics, ,40-E-1, Gulberg-III, Lahore
University of Central Punjab, 31-Main Gulberg, Lahore
University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Lahore
University of Education, Lahore
Virtual University (VU) 3 rd floor Building # 1-2, Aiwan-e-Iqbal Complex, Egerton Road, Lahore
University of Health Sciences, Lahore
Hajvery University, 43/44-Industrial Area, Gulberg-III, Lahore
University of Faisalabad, Faisalabad
University of Lahore, Lahore 1-K.M., Thokar Niaz Baig, Lahore
Riphah International University, Islamabad
Foundation University, Islamabad
Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore
Air University, Islamabad
Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology, Islamabad
University of Sargodha, Sargodha
National Textile University, Faisalabad
Govt. College University, Faisalabad
Institute of South Asia, Lahore
University of Gujrat, Gujrat


181
The Gift University, Gujranwala
The University of Management & Technology, Lahore
The Superior College, Lahore
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
Quaid-e-Azam University, P.O.Box 1090, Islamabad
Peshawar University, Peshawar
Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul, Abbottabad
Balochistan University, Sariab Road, Quetta
Mehran University of Engg.& Technology, Jamshoro
Azad Jammu & Kashmir University, Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir
NWFP Engg. University, P.O. Box 814, Peshawar
NWFP Agriculture University, P.O. Pak. Forest Institute Peshawar
Al-Khair University, Mirpur, Azad Kashmir
Balochistan University of Engg & Technology, Khuzdar
Quaid-I-Awam University of Engineering, Science and Technology, Nawabshah
Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University, Nerian Sharif (Trarkhal), AJK
The Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro
University of Hazara (Functional in October, 2001)
City University of Science & Information Technology, Peshawar
CECOS University of Information Technology & Emerging Sciences, Peshawar
Qurtaba University of Science & Information Technology, Peshawar
Sarhad University of Science & Information Technology, No. 2, Sir Syed Road, Peshawar, Cantt
Kohat University of Science & Technology, Kohat
University of Malakand, Peshawar


182
Balochistan University of Information Technology & Management Sciences, Quetta
Karakurum International University, Gilgit
Institute of Management Science, Peshawar
Northern University, Nowshera
Gandhara University, Peshawar
Preston University, Kohat
Iqra University, Quetta
Sindh University , Jamshoro, Sindh
University of Karachi, University Road,, Karachi 75270
Pakistan Naval Academy, Karachi
NED University of Engg. & Technology, Karachi 75270
Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, Sindh
Aga Khan University, Stadium Road, P.O. Box 3500, Karachi 74800
Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur, Sindh
Hamdard University , Madina-tal-Hikmat, Muhammad Bin Qasim Avenue, Karachi 74700
University of Engg. & Technology, Taxila
Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences & Technology, Topi, Distt. Swabi
Indus Valley School of Art & Architecture, Street, 33, Block-2, Scheme-5, Clifton, Karachi-75600
Institute of Business Administration, University Road , Karachi
Zia-ud-din Medical University, Block B, North Nazimabad Karachi
Sir Syed University of Engineering & Technology, University Road, Karachi-75300
Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science & Technology, 90-Clifton, Karachi
Baqai Medical University, 51 Deh Tar, Gadap Road, P.O. Box 2407, Karachi
Isra University, Halla Road P.O. Box 313, Hyderabad


183
Greenwich University, Karachi
Institute of Business Management, Korangi Creek, Karachi-75190
Jinnah University for Women, 5-C, Nazimabad Karachi 74600
Mohammad Ali Jinnah University, Karachi
Karachi Institute of Economics and Technology, PAF Base Korangi Creek, Karachi
Iqra University, Defence View, Shaheed-e-Millat Extension, P.O. Box 12240, Karachi-75500
Textile Institute of Pakistan, City Campus A-142, Sindhi Muslim Housing Society, Karachi 75400
Khadim Ali Shah Bokhari (KASB) Institute of Technology, 84-B, Sindhi Muslim Cooperative Housing
Society, P.O. Box 10526, Karachi
Preston Institute of Management Science and Technology, Karachi
DHA Suffa University, Karachi
The Newport Institute of Communications and Economics, Karachi
Dadabhoy Institute of Higher Education, Karachi
Institute of Business & Technology, Karachi
The Nazeer Hussain University, Karachi
Dow University of Health Sciences Karachi










184
Appendix I
Private Universities in Pakistan
Aga Khan University [Karachi]
Baqai Medical University [Karachi]
CECOS University of Information Technology and Emerging Sciences [Peshawar]
City University of Science and Technology [Peshawar]
Dadabhoy Institute of Higher Education [Karachi]
DHA Suffa University [Karachi]
Foundation University [Islamabad]
Gandhara University [Peshawar]
Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering and Technology [Topi]
Gift University [Gujranwala]
Greenwich University [Karachi]
Hajvery University [Lahore]
Hamdard University [Karachi]
Imperial College of Business Studies [Lahore]
Indus Valley School of Arts and Architecture [Karachi]
Institute of Business and Technology [Karachi]
Institute of Business Management [Karachi]
Institute of Management Sciences [Lahore]
Institute of South Asia [Lahore]
Iqra University [Karachi]
Iqra University [Quetta]


185
Isra University [Hyderabad]
Jinnah University of Women [Karachi]
Karachi Institute Economics and Technology [Karachi]
Khadim Ali Shah Bukhari Institute of Technology [Karachi]
Lahore School of Economics [Lahore]
Lahore University of Management Sciences [Lahore]
Muhammad Ali Jinnah University [Karachi]
National College of Business Administration and Economics [Lahore]
National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences (FAST) [Islamabad]
Nazir Hussain University [Karachi]
Newport Institute of Communication and Economics [Karachi]
Northern University [Nowshera]
Preston Institute of Management and Technology [Karachi]
Preston University [Karachi]
Preston University [Kohat]
Qurtaba University of Science and Information Technology [D.I.Khan]
Riphah International University [Islamabad]
Sarhad University of Science and Information Technology [Peshawar]
Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology [Karachi]
Superior College [Lahore]
Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science & Technology [Karachi]
Textile Institute of Pakistan [Karachi]
University of Central Punjab [Lahore]
University of Faisalabad [Faisalabad]


186
University of Lahore [Lahore]
University of Management and Technology [Lahore]
Zia ud Din Medical University [Karachi]
Appendix J

Abbreviations used in the text

HEC (Higher Education Commission of Pakistan)

IBA (Institute of Business Administration)

LUMS (Lahore University of Management Sciences)

HEI (Higher Education Institutions)

IT (Information Technology)

AAUP (American Association of University Professors)

FAUP (Federal Association of University Professors)

MLQ (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire)

OCQ (Organizational Commitment Questionnaire)

EOC (Employees Organizational Commitment)

OC (Organizational Commitment)

JS ( Job Satisfaction)

PDM (Participatory Decision Making)

ANOVA (Analysis of Variance)







187
Appendix K
Other Researcher’s Results and Explanations
As discussed in chapter 3, job satisfaction and organizational commitment appear to
be related to one another. A comparison of the antecedents, correlates, and predictors of
the Kinicki (2002), Meta analysis of the Job Description Indexes (JDI) and the Meta
analysis of the organizational commitment by Methew and Zajac (1990) showed a strong
relationship between the two concepts. Kinicki (2002) found moderately positive
correlations between organizational commitment and the five job satisfaction facets of
the JDI (pay, r = 0.29, promotion, r = .35, coworkers, r = .34, work itself, r = .50 and
supervision, r = .35). Methew and Zajac (1990) found a significant correlation of .53
between the two variables. Neither of these studies specified a causal direction between
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. However, Kacmar, Carlson, and
Brymer (1990) found a positive significant coefficient of 0.63 for the effect of job
satisfaction on organizational commitment. (as measured by the Organizational
Commitment Questionnaire).
A number of studies have looked more closely at this relationship, to determine the
causal order of the two constructs. The results of these studies appear to be mixed
between no support for the specific causal relationship, and between job satisfaction and
organizational commitment, and that it is predicted by job satisfaction (Yoon and Thye,
2002). In a longitudinal study of professional employees at a British engineering
company that spanned 13 months (n = 295), Cramer (1996) found no temporal causal
relationship between job satisfaction at time and organizational commitment at time
two. When both variables were measured at the same point time (for example the


188
relationship between the job satisfaction at time one and organizational commitment at
time one), there was significant positive correlation between the two variables (r = .35,
p< .001). This suggests that while there is a causal relationship between the two
variables, organizational commitment is a product of an employee’s present job
appraisal and not based on past appraisal.
Martin and Bennett (1996) tested three possible models of the relationship between
the job satisfaction and organizational commitment using multiple regressions; job
satisfaction is antecedent to organizational commitment, organizational commitment is
antecedent to job satisfaction and there is a reciprocal relationship between the two
variables. Data were collected from financial services companies (n = 1, 337)
organizational commitment was measured using items from scales identification and
internalization; satisfaction was measured as four factors: satisfaction with pay,
appraisal, benefits, and work conditions. Procedural and distributive gestures were also
measured and controlled for in the regression analysis. The results showed no support
for a causal model between job satisfaction and organizational commitment, suggesting
that they are independent constructs. However, the variables were significantly
correlated with one another (r = .31, .23, .30, and .40 for pay, appraisal, benefits and
work conditions respectively). This would suggest that there is in fact a relationship. The
authors suggest that it is really procedural and distributive justice that has the direct
relationship with commitment and that many previous studies have included measure
of this construct in their measure of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Still, the significant correlations between the two constructs from this study would
suggest they are not independent from one another.


189
Yoon and Thye (2002) tested a more comprehensive model of organizational
commitment in the model, job satisfaction and organizational support (defined in this
research as the employees believes that organization values their contributions and is
concerned about their well-being) mediated the relationship between the exogenous
variables (job characteristics, organizational related variables, and controls and
covariates) and organizational commitment (as measured by the OCQ).
Both job satisfaction and organizational support had a direct effect on organizational
commitment. To validate the model, data was collected from 2 large organizations in
Korea (n = 2,443). Analyses were done via structural equation modeling. Results
showed support for the model 87% of the impact exogenous variables on organizational
commitment was mediated through job satisfaction and 36% was mediated through
organizational support. Overall, the model explained 51% of the variance in
organizational commitment.
Results in this study were not unusual when task-oriented behavior showed more
significant. Hersey and Blanchard (1977) suggested that leaders need to display more
relation-oriented behavior in some instances and more task-oriented behavior for other
situations. Results from a number of studies Bass & Avolio, 1997) indicate that
transactional leadership provides a basis of effective leadership. However, greater effort,
effectiveness, and satisfaction can be achieved through transformational methods.


Influence of Leadership Behavior and Participatory Decision Making on the Employees Organizational Commitment

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Engineering Management

Author
Muhammad Ismail Ramay (03-UET/PhD-CASE-EM-02) Checked and Recommended by

Dr. Shahid Khalil

Dr. Zahid Iqbal

Approved by: ______________________ Dr. Rashid Ahmed Khan Thesis Supervisor

2

DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY TAXILA September 2010

DECLARATION

The substance of this thesis is original work of the author and due references and acknowledgements have been made, where necessary, to the work of others. No part of this thesis has been already accepted for any degree, and it is not being currently submitted in candidature of any degree.

Muhammad Ismail Ramay (F-02-068)

Thesis Scholar

Countersigned:

Dr. Rashid Ahmed Khan Thesis Supervisor

3

Islamabad. and his PS Santa Rodriguez at McGill University Canada for their help in sending me the material during the critical stage of this study. and late in the evening coming to CASE for classes. Ali Sajid. Dean Faculty of Business Administration at National University of Modern Languages. traveling 80 kilometers every day. Henry Mintzberg.Alvi at University of Concordia Canada. Professor Rashid Ahmed Khan. I am deeply appreciative to my family for their support and patience. Their support. however. I was living in Wah Cantt. Dr. S. Business Policy and Strategic Management attended by me in Spring and Summer 2003 at Center for Advance Studies in Engineering(CASE). Finally I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to CASE. its President Professor Ali Haider. First and foremost among them is my chief supervisor. to whom I am particularly indebted for his expert guidance and meticulous supervision. at University of Kentucky USA. teaching in Wah Cantt. remained so pure and sincere that it was even beyond the sense of economics per se. Without his invaluable direction and advice this study might not have been in its current refined shape. and fellows at Muhammad Ali Jinnah University who traveled with me to Gilgit. I wish to register my gratitude to Dr. Muhammad Ismail Ramay 4 . Lahore and Dera Ismail Khan during survey and interviews. Michael White of Policy Studies Institute.Jason Sha. Issues in Technical Organization. Dr. Dr. London for sending me the material at the revision stage of my thesis in 2006. Quetta. I am also thankful to Mr. Dr Mamoona Rauf. I also pay my gratitude to him for the fact that the original inspiration for conducting research in this area came from his insightful discussions during the classes of Business Research Methodology.Acknowledgements My acknowledgements are due to so many people who have not only been my inspiration but a constant source of motivation and courage for me. I was not on HEC or any institutional scholarship and at times I did not contribute to my family budget as well.

3 3.5 3.1 Leadership 2. AND OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH (38–68) 2. Leadership Behavior and Faculty’s 22 Job Satisfaction in Pakistan 1.2 3.4 Issue of Commitment.14 Development of Participants’ Skill 39 42 46 48 53 54 56 58 59 61 62 62 66 67 CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (69 – 89) 3.1 Introduction 10 1.3 Evolution of Relationship Oriented and Task Oriented Leadership Behavior 2.11 Research Questions 36 CHAPTER 2–THE LITERATURE REVIEW.13 Faculty Participation and Other Perspective 2.7 The Issue of University Ranking and Higher Education Commission 27 1.4 3.12 Participation Oriented Decision Making 2. Normative and Continuance Commitment 2.TABLE OF CONTENT CHAPTER 1–INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE OF THE STUDY (9-37) Abstract 9 1.8 Job Satisfaction of University Faculty 3.9 Significance of the Study 34 1.11 Types of Decisions 2.5 Conditions of Higher Education in Pakistan 22 1.9 Relation between Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction 2.6 3.9 Participative Decision Making and University Faculty 69 70 70 71 72 73 73 74 75 5 .5 Research on Organizational Commitment 2.4 Research on Task and Relation Oriented Leadership Behavior 2.10 Decision Making 2.3 Objectives of Study Problem Setting 20 1.8 Definition of Terms and Concepts 31 1.7 Meyer and Allen’s Model of Commitment 2.2 Research and Findings about Leadership Behavior 2.2 Rationale for the Thesis 16 1.6 Research on Affective.8 Steers Model of Commitment 2.7 Introduction Type of Study Assumptions Theoretical Framework and Variables Empirical Model Commitment and University Faculty Relationship between Organizational Commitment and Leadership Behavior 3.6 Our Universities Working Environment 23 1.1 3.10 Problem Statement 35 1.

13 Findings about Participatory Decision Making 4.8 5.8 Correlation between Participatory Decision Making and Job Satisfaction 4.1 4.15 Hypothesis Evaluation 90 90 91 94 95 97 98 100 101 103 105 111 115 119 121 CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION (123 – 133) 5.10 Morale of Faculty 3.10 Introduction Discussion Research Questions Conclusions Limitations of the Thesis Implications for Educators and Administrators Implications for Higher Education Commission and Policy Makers Future Research Needs Summary of Major Findings Contribution of this Thesis 123 124 126 127 128 128 130 131 131 132 6 .6 5.14 Survey Questionnaire 3.10 Correlation between Job Satisfaction and Morale 4.12 Data Collection 3.4 5.7 5.15 Deriving Final Questionnaire from Pilot Study Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Meyer & Allen‘s OCQ) Job Satisfaction and Morale Questionnaire 3.9 Correlation between Commitment and Job Satisfaction 4.3.17 Data Analysis Correlation Analysis Multiple Regression Analysis 78 79 80 80 81 82 88 CHAPTER 4 – RESULT OF THE RESEARCH (90-122) 4.6 Results of Questionnaire Survey Characteristics of University Faculty Sample Responses Correlation between Major Types of Leadership Behaviors Correlation among Organizational Commitment Scales Correlation between the Task-Oriented and Relation-Oriented Behavior and the Organizational Commitment Scales 4.14 Findings about Job Satisfaction and Morale and Organizational Commitment 4.5 5.9 5.11 Results of Regression Analysis 4.3 5.2 5.4 4.12 Findings about Leadership behavior and Organizational Commitment 4.3 4.1 5.7 Correlation between Participatory Decision Making and Organizational Commitment 4.11 Hypothesis 3.5 4.2 4.13 Sampling Strategy 3.

1 ANOVA Job Satisfaction Table 4. 2002 Table 2.3 Faculty Profile of Agricultural Universities.4 Correlation Matrix of All Variables Table 4.1 ANOVA Morale Table 4.13 Results of OC (Male) Table 4.2 Faculty Profile of Engineering Universities (public sector).2 Questions on Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Table 3.10 Correlation of Job Satisfaction and Morale Table 4. Job Satisfaction and OC Table 3.2 Coefficient of Job Satisfaction Table 4.17.1 Existing Framework of University Management in the Public Sector Table 1.13.4 Questions on Participatory Decision Making Questionnaire Table 3.13.2 Coefficient of OC (Female) Table 4.17 Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction (Male & Female) Table 4.18 Group Statistics Table 4.3 Questions on Organizational Commitment Questionnaire Table 3.12.16.8 Correlation of PDM with OC.16.3 Descriptive Statistics of Major Variables Table 4.1 Faculty’s Organizational Commitment (Female) Table 4.15.16 Results of Faculty’s OC & Morale Table 4.14.1 ANOVA Faculty’s OC Table 4. JS and Morale Table 4.5 Commitment Correlation Matrix Table 4.2 Sample Responses of Universities Table 4. LF.6 Commitment Correlation Table 4.14 Results of OC & LB (Female) Table 4. 2002 Table 1.14.7 Correlation between Task.12 Overall R Statistics Table 4. Task Relation.15 Results of Faculty’s OC & Job Satisfaction Table 4.2 Results Of OC and LB (Male) Table 4. AC.6 Internal Consistency Cronbach’s Alpha Table 4.1 Summary of the Main Theories of Leadership Table 3.9 Correlation of OC.19 Reliability Analysis 26 30 30 43 86 86 87 87 88 90 91 92 94 95 96 97 99 102 103 106 106 107 107 108 108 109 110 110 110 113 113 114 114 115 115 116 117 118 118 162 163 7 .19 Independent Test of Morale.2 Coefficient of Morale Table 4.2 Coefficient of OC Table 4. CC & NC with Job Satisfaction Table 4.References (134-152) List of Tables Table 1.12.5 Questions on Job Satisfaction and Morale of University Faculty Table 3.1 Characteristics of University Faculty members Table 4.1 Correlation Analysis Pilot Study Table 4.11 Regression Statistics Table 4.15.1 Organizational Commitment and Morale (Male & Female) Table 4.1 ANOVA OC (Male) Table 4. Relation-Oriented Behavior and OC Table 4.

Acquiring of Instruments F. 4 Theoretical Framework Graph 1 Employees Organizational Commitment Graph 2 Task Oriented Leadership Behavior Graph 3 Relation Oriented Leadership Behavior Graph 4 Laissez-faire Behavior Graph 5 Participatory Decision Making Graph 6 Job Satisfaction Graph 7 Morale 37 58 59 71 167 167 168 168 169 169 170 8 . 2 Meyer and Allen’s Model Fig.HEC Ranking of Universities G.Private universities of Pakistan J.Chartered Universities of Pakistan I .APPENDICES A.Definitions and Theories H.Abbreviations used in text K-Other Researchers Results and Explanations 152 154 155 155 156 158 159 160 161 162 171 179 184 186 187 List of Figures Fig.Covering Letter B1-Questionnaire Personal Demographics B2-Organizational Commitment Questionnaire B3-Leadership Behavior. 1 Overview and Structure of this Study Fig. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire B4-Participative Management Decision Making B5-Faculty Job Satisfaction and Morale C-Interview Card D-Reminder Letter E. 3 Steers Model of Commitment Fig.

Job Satisfaction. Morale. Correlation and regression were performed to investigate the relationship between faculty’s commitment to their universities and the other variables measured in the study. The results of this study also reveal that job satisfaction has a strong association with faculty’s organizational commitment and also that the faculty’s morale is affected by university leadership’s behavior. Commitment. The subject used in this study is faculty members of different private and public universities of Pakistan. A survey was conducted and then complemented by some semi structured interviews. As compared to Steers model. Keywords: Leadership. Faculty. Research in the area of leadership behavior. from which 237 usable completed questionnaires were returned (79% response rate). A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed to faculty in eighteen public and private sector universities. and their effect on organizational commitment. It is observed that organizational leadership and participatory decision-making exert a significant impact on commitment. Participatory Decision Making. the continuance commitment shows higher significance than affective commitment in this study. Job satisfaction and morale is also observed as an outcome. A model of commitment was developed using a multiple regression analysis in which a link of the role of leadership behavior and employees’ participation in decision making with organizational commitment was explored. participation of employees in the organizational decision making. Pakistan 9 . The objective of this thesis is to examine the effect of leadership behavior. The results of this study are in agreement with the model proposed by Bass & Avolio (1995) in which relation-oriented behavior is more significant. organizational commitment and employees’ job satisfaction is noticeably absent in Pakistan.Abstract A large number of studies have examined the antecedents of organizational commitment in the western countries. The two leadership behaviors – task oriented behavior and participative style of management – have a positive effect on commitment while the laissez-faire style had a negative effect on commitment.

commitment to their organization and morale were the variables studied. HEC’s introduction of Model University Act and selection of Vice Chancellors. “we do not need new universities at all. the situation is very different and the higher education system in Pakistan is facing some serious issues. Bukhari (2009) pointed out that. is facing criticism from academia. in its report in 1992. 2009). experience. and length of service with their respective universities were few of the personal and demographic characteristics included in the study. while teaching was the second and third preferred profession for many. World Bank also. pointed towards the most pressing issues of higher education in Pakistan including. inefficiency and ineffectiveness. the Higher Education Commission (HEC).1 Introduction The purpose of this research study was to investigate the influence of leadership behavior and participatory decision making on faculty member’s commitment to their respective Universities in Pakistan.Chapter 1 1. In this system the best students preferred to join the bureaucracy. job satisfaction. 10 . among others. to start universities. participation in decision making. Pakistan inherited a colonial education system (Tariq. The decision of the overseeing public authority. Age. instead we need to rescue and standardize our current academia”. Measures of leadership behavior. Some burning issues however. According to Hoodbhoy (2009) “No one doubts the desperate need for reforms of Pakistan’s education sector”. under-funding and low productivity in research. are University autonomy. a flawed institutional framework. problematic nature of design and delivery of service. Currently. irrelevance and wastage of equipment.

was a functionary of the state. In this model the faculty was entrusted with limited decision making at best. It started functioning in 1858. The syndicate of the university was the most powerful decision making body and was dominated by the functionaries of the state. the Colonial Model (Rehman. the model of the modern. The model of the modern university in India was a new model. 2006). Typically a Chancellor. who was the chief executive officer (CEO) of the university. Basically. The Punjab University Lahore is the oldest university in Pakistan. namely the university. The first university established on the European model in Subcontinent was the University of Calcutta. and is 11 . Thus. 1882. The Vice-Chancellor is the academic leader and the principal executive of the university. This Act was drawn up on the pattern of the University of London. Universities are incorporated. amended from time to time. After independence. Major decision making was done by the functionaries of the state. heads the university in Pakistan. The Vice-Chancellor. many other universities came into existence. through Acts of the National Assembly or Provincial Assemblies (Virk & Isani 2004). other universities copied the Punjab University Act. who is the Governor in the case of a provincial university and the President in the case of a federal university. in 1947. more or less on a uniform basis in accordance with a “Model Act” which provides common features of university governance and management. The Viceroy (executive head of subcontinent appointed by Queen of England) was the Chancellor of the university.To understand the issues of academia in Pakistan one has to look at the history of a key institution. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor is chosen from the senior professors of the university. autonomous Universities in India was not similar to University of Oxford and Cambridge or even London. He was a judge.

Askling (2002). the Finance and Planning Committee etc. the Syndicate. therefore did not meet the academic and administrative requirements of the Universities.appointed by the Chancellor to assist the Vice-Chancellor. With the passage of time a number of problems emerged due to certain provisions or lack of provisions in the Acts. The Acts of most of the public sector universities in Pakistan were revised in 1973 to democratize various authorities to include teachers through elections. members of syndicate. the Treasurer. the Finance and Planning Committee. are generally the Senate. Mora (2002). It is responsible for the academic and financial aspects of the university. an extremely dynamic educational era in Spain came to an end and the legal reforms have stopped the growth of the higher education system. eminent persons and in some cases representative of the students. which control the universities. It is a large body and comprises university officers. professors. deans. The composition of the Senate. On the international front the situation is different. These reforms have also restricted the freedom of the faculty. Other administrative heads are the Registrar. states that because of restrictive legal reforms enforced by the government. The Carnegie Foundation sponsored a study in 14 countries in 2002. the Selection Board. while studying the Swedish educational system states that the reforms of the regulative framework have addressed some problematic issues relating to 12 . the Academic Council. the Controller of Examination. through which different scholars offered useful insights about the reforms in their academic systems. the Board of Faculties and Studies. The Senate is considered to be the supreme authority of the university. Syndicate. the Resident Auditor and the Librarian. principals of colleges. while discussing the academic conditions in Spain. the Academic Council. The authorities.

The other important fact ignored is that the professors are at heart of the academic enterprise and regulative environment affects their commitment. nor contributing fully to the emerging knowledge-based society. Altbach.their academic system. especially for faculty. But the academic profession still finds itself under increasing pressure. have deteriorated and the traditional autonomy has decreased. Industrially developed societies are giving higher education a central position in the technological scene of the 21st century. (2002) says that even though the enrollments into universities have increased. Working conditions in the universities. A university can not be successful without a committed faculty and effective teaching and learning can not take place in the absence of commitment. pays and perquisites. nor their graduate programmes equate the international standards. yet it is not accompanied by commensurate growth in faculty appointments. Virk and Isani (2004) have pointed out that the higher education in Pakistan was in urgent need of reforms. These practices negate academic freedom and hence the universities are neither achieving their potential. as a result. Many top appointments in academics are made purely on political bases. but should also be the very mission of the university. Other academicians have argued that a fully developed higher education system could not exist without academic freedom. Altbach (2002) points out that the academic freedom in many countries is threatened. They argue that Pakistani universities in their present form are neither ready to create new knowledge. 13 . He further highlights the importance of academic freedom and says that this freedom is not only essential to teaching and research. those who are responsible for leading and funding higher education are either concerned with finance and management issues or making new appointments to satisfy their voters.

(Dushka. Thus. One can only find a few articles in magazines and other press publications through which authors have normally addressed the issues relating to the deteriorating working conditions and management of public sector universities. 2004) point out that currently the higher education in Pakistan is not contributing to the economic growth of the country. such as Punjab University Lahore and University of Sindh Jamshoro. lack of infrastructure. the consequences of one man decision making. private universities such as Institute of Business Administration (IBA) Karachi. Compared to public sector universities. literacy is increasing at 1% per year while population is increasing at the rate of 2. haunt us. (Virk. lack of investment on research and non-academic leadership of the universities.7% of GNP on education. and university vice chancellors cannot pay salaries for faculty and staff. and Lahore University of 14 .8% per year.Many researchers have warned about the efforts made by administration to regulate faculty’s work. as low funding. Under these circumstances it is the private sector that is investing in universities. as expensive research equipment has been purchased throughout the country. Researchers (Virk & Isani. Rehman (2006). Researchers have worked upon many topics in the area of leadership and participative management. In Pakistan hardly any significant research has been done in the area of leadership and commitment up till now. Isani 2004). Hoodbhoy (2009) points out that Higher Education Commission and its authorities do not involve academicians’ decision making in universities. 2005). The problem is that Pakistan spends 2. Other authors point out reasons for this situation. Enrollment in the education sector has been growing at the rate of 6% per year. but most of this work has been done in the western countries.

working conditions. (HEC Report 2006). Austin. have written about faculty’s job satisfaction. benefits. universities’ overall management system and Higher Education Commission’s inability to implement its own selection criteria for appointments of Vice Chancellors. reported that faculty gets affected by the senior administrations management style. Craig and Mendel (1976). Madron. The commitment and democratic style of management too. Rice and Splete. Hoodbhoy (2009). These and some other private institutions have attracted faculty on very high pay scales as compared to those of public sector universities. Even though public sector universities carry pension and other benefits after retirement. Bukhari (2009). recommended that when faculty has low morale. yet a trend of shifting jobs from public to private universities has been visibly observed in Pakistan. In Pakistan. the behavior of departmental heads must come under scrutiny. authors like Dushka (2005). physical facilities and roles in the universities decision-making affect faculty’s morale. Rahman (2006). and the degree to which they perceived that they participated in the institution’s higher level decision-making processes. Despite the fact that fees are three times higher in private universities. 15 . commitment and job satisfaction (Altbach 2002). (1991). Virk and Isani (2004).Management Sciences (LUMS) rank first and second on the list of Higher Education Commission. institutions like LUMS and the Agha Khan University have become preferred choice for students in certain disciplines. Research studies have indicated that the salaries. have played a significant role in the success of these institutions.

An important aspect of the current study is an investigation of University Leadership. Bass (1990). besides finding out how far the administration is willing to empower and include the faculty in institutional decision making process. This research will be a significant contribution to the body of knowledge by providing evidence to the literature and theory from Pakistan on a subject which is very popular for many decades. Different researchers have used different terms to describe leadership behavior. Virk and Isani have written a book (2004) on the overall conditions of Higher Education in Pakistan. while 16 . gave an overview of the terms used by researchers.1. The morale of faculty and their job satisfaction are investigated. Lack of previous research on this important area in Pakistan has necessitated this imperative research study. DeCotiis & Summers (1987). Numerous studies conducted in the western industrialized societies by Alvi & Ahmed (1987). An investigation by the researcher found very little literature relating to Pakistani universities. However very recently the concept of organizational commitment has grown in popularity and is receiving a great deal of attention from researchers. In 1980s a paper was written on assessment of organizational commitment of male and female employees towards their organizations in Pakistan by Alvi and Ahmed. Wasti (2004) and White (2006) have investigated many possible antecedents of organizational commitment. such as Vice Chancellors and Senior Administration and their task and relationship oriented behavior and how it influences faculty and their job satisfaction. For example. Meyer & Allen (1997).2 Rationale for the Thesis The study of leadership behavior has gained importance in the literature of management and organizational behavior in the last two decades.

Some researchers have also pointed out that management practices have effects beyond an employee’s response to work. The researchers have described these two types of behaviors under different terms. the influence of leadership behavior and decision making style of management in education sector has received very little attention. i. the 17 . 1994).e. leadership upon which Zaleznik (1977) stressed. person related behavior and goal focused behavior. Iverson and Roy 1994.describing relationship-oriented leadership behaviors Hemphill (1950). (2005) in her study indicated that management practices can make employees sick. Earlier researchers studied leadership style as transformational and transactional and later on Hersey & Blanchard and Bass.). Participatory decision making was thought of by Ouchi (1981) as significant while Misumi (1985) thought building mutual trust was important and being democratic was Misumi’s (1985) contribution. Burton. Another researcher states that the effectiveness of such institutions is dependent upon the quality. (1990) focused on leadership behavior as taskoriented and relation-oriented. included concern for people as expressed by Blake and Mouton (1964). For example. researchers like Baldwin and Blackburn (1983) have indicated that whatever threatens the health of the faculty threatens the well being of higher education institutions (HEIs). (Hagedorn.. Even though different terms and names have been used by different researchers yet the researchers have pointed out repeatedly. that leadership style and behaviors have significant effects upon employee’s response to his or her work and organization. interaction-oriented behavior emphasized by Bass (1967). morale and conviction of its faculty. Among academics. Even though a large number of studies have investigated numerous possible antecedents of organizational commitment (DeCoits and Summers 1987. people centered behavior emphasized by Anderson (1974).

libraries. spent most of their time in archives. and bureaucrats. This argument has not been substantiated or proven. Cotes (1991). nor has anyone presented data to prove it (Rahman. The arguments put forth for appointing these retired army officers as vice chancellors was that they have substantial training in administration.*Meta Analysis by Monge and Miller (1999) on the organizational commitment did not include any reference to faculty or employee’s morale and organizational commitment. The focus of these administrators was on regulating the faculty’s conduct which proved to be problematic. Cohen did a Meta analysis in 1993 and again examined the models of Randel. The presumption was that they could administer universities better than academicians who. according to Rahman (2006) the university faculty does not respect these administrators as they are not known in the academic world. and Morrow (1993) in 1999. Some of these Vice Chancellors consisted of retired government officers. The popular Pakistani press has been reporting on the issues arising from the management styles of those vice chancellors who have been appointed against the rules set up by Higher Education Commission. laboratories or the classroom. Moreover. Similarly. *A meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses. 2006). presumably. but there was no mention of organizational commitment and behavior of leaders as far as education sector was concerned. 18 .

Researchers like Olswang & Lee (1984) have pointed out that autonomy and freedom contribute most to faculty satisfaction. It is possible for a person to report greater job satisfaction but no institutional commitment (Hunter. In Pakistan. union affiliation. tenure and type of organization are some of the variables. job-related stress could be a contributor to faculty’s dissatisfaction and this dissatisfaction. According to Hort & Oxley (1992). according to Moore & Gardner (1992). promotion. Steers (1977) points out that in western countries. as they are able to pay higher salaries and attract faculty of good quality. may move a faculty member to disassociate himself from the organization. Ventimiglia and Crow. According to Hagedon (1994). private universities are making a reasonably good contribution to academia and the job market. cross-validational studies. which exert considerable influence on commitment in industrialized societies. job security. Increased regulation of faculty conduct and poor administrator-faculty relationships can also cause dissatisfaction and low commitment (Hort & Oxley. job satisfaction is dependent on a number of factors and a good predictor of satisfaction in academia consists of satisfaction with salary. Nienhuis (1994) reported that “collegiality” as a factor increases a sense of commitment and leads to increased job satisfaction. Halford (1994) highlighted the crucial role of leadership style in determining faculty morale in HEIs. the trend toward greater regulation of faculty conduct seriously affects the faculty’s job satisfaction and eventually their commitment. therefore. It has been reported that wages. It is the participatory leadership style that builds a supportive institutional environment which is perceived favorably by faculty (Madron & Craig 1976). 1992). 1980). whereby hypotheses or models are tested and then 19 .

On the other hand. and organizational commitment of male and female was also examined. Age restrictions exist for eligibility to the large pool of government jobs. In this regard considerations. 1987). Canada. 1. like what causes job stress and its ultimate impact on the physical and emotional health of faculty members in higher education. normative and affirmative commitments. particularly the degree to 20 . Alvi & Ahmed (1987) suggested that. India. 1977). So is the senior administrators’ leadership style. affective.replicated in a different higher education environments are rarely done. gender has a negative relationship with organizational commitment. were statistically significant in the Pakistani universities. namely. This may not hold good in Pakistan due to high unemployment and low horizontal mobility for people and its male-dominated work environment (Alvi & Ahmed. Thus it would be interesting and useful to know if there are some potential and significant differences in organizational commitment that exists in Pakistan. Thus female employees are more likely to leave their university workplace than their male counterparts (Marsh & Mannari. China and Iran. However. is very relevant. In this study respondents data was separated into two groups based on gender.3 Objectives of the Study An important aspect of the study of commitment. All three types of organizational commitments propagated by Meyer & Allen (1993). they loose their benefits if they do so. so that even if people want to further their education. in developed countries such as the USA. many studies have been done in Israel. In Pakistan there is a paucity of jobs and job opportunities. gender and ethnicity is prohibited. participation and faculty’s job satisfaction is an investigation of the factors that impact either positively or negatively on them. and UK the discrimination based on age.

21 . Specifically. the composition of the teams and the methods of keeping score. The findings of this research are also aimed to facilitate policy makers to develop policies that are targeted to improve working conditions of University faculty and thus improve the effectiveness and vitality of higher education institutions. It explores universities’ leaderships’ behavior and its influence on faculty’s commitment. It assumes how and to what extent organizational commitment is related to participatory decision-making. job satisfaction and morale in Pakistani universities. This study strives to provide a greater understanding of the influence of leadership behavior on commitment. the layouts and conditions of the playing fields. “The rule of the game. says that.which administrators are perceived to be willing to empower faculty and include them in institutional decision-making processes. There findings are important in determining where to make effective change management strategies in the universities. Such insights into the determinants of faculty commitment. participative decision-making and different types of organizational commitments. it provides information about the relationship between relation-oriented and task oriented behaviors. Thus Kerr (1994). job satisfaction and morale. The term higher education institutions evoke a whole array of widely differing establishments. efficacy of various leadership styles in university administrations and efficacy of faculty’s involvement in decision making will contribute to the management paradigm of the Pakistani University. all vary enormously from one segment of higher education to another.

Problem Setting 1. A study conducted by Carnegie Foundation in different countries found that there was high level of faculty dissatisfaction with the current level of administrative and governance arrangements (Altbach & Lewis.5 Conditions of Higher Education in Pakistan Over the years. Under the current administrative structure. Articles appearing in popular press in Pakistan have been repeatedly urging 22 . (1995). commitment and turn over. The majority of faculty members in eight different countries reported that their senior administrators were autocratic and a majority of respondents in six countries agreed that lack of faculty involvement in governance was a problem. many writers have reported on the conditions of higher education in Pakistan.4 Issues of Leadership Behavior. A large number of faculty members reported dissatisfaction and doubts about the quality of leadership provided by their top-level administrators. there are reports that faculty turn over in some universities is on a higher side. This study examines faculty’s commitment to Universities. they would be more likely to internalize the decisions and implement them. The question of higher education governance is linked with the administrator’s leadership styles and faculty’s participation in decision-making. necessitates that a study be done in the area. Their organizational structures also differ. Faculty was unhappy about the hierarchical and rigid governance structures of their institutions. 1. Faculty’s Commitment and Job Satisfaction in Pakistan The state of HEIs in terms of job satisfaction. The salary difference in private and public sector institutions is significantly different. if teachers have a voice in matters affecting them. As noted by Mahmood (1999).

and Middle Hurst (1993) found that in higher educational institutes in America.6 Our Universities Working Environment The work of Weber (1948) has provided a valuable insight in to the workings of complex organizations. while the contractbased employment is the problem in private sector. increasingly complex. The characteristics of a bureaucracy suggested by Weber (1948). and that is they are reluctant to change. which are mostly bureaucratically structured. lot of procedural paper work and a power seeking behavior exhibited by the administrators. Miller (1992). faculty was satisfied with their jobs. and expertise with officials being selected according to merit (Beetham 1987). with titles such as Vice Chancellor. fairly rigid. Rector or Director General. governance practices and the leadership style of administrators. The salaries are not good in the public sector. there is lot of red taping. 1. In all three countries research reflected their strong commitment to their institutions. include hierarchy. and resistant to change. 23 . impersonality as in rules and regulations. they lack innovation. This situation is in stark contrast to that in most developed countries. These writings have also pointed out that due to limited number of PhDs and experienced faculty. order. The other element of this type of organizations includes control.about provision of facilities. continuity as in career structure of salaried professional. If these elements are taken as positive then there are certainly some negativities attached with them too. Universities are generally large organizations. working conditions of faculty. Schuster (1986). employees are dissatisfied. efficiency and stability. there has been a trend for faculty to switch between the universities after every few years. Australia and United Kingdom. A recent survey done by Ghuman DAWN (2005) showed that more than one dozen universities are headed by non PhD retired government officers.

The socialization processes of professors in different types of universities also determine how well these professors fit into these organizations. administration or teaching experience run some of the major and oldest universities in the country. but may disagree with the managerial strategies applied in the organization. the cultural fit of these professors in their working environment. may accept the broad organizational culture in which they work. is that retired government officers with no academic. that is. it is not surprising to find that our public sector universities fit into a well-established bureaucratic culture. in anyway. as pointed out by deans in their interviews and by the Federation of All Pakistan Universities Academic Staff Association (FAPUASA). who normally work in public sector universities. Based on interviews and survey 24 . such as senior faculty and PhD’s. An interesting fact as revealed by the HEC chairman is that the commission cannot stop the Provincial Governors (Chancellors) from appointing theses people as Vice Chancellors in nation’s public sector universities. This is an example of mismatch or gap between the expectations of employees and management strategies. On the other hand professionals working in private universities are subjected to the different value systems and practices of the universities. That being a reality. are naturally subjected to the bureaucratic nature of the universities. like a university.Bureaucracies emphasize authority and often managers within such organizations are reluctant to relinquish any of their powers and authorities. Professors working in a professional bureaucracy. Another reality in Pakistani universities. Professionals. Although the size and complexity of many public universities and the increasing specializations and new degree programs have made it difficult to restructure the universities. other than bureaucratically. Such a mismatch would have considerable influence on employee’s commitment to the organization.

such intrinsic factors as autonomy and freedom contribute optimum to faculty satisfaction. policies. When faculty finds the leadership style to be supportive. Academic freedom must be at the top of the agenda for everyone concerned with higher education. restructuring the departments and responding to accountability requirements. There is a need to look into to the area of responsibilities regarding programming actions. but it appears that the way faculty perceives its administrator’s leadership style is a factor. There are two strong dimensions of university autonomy: One is academic dimension and the other is administrative dimension. which relates to the job satisfaction and commitment. its job satisfaction enhances.results. degree requirements. They should be doing all in their power to improve faculty job satisfaction and morale and some of the public sector universities seriously need more traditional faculty autonomy. which show the leadership style of senior administrators to be a most significant factor influencing faculty in terms of job satisfaction and morale. but a core value for academia. setting standards. but if that autonomy is challenged or restricted. the environment becomes less enjoyable as a work place and increased regulation of faculty conduct does serious damage to faculty job satisfaction and morale (Olswang & Lee: 1984). There are other factors explained in chapter 4 of this study. History shows that academic freedom is not only a fundamental pre-requisite for an effective university. The other dimension reflects campus flexibility regarding managing 25 . This further substantiates previous studies. This new breed of leadership in nation’s universities stresses more on regulating the faculty. it is clear that faculty’s job satisfaction and morale has suffered in most of the universities headed by retired government officers with no academic institutions administration experience.

The other important aspect is who should be running the universities. N. appointing personnel. both in public and private sectors? Table 1. Ahmed. Nominees of the chancellor. budgeting and expending funds. Librarian. Academic council Syndicate *Main executive body. Representative/Secretary of Provincial Education Department. *Manage university funds and properties *Affiliate. October 1. setting tuition fees. Disaffiliate colleges * Inspect affiliated institutions * Appoint officers and teachers * Oversee service matters of all the officers concerned Senate *Statues *Review annual performance of the university * Appoint members to various bodies * Budgets and finance overlays * Source: S. 2006 26 . Principals of affiliated colleges. Experts of the fields pertinent to the university Chaired by the Vice-Chancellor * Members of the provincial assembly * Members of university senate * Chief Justice of the concerned High Court (or a judge of the High Court nominated by him) * Secretary of the Provincial Education Department * Nominee of Higher Education Commission * Deans * Representatives of University professors/teachers *Nominees of the chancellor * Principals of affiliated colleges Chaired by the Vice-chancellor * Members of Syndicate * Officers * University teacher’s representative (other than professors) * Principals of affiliated colleges * Students representatives * Alumni’s representatives * Vice-chancellor Pro-chancellor Chaired by the chancellor Board of faculty All academic matters at the faculty level All academic matters at the university level.1 Existing Framework of University Management in the Public Sector Body Board of Studies Main Functions Academic matters at the departmental level Usual Composition *Senior faculty members of the department concerned *Eminent professionals of the field concerned Chaired by the chairman of the department * Senior faculty members of the concerned faculty Chaired by the dean of faculty * Deans. Chairmen of teaching departments. affiliated colleges and institutions. Professors. Haque. “Lower Expectation″ DAWN.revenues.

The rankings are published according to broad institutional subject areas (HEC Report 2006). Art and Design. *The report has generated a debate within the academia in Pakistan. and do not operate under similar educational policies. HEC stated that the primary purpose of the ranking exercise was to share comprehensive data with the general public on the key issues that determine the state of higher education in a particular institution. finances 15%. faculty 27%. All readers should be cautious while reading these rankings. HEC collected data from 2001 to 2004 from Universities through a questionnaire.7 The Issue of University Ranking and Higher Education Commission Universities in Pakistan do not share one basic philosophy and mission. It started a program to increase the number of PhDs in the universities by offering scholarships for studies abroad and encouraged research programs within the country. It also introduced a model university ordinance besides publishing a ranking of universities in Pakistan. and no ranking is satisfying to all”. Business and Information Technology. These subject areas consist of Agriculture. and should not completely rely on the ranking list as definitive. HEC based its ranking on data collected on certain key issues which were given certain weights. and research 26%. *HEC while issuing this list also warned people that. “University rankings are inherently controversial.1. facilities 15 %. General and Health Sciences. Students were given a weight of 17 %. The HEC oversees the quality of university education in Pakistan. It replaced the University Grants Commission (UGC) in 2002. Engineering. HEC has taken key initiatives to overhaul the conditions of universities in many ways. Veterinary Sciences. HEC also announced that this ranking is to be used simply as one kind of reference to assist parents and potential students to choose the most suitable institution to study. 27 .

D. both public sector and private sector were included in the list of ranking. For the position of assistant professor. As many as 56 Universities. and is regarded as a senior or second master’s degree. Thus. As there are very few faculty members who fulfill this criterion. 28 . HEC had asked the management of the universities to improve themselves in all areas included in the ranking and had extended the date from 2007 until 2009. It is generally thesis only.According to this information 58 Universities. Karachi and Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).) but greater than (or sometimes equal to) the Bachelor of Philosophy (BPhil). The top ranking Universities were private including Agha Khan University. The positions of associate professors and full professors also require PhD degrees with 10 to 15 years of teaching experience together with 10 to 15 research publications. one is eligible for the post of assistant professor. relaxation was given for faculty to fulfill the publication requirements by July 31. The report also clearly states the conditions and minimum requirements for faculty selection and appointments. or as a substitute for a Ph. but before the defense of a dissertation. It is a lesser degree than the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. In some cases it can serve as a provisional enrollment for the PhD. and is of greater scope than the Master of Arts and Master of Science degrees.Phil. In some instances the degree may be awarded to graduate students after completing several years of original research. No publication or experience is required. if one has a master’s degree from a foreign country or an *M. the HEC eligibility criteria is a PhD degree and no prior teaching experience but very few PhDs are available. In the area of faculty excellence there are 4 universities scoring higher than 20 points. 2009. To be eligible for the position of a lecturer in a university one must have Master’s Degree (First Class) in the relevant field with no third division in one’s academic career.) is a postgraduate research degree requiring the completion of a thesis.D.Phil (two years degree after masters) from Pakistan. since they were granted their charters after 2001. *The Master of Philosophy (M. 20 public and 36 private Universities were not considered for ranking. thesis that is a marginal fail.

29 . By and large. HEC exceedingly stresses that research should be conducted in the universities. HEC plans to appoint leading foreign professors at key positions for 10 years in the upcoming 6 new engineering universities. to rectify the situation (HEC. the ranking of universities simply passes judgment and reinforces the public perception of the concerned universities. 2005). Karachi and Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) are ranked amongst the first two Universities by HEC.There are faculty related problems such as faculty may not meet required qualifications for appointment and promotion to the next position etc. They contend that. have overtaken many established professional public sector universities in a number of specialized disciplines. 2006). which indicates that the private sector is progressing very fast in the field of higher education. new private universities. less than a decade old. The quality of students is poor and faculty is not well qualified or experienced even up to the national standards. 2006). Those who disagree with HEC’s ranking criteria argue that the best way to evaluate the performance of universities and other higher institutions of educational learning is through self assessment (Haque & Ahmed. The problems within public sector universities are very much deeper than they appear (Virk & Isani. not to speak of international standards. The Agha Khan University. but unfortunately very little research has been carried out in universities.

2002 Name of university National University of Sciences and Technology. Karachi1 NWFP University of Engineering and Technology. Peshawar Quaid-i-Awam University of Engineering Sciences and Technology. Total number of teachers 365 233 238 69 83 141 84 49 45 1.Virk. “Toil and Trouble” . DAWN. Total number of teachers 474 170 219 88 951 Number of PhDs 270 89 64 39 462 30 . Faisalabad NWFP Agricultural University. 2006.3 Faculty Profiles of Agricultural Universities. Nawabshah University of Engineering and Technology.407 Teachers with PhD 103 89 36 31 25 21 8 7 0 320 Table 1.Table 1. Khuzdar Total Source: M. Rawalpindi University of Engineering and Technology. November 5. “Toil and Trouble”. Tandojam University of Arid Agriculture.Virk. Lahore Mehran University of Engineering and Technology. Taxila Baluchistan University of Engineering and Technology. Rawalpindi Total Source: M. 2006. DAWN. Jamshoro Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences. November 12.2 Faculty Profile of Engineering Universities (Public Sector). 2002 Name of University University of Agriculture. Islamabad NED University of Engineering and Technology. Peshawar Sindh Agriculture University.L.L.

Vroom and Yetton’s (1989). which are defined in the preceding pages. model of concern for task or people. such as task performance. which refers to three forms of commitment as affective. leadership model. (1974) defines leadership to be a process of influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement. Affective commitment refers to employee’s emotional attachment. Meyer and Allen (1997). 2002) suggest that operationalized measures of the three-component commitment model have been shown to predict many important outcomes. and job satisfaction.1. (Meyer. define commitment as “a force that guides a course of action towards one or more targets”. Types of Organizational Commitment The three types of organizational commitment are described below. and 31 . Leadership Style Leadership style has been defined as a behavior that leaders use to influence a group towards the achievement of goals. autocratic and participative model. Hershey & Blanchard’s (1977). continuance and normative commitment. the task and relation oriented behavior model of Fielder’s (1967) have been studied extensively. Meyer and Herscovitch (2002). identification with.8 Definition of Terms and Concepts The thesis involves concept and terms. also presented a “three-component model of commitment”. Stogdill. Herscovitch & Meyer. Different leadership styles and models. Organizational Commitment The term commitment refers to an outcome in which a person agrees with a decision or request and makes personal efforts to carry out the request or implement the decision effectively. such as Bass and Avolio’s (1990). 2001.

an attitude which individuals have about their jobs. Job satisfaction has received a great deal of attention in the last few decades. Further more. 1990). define normative commitment as feeling of obligation which employees have. such as length of time in the current position and years of teaching experience were also included because of their “importance in the higher education context” (Battersby. 1977) and were included in this study. 1997) Meyer & Allen (1997). Personal and Demographic Characteristics The variables of age. 2003. Employees with strong affective commitments stay with the organization because they want to. Locke (1976) has defined job satisfaction as a “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experience”. It results from perception of their jobs and the degree to which there is a good fit between the individual and the organization (Ivancevich. Employees who perceive that the cost of leaving the organization is greater than the cost of staying. Meyer & Allen. remain with the organization because they need to (Brown. Other demographic variables. (Brown. 32 . Job Satisfaction The term job satisfaction refers to.involvement in the organization. tenure. 2003) Continuance commitment refers to employees’ assessment of whether the costs of leaving the organization are greater than the cost of staying. to the organization. Employees with high level of normative commitments stay with the organization because they feel they ought to. job satisfaction seems to have to do more with a single individual than a group. 1997). education and gender have been suggested in previous studies as having significant influence on organizational commitment (Steers.

However. Private Universities are those that are either run by a trust. Their rules and regulations pertaining to faculty hiring. a board or a single owner.Morale The concept of faculty morale is a complex one which is closely related to other concepts including job satisfaction and commitment. Faculty Faculty. Public Universities are those that receive funding from the federal or provincial governments and follow uniform rules regarding faculty hiring. Administration While this term often differs from institution to institution. to view the leader or leaders. their need satisfaction (Pestonjee. It includes not only those whose current primary purpose in a university or college is teaching and research. which do not receive provincial or federal government funding. 1973). or thwarting. organization and its policies as contributing to. in this thesis refers to the academic staff of a public or private university. Public and Private University This is a term that. Morale is taken as the state of mind which predisposes a group or individual at a particular time. takes in all post secondary-level educational institutions including degree granting universities and institutes. job tenure etc may also vary from one university to another. but also personnel in the senior administration of higher education who have arrived at that capacity having spent some time as academic staff members. administration is used to refer to a group of higher management academic executives at the apex of the 18 33 . in the education sector. job tenure etc. they are given a degree granting authority and charter by the province or federal government.

or rector and or director. particularly the government and other bodies that provide higher education with its main source of funding. The Universities are interested in 34 . This group of senior administrators comprises the president. or chairman of an institute or university and includes the deans. 1. textbook and standards of education at the University level. heads of departments involved in the day-to-day management and governance of the institution. vice chancellor. public and private sector Universities. It does not refer to the wider administrative staff of office workers etc.Universities involved in this study. University Grants Commission (UGC) and Higher Education Commission (HEC) The Federal Government had designated the University Grants Commission to be the authority for enforcing the provisions of UGC Act of 1974.9 Significance of the Study The attitude and relationship which teachers have towards their universities is important to all stakeholders involved in education. according to which the UGC was authorized to supervise the curricula. institutional autonomy describes the relative freedom from constraints imposed by the relationship between the university and society. The HEC was primarily set up for the improvement of the quality of academic programmes in both. Academic Freedom This term refers to the degree of autonomy of the individual to pursue learning “free of externally imposed dictates” (Brubacher 1977). In 2002 the Higher Education Commission replaced the UGC. Institutional Autonomy In matters of governance and administration.

employee retention (Mobley. Secondly. we do not know how faculty is affected by their Vice-Chancellors relation-oriented and task-oriented behaviors and what effect this has upon the organizational commitment of its faculty. 1. It has also been suggested by researchers that employees who exhibit high organizational commitment should be least likely to leave the organization and employees with low levels of commitment should be the most likely to leave the organization. 1979). In academics. Finally. commitment is considered an important factor which increases the effectiveness of the educational enterprise. but the literature does not offer guidance on how relation-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors affect different types of organizational commitment. Researchers have also tried to find out which style of leadership is suitable for higher management of educational institutions because the effectiveness of HEIs depends on the quality. We also do not know whether task-oriented behavior has a more significant 35 . we do not know how the relation-oriented and task-oriented leadership behavior is related to the organizational commitment of the faculty. voluntarily (Huselid & Day 1991). morale and conviction of its faculty (Lok. In Pakistani universities. & Magelino.10 Problem Statement While these studies have shown that leadership behavior affects employees’ commitment towards the organization. The leadership style of Vice Chancellors of Higher Education Institutions has gained importance due to the recent implies by HEC for conducting research in the Universities. Managers are making efforts to enhance their employee’s commitment because they believe that commitment has become a prerequisite for effective and well performing organizations. 1999). Griffeth. we also do not know if participative decision making has any favorable effect on employees’ commitment to the organization.

Chapter 5 provides the discussion and conclusion of the thesis. Chapter 4 presents the empirical results. Job satisfaction and morale of faculty? Chapter one of this study deals with the structure of the thesis. Studies conducted by Meyer and Allen (1997) and Steers (1977) have shown affective commitment to be dominant in their settings of studies. This study has compared the findings of above authors with its own findings in Pakistan. organization and profession? 4.11 Research Questions: The researcher’s interest in the construct of commitment and leadership behavior raised a number of issues. decision-making types. 1. The basic research questions that have provided direction for the present study. Chapter 3 describes the methodology of the thesis.effect than relationship oriented behavior on organizational commitment. What kind of relation exists between organizational commitments.` would it have positive influence on its loyalty towards university and what would be its affect on their satisfaction from their job. leadership styles and job satisfaction is presented in chapter 2. 36 . Among the three types of leadership behavior which one contributes more towards faculty’s intention to stay with its university? 3. A review of literature on organizational commitment. If faculty is consulted in the university’s decision making process. and which needed answers are. Is faculty’s commitment influenced by behavior of university leadership and does it affect male and female faculty members differently? 2. rationale and the significance of the research conducted. 1.

Steers and Meyer and Allen’s models Chapter 4 Result of research Sample Results of questionnaire survey Demographic data of responses Demographics of OC Commitment and university Faculty Correlations among task oriented and relation oriented sub scales Correlations among Organizational Commitment subscales Correlations between task subscale and OC subscale Correlations between relations and OC subscales Correlations between decision making and OC Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion Research question Findings Conclusion Limitations and delimitations Implications for practice Future research needs summary 37 . Rationale and significance of the study Statement of the problem Purpose of research Chapter 3 Research Methods Type of study Sample description Population instrument Measurement of concept Questionnaires Data collection Procedure Methods of Analysis Data interpretation and presentation methods Summary Chapter 2 The Literature Review.Figure 1: Structure of the Research Thesis Chapter 1 Introduction. Previous research.

Fulmer 1997). 1999) from university of Haifa Israel tested the organizational commitment model of Marrow. Randal and Cote.CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW There are many contributions in the literature pertaining to leadership behavior. and Turkey. A survey of literature by this researcher revealed that although these researchers are from industrialized countries. Australia. morale and job satisfaction were closely inter-related. Lok. Currently 900 programs are run in colleges and universities on the topic of leadership alone. By 2002 there were 10. Meyer and Allen. Bass and Avolio. Stephens Company) had added 136 published articles on leadership to its website from January 1970 to December 1971. United Arab Emirates. Randal and Cote. that investment in leadership development has increased significantly (Vicere & Fulmer 1998. yet their proposed models have been tested in diverse countries. such as Israel.062 published articles which consisted of 419 per month on an average each month. Marrow. organizational commitment. Lok (1999. 2003) tested different models of job satisfaction and morale in Australia. and Steers are the most renowned researchers in this area of study. In 1999 he conducted a Meta analysis of research done on organizational commitment. Cohen (1991. One important contribution has been the use of relation-oriented and task-oriented terms to explain different types of leadership behaviors (Brown. 38 . 2003). Yousuf (2004) and Wasti (2003) did research on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Middle East and Turkey. This is evidence. The US corporate sector spent $45 billion on leadership and management development in 1997. Hersey & Blanchard. They found that leadership behavior. An examination of the literature revealed that EBSCO (Elton B. participatory decision-making.

which is compatible with academics values. which were participatory in their leadership style. Craig and Mendel (1976) identified leadership performance as one of three variables that affect faculty in higher education. and the commitment level of faculty members in such a university was high.2. “encourage the development of positive identification with the organization and create a degree of personal commitment”(Bass & Avolio 1995). When leadership was taught or studied. it was regarded as a small sub-set of management and the focus was on influencing the small groups. University heads.1 Leadership It is important to examine the concept of leadership as well as relevant theories pertaining to leadership in the academic sector. Then in the 1980’s there was a paradigm shift and the mood shifted substantially. Tagai (1999) suggested that leadership style in academics fall into two categories. In another study Hunter (1982) found that leadership style made a real difference to faculty’s morale. Researchers started to identify the link between leadership behavior and performance of employees. “Leadership and Management” were used synonymously. Since then. Researchers like Angle and Perry (1983) concluded that the extent of employee commitment may rest largely in management’s hands”. The message was that transformation was required and that this required a new type of leader. Prior to the 1980. They pointed out administrative behavior as the best predictor of commitment. The leaders who could. were thought as being considerate. research studies have consistently confirmed a positive relationship between leadership and commitment. Leadership in Academics Madron. is McGregor’s (1960) Theory X 39 . and the style. They were regarded as being the same or as extensively overlapping.

Based on this type of assumptions. They would like to control employees through tasks. and telling. positive reinforcement. Hurst (1993) suggested that it is the leadership behavior that makes faculty feels important. selling. the practioners of this theory would have a behavior of coercing employees. And the management should stop selling and telling and should involve them in decision making process. Managers who believe on Theory Y would like to provide employees with encouragement. education. When the leader believe that the employees have become mature and are grown in capacity. who practice this theory. participation. the need for socioemotional support increases. activities. and would like to direct their behavior. Millet (1978) 40 . ability. which is incompatible with academic values. They also believe that employees continue to grow and become mature and at certain stage they don’t need any type of orientation. Theory X is labeled as being negative and the managers. Olswang and Lee (1984) warned that increased regulation of faculty conduct could have a serious impact on faculty’s job satisfaction and morale. They suggest that leaders with this behavior are mainly concerned with delegation. and rewards. falls under Theory Y. and motivation. In McGregor’s (1960) Theory X and Theory Y model. They claim that leadership behaviors have two areas of concern: one is that leaders concern for task and the other is concern for relations. Another theory is known as Heresy and Blanchard’s (1977) situational leadership theory. experience.of human nature. they would look at work and responsibility very positively. And the style. assume that employees dislike work and will avoid it if possible. The managers who believe on practicing this theory assume that if employees are given right conditions and trusted. The other theory is labeled as Theory Y.

should be people who would allow greater involvement of faculty in decision making than exercising their authority. He further suggested that the faculty members should resist the threat of bureaucratization in higher education. the focus was further directed to just two main dimensions. (1994) expected that presidents. Evidently the controversy about the essential differences between 41 . Leaders think about goals. aim to shift balance of power towards solutions acceptable as compromises. rather than the leadership of small groups. Moreover. shaping ideas rather than responding to them. they are active rather than reactive. vice-chancellors and others in administration of universities. In the 1980’s attention shifted dramatically to the elaboration and promotion of the concept of transformational. charismatic. visionary and inspirational leadership. “task focus” versus “people focus” and there were various reworking of this theme (for example Blake and Mouton 1964. In the leadership literature a debate also started on the issue of role of leader and manager. This new approach has shifted attention to leadership of entire organizations. Managers would try to minimize the choices and leaders would encourage employee to develop new ideas and fresh approaches. Theories of Leadership For many years. This school was labeled the “New Leadership” theories (Brymen. the focus of leadership studies has been derived from organizational psychology concerns to understand the impact of leader style on small group behavior and outcomes. Managers on the other hand. 1992). Kerr. Vroom and Yetton 1988). Bess (1988) argued that faculty members conditionally accept directives from the leaders such as where academics are involved in the process of decision-making.referred the bureaucratic type leadership behavior as rigid and as incompatible with academic scholarship.

Leader-Style Theory Vroom and Yetton presented there famous decision making model in 1973. The main problem is that the evolutionary accounts tend to imply that previous theory has been refuted and 42 . there may even be varying degrees of reaction to previously experienced approaches. first time presented methods for determining the appropriateness of leader style.2 Research and Findings about Leadership Behavior While a review of leadership theory based on the chronological development of the literature can be useful. This model.1 gives a short list of leadership theories. This model was expanded and is known as the. Table 2. Leadership style is thus path dependent. one significant development has been the linking of the idea of leadership with that of strategic management (Westley & Mintzberg. Jago Model”. This model suggests different ways leaders can make decisions. Leadership effectiveness therefore depends upon the following two factors: 1) The extent to which people follow and give legitimacy 2) The extent to which the organization succeeds and survives. One very important theory has been leader-style theory. This model suggests that organizational decisions should be of the highest quality and when employees participate in this process they should accept and remain committed.g. 2.. 1989). “Vroom. This model also helps leaders to determine when and how much input they can seek from employees in decision making process. it also has a number of limitations. On the time dimension.leadership and management will continue for some time. Preferred leadership styles evidently vary across time and place. Yetton. But the more practice-oriented agenda is still evolving e. which have been developed over time.

and scare employees with threat of insecurities. Qualities like harmony. continue to perplex and prompt debate. Vroom and Yetton (1973) Vroom (1964). It focuses on weaknesses. task related and relationship Related. skill development” Thompson. transformational leadership Constitutive. This type of leaders would not solve problems instead would make excuses.1996) Burns(1978) Conger and Kanungo (1998): Bass (1985) Grint ( 1997. narrates that this type of leaders can 43 . Bass (1990) suggested some characteristics of leadership behavior and according to him. Sankowsky (1995). as well as transformational. expectancy theory Exchange and path-goal models (relationship between leader and led as a series of trades) ‘New Leadership’. Selmet (1989) Brown and Gioia (2002) Tichy (1997) Khurana (2002) Macoby (2000). innate qualities. style theory (autocratic vs. Table 2. democratic) Situational and contingency theory. South-Western 2004 The inspirational appeal of the pseudo-transformational leaders tends to focus on the worst in people. Blake & Mouton (1964) Fiedler (1967). ‘great man theory Behavioral theories. This appeal primarily focuses on the best qualities of the people. Yukl (2002) Hersy and Blanchard(1984) Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) House (1971. This type of managers tends to mislead.1 Summary of the main theories of leadership Theory Trait theory.2000) Senge (1990). In reality. “Leadership. the inspirational appeal of relation-oriented leaders can provide followers with challenges and meaning for engaging in shared goals. constructivist theory Leadership within Learning Organizations Leadership as a creative and collective process Distributed leadership Post-charismatic and post-transformational Leadership theory Author Bernard (1926) Ohio State University studies. charity and team work. Repertoire of style. questions concerning leadership qualities and characteristics. charismatic and visionary leadership. theory. Lussier. contingent conditions and transactional. it tends to conspire.superseded.N. Fullan (2001) Source: Adapted from R. Michigan (Katz and Kahn 1978) (Likert 1961. and deceive their subordinates. application. and it would show unreal dangers. appropriate style.

which is an integral component of idealized influence. Bass and Avolio. describe this as a positive outcome in which followers show lot of trust in such leaders. Avolio and Bass. Such openness has a spiritual dimension and this helps followers to reject assumptions and generate more creative solutions to problems. this dynamic breaks the bond of organizational and leadership cultures that ignores fundamental questions such as altruism (Kanungo & Mendonca. (2000). where human probing of the ground of being is both fathomless and endless.be subtle and speak with forked tongue. 1998). 1998). For them. stressed that the role of relation-oriented leader is to develop a shared vision. highlighting a new realization and transformation of the person. 1994) explain in their study that the transformational leadership has a charismatic element known as ideal influence. Followers are inspired and they would align personal values and interests to the collective interests of the group’s purposes (Avolio and Bass. They talk about empowerment but actually continue to seek control (Conger & Kaunungo. To the point. for instance they would offer followers empowerment. Jung and Avolio. 1996). It is especially suited to the normative side of ethics. Bass. The intellectual stimulation of relation-oriented leadership behavior incorporates a more open dynamic into vision formulation and patterns of implementation. (2000). Jung and Avolio. (2002). It is motivational and enabling. but would continue to treat them as dependent children. Kanungo and Medonca (1996) have linked this to an empowerment process. Idealized influence in leadership also involves integrity in the form of ethical and moral conduct (Tracey and Hinkin. empowerment is more than broadening the scope of participation by followers. 2002. 2000) 44 . in which leaders become role models and followers tend to admire and respect them.

Several other research studies have documented the power of relation-oriented leadership in establishing value and trust (Jung and Avolio. 2000). suggest that the net effect of relation-oriented leadership behaviors is empowerment of followers and this type of leaders can develop a very powerful influence over followers. Behling and McFillen. In 1990 Bass presented a theory and concept and tried to link relation and task behaviors to all other 45 . summarize relation-oriented leaders actions as very appealing. They show confidence in the followers. Bass in 1985 presented a model of relation-oriented and task-oriented leadership style.Researcher suggest that “relation-oriented leaders are also willing to take and share risks with followers” (Avolio and Bass. emphasize values with symbolic actions and these leaders would lead by example. and are quick to disburse personal attention for follower’s achievements and growth (Avolio and Bass. 1998). Leaders should act as a coach. 2002).. having a clear vision. This potential is developed by delegating tasks and then by monitoring those tasks and giving additional support and direction when needed. 2002). they don’t just delegate task but explain how to attain it. Bass (1985) also suggest that a leader could exhibit both styles. would empower employees to achieve the vision. developing followers in a supportive climate to “higher levels of potential” (Bass. The model Bass presented in 1985 represents the recent descriptions of task and relation-oriented behaviors. (1996). If followers perform in accordance with contracts and put extra effort the leader provides them with rewards. These styles according to Bass compliment each other. In his views relationoriented leaders are those who encourage followers to achieve goals and task-oriented are those that ask for commitment to achieve those goals and offer a reward. Leaders are able to asses individual needs of follower’s. Yukl (2002).

performing behaviors that contribute to the achievement of organizational goals. In his theory he suggests that transformational leadership occurs when a leader changes his followers in ways that together result in trusting the leader. (2004). These traits allowed the leaders to lead others. Dissatisfied with this approach. these situations lead to the emergence of trait theory. not made.types of leadership. According to Bass (1990). 2. The trait approach is concerned mainly with identifying the personality traits of the leader. it was Bass in 1990. In the group approach. which separated the leaders from the followers. who said that “Without Churchill the British would have given up in 1940” According to Yukl. The great men theory was mainly concerned with the power. and being motivated to perform at a high level. leaders were viewed more in terms of their behavior and how this behavior is affected by the group of followers. Trait theory was followed by behavioral theory (Yukl. At first. Inspired by the great men theory. and then Fiedler’s contingency theory emerged. intelligence. Later on more emphasis was made on the qualities and of leaders and also the traits. and stimulated by research such as Ohio State Theory. leaders were felt to be born. These early theories of leadership mainly focused on the characteristics of great men and authors presented “the great men” theory.3 Evolution of Relationship Oriented and Task Oriented Leadership Behaviors There are several distinct theoretical bases for leadership. the great men theory of leadership insisted that traits of leadership cannot be learned and leaders are born not made. researchers switched their emphasis from the individual leader to the group being led. and influence of the great leaders. energy. 2004). 46 .

where. the leader explains the task that members have to do and when. and building identification with the organization. resolving immediate problems that would disrupt the work. person oriented and task oriented. and standard operating procedures. productivity. They socialize 47 . planning short-term operations. In relationship behavior the leader has close. Leadership behavior was then. monitoring operations and performance. clarifying role expectations and task objectives. explaining rules. policies. They express confidence that people can attain challenging objectives. In task behavior the leader organizes and defines roles for members of the work group. and setting high standards for unit performance. reliable operations. and quality. This type of behavior is primarily concerned with accomplishing the task. Following the original Ohio State Studies and the grid approach. This type of behavior is primarily concerned with improving relationships and helping people. personal relationships with the members of the group.This theory suggests that leadership styles must fit or match the situation in order to be effective. Hersey and Blanchard’s (1993) approach identified two major behaviors namely task and relationship-oriented behaviors. emphasizing the importance of efficiency. and how they have to do it. assigning work to groups or individuals. separated into two types. and there is open communication and psychological and emotional support. increasing the job satisfaction of subordinates. Some attributes of leaders with task oriented behaviors are given next. They provide support and encouragement. and maintaining orderly. increasing cooperation and team work. Some examples of leaders with task oriented behaviors include organizing work activities to improve efficiency. utilizing personnel and resources efficiently.

workers who were exposed to Theory Y style of leadership behavior were more positive in their attitude and were feeling greater responsibility in achieving the factory goals. most people need to be coerced into completing their required job duties and punished if they don't complete the quantity of work assigned at the level of quality required. two distinct assumptions. because of their dislike for work. rituals. And his findings revealed that as opposed to workers who were exposed to theory X. and McGregor’s (1960) Theory X with Theory Y. and stories to build team identity. They provide coaching and mentoring. called Theory X and Theory Y. the autocratic leaders versus the participative leader. They recognize contributions and accomplishments. Because of this. ceremonies. They lead by example and model exemplary behavior. They consult with people on decisions affecting them. They keep people informed about actions affecting them. Theory X posits that people do not like to work and will avoid doing so if the opportunity presents itself.with people to build relationships. while for task oriented leaders. for example Blake and Mouton (1964) reported that relationship oriented leaders encourage followers to participate in decision making. They use symbols. Based on the work of psychologists. Generally there were efforts to show which style and behavior was more effective. 2. Again. most people do 48 .4 Research on Task and Relation Oriented Leadership Behavior Early studies of leadership behavior were mainly concerned with making comparison of the behaviors of different types of leaders: with a manager. the born or made leader. nothing was more important than to accomplish the task or goal. Similarly Meyer (1968) investigated the effect of leadership perception about Theory X and Theory Y. organizational theorists. evolved about why and how people work for others. and human relations specialists in the 1960s and 1970s.

Although Theory Y has much to offer and is widely followed. 1996). leaders need to develop ways to expand the capabilities of their workers so that the organization can benefit from this significant potential resource. it tends to increase teamwork. In this theory of human behavior and motivation. punishment and threats are not the only means of motivating them to complete work assignments. people are seen as seekers of learning and responsibility that are capable of and willing to be engaged with creative problemsolving activities that will help the organization reach its goals. Studies done by (Bowers & Seashore. 1964) reported that managers displaying both task and relation oriented behavior moved faster in their career than those with other style of leadership. they will use self-direction and control to work toward goals that are understandable and communicated clearly. People are willing to work hard for an organization. With an almost completely opposite perspective. In addition subordinates sometime try to imitate their leaders’ supportive behaviors (Weiss. collaboration and cooperation. which can help to reduce job conflicts (Amason. and followers start to associate them with team and identify them with the organization. Therefore. and have little ambition. 1966. indeed. 2000) also show that when relation-oriented leaders are concerned about relationships. many organizations still use a variety of policies and practices that are based on Theory X principles. all they want is job security.not want responsibility. Sorenson. Likert. prefer to be directed by others. Theory Y posits that people like to work and see it as a natural event in their lives. 1961. 1967. This type of leadership builds an effective interpersonal relationships and help subordinates deal with job stress. 1977) which in turn further 49 . According to Theory Y. In the area of management practice (Blake and Mouton.

work scheduling. This practice helps to reduce job and task conflicts among subordinates. coordinating follower’s activities. where. some are well balanced and there are some who tend to overlook both leadership dimensions. providing equipment. and how tasks are to be accomplished. These types of leaders usually define and structure their own roles and the roles of their subordinates. providing emotional support and encouraging new ideas to accomplish task. thus resulting in minimal synergy within their group. and then they closely monitor and supervise subordinates (Likert. Studies show that task-oriented leaders put lot of effort on task-oriented functions. They defined relation-oriented behavior as the extent to which a leader engages in two-way communication by facilitating behavior.support positive interaction and working relationships. supplies. very likely leading to innovative collaboration (Haskins et al. Task-oriented leaders do not design the work in such a way which allows their subordinates to collaborate and interact among each other. The research has provided evidence that some people are strong in one area and ignore the other. 1967). Lewin & Lippitt. (1938) found that task-oriented behavior is more dictatorial and it involves a focus on goals and tasks to be accomplished. Findings of earlier research also suggest that the task-oriented leader’s actions do not contribute in confidence building among the employees since they tend to coordinate the activities of their subordinates. 1998).. Hersey and Blanchard (1993) identified task-oriented behavior as the extent to which a leader engages in one sided communication by directing what each follower is to do when. 1961. which could include planning. It tends to deny others 50 . and providing technical assistance when needed. Subordinate do not coordinate among themselves due to their leader’s behavior.

delegating. For example consulting with employees about the design of a flextime system may simultaneously involve planning better work schedules. and showing concern for employees needs. 51 . defined participative leadership as a distinct type of behavior. praise and encourage. collective decision-making.involvement in the decision-making process. although it may be used in conjunction with specific task-oriented and relation-oriented behaviors. Participative leadership can take many forms. (Yukal. 1973). sharing power. A variety of different decision procedures may be used to involve other people in making decisions. A number of leadership theorists have proposed different taxonomies of decision procedures or the best way to define them. Participatory leadership Participatory leadership involves the use of different methods and procedures that allow and invite other people to have some input and influence over leader’s decisions. There are other terms used to refer to aspects of participative leadership. which include consultation. (1971). 1969. while relation-oriented is more similar to democratic behavior which includes the invitation to participate. task oriented. relation oriented or combination of both. Yukl. Vroom &Yetton. and democratic management. Research done on these two types of behavior have produced findings that both task and relation oriented behaviors can be effective in different situations while the combination of both styles is also effective. The focus of these studies has been to find out which style of leadership behavior was most effective.

1990). Salancik 1977. Such behaviors include staying away from employees in isolated offices. little clarity. Cohen. 1990).5 Research on Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment has been the subject of several researches in the past and recent years (Griffin & Bateman 1986. This problem has been compounded by the use of measures of commitment that do not always correspond to the definition being 52 . One study that validates non effectiveness of this type of behavior comes from Bass and Hater (1988) who found a negative correlation between laissez-faire leadership behavior and employees’ performance. This leadership behavior has very little sense of accomplishment. and encourages different ideas and opinions. 1999. Staw 1977. This behavior should not be mixed with participative or delegative leadership behavior or management by exception. avoidance to supervisory duties. 2. no vision.Laissez-Faire Leadership (non task-oriented behavior and non relations-oriented) Researchers have reported the laissez-faire behavior as the least effective style of leadership (Bass. 1990). Researchers have repeatedly reported this behavior as a less effective style of leadership (Bass. A leader who invites followers to the domain of decision authority will encourage team members to invite their domain of work to other members and resulting in making the entire group work more closely and holistically. & Steers 1982. Participative leadership increases interpersonal interaction. Among the issues of major concern in these studies and findings has been the lack of consensus in constructing the definition of commitment. not taking any action until issues become crisis. The delegative leader’s main concern then is to follow up and make sure that the task has been successfully completed. Reichers 1985. Morrow. and no sense of group unity. William 2004). Porter. Laissez-Faire leadership behavior represents a “do nothing” approach (Bass. Scholl 1981.

It used a blend of “Exchange” and “Role” theories as its basic framework.applied (Morrow 1983. & Dubbin. Meyer & Allen 1984). Porter. and age seems inversely related with commitment. absenteeism (Steers. researchers have directed a great deal of effort to identifying and analyzing meaningful determinants of employees’ commitment to their work organizations. 1977). it is difficult to synthesize the results of research done on commitment. A number of theoretical perspectives have been used to study commitment and its determinants. 1974). 1977. the degree of female commitment in Pakistan appears to be much higher than that of male workers. & Hulin. and turnover (Hom. affective. Steers. normative and continuance commitment. Kateberg. employees organizational commitment is still an important predictor of organizational effectiveness and worker’s attitudes and beliefs (Salancik. Studies on the determinants of organizational commitment may broadly be classified into three categories. Also the psychological and role-related factors seem to exert greater influence on commitment than the exchangebased and personal factors. The study conducted by Alvi and Ahmed in 1987 in Pakistan examined commitment of male and female employees to their organizations. Result of this study indicated that both groups of workers are highly committed to their organizations (Alvi. 1977). Unlike the results of most previous studies involving industrialized societies. & Ahmed 1987). 53 . In view of its importance. As a result. It is widely accepted that degree of organizational commitment and job performance are positively correlated (Mowday. even though tardiness. 1979) are inversely related.

Other two researchers Wiener and Verdi (1980) found a positive relationship between commitment and job performance. One such researcher was Loui. Common to all commitment components is that they serve to bind an employee to an organization. continuance.2. Findings and research done on organizational commitment provides a broad measure of the effectiveness of leadership behaviors and shows a significant relationship among the two variables. Researchers have been trying to link organization commitment to measures of effectiveness which are very similar to those found when investigating the outcomes of leadership behaviors. 54 . (1995). otherwise. According to them. Jermier & Berkes (1979) found that employees who participated in decision-making had high levels of commitment towards the organization. committed employees would be less inclined to leave the organizations they work for. 1991). DeCotiis & Summers (1987) reported that employees showed greater levels of commitment when treated with consideration. job involvement. This relationship demands that further exploration should be done in the subject of leadership and commitment. Normative and Continuance Commitment Research on employee’s organizational commitment was further carried out into three sub-scales. and normative commitment. and ones satisfaction from his/her job.6 Research on Affective. There findings suggest that committed employees perform better than non committed employees. “it is clear that the nature of the psychological states differ” (Meyer and Allen. Bycio & Hackett & Allen (1995) found positive correlations between the leadership behaviors and affective. Angle and Perry (1981) found a relationship between commitment and intentions to leave. who found that commitment was significantly related to trust.

1997).e. a felt debt as a result of investments made by the organization in the individual) (Meyer & Allen. they will not feel committed to the organization. affective commitment has been researched the most. Normative commitment is thought to develop through the processes described in social learning theory (i.. 2002). The higher levels of normative commitment do not improve job-related outcomes for the highly committed group (Arzu Wasti.e. The development of continuance commitment is usually viewed through the lens of side-bet theory (Becker. 1991). whereby commitment to the organization develops in return for workplace experience such as job quality (Meyer & Allen.. Research has shown continuance commitment to be negatively correlated with outcomes such a job performance and job satisfaction (Meyer. Job satisfaction has been shown to have correlations with normative commitment lesser in strength than. the correlations seen with affective commitment. Herscovitch. increased job satisfaction. 2004). the employee becomes committed to the organization. Of the three components. Employees must be aware of the accumulation of side-bets. Becker proposed that through the accumulation of “sidebets” such as seniority and pension plans. 2002).Affective commitment is thought to develop through a social exchange mechanism (Meyer & Allen. if employees are not aware of the loss they might incur by switching organizations. research on normative commitment has been relatively rare. increased job performance. internalization of cultural or familial norms) and reciprocity norms (i. 1960). 1997). and increased organizational citizenship behaviors (Meyers & Stanley. Affective commitment have shown to be correlated with reduced turnover. & Topolnytsky. however. 55 . Overall.

7 Meyer and Allen’s Model of Commitment Meyer and Allen in 1984 proposed two sub scales of commitment namely affective and continuance commitment. Reichers (1985) also studied the role conflicts that arise when individuals are involved with the groups. which indicates an inherent conflict between the two commitment orientations (Kahn. Wallace (1993) summarized the early literature on commitment as commonly assuming “an inherent conflict between professional and organizational goals”. 1970). concept of cosmopolitans and locals lead some writers to focus on. however. Earlier studies of the role conflict suggested that organizations often place individuals in to two simultaneous roles with incompatible demands. The argument given by the authors for the development of the model 56 . Rizzo et al. On the right side of the figure are variables named by the authors as consequences of commitment. 1986). Gouldner (1957) implied that an individual couldn’t have a strong attachment to both dimensions of commitment.Angle and Perry (1986). 1970). Thornton. 2. Other researchers. which pursue different goals. Also. Quinn and Snodek. Wolfe. 1969. 1964. and later in 1990 suggested a third component called normative commitment. have refuted the necessity of an either-or choice and have rather advocated the potential for compatibility between the two orientations (Ritzer & Trice. traced the development of research studies that examined the tensions between organizational and professional commitment. and consequences. “the dilemma facing professionals whose values and loyalty to organization and profession sometimes collides” (Angle & Perry. Figure 2 on page 58 presents’ hypothesized links between the three components of commitment proposed by Meyer and Allen and variables considered in there study as antecedents.

Mathieu and Zajac (1990). The model also shows correlates of commitment as job satisfaction. to their model. when Meyer and Allen added another form of commitment. Allen and Meyer in 1996 noted that the all three sub scales of commitment were being used outside North America and more validation were appearing on the commitment literature. according to Mathieu and Zajac (1990). many more studies have been conducted. These correlates have also been frequently studied and tested by different researchers. although all three forms of commitment relate negatively to turnover. Since 1990. “we considered correlates of commitment because there is no consensus concerning causal ordering”. organizational citizenship behavior and on the job performance. yet they relate differently to measures of other work-relevant behaviors such as attendance. Since 1996. Moreover. 57 .was the belief that. They concluded that new findings are generally supporting the model. Figure 2 also includes variables that. As the research progressed over time in other countries more and more variables have been included. No one so for have pointed out the issues concerning the generalizability of the model in other cultures. correlates and antecedents in countries around the world. while commenting on Meyer and Allen’s model noted that researchers were now beginning to identify other forms of commitment. job involvement and occupational commitment. there has been an increase in the use of these sub scales.

and work experiences influenced commitment. 58 . and engineers in USA and introduced a model of commitment. Performance was generally unrelated to commitment. And. Steers (1977) did a study of hospital employees. scientists.the-job behavior Attendance OCB Performance Antecedents of normative commitments Personal Characteristics Socialization Organizational investment experiences Normative Commitment Employee health and well being 2.8 Steers Model of Commitment Richard M. commitment was found to be strongly related to the desire to remain with current organizations for both samples and was moderately related to attendance and turnover for one sample. job characteristics.Figure 2: Meyer & Allens Model Correlates of Organizational Commitment Job Satisfaction Job Involvement Occupational Commitment Antecedents of Affective Commitment Personal Characteristics Work Experience Affective Commitment Turnover intentions and turnover Antecedents of continuous commitment Personal Characteristics Alternatives Investments Continuous Commitment On. This study suggested that for all samples personal characteristics.

(1974) suggested that employee commitment was important for several reasons. education) Job Characteristics (Task identity.9 Relationship between Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction has usually been defined as the extent to which an employee has a positive affective attitude towards his job. (1969). Figure 3: Steers Model of Commitment Personal characteristics (need for achievement.Earlier Koch. and Porter. 1977. Steers (1977). model has two parts: (1) antecedents of commitment. organizational dependability. Price & Mueller. feedback) Organizational Commitment Outcomes Desire to remain Intent to remain Attendance Employee Retention Job Performance Work Experiences (Group attitudes. optional interaction. because it is a better predictor of turnover than job satisfaction. personal import) 2. either in general or towards particular facets of it (Smith. Kendall and Hulin. Steers. This model as well as Meyer and Allens (1997) model provide bases for organizational commitment as part of this study. age. The primary reason for this causal order appears to be that job satisfaction is a more immediate affective response to one’s work which is established more quickly 59 . and (2) outcomes of commitment. Most models of turnover assume that greater job satisfaction leads to greater organizational commitment (Mobley. (1970) in another study suggested that commitment represents one useful indicator of the effectiveness of an organization. Steers & Schein. 1981).

which also include its goals and values while satisfaction emphasizes the task environment where an employee performed his duties. job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians and concluded that organizational commitment discriminated better between stayers and leavers than did the various component of job satisfaction. (1979) concluded that commitment focuses on loyalty to the organization. structure and personal and situational characteristics..after joining an organization. The unresolved issue still is whether job satisfaction is an antecedent to commitment or there is a correlation between them. Mowday et al. of commitment. Mathieu and Zajac (1990) did a meta-analysis of variables related to commitment. Porter (1974) studied the relationship between organizational commitment. which resulted in greater commitment among employees. Mathieu & Zajac (1990) used the 60 .. 1974). The explanation given by researchers that job satisfaction affects organizational commitment confirms that job satisfaction is less stable than organizational commitment (Porter et al. Steers (1977). They suggested that these were predictive of organizational commitment. process. study also found that commitment and job satisfaction were equally predictive of voluntary turnover. The study done by Steers (1977) showed that having expectations or needs met led to satisfaction. 1974). Decotis and Summers (1987) did not agree and argued that job satisfaction only acted as a mediator between organizational commitment and the antecedents of climate. rather than an antecedent or consequence. An important study Bateman & Strasser 1984) suggested that commitment is an antecedent to job satisfaction. classified job satisfaction as a correlate. whereas commitment is slower to develop since it is based not only on the job but on other aspects of working for the organization such as its goals and values (Porter et al.

61 .term correlate to suggest that the evidence so far on the causal ordering of job satisfaction and commitment is inconclusive. 2. (Gary. Participative leadership involves efforts by a leader to encourage and facilitate participation by others in making important decisions. Managers and administrators besides other activities are involved in planning. Yukl. selecting and training subordinates. And this study is not focusing on the issue of turnover rather the aim of this research is to explore the nature of relationship between faculty’s job satisfaction and organizational commitment. making and implementing decisions. The general finding has been that organizational commitment has a stronger relation with turnover than job satisfaction. Currently a lot of researchers are paying attention to its relation or influence on organizational performance and employee’s commitment towards the organizations. which individuals have of organization and their subsequence response to the organization. 2002). Decision-making generally has four distinct types. One similar study done by Steers and Porter (1975) proposed that participation in goal setting affects employee attitudes including commitment. assigning jobs. sometimes solving employees problems and at other times solving technical problems. They found that levels of participation in the decision process affect both the perceptions. deciding pay increases. The research conducted by Welsch and LaVan (1981) asserted that there is a positive relationship between commitment and employee perceptions of the organizational climate being one of participative decision-making.10 Decision Making Decision-making has been the topic of many studies in the last many decades. and so forth.

62 . b) Consultation. d) Delegation.2. increasing flexibility and innovation. adopting to change in environment. 1997). Some benefits of this type of decision making are given below:* Study of competitors and outsiders to get ideas for organizational improvement. The manager makes the decision alone.11 The Types of Decisions a) Autocratic Decision. hence they have no direct influence on the decision. * Encourage and facilitate innovation and entrepreneurship by others. The manager also specifies limits within which the final choice must fall. making major changes in process. For this type of decisions a prior approval may or may not be required before the decision is implemented. * Encourage and facilitate learning by individuals and teams. 2. (McCormick and Meiners. and gaining commitment to change. Since subordinates have no participation. The manager assigns an individual or groups the responsibility authority and for making a decision. He asks subordinates for their opinions and ideas. and then after seriously considering their suggestions and concerns. or services. The manager and participants have equal say and influence on the final decision. c) Joint Decision. The manager meets with subordinates to discuss the issue on hand and jointly a decision is made. This type of behavior is primarily concerned with improving strategic decision making. product. The manager makes a decision in isolation without asking for the opinion from subordinates or involving their suggestions.12 Participation Oriented Decision Making. * Encourage people to view problems or opportunities in a different way.

1979. management theories presented by (Hertzberg. Peterson. 1977). Empirical evidence has provided moderate support for these claims. 1994). Kizilos. & Norton. 1990). employees. Liker. and problem-solving processes (Wagner. * Empower people to implement new strategies. lower levels of absenteeism and turnover. Dachler & Wilpert. share the influence among themselves (Locke & Schweiger. (Lawler. 1989). 1994). Participatory management balances the involvement of managers and their subordinates in decision making. 1978). and organizational effectiveness. * Build a coalition of employees to improve work quality and work environment. and scholars alike. Macy. 1986. & Nason. in a Meta analysis and survey of previous reviews of the literature on participation. Participative management practices have been commonly perceived to have positive effects on employee performance (Bush & Spangler. 1967. who are otherwise hierarchically unequal. Maslow. participation is generally defined as a process in which individuals. 1988. Although participation has been defined conceptually and operationally in many different ways (Cotton. viewing the quality of life movement as a means to improve employees’ motivation which in turn helps employees to feel good about their work (Spreitzer. 1966. others have supported participation as a moral imperative. satisfaction at work. Employee participation programs have gained considerable positive appeal among managers. Although some researchers have supported these efforts because of their purported benefits to the organization. Wagner (1994) found that research “has 63 . Historically. Wagner.* Experiment with new approaches. 1954) has emphasized the significance of coordinating the human and organizational relationship so that productivity is enhanced and human capital is developed. For example.

In contrast. ultimately. These studies. Daniels and Bailey (1999) argued that the evidence regarding the impact of employee participation on job satisfaction has not been consistent. 2002. 1999) have argued that fair treatment and enhancement of individuals’ empowerment may produce affective reactions towards work and. Vollrath. however. “positive emotional state which from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience”. (1976). Rush. researchers in public administration and government services have stressed effective Human Resources Management strategies such as empowerment and participative management (Kim. And Cotton (1993) and (1995). Several researchers (Freeman. Studies have also demonstrated that participative decision making can be beneficial to workers mental health and satisfaction they get from their job (Cotton. defined it as the. Job satisfaction represents an interaction between employees and their work environment by measuring the congruence between what employees want and what employees feel they receive from their jobs. reduce rates of absenteeism and turnover. & Lance. Since there is lot of emphasis on performance and result-oriented government services. Reduction of cost is an indirect effect associated with these resources. Ting. 1988. have tended to operationalize a direct relationship between participation and job satisfaction. 1986). These strategies maximize the utilization of the organization’s human resources and have a direct effect on organizational performance. Locke. Miller& Monge.produced reliable evidence of statistically significant changes in performance and satisfaction that are positive in direction but limited in size”. 1996). suggested that the individual and situational variables could affect relationship between participation and job satisfaction. 64 .

Delegation is a power sharing process that occurs when a manager gives subordinates the responsibility and authority for making some decisions which were formerly made by a manager. Democratic societies uphold the right of people to influence decisions that will affect them in important ways. One study suggests that replacement costs are about 50% to 60% of an employee’s annual salary (Wysocki. Participative decision making in decentralized organizations is positively related to job satisfaction”. “Work specialization contributes to higher employee productivity but it reduces job satisfaction. scholars must clearly identify variables related to quality of work life that affect employees job satisfaction in government sector organizations. job characteristics.Although job satisfaction has long been expected to have important implications for organizational productivity. Rainey. Involving others in making decisions is often necessary part of political process for getting decisions approved and implemented in organizations. 1992. 65 . Understaffing because of excessive turnover among jail officers. Given the significant cost incurred from employees’ turnover and absenteeism for organizational performance. & Tannenbaun. 1997). for example. 1978. Wechsler. and supervisor support (Bruce & Blackburn. 1964. 1997) Robins (2004) points out that. and influence important events. accomplish meaningful work. Other costs may be even more important for government agencies. may be linked to prison escapes (Blasé. Vroom. Empowerment involves the perception by members of an organization that they have the opportunity to determine their work roles. High turn over of university professors may cause a decline in the teaching quality. 2001). 1952). a review of empirical evidence fails to support the assertion that job satisfaction directly effect productivity (Kahn & Katz. such as participative management. Kahane.

where faculty may have better information and incentives.2. He concludes that the costs associated with collective decision making are higher than the benefits which faculty gets in the shape of control. (2005) argues that good or bad effects vary by the type of decisions in which faculty participate. His findings suggest that. The predictions are that faculty participation in those decisions. McCormick and Meiners (1988) have other views regarding faculty’s involvement in the university decision making. The reason is that the team formation in university set up is a difficult task and this fact makes active faculty participation in university governance ineffective. a recent (2005) paper is by William O. The advantage is that employees generally have a non-recoverable investment in the success of the organization. Hansmann. There information about the quality and success of many decisions would be better than the 66 .13 Faculty Participation and other Perspective While there are numerous papers and arguments in favor of faculty’s participation in university’s governance. McCormick and Meiners (1988) find that if faculty has more control in decision making it would lower the institutional performance. will lead to improved job satisfaction and organizational commitment. “university performance suffers as the faculty’s control over decision-making increases”. (1996) argues that there are advantages and disadvantages of employees’ participation in governance decisions. Brown. Brown in which he examined the relationship between faculty participation in decision-making and their performance. participation of faculty does have an effect on performance and the overall impact can be determined by looking at the decisions in which faculty participate. The existing literature suggests that employee control over certain types of decisions lead to improved organizational performance. In their views.

owners. The disadvantage of employees’ participation in decisions is that they may favor decisions that are detrimental to the enterprise if the gains for employee benefits exceed the losses of the owners. While some researchers suggest there are no true owners in the university, Brown (1997), argues that the nature of academic employment contracts makes faculty members responsible for the success of the institution. As a result, “the wealth of individual faculty members will be tied to the success of the institution but faculty members have an incentive to enrich themselves at the expense of the institution’s success”. White and Gallie (1993), conducted a study for policy institute London and they suggest that, “the most salient aspect we had identified in our study was concerning employees skills, training, development, and participation”. They further narrate that they are all linked to the preference which individuals give to the work task, and to their attachment (commitment) to the organization. The most important reason why the majority of employees take paid employment is the need to maintain a basic standard of living. The criteria they use between specific jobs include, an acceptable level of pay, work they like doing, job security, good relations with their supervisors and the opportunity to make use of their abilities.

2.14 Development of Participant’s Skills
Management must not look at only the benefits of participatory decision-making but also try to develop the skills needed for better decision-making, especially in the university setting. According to Cooper (1964), one of the greatest obstacles to deciding is fear of the consequences of a wrong decision. This can be overcome only in a climate of tolerance, which recognizes the fallibility of people. The management must instill within decision makers a feeling that their personal security and advancement do not

67

depend upon the outcome of each decision. Employees should have the feeling that they will be judged mainly by the pattern of results rather than by how individual decision turns out. A climate for initiative encourages the free expression of opinions, even though they may not seem to accord with those of others in authority. In case of university a faculty member should feel free to argue, in good taste until the decision has been made. The leader should do all in his power to effectuate it, although it may not be what he preferred. This implies, also that there be techniques for resolving differences of opinion without loss of face or without a feeling of defeat upon the part of any of the participants. The faculty members should feel that their administration is actually trying to help them make decisions. They should feel a sense of identification with organizational goals so that thereby they will generate within themselves the enthusiasm, which is a prerequisite to virile decision-making. As a corollary, they should feel that there are rewards for such initiative.

68

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction
This chapter provides information and explanation regarding the type of study conducted as well as its assumptions followed by the theoretical framework. The conceptual relationships underlying the theoretical framework are also given. Then the empirical model and equations are presented. Further more there are details of sample, means of data collection, data analysis, instruments of measurement and the variables, which are examined. In conducting this study, information about task-oriented leadership behavior, relation-oriented leadership behavior and levels of organizational commitment was collected from faculty members. First, the relationship between the faculty’s organizational commitment and four types of leadership behavior is examined. Then, the relationship between participatory decision making and faculty’s

organizational commitment, and job satisfaction and morale is examined. Various demographic attributes of the respondents such as age, education level, years of experience, and gender were also collected. The research questions also refer to the university as the workplace and the time spent by faculty working under the supervision of Vice Chancellors or Rectors and Directors. This was done due to the findings of previous researchers that employees tend to associate themselves with the part of organization they work in, rather than the organization as a whole (Brown, 1996). The researcher was surveying both private and public universities. In private universities in some cases owners have adopted the designation of Chairman, Project Director or President. This choice of terminology allowed greater flexibility to cover all

69

the categories of leadership encountered within the survey and also by acknowledging the diversity of the different participant organizations.

3.2 Type of Study
This was an explanatory study and it focused on testing of hypothesis based on a theoretical framework and establishing relationship between variables.

3.3 Assumptions
The scope and depth of the current research and investigation are given by a set of assumptions. These assumptions were defined by a review of the related literature as well from logical considerations. They consisted of the following: 1- Teaching is a unique profession and may be examined through research and literature concerning professional commitment. 2- University faculty is expected to work daily within two significant areas of responsibility, the first area consist of the overall professional enterprise of education which includes the realm of curriculum and instructions. The second area consists of academic administration. 3- Owing to the unique nature of the job, professional association has grown to become a major psychological contribution in the life of a faculty member. Professional association in turn has a distinct impact on organizational professional relationship in terms of emotional attachment and professional demands. 4- University faculty is able to provide valid and reliable data for research purposes.

70

7. Figure 4: Theoretical Framework Outcomes of Interest Independent Variables Dependent Variable Additional Outcome Task-Oriented leadership behavior Relation-Oriented leadership behavior Employee’s Organizational Commitment (Continuous) (Normative) (Affective) Job Satisfaction Laissez-faire Behavior Morale Participatory Decision Making 71 . The dependent variable is employees’ organizational commitment because it is the primary variable of interest to the researcher. 3. Job satisfaction and morale are also measured in the study as outcomes.4 Theoretical Framework and Variables The study analyses the relationship of variables in the conceptual model given below. Leadership behavior and participatory decision-making are independent variables because these variables determine the dependent variable. they have been adapted to this study so that the theoretical model and variables can be analyzed.While survey questionnaires taken from other sources for the measurement of variables are not completely relevant to the present study. The theoretical framework is conceptualized based upon the literature review which gives previous research done in the area of leadership behavior in section 2.5.

EQ (B2) = Morale = α + β 2 X2 + ε Independent Variable Dependent Variables = = Employees Organizational Commitment Job Satisfaction and Morale 72 .EQ (B1) = Job Satisfaction = α + β1 X1+ ε C . namely job satisfaction which was the dependent variable and organizational commitment which was the independent variable. A EOC1  Relationship-Oriented Behavior Task-oriented Behavior Lassiz-Faire Behavior Participatory Decision Making Coefficient of   = Coefficient of  Coefficient of  Coefficient of  intercept error In equation B. the dependent variable was organizational commitment.5 Empirical Model The theoretical framework was estimated by means of three equations. organizational commitment was the independent variable and morale was the dependent variable. There were four independent variables. namely task-oriented leadership behavior. Laissez-faire behavior and participatory decision making. In equation C. In equation A. and relationship oriented behavior.3. B . there were only two variables. Equation.

34) between commitment and teaching rank. Reichers undertook a study in 1986 in United States and her study showed a significant correlation between organizational commitment and senior management’s goals and values.6 Commitment and University Faculty Faculty commitment in this study is directed towards the university. Why might this be? Possibly because as one rises up the ranks as a teacher. to professor. suggesting.3. that as a faculty member moves up the teaching ranks from lecturer to assistant professor.0. there are certain conditions that are necessary for its development. (1999) who found a negative correlation (R = . Initially the researchers examined the work of Lok. 1992). 3. his or her other commitments moves in the opposite direction. Such knowledge and skills may make one question the way many things are currently done in the University. Since commitment is an attitudinal construct. for whatever reason are not taken onboard by the University Administration and the teacher feels he or she is not consulted. If these skills and ideas. infrastructures. The leadership behavior of the Principal or Vice Chancellor is taken to be the major influence on the level of faculty commitment to a university (Campisano. in the university system. his or her commitment decreases. but also acquires new knowledge regarding universities and higher education. It is important that its employees share the vision of their university and be committed to its mission and goals. A university provides resources. and necessary training to their employees to enable them to accomplish its goals.7 Relationship between Organizational Commitment and Leadership Behavior Researchers have found a strong relationship between commitment and relationship and task-oriented types of leadership behavior. Lok (1997) conducted a study 73 . one not only gets to know more of how the system works.

The results from both samples indicated a strong positive relationship between consideration and organizational commitment. This study involved a comparative analysis of American and Indian salespersons. When dealing with the job satisfaction of the university faculty. Job satisfaction is a well studied subject in organizational behavior. Their findings suggested that relationoriented leadership behavior was a better predictor of commitment as compare to taskoriented behavior.376 nurses. A common belief is that people who are satisfied with their jobs will show a high level of productivity. Bycio. It results from their perception of their jobs and the degree to which there is a good fit between the individual and the organization” (Ivancevich 1997). Locke (1984) conducted an exploratory study of the job satisfaction of faculty at a university in USA.8 Job Satisfaction of University Faculty Job satisfaction refers to: “the attitude that individuals have regarding their jobs. DeCarlo and Vyas.and his findings reveal that a positive managerial strategy (represented by leadership style) would lead to greater employee commitment. Hackett. Meyer & Allen (1997) noted that when researchers are measuring commitment to the organization. & Allen (1995) did a study of 1. The study included 628 American salespersons and 181 Indian salespersons. they are misdiagnosing at and are actually measuring employees’ commitment to top management. research and teaching experience and publications. Their findings also suggest that American and Indian salespersons exhibit very similar responses towards leadership behavior. it is important to note that university teaching requires a great deal of effort and preparation. 3. University faculty finds a number of issues pertaining to their jobs both satisfying and unsatisfying. His results 74 . Agarwal. It requires many years of education. (1999) undertook a study on leadership behavior and employees organizational commitment.

9 Participative Decision Making and University Faculty The 1970 American Association of University Professors (AAUP) survey of faculty governance used by McCormick and Meiners (1989) provides the only comprehensive measure of faculty participation in governance and decision making available. Employee’s level of job satisfaction is higher if a job contains such characteristics as skill variety and autonomy. Employees are less satisfied with jobs that show a greater degree of role conflict and role ambiguity. fair pay and promotion. such as a high pay raise. Measuring faculty participation in university governance is a challenging task. The faculty was most satisfied with their own work achievements and the behavior of their department heads. may be more important for faculty than the fairness of procedures. One way of determining what contributes to job satisfactions for faculty is to examine why faculty members decide to stay at their current position or move either to a new university or to the private sector. leaders and co-workers who facilitate effective work. a decision made in the area of faculty control is defined as an instance where a decision is reported as being made by the faculty or jointly by the faculty and the academic administration. Chugtai & Zafar’s (2006).showed that faculty wants similar outcomes from their jobs as employees in other organizations. satisfaction with personal outcomes. mainly a sense of achievement for their work. 3. According to McCormick and Meiners (1989). good working conditions. and their fellow faculty members. findings suggest that in Pakistan where people struggle to make ends meet. Kinicki (2002) showed that there was a negative relationship between resigning and job satisfaction. They were satisfied with the higher level academic and the level of pay and promotions. Generally faculty 75 .

argue that the nature of academics employment contracts makes faculty members partial residual claimants to the success of the institution.members play a greater role in decisions concerning curriculum and student enrollment in the courses which they teach. Within the university there are several important stakeholder groups. faculty members. McPherson and Schapiro (1999) provide an overview of this literature and a useful discussion of authority delegation within the university. As a result. There is a growing literature that focuses on the role of employees in organizational governance. Hansmann (1996) points out that both the biggest advantage and the biggest disadvantage of employee ownership springs from employee’s participation in governance decisions. While centralized decision making by administrators avoids the problems associated with collective decision making. the wealth of the individual faculty members 76 . The difference is that the trustees. The advantage is that employees generally have a non- recoverable investment in the success of the firm and better information about the quality of many decisions than would other owners. and students that have competing interests. and students are expected to have some degree of participation within some of the broad range of decisions made within the university. faculty. Authors such as Blair. namely trustees. While there are no true owners in the university. (1995) and Milgrom and Roberts (1992) have argued that employees have the incentive and right to participate in organizational decision making. it also creates the potential for abuse by administrators. administrators. Brown (2005). The existing literature concerning agency problems and academics production suggests that faculty control certain types of academic decisions may lead to improved performance.

car leasing. In these decisions it is more likely that the faculty as a whole can reach agreements to enrich themselves at the expense of the university. supporting smaller class sizes. professional recognition and departmental service. In addition. reduced teaching loads. they may not always have the proper incentives for making these decisions at the individual level. In addition. then faculty members are unlikely to actively criticize administrative decisions. nice office and other benefits.g. The one area where the interest of majority of the faculty is likely to diverge from the interests of the institution is in the case of budgetary decisions. or nice 77 . Faculty members are likely to have better information for decisions concerning curriculum. Diverting financial resources to their personal use (i.e. If administrators retain the right to hire/fire and otherwise determine faculty rewards. While faculty members have better information concerning curriculum decisions. One expects that university governance decisions are structured so that the faculty members will participate more heavily in those activities where their informational advantages and expertise outweigh any malincentive effects. salaries. large offices. building. the creation of new academics programs and general faculty governance decisions than do board of governors. The monitoring of administrators by faculty members necessarily creates conflicts.will be tied to the success of the institution but faculty member have an incentive to enrich themselves at the expense of the institution’s success. faculty members provide an inexpensive source of information concerning the performance of the university and administrators. parking space. faculty members and administrators may value different types of output. Faculty members are likely to place more weight on outcomes including research. e. Administrators may be more likely to reward administrative staff.

efforts to leave the profession. depression. 1980). and an emotional attitude (Tagai 2002).10 Morale of Faculty Morale has been defined as a feeling. For example. This helps to reduce political infighting and coalition building that might otherwise develop among faculty groups. 3. The size of academic departments and resource allocation decisions among departments are also likely to be left to administrators. stress and other factors has been highlighted by scholars for being reasons for low and high faculty morale at universities. which is associated with "a loss of concern for and detachment from the people with whom one works. top managements style of lweadership. buildings and grounds are best handled by specialized administrators with expertise in these areas. Work environment. a state of mind. and a cynical and dehumanized perception of students" (Mendall. decreased quality of teaching. the average faculty member has considerably less expertise than trustees in these areas. greater use of sick leave. This creates an environment that is more conducive to learning. When a healthy environment exists faculty’s morale is high. In addition. High level of morale level makes teaching more pleasant for teachers and low levels of satisfaction and morale can lead to decreased teacher productivity and burnout.faculty clubs) is almost always in the best interest of faculty. decisions concerning admission. Existing faculty members also have an incentive to favor current uses of funds over future uses. The extent to which faculty members participate in administrative decisions is likely to be related to the type of decisions. a mental attitude. faculty members are not expected to participate in or be the primary monitors of financial decisions. student aid. 78 . As a result.

5. 6. 3. In order to see whether male and female faculty members differ the way they see their leaders behave in university settings I divided them into two groups and tried to see if task behavior differs in impacting people based on gender.Relation-oriented behavior increases faculty’s organizational commitment. Hypothesis five and six were developed to measure the consequences or outcome of organizational commitment.The task-oriented behavior of a leader would increase faculty’s organizational commitment.The task-oriented behavior of a leader would increase organizational commitment in male faculty members. a. 2. Other researchers like Tagai (2002) and Lok (1999) also measured them separately. 79 .11 Hypotheses The following hypotheses were developed. b.Organizational commitment has a positive correlation with morale.Laissez-faire behavior has a negative relationship with employees organizational commitment 4.Participative decision making has a positive relationship with faculty’s organizational commitment.Organizational commitment has a positive correlation with Job Satisfaction. 1.The task-oriented behavior of a leader would increase organizational commitment in female faculty members.3. Researcher’s intention was to examine the relationship of OC with Job satisfaction and morale.

There were 105 chartered universities in Pakistan and the intended respondent consisted of 300 faculty members in the selected 18 public and private universities including lecturers.3. associate professors and professors.12 Data Collection There is very little published material available in the area of organizational commitment in Pakistan. The researcher also visited certain universities to collect the completed questionnaires. Questionnaires were mailed to faculty members in the month of May. Potential respondents were asked to return the completed questionnaire in two weeks. There were 105 chartered 80 . To overcome this difficulty it was decided to collect this information through primary data collection with the help of a survey questionnaire. A reminder was mailed after three weeks. assistant professors. The population consisted of faculty members in all of the public and private Universities situated in Pakistan. A sample of private and public Universities was carried out as explained in the next section. well before the start of the annual summer vacation. Then questionnaires were mailed to the faculty members of these institutions. The sample consisted of 300 faculty members in 18 selected public and private universities. A total of 237 questionnaires were returned in response to the 300 questionnaires mailed. Then the researcher contacted the Deans and Heads of universities by telephone to determine if they were interested in participating in the research study He received positive responses from all the universities and then personally visited some universities to interview several Deans and Head of Departments located in the cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad.13 Sampling Strategy The unit of observation and analysis consisted of the faculty of selected institutions and universities across Pakistan. 3.

Meyer & Allen’s (1997) “Organizational Commitment Questionnaire” (OCQ) was used. one is administrative environment and the other is teaching.14 Survey Questionnaire The construction of the survey questionnaire for this study was primarily based upon and derived from four survey questionnaires used in previous studies. the United States army. Use of this questionnaire was based on the assumptions that university faculty is able to provide useful data for research. Faculty work in two domains. for its use in the wider survey specifically certain questions. Participatory 81 . 3. Most of the universities selected were geographically located in the central and northern region of Pakistan. which asked participants to evaluate their own leadership style were removed. In the pilot study the entire questionnaire was used but it was shortened. To measure leadership behavior. To measure the faculty’s organizational commitment. Within this area those universities were chosen which were most accessible or most likely to respond. due to their prestige and commitment to education. And based on the questionnaire design it was possible to measure leadership behavior in terms of task and relation. MLQ is considered a bench mark tool for assessing leadership behavior and a variety of studies have shown the MLQ to be effective in settings as diverse as savings banks. the “Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire” used by Bass (1995) consisting of 45 questions was chosen. Chinese state run industry and universities. Systematic sampling method was applied to select the sample of universities.universities in Pakistan in 2005 and number of private universities amounted to 45 (see Appendix H and I). and modified to suit the Pakistani university. community action agencies. Job satisfaction as an outcome was measured by the questionnaire used by Locke (1976).

Respondents from the private university were very reluctant to fill the survey forms as they were concerned whether the information would be confidential as it pertained to the University management. The researcher mailed 40 questionnaires to faculty members. Both universities were in twin-cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Pilot study contained the 45 questions of Bass and Avolio’s multifactor leadership questionnaire 82 . He also explained the objectives of the study and the rationale underlying the questionnaire.management and morale was measured by means of a questionnaire developed by Lok (1999). To alley their fears the researcher explained the purpose of the study to them and that confidentiality would be maintained as they were not to write their name and their organization’s name in the survey. The likert scale is designed to examine how strongly subjects agree or disagree with statements on a 5-point scale.15 Deriving Final Questionnaire from the Pilot Study Two universities were purposely selected for the pilot study of which one was a public University and one was a private one. The questionnaire of the pilot study had 90 questions spread over six pages. 3. Another problem was that none of the participants had seen this type of questionnaire before. All of the questionnaires used contained close-ended questions. All variables were measured on a five point likert scale. The researcher visited the public sector university and held a meeting with the potential respondents and addressed their concerns. Strongly Disagree 1 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 3 Disagree 2 Agree 4 Strongly Agree 5 This is an interval scale and the difference in the responses between any two points on the scale remains the same.

Due to this reason. and numbers of pages were also reduced from six to four.32 (r) and 0.46 (r). The final questionnaire had 60 questions instead of 90. The deletion of questions from Organizational Commitment Questionnaire helped to focus the direction of the scale specifically on the actual relationship between the faculty and their University. The pilot study was successful in attaining its two main goals. Thus the time to complete the final survey was reduced to less than or equal to fifteen minutes. 15 questions from the Leadership Questionnaire and six questions from Organizational Commitment Questionnaire were eliminated. This study intended to measure the leadership behavior of management and not that of the respondents. The pilot study also established that the questions pertaining to job satisfaction. morale and decision-making were valid. The questions pertaining to Leadership and Organizational Commitment were reduced in number based on whether the questions were redundant. The researcher examined leadership behavior and commitment questionnaires and determined that questions relating to laissez-faire and task and relation oriented behavior were redundant and did not serve any special purpose in the Pakistani University. 15 questions of job satisfaction and morale questionnaire and 15 questions of participatory decision making questionnaire.and 15 questions from Meyer and Allen’s Organizational Commitment Questionnaire. Participatory decision making showed positive significant correlation with leadership 83 . The pilot study showed the correlation coefficient between normative and continuance commitment to be positively significant at 0. Participants reported that they were causing them confusion. This modification and reduction of questions did not affect reliability and validity of the items remaining in the questionnaire.

90.38 (r) and 0. Organizational Commitment Questionnaire Porter Steers. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Several surveys were initially considered for possible measurements of task-oriented and relation-oriented leadership behaviors.86 (r).69 respectively. & Boulian (1974) developed an Organizational Commitment Questionnaire. They used it for measuring male and 84 .60 and . The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire survey was used after certain modifications were made to suit the local conditions in Pakistan.86 (r). This questionnaire was designed to measure employee’s satisfaction and level of involvement in the organization.43 (r). As explained earlier the redundant questions were taken out of the questionnaire so this correlation in this main study was . These results indicate that the variables of interest are significantly and positively correlated. A questionnaire developed by Fleishman (1951) and revised by Stogdill (1963) was not considered as this questionnaire did not measure two behaviors separately. 1995. relation and lassiz fare behavior. Bass & Avolio (1995) reported that it could go as high as . Mowday.behavior to be 0. This questionnaire distinguished clearly between task and relation-oriented leadership behavior. The correlation coefficient between the task and relationship oriented leadership scales was 0. The alpha value of Job satisfaction and Morale were . and 1997) to measure additional dimensions of leadership including task. Bass’s (1985) multifactor leadership questionnaire was selected as it has been improved and revised by Bass (1990. which was very high. Alvi and Ahmed’s (1987) questionnaire was not considered as it had a very limited scope. It has been used by many researchers in USA as well as in higher education institutions outside the US.

Also few questions were taken from the questionnaires of Lok (1999) and Tagai (2002). This questionnaire was considered for this research. so this questionnaire did not meet the requirements of this research study. So the researcher included three specific questions to see that employees may be committed to a number of different foci. Meyer & Allen’s (1997) updated Organizational Commitment Questionnaire was adopted. And the third one was. Job Satisfaction and Morale Questionnaire There were 13 questions on the questionnaire about job satisfaction and morale. or the supervisor (Becker. “I owe a great deal to my organization”. Previous researches suggest that commitment is stronger if closely connected to work of individuals. while I intended to measure OC’s relationship with leadership behavior and other variables. This questionnaire has been applied by researchers to other countries especially in South Asian as it is considered to be the best measure of all three types of organizational commitment. 1992).female OC in Pakistan. 85 . As for other questionnaires this was also tested in the pilot study and interestingly the questions relating to university and students indicated the highest percentage in terms of respondents who answered that they strongly agreed. The first one was related to the organization. the level of the work group. “I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it”. The second question was related to the people. Locke and Schiwiger (1996) developed a questionnaire about job satisfaction. “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this university”.

He/She avoids making decisions. He/She focuses attention on irregularities. He/She leads a group that is effective. He/She helps others to develop their strengths. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this university. He/She instills pride in others for being associated with him. I Would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it. I do not feel my obligation to remain with my current employer. He/She considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions. He/She displays a sense of power and confidence. He/She uses methods of leadership that are satisfying.Table 3. exceptions and deviations from standards. I might consider working elsewhere. He/She delays responding to urgent questions. He/She seeks differing perspectives in solving problems. He/She keeps track of all my mistakes. He/She is effective in meeting others’ job-related needs.3 Questions of Organizational Commitment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 It would be very hard for me to leave my department right now. Table 3. He/She acts in ways that build others respect for him/her. He/She is absent from office when needed. I owe a great deal to my organization Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my department now I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this university I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this institution This organization deserves my loyalty If I had not already put so much of myself into this department. He/She provides other with assistance in exchange for their efforts. even if I wanted to. He/She waits for things to go wrong before taking actions. He/She emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission. He/She fails to interfere until problem become serious. He/She talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. mistake. He/She expresses satisfaction when others meet expectations. abilities and aspirations from others. He/She is effective in representing others to higher authority. He/She directs my attention towards failures to meet standards. 86 .2 Questions of leadership Behavior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 He/She spends time coaching and teaching others He/She treats others as individuals rather than just as a member of a group He/She considers an individual as having different needs.

. I have been recommended for higher education/seminars and trainings by my university. The administration in my university tries to eliminate situations that can lead to disagreement. Physical working environment at this university is appropriate. I see a lot of opportunity for advancement in this university. My work in this institution gives me a great sense of achievement I feel a strong sense of direction and purpose provided by the administration of this institution. When changes in rules and procedures must be made.Table 3. Our administration finds it difficult to understand why faculty resists every change When I am in supervisory role. I am satisfied with the level of faculty participation in this Institution’s decision-making process. The administration of this institution has improved physical conditions for faculty work. I am able to influence decisions that affect my work. The administration in my organization effectively leads the university. Difference in opinions on how work should be done makes our administration angry. Our management listens carefully to each person in my department group when any significant change is being made. I am happy with the current system of faculty pay scale. The administration allows the faculty adequate academic freedom. I frequently communicate with my supervisor I frequently receive recognition from my supervisor on my performance. Enrollment of students in the courses I teach. I know I must not change my opinion on a significant work situation. is mostly my decision I have a significant role in the academic policies of this university 8 9 10 11 12 Table 3. I am satisfied with the level of faculty representation on the university board of governance.4 Questions of Participatory Decision Making 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The administration tells me what needs to be done and how it should be accomplished.5 Questions of Job Satisfaction and Morale of University Faculty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I feel there is strong connection between my pay and my performance. the ideas are gradually introduced so that faculty does not get upset. 87 . There is flexibility of work hours in this university.

81 3. organizational commitment.17 Data Analysis The SPSS Base 11.37 Standard Deviation 0. Initially the researcher used descriptive statistics to examine the responses.727 Mean 3. job satisfaction and morale were conducted in the following sequence. The methods used to conduct data analysis and measure the relationship between leadership behaviors. Table 3. Finally he examined the reliability of all the variables in the structural model by estimating the alpha values.796 0.63 and 0.84.834 0.52 2. Duly filled in survey questionnaires received were entered into SPSS version 11. In Table 3. continuance.20 3.0 for Windows.634 0.838 0. and normative commitment by means of t-tests.63 0.6 the alpha values of all the variables are between 0.696 0. They consisted of means.49 0.65 88 .23 3. median and mode. 2005 was the statistical software program used for analysis.657 0. This confirms the reliability of all the variables.96 0.6 Internal Consistency Cronbach’s Alpha Variables Organizational Commitment Task Behavior Relation Behavior Lassiz-Faire Participatory Decision Making Job Satisfaction Morale Items 10 10 10 5 12 6 7 Number of Responses 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 Estimate of Alpha 0.0 Applications Guide. Then he estimated the Pearson Moment Correlation Coefficient for the variables in the structural model followed by regression analysis. Then he conducted additional analysis to determine the statistical significance for affective.71 0.67 0.3.51 0.15 3.54 2.

The overall significance of the regression equation was then assessed by the f test.Correlation Analysis To detect the degree of association among each pair of independent and dependent variables the Pearson correlation matrix was estimated. relationship–oriented and Laissez-faire behavior. In the study. 89 . The effect of each independent variable was analyzed. Its statistical significance was assessed by the t test. the scores of organizational commitment as well as participatory decision making were regressed on task. Multiple Regression Analysis A major goal of regression analysis is usually to investigate the causal relationship between a dependent variable and several independent variables.

The average time they worked in their current universities was six years while the average time spent working under their current Vice Chancellors or rectors was 3 years and 4 months. position and time spent by the respondents in their respective universities as shown in table 4. qualification. while 41% had a Masters’ degree.2 Characteristics of University Faculty The researcher collected demographic data on age.1.CHAPTER 4 RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH 4.1 Result of Questionnaire Survey A total of 300 questionnaires were mailed of which. 237 (or 79%) completed questionnaires were returned and used for the quantitative analysis. 34% were M Phils. gender. Table 4. 4.1 Characteristics of University Faculty Members Variable Gender Age Bracket Category Male Female 24-30 31-45 45 and above Lecturer Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor Masters MS/Phil PhD Other Respondents 155 82 72 105 60 110 89 13 25 98 81 44 14 237 Percent 65% 35% 30% 44% 26% 46% 38% 5% 11% 41% 34% 19% 6% Teaching Rank Qualification of Respondents N 90 . Out of 237 respondents 19% were PhDs. The following results were obtained from these 237 completed questionnaires. job title. Statistics derived from this data revealed that 65% of the respondents were male and 35% females.

3 Sample Responses The universe of population consists of all universities in Pakistan.Table 4. yielding an overall response rate of 79%.2 gives details of questionnaires mailed to each university and response received. Full time faculty members of eighteen public and private universities of Pakistan formed the sample for the study.2 Sample Response of Universities Institution Punjab University Lahore Institute of Leadership and Management Lahore GIFT University Gujranwala M A Jinnah University Islamabad IQRA University Islamabad SZABIST Islamabad Air University Islamabad NUST Rawalpindi Quaid-I-Azam University Islamabad Gomal University D I Khan University of Faisalabad Agha Khan University Karachi Baluchistan University Quetta COMSATS Attock COMSATS Abbotabad University of Peshawar Hamdard University Islamabad Karakuram University Gilgit Total Questionnaires Sent 20 15 15 20 20 10 20 20 15 15 20 15 20 15 15 15 15 15 300 Returned 16 15 13 19 14 05 16 14 10 10 16 15 16 11 10 13 10 14 237 Return Rate % 80 100 86 95 70 50 80 70 66 66 80 100 80 73 66 86 66 93 79% 4. 237 respondents returned the questionnaires. Table 4. 91 . From the sample of 300.

43 0.60 0.81 2.Table: 4.00 5.07 3.54) indicates that the faculty was getting the task and goals accomplished to a certain extent.37 3.59 0.65 1.43 4.00 5.48 1. there are many other who have divided opinion on university’s leadership behavior. The mean score derived from the variables in the data ranged from 2.67 237 3.93 0.00 237 3. This denotes that most faculty members disagree with relationship oriented behavior.67 4.26 1.36 0. Relationship-oriented leadership behaviors indicate a median of 3.80 0.61 1.3 shows descriptive statistics for the various variables such as task-oriented.54.52 3.67 0.00 237 2. job satisfaction and morale.01 2.49 0.70 0.40 -0.25 0.60 0. The variance and standard deviation for all the variables are low.17 0. Such a high median also shows that while 50% of faculty likes relationship-oriented leadership.30 5.33 0. 92 . The median value for this variable is also 3. The pattern of scores of the variables suggests that some faculty members are dissatisfied to some extent from their administrators.28 1.86 237 237 237 237 5 point likert scale was used for data collection Table 4.00 237 2.33 3.24 0.35 0.00 5.17 1.17 1. The mean for task-oriented leadership behavior (3.00 0.00 237 3.52.23 -0.00 5.3 Descriptive Statistics of Major Variables OC (Affect) LB (Task)) (Cont) (Norm) Relation LF PDM JS Morale Mean Median Standard Deviation Sample Variance Skew ness Minimum Maximum Count 3.45 -0. participatory decision making.15 3.00 3.26 1.11 1.14 -0.30 5.29 3.60 0. relationship-oriented.00 3.54 3.00 3.52 to 3.33 0.20 3.60.75 5.63 0.0 or higher. commitment.96 0.71 1.6 but a mean of 2. The suggested score by Bass & Avolio (1997) for most effective leaders include a mean of 3.84 0.

followed by continuance commitment with a mean score of 3. Bass & Avolio (1997) reported correlation coefficients of r = 0.The findings indicate that affective commitment had a mean score of 3. 93 .68 to r = 0.03).04) and the amount of job security they had (4.07 and normative commitment with a mean score of 3.87 between the task and relationship-oriented behaviors.4 Correlations between Major types of Leadership Behaviors The researcher examined correlations for both task and relationship behaviors. However their findings suggest that on the average faculty members were satisfied with the actual work undertaken (4. This statistically significant result was consistent with the findings of other researchers. which is higher than the results obtained in this research. Their findings suggest that overall mean for organizational commitment was 5.29. relationship-oriented questions and laissezfaire behaviors independently. He entered responses regarding task oriented. 4.27 on a 7 point scale. Their findings provided preliminary evidence and support for the theory upon which relationship-oriented leadership is based and the theoretical link between relationship-oriented and task-oriented leadership.86 between the task-oriented and relationship-oriented scales. Chughtai &Zafar (2006) did a study of Pakistani university teachers and studied antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment among Pakistani university teachers.33. There was very high positive correlation of 0.

352 1.0 0.017 0.318 0.119 0.208 0.038 -0.179 0.402 0.349 0.0 -0.0 0.290 0.437 Morale 0.314 -0.038 -0.295 TB 0.340 0.Table 4.405 0.185 0.119 0.861 LFB -0.693 0.499 AC 0.463 0.119 0.458 -0.097 0.017 0.463 0.0 -0.367 0.295 1.4 Correlation Matrix of all variables Name of Variable and its short form Organizational Commitment.318 1.352 0.402 0.413 -0.580 -0.0 0.311 0.00 0.263 0.176 0.0 0.832 0.141 0.297 CC 0.119 0.693 0.041 -0.832 0.340 0.405 1.340 0.164 0.041 1.861 1.463 PDM 0.141 0.317 0. (OC) Task-Oriented Leadership Behavior (TB) Relation –Oriented Leadership Behavior (RB) Laissez-faire Behavior (LFB) Participatory Decision Making (PDM) Job Satisfaction (JS) Morale Affective Commitment (AC) Continuance Commitment (CC) Normative Commitment (NC) OC 1.317 0.255 1.367 0.340 -0.290 0.00 -0.499 0.223 0.210 0.211 0.164 0.185 -0.176 0.297 0.485 0.179 0.0 94 .463 0.223 0.255 0.314 0.714 1.349 -0.493 -0.714 0.737 0.311 0.263 NC 0.437 0.413 0.458 JS .0 RB 0.211 0.737 0.210 0.485 1.097 0.493 0.208 -0.580 0.

00 0.58 Variables Acronyms are given below 1. Between the scales of all three affective.49 0. Morale (OC) (TB) (RB) (LFB) (PDM) (JS) 4.Table 4.21 0.30 0.35 -0. Laissez-faire Behavior 5. Job Satisfaction 7.00 0. Participatory Decision Making 6.04 -0.5 Correlations among Organizational Commitment Scales Organizational commitment had a very high correlation of 0.40 0. Relation-Oriented Leadership Behavior 4.00 -0. normative and continuance well. while the correlation coefficient with effective commitment was 0.44 0.71 TB RB LFB PDM 1.4).46 0.40 and was slightly stronger than between the other two scales at 95 .83 (table 4.49 0.50 1.69. normative and continuance commitment.00 1.46 0.19 0. Task-Oriented Leadership Behavior 3.46 MORALE 1.00 0. The researcher also examined correlations between the individual scales of Organizational Commitment (Table 4.4) with continuous commitment.5 Correlation Matrix of Major Variables Variables Organizational Commitment Leadership Behavior Relation-Oriented Leadership Behavior Laissez-faire Behavior Participatory Decision Making Job Satisfaction Morale OC 1. there was moderately significant and positive correlation. These findings represent overall organizational commitment of affective.29 JS Job Satisfaction Morale 1.37 0.00 0. The correlation between normative and continuance commitment was 0. Organizational Commitment 2.34 0.18 -0.74.41 1. Its correlation with normative commitment was lesser at 0.00 -0.86 -0.

individuals remain with the organization because cost of leaving is too high whereas in normative commitment employees feel a sense of obligation towards the organization. Table 4. Alternatively in Allen and Meyer’s (1990) findings the correlation between normative and effective commitment was statistically significant and high as it was 0. the researcher’s findings are somewhat consistent with the results of Meyer and Allen (1990) and Cohen.0 Continuance 0.0 96 . 1993). suggests employees who have both continuance and normative commitments demonstrate reduced levels of citizenship behaviors and lack the initiative to do tasks beyond their job descriptions or put in extra work effort.34. Shore & Wayne.0 Normative 0 . (1996).05.51. may be because the opportunities in academia are limited to a large extent in Pakistan.41** 1. Meyer and Allen (1990) suggested that in the case of continuance commitment. A stronger correlation of continuance commitment in my finding also suggests that the faculty feels the cost of leaving is higher than staying. As the study done by McFarlane.34** 1. The findings of Meyer and Allen (1990) and Cohen (1996) also showed positive correlation among the OC scales but their findings suggested a stronger correlation between affective and normative commitment.r = 0.01.6 Commitment Correlations Affective Affective Normative Continuance N=237 ** Correlation is statistically significant with p < . Thus.35** 0. 1. * Correlation is statistically significant with p < .

4. Table 4.6 Correlations between the Task-Oriented.16) and normative commitment (0.16** Oriented N=237 **Correlation is statistically significant with p < .7 Correlations between Task-oriented.01. Regardless overall organizational commitment still was 0.21** 0.05.18) derived from the correlations of all the three scales of individual organizational commitment as well as with the overall organizational commitment scale.21) then with continuance commitment (0. and Organizational Commitment Affective Commitment Normative Commitment Continuance Commitment Organizational Commitment (all Scales together) 0.30. * Correlation is statistically significant with p <. The task-oriented scale had positive.30** 0. 97 .04** 0. The relationship-oriented scale had a statistically significant positive correlation with the overall organizational commitment (0. Relationship-Oriented Behavior and the Organizational Commitment Scales The researcher investigated the correlation between task-oriented behavior and relation-oriented behavior in conjunction with the three separate scales of organizational commitment. Relation-oriented. statistically significant and fair correlations with affective (0.18** TaskOriented 0.26** Relation0. The relationship-oriented scale was highly correlated with the effective commitment (0.12** 0. This correlation between two types of Leadership behaviors and affective commitment was consistent with earlier researcher’s findings.30** 0.04).30) and continuance (0.26) commitment and hardly any relationship with normative commitment.

This relationship is confirmed by Meyer and Allen’s (1997) findings. laissez-faire behavior. as to how their faculty feels about wanting to stay with the universities they are currently working. recognizing accomplishments. that many of the work experiences that influence affective commitment also influence normative commitment.8). Findings in this study are not consistent with Bycio. The findings in the study also suggest a positive but weaker correlation between the relationship-oriented behavior and three scales of organizational commitment. task-oriented leadership behavior. job satisfaction and morale of faculty. However task-oriented leadership behavior of head of institutions for normative commitment was weakly related to the fact about how faculty felt about staying with their universities. (See table 4. It also suggests that positive feedback contributes to the desire of faculty to remain with the current universities. sharing the same vision.These findings suggest that task-oriented leadership behavior of vice chancellors and heads of institutions. which suggest that task-oriented behavior is negatively related to three scales of organizational commitment. RelationOriented behavior is significantly related to affective commitment but there is a weaker correlation with continuance commitment. are positively related to some extent. which involve trust building. & Allen (1995). Hackett. relation-oriented leadership behavior. The study had one questionnaire about 98 .7 Correlation between Participatory Decision Making and Organizational Commitment This study also examined the correlation between participatory decision making and the three scales of organizational commitment (these scales put together). This indicates that faculty wants their leaders to take action before the problems become serious. 4.

This questionnaire in (Appendix B 4) was designed to find the answers to questions such as the following: What is it that faculty considers being participation in decision making? What kind of decisions does the faculty think they should be part of? Many specific decisional issues were presented to faculty and the members were asked to answer on a scale from one to five in which one denoted strong disagreement while five denoted as strong agreement.49) and task-oriented behavior (0.49** 0.8 Correlation of Participatory Decision Making with Organizational Commitment and other outcomes of interest OC Affect Com Conti Com Norm Com Task Relation Job Satisf 0.32.58** 99 . both with relationship-oriented behavior (0. Results showed a positive and statistically significant relation between PDM and OC (r = 0. 0.34** 0.26** Making (PDM) N=size of sample 237 **Correlation is statistically significant with p < .21** 0.32** 0. Table 4. The findings suggested a fair correlation of PDM with the overall commitment scale.49** Morale Participatory Decision 0.46** 0. The correlation between continuance commitment and PDM was 0.01. The researcher tested organizational commitment scales separately with the intent to examine its relationship with Participatory Decision Making. which is positive and statistically significant. The findings showed Participatory Decision Making to be significantly and positively related to the employee’s perception of leadership behavior.participatory decision making and its relationship with organizational commitment.46).34).

but are also more likely to see a long term role in the organization that fulfills their own growth and development needs. Most of the faculty members surveyed (97%) strongly disagreed with the statement. (0 . most of the respondents said they strongly disagree with the statement (90%). and also by increasing job satisfaction and reducing turnover and absenteeism. employees are not only more likely to succeed in their current positions. 100 . Results showed a statistically significant positive correlation between Participatory Decision Making and Job Satisfaction.8 Correlation between Participatory Decision Making and Job Satisfaction The researcher also examined the correlation between Participatory Decision Making and Job Satisfaction. suggest that Participatory Decision Making may improve organizational productivity by maximizing the utilization of the organization’s human resources. Participation can improve an employee’s understanding of organizational processes and provide them opportunities to develop certain problem solving and communication skills. This is consistent with earlier studies. Therefore it is suggested that faculty should be involved in the decision making process and especially in the issues which directly or indirectly affect them. The findings of Shaw & Kim (2004).493). “I have been recommended by my university management for higher studies and training programs”. When the researcher asked the question. If faculty is provided the opportunity to take advantage of training programs and then to expand their work role and responsibilities.4. In the answer to another question. “I have a significant role in the academic policies of this university”. their job satisfaction is likely to increase and they are more likely to stay with their current organizations. Consequently.

and less qualified than all the heads of departments. (r = 0. While lack of training is a set back to satisfaction and commitment.58) which is highly significant. (0.21) where correlation of job satisfaction with affective commitment is 0. we continue our mission because we are committed to our country”. PDM also has a positive correlation with morale.9 shows that the correlation between other scales of commitment and Job Satisfaction is weakly positive. that faculty members feel valued and their perception about being part of decision making affect their performance also. 101 . The table 4. He thought the faculty was treated like factory workers but they were dedicated to their profession. PDM provides faculty members with a survival tool to cope better in an adverse working environment. Comments from one dean of a university are worth noting. “In spite of all the problems we are having with this vice chancellor who is a retired government officer. 4.31.9 Correlation between Commitment and Job Satisfaction The researcher’s findings suggest a significant correlation between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. The dean of a public sector university pointed out: “That morale was low in his university.Thus hypothesis 4 was supported as Participatory Decision Making’s positive relation with job satisfaction and commitment suggests. and a lot of foreign qualified and experienced professors had left”.

097 Job Satisfaction N=237 **Correlation is statistically significant with p < . This keeps me going. It also appears that faculty attributes their high morale to their commitment to students. I do it for the students and love for my profession and country. For me the commitment and loyalty to Pakistan is very important.01. People are accepted for a job after the interview but they turn down our Vice Chancellors offer. the profession. Clearly faculty’s commitment to profession is important. 102 . AC.12 Normative Commitment 0. Table: 4. Otherwise I would have opted for immigration to Canada a long time ago”.21** Affective Commitment 0.“We have spent almost a million rupees on full page advertisement in the national news papers for faculty hiring in the last two years but the response is very disappointing. and country. CC and NC with Job Satisfaction Organization Commitment (combine) 0 . I give less time to my own children but I stay here for long hours.9 Correlations of OC.31** Continuance Commitment 0.

the higher correlation between job satisfaction and morale and low relation of morale with commitment also suggest that those faculty members who are satisfied with their job are not necessarily committed to their organization. The interesting finding was that 97% faculty members at private universities showed strong satisfaction with these two responses. satisfaction with physical conditions was very low.10 Job Satisfaction and Morale JS Job Satisfaction Morale 1.10) indicates that there is a significant positive relationship between these two measures. I attend frequent meetings headed by our rector. The answer to the question. However. At the public universities.4.71 MORALE 1. I come to this university everyday with commitment to my profession. “The behavior of our rector is damaging our university and faculty’s morale. I often think of resigning because he spends hours and hours discussing non issues and does not want to discuss faculty development and student focused issues. The deans of some universities I interviewed gave several reasons.10 Correlation between Job Satisfaction and Morale Table 4. The morale at five public sector universities headed by retired government officers was very low.71) between job satisfaction and morale (table 4.00 The positive correlation (r = 0.00 0. He 103 . “The physical environment at this university is appropriate” and “The administration of this institution has improved physical conditions for faculty’s work”.

Everything seems discouraging after listening to him. profession. 104 . they are still committed to their.does not understand the business of education. there are 1200 students and the members of the faculty who need me here”. I have spent 29 years in this profession. I would not leave this place only because. and I believe Allah will reward me for all the difficulties I faced. It is clear that even if faculty is dissatisfied with leadership behavior. students and country.

Taskoriented leadership behavior and participatory decision making are positively related to organizational commitment. while relationship oriented behavior is negatively related to organizational commitment.264 units. The researcher found that the four independent variables captured 39% of the variation in OC.11 Results of Regression Analysis Correlation analysis was followed by regression analysis. laissez-faire leadership behavior and participatory decision making. The theoretical estimated equations are presented in chapter 3 on page 72. However. Equation also shows that even if all other co-efficients become zero. the coefficient of laissez faire is effectively zero. The fourth variable. Laissez-faire behavior is statistically significant at the 90% level of confidence.4. the dependent variable. statistics showed that three of the four independent variables were statistically significant at the 99% level of confidence in the model. 105 . namely task-oriented and relationship-oriented. The first estimation of the results which are shown on the following page in table 4. The t. Regression analysis analyses how a single dependant variable is caused by one or more independent variables and they have linear relationship. even then the EOC will remain 2.11. faculty’s organizational commitment was regressed against four independent variables.

12 Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations 0.295 237 In the equation the R Square of 0.391 -1.Regression Results of faculty’s Organizational Commitment to Four Types of Leadership Behavior (Over All Results) Table 4.36 units in an organization respectively.000 0.061 1.348 0.506 -3. OC decreases by 0. Table 4.391 indicates that 39.000 0. the organizational commitment will increase by 0.391 0.23E-06 .11 Regression Statistics Types of Leadership Behaviors Task Oriented Relationship Laissez-Faire Participatory Intercept Coefficients T Value 3.347 0.879 4.391 0.511 P Value R Square Adjusted R Square 0.33 units and 0. If the leader’s relationship oriented behavior increases by one unit.1% of the variation EOC is explained by the variation in Task-oriented Leadership Behavior (TOLB).64 0.448 0.0000 The results indicate that when the leader’s task-oriented behavior increases by one unit and the employee’s participation in decision making increases by one unit. Relation- 106 .327 -0.361 2.32 units. The results of the regression analysis thus shed further light on the effect of relationship oriented behavior.068 0.332 -0.982 8.

12. This result is expected as each of the independent variables is statistically significant at a confidence level of 99% except for laissez-faire behavior.33 -0. 107 . So we accept that all of the independent variables affect the value of dependent variable. the confidence interval is less than 95%.05 F 14.07 0. Even this variable is significant at a confidence level of 90%. X variables considered together.000 0. Table 4.39 -1.000 From the table it is evident that relationship between EOC is highly significant with all the independent variables except with the laissez-faire variable where significant level is low i. In our table the F value is highly significant. Table 4.000 F-Test measures the overall significance level of the model. and Participatory Decision Making (PDM).12. ROLB.097 0.70 50.095 0.061 0.98 P-value 0.33 -0. Y (in this case EOC). LFB and PDM) i.000 0.036 0.oriented Leadership Behavior (ROLB).26 0.35 63.51 3.072 Intercept Task Oriented Relationship Laissez-Faire Participatory Coefficients 2.e.27 0.e.e.000 0.51 -3. It shows if there is a linear relationship between all of the independent variables (TOLB. and the dependent variable i.2 Standard Error 0. Laissez-faire Behavior (LFB).36 t Stat 8.1 Results of f test for determinants of faculty’s organizational commitment ANOVA df Regression 4 Residual 233 Total 237 SS 12.88 4.64 Significance F 0.

2% of the variation in faculty’s organizational commitment (EOC) is explained by the variation in the four regression Coefficients.27 Significance F 0. 108 .13.1 ANOVA Regression Residual Total df 4 151 155 SS 0. In our Table the F value is not significant.26 155 Dependent Variable = Employees organizational Commitment Independent Variable = Task-oriented Leadership Behavior Relation-oriented Leadership Behavior Laissez-faire Behavior Participatory Decision Making The Co-efficient of determination R Square reports the proportion of total variation in dependent variable (Y) explained by all independent variables (X) is taken together.85 25. We have to accept that there is no linear relationship among the beta coefficients. Table 4. ROLB.18 0.Regression Results of Male Faculty’s Organizational Commitment with four Types of Leadership Behavior Table 4.285 The f-test shows if there is a linear relationship between all of the independent variables (TOLB.97 F 1.13 0. The R Square of 0.1326 indicates that 13.13 25.11 0. LFB and PDM).13 Coefficients for Determinants of Male Faculty members Organizational Commitment Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations 0.

0.37 0.036 units with an increase of 1 unit in Laissez-Faire.11 units with 1 unit increase in Participatory Behavior keeping the other three independent variables constant.04 units with 1 unit increase in Task Oriented Leader Behavior keeping the other three independent variables constant.08 t Stat 9.039 0.04 Task Oriented + 0. EOC will increase by 0.11 0.036 0. Error 0.11 St.06 Relationship Oriented – 0.60 -0.2 Results of Male Faculty’s Organizational Commitment and Four types of Leadership Behavior Intercept Task Oriented Relationship Laissez-Faire Participatory Coefficients 2. EOC will decrease by 0.30 0.88 -0.Table 4.58 -0.11 Participatory Decision Making This equation shows that EOC will decrease by 0.055 0.036 Laissez-Faire + 0.88 units. our Multiple Regression equation is as under:EOC = 2. the confidence interval is greater than 95%. From the table it is evident that relationship between EOC is highly significant will all the independent variables i.06 units with an increase of 1 unit in Relationship behavior. EOC will increase by 0.071 0.88.e.36 P-value 2.85 1.017 From the output of excel. If all other co-efficient become zero.04 0.04 0.991E-17 0. 109 .13.06 -0.10 0. keeping the other three independent variables constant. keeping the other three independent variables constant. even then the EOC will remain 2.

Table 4.2 Co-efficient for Determinants of Female Faculty’s Organizational Commitment Intercept Task Oriented Relationship Laissez-Faire Participatory Coefficients 2.14.99 .16 0.06 0.75 .13 t Stat 6.09 0.1.81 F 6. ROLB.003 0.44 -0.50 0.87 P-value 0. In our regression the F value is highly significant.000 0. So we accept that the independent variables affect together the value of (EOC) Organizational Commitment.39 16.19 0.14.38 0. Table 4.54 2.005 110 . LFB and PDM.Regression Results of Females Faculty’s Organizational Commitment with four Types of Leadership Behavior Table 4.42 21.85 0.39 2.017 0.36 Standard Error 0.1 F test for determinants of Female Faculty’s Organizational Commitment ANOVA Regression Residual Total Df 4 78 82 SS 5.2.45 0.32 Significance F 0.000 The f-test measures the overall significance level of the model.14 Regression Results Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations 0.57 -0.007 0.26 82 Dependent Variable = Faculty’s Organizational Commitment Determining Variables = Task-oriented Leadership behavior Relation-oriented Leadership Behavior Laissez-Faire Behavior Participatory Decision Making In the equation the R square indicates that 42% of the variation in the regression is explained by the variation in TOLB.42 0.

This shows that university management is strongly “keeping track of the faculty’s mistakes”. EOC will also decrease by 0. Equation also shows that even if all other co-efficients become zero. The responses on leadership behavior pertaining to the questions. continuance and normative commitments are positively related to task oriented behavior. EOC will decrease by 0. keeping the other three independent variables constant. the confidence interval is more than 95%. This is not unusual for Pakistani universities setup.44 units with one unit increase in task oriented leader behavior keeping the other three independent variables constant. and they are not giving the faculty any feedback.0855 units with an increase of one unit in LaissezFaire.36 units with one unit increase in Participatory Behavior keeping the other three independent variables constant. “He points out my mistakes”. affective.e. 4.85 units. “late action” and would not interfere unless problems become chronic”. From the table it is evident that relationship between EOC is highly significant will all the independent i. The research also suggests that laissez-faire behavior is negatively related to all forms of commitment. even then the EOC will remain 2. Therefore timely feedback and action about the situation and problems require improvement in university management’s actions. comes with disapproval from 111 . This shows poor leadership behavior whereby the management does not interfere in the faculty’s issues unless their problems become acute.This equation shows that EOC will increase by 0. EOC will increase by 0.12 Findings about All types of Leadership Behavior and Organizational Commitment The findings suggest that organizational commitment and its subscales.57 units with an increase of one unit in relationship-oriented behavior.

it can and should be done in a clarifying and encouraging way. confidence building and they should share a common vision and they must recognize and encourage accomplishments. and if decisions are made on time. The research showed how willing the universities heads were to share power with faculty and involve them in academic decision making. there is an impact on faculty and organizational performance. 112 . if they have adequate representation on the board of studies. If the faculty members are consulted in the matters affecting their academic life.faculty regarding the leadership behavior of university management. The other important point is that the leadership needs to improve normative commitment level by improving their relationship-oriented behavior because all three OC scales have positive but week relation with relationship-oriented behavior. This was also suggested by Chughtai & Zafar (2006) that trust in university management was significantly related to commitment of faculty members. The result of this study shows that faculty satisfaction with participative decision making process is important. A member who is committed to his job is also more satisfied with his job and will have the intentions of remaining in the same university. They should show trust and do measures for trust building. These findings augment earlier results which suggested that a bureaucratic environment often resulted in a lower level of organizational commitment. Therefore the suggestion for Vice Chancellors and management is that they do need to work on their relation-oriented style of leadership. if they are given academic freedom. This behavior also has an impact on how faculty is feeling regarding their obligation to stay with the university. If management wants to give negative feedback about mistakes and below standard performance.

The results of these regression analyses for the main effect of Employees organizational commitment on job satisfaction and Morale are shown below on table 4.16 Results of Faculty’s Commitment to Morale Regression Statistics R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations Sig.624 237 0. Independent Variable = Employees Organizational Commitment Out Come (Dependent Variable) = Job Satisfaction and Morale B . F Change 0.16 respectively. Regression Results of Faculty’s Commitment with Job Satisfaction and Morale Linear Regression Analysis is applied to find the causal relationship between employees’ organizational commitment and two dependent variables the job satisfaction and Morale separately.This creates a stable environment in the university and increases its chances of higher educational achievements.15 Results of Faculty’s Commitment to Job Satisfaction Regression Statistics R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations Sig.694 237 0.089 0.048 0. Table 4.EQ (B2) = Morale = α + β 2 X2 + ε The outcome variables.044 0.000 113 . F Change 0. one by one were regressed on Employees organizational commitment. the job satisfaction and Morale.EQ (B1) = Job Satisfaction = α + β1 X1+ ε C .15 and 4.093 0.001 Table 4.

000 Predictor: (Constant).97) is less than 0. Table 4.001.Employees’ organizational commitment explained 4.95 which is highly significant at 0.97 Significance F 0. So we reject the null hypotheses and accept the alternative hypotheses.27) indicate that the model does not explain a lot of the variation in the dependent variable.3% variance in Morale which is statistically significant.69) indicate that the model does not explain a lot of the variation in the dependent variable. It indicates that the independent variable is significantly explaining the variation in the dependent variable. and there are other factors that account for a higher proportion of the variation in the dependent variable.001 which is highly significant. EOC Dependent variable: Morale The significance value of the F statistic (F=23. EOC Dependent variable: Job Satisfaction The F value is 11.15.04 F 11.001 Predictor: (Constant).1 ANOVA Regression Residual Total df 1 235 236 Sum of Squares 5. 114 .27 119. 9. It indicates that the independent variable is significantly explaining the variation in the dependent variable.35 91.001) but very high residual sum of squares (113. The regression results are very significant (p = 0.16.95 Significance F 0. So we reject the null hypotheses and accept the alternative hypotheses.76 113.05 F 23. Table 4.8% variance in Job Satisfaction.001) but comparatively high residual sum of squares (91. and many additional factors that help account for a higher proportion of the variation in the dependent variable Morale. Although the regression results are very significant (p < 0.69 101.1 ANOVA Regression Residual Total df 1 235 236 Sum of Squares 9.

088 t Stat 7. The t statistics can help to determine the relative importance of each variable in the model.458 Sig. p < .287 0. The equation shows that Job Satisfaction will increase by 0.896 Sig.079 2. From the above tables it is evident that relationship between EOC is highly significant with Job Satisfaction and Morale. P-value 0.304 EOC.258 0.214+ 0.001 2.30.2 Coefficient Beta Intercept EOC Standard Error 0.709 3.000 Dependent Variable: Morale Morale = 2. p =.001).2 Coefficient Beta Intercept EOC Standard Error 0. The equation shows that Morale will increase by 0.220 Dependent variable: Job Satisfaction JS = 2.212 4.896. The results of the regression analysis revealed that Employees organizational commitment was a significant predictor of job satisfaction (β= 0.45 and the t statistics for morale was 4.Table 4. p-value 0.304 t Stat 8.122+ 0.220 EOC.214 0.304 units with 1 unit increase in EOC. the t statistics for Job Satisfaction was 3.15. which are statistically significant within a confidence interval of 99% and that implies that 115 . These results confirmed Hypotheses 5 and 6.000). and Morale (β = 0.000 0. Table 4. The results of regression analysis show that when job satisfaction and morale were regressed against EOC.16.000 0.220 units with 1 unit increase in Employees Organizational Commitment.22.122 0.

263 116 . Table 4.66631 154 .017 . Job satisfaction is regressed on organizational commitment and secondly Morale is regressed on organization commitment. Firstly.05) with a difference in Beta coefficient (.741 82 .037 . the regression was applied on two groups.037 for the males and .192 Females .031 . F Change Beta coefficient Males . males and females separately.263 for females) as shown in the table given below. Regression analysis showed statistically significant results for both male and female respondents.192 for males and . Regression between Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction (Male and Female) To find the difference in regression results with respect to gender of the respondents.organizational commitment has significant impact on both dependent variables but comparatively higher impact on morale than job satisfaction. When responses were grouped into male and females. The R Square was observed .058 .017 .069 .069 for the females with the same significance level (p<0.17 Regression Statistics R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations Sig.

Independent sample method was applied for two groups of sample respondents the female and the male groups.121 for the females with the same significance level (p=0. T Test is applied.276 Females .076 for the males and .076 .110 . F Change Beta coefficient Males . Results indicated no significant difference in means between male and female for three of the variables (p>. 117 .05). The R Square was observed . Table 4.347 Results of T Test: To find the relative difference in the variables due to the gender of the respondents.The results are shown in the given tables.070 .17.001 .1 Regression Statistics R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations Sig.001 .622 82 .347 for females) as shown in the table given below.001) with a difference in Beta coefficient (.276 for males and .Regression between Organizational Commitment and Morale (Male and Female) Regression analysis between OC and Morale showed statistically significant results for both male and female respondents.121 .629 154 .

2305 .05732 .3% for Morale) indicated that 118 .04134 Table 4.7 .09166 .3567 3. Error Mean .196 .18150 .08950 -.65331 .473 df 235 Sig.76370 .04234 .07049 -.8 .05436 .67673 .121 assumed Equal variances not assumed JS Equal variances .04720 .07067 -.793 assumed Equal variances not assumed OC Equal variances .728 t .8% for job satisfaction and 9. Error (2-tailed) Difference Difference .07282 .638 .084 assumed Equal variances not assumed Sig.2071 3.08976 -.9 Discussion on Results The tests were performed to find the causal relationship between Organizational Commitment and two dependent variables the job satisfaction and Morale.300 235 1.374 .2016 Std.472 163.862 .17367 .3990 3.10034 -.01677 .51906 .2196 .2072 .2312 .18 Group Statistics Gender MORALE Females Males JS Females Males OC Females Males N 82 155 82 155 82 155 Mean 3.04234 .08434 .867 .51466 .167 148.09667 -.772 1.19 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference F MORALE Equal variances . Deviation Std.09166 Lower Upper . As the results indicated significant results between OC and the two dependent variables but low values of R square (4.13489 .05248 .195 .1903 3.65940 . .174 235 . Mean Std.2187 .01677 .2933 3.297 163.637 .04788 .2150 .13398 .Table 4.

069 and morale R Square was = . there was no significant difference in the responses. Job Satisfaction and Morale with respect to gender. 119 . there was no significant difference observed for male and female for both of the dependent variables in their causal relationships.8%).e. It is also inferred from the regression results that OC explains more variance in morale(R square: 9.037 and morale = .42 for leadership behavior and R square for job satisfaction as = . Morale and Participatory Decision Making Overall results showed that there was significant relation between organizational commitment and Job satisfaction but there are other factors which are contributing the increase in faculty’s job satisfaction. When results were compared between male and female faculty members. For females R square = . for job satisfaction = .although Organization commitment is significant and important factor to explain variation in job satisfaction and Morale but there could be many other factors that may explain variance in the dependent variables. it appeared that both genders were satisfied with their jobs. their morale will be relatively higher than job satisfaction. Job satisfaction may be related to many other related factors of the job.121. Male faculty members were more affected by relationship-oriented behavior and participatory decision making and showed negative impact by task-oriented leadership behavior. Even relative importance of three variables i.3%) than job satisfaction(R square: 4. 4. Job Satisfaction. When results are analyzed with respect to gender of the respondents. It shows that employees who have high organizational commitment.13 in leadership behavior.076 for males. The equation showed R square = 0.13 Findings about Organizational Commitment. OC.

Interestingly females showed more commitment to organization with regard to taskoriented behavior and PDM. leadership behavior’s influence on job satisfaction. “the academic world was predominantly a male occupation until the later half of the last century. Findings of this research also support these earlier findings. The findings included: significant influence on teaching faculty’s morale from job satisfaction. and relation of participatory decision makin 120 . participatory decision making’s significant influence on morale. Both genders were more committed to organization and more satisfied with their jobs.347 and for males it was . In female faculty members the results of morale were significant on 95% confidence level of value of coefficient was 0. and it is possible that there are different predictors of satisfaction for males than for females. Study done by Tang and Talpade (1999) showed that males tended to have higher level of satisfaction with pay than females and females tended to have a higher level of satisfaction with coworkers than males. This means that increasing the degree to which a task is personally important to individual is more productive than increasing organizational ties. 1987). where they suggested that females were more satisfied from their jobs in Pakistan. And a negative impact was shown by laissez-fare and relation-oriented behavior.276. participatory decision making. The high correlation of task-oriented behavior with organizational commitment and Job satisfaction implies that university management has a better chance of increasing job satisfaction through practices that are focused on task-oriented behavior. It also showed that morale was an outcome of organizational commitment. Another researcher Beth (2004) explains the difference between male and female job satisfaction as. This was not consistent with the findings of (Alvi & Ahmed.

5.Laissez-faire behavior has a negative relationship with employees organizational commitment.Participative decision making has a positive relationship with faculty’s organizational commitment. 3. 4.The result of this study shows that faculty satisfaction with participative decision making process is important. g with organizational commitment. 4. This creates a stable environment in the university and increases its chances of higher educational achievements. 6. 1.The task-oriented behavior of a leader would increase organizational commitment in female faculty members. b. Hypothesis two showed that it has affect when regressed collectively but when loaded separately A 121 .The task-oriented behavior of a leader would increase faculty’s organizational commitment.14 Hypotheses Evaluation The following hypotheses were developed and were analyzed during research. 2.Relation-oriented behavior increases faculty’s organizational commitment.The task-oriented behavior of a leader would increase organizational commitment in male faculty members. My First hypothesis was proven by regression and correlational analysis. a.Organizational commitment has a positive correlation with Job Satisfaction. A member who is committed to his job is also more satisfied with his job and will have the intentions of remaining in the same university.Organizational commitment has a positive correlation with morale.

1. Therefore relation oriented behavior added significant variance in predicting commitment and intention of faculty to leave or stay. Sixth hypothesis was that organizational commitment has positive correlation with morale and it was also proven. 3. Task oriented leadership factored scores were positively and significantly correlated with commitment factored scores and therefore task leadership behavior added significant variance in predicting the level of commitment.Relations oriented leadership behavior factored scores were positively and significantly correlated with commitment and job satisfaction. Fourth hypothesis was proven that participatory decision-making has positive relationship with OC. 2. Four significant findings were identified from this research study. 122 .Organizations have different working environment that displays leadership behavior and had its effects on faculty’s morale. (affective.The type of leadership style determines the job satisfaction of faculty. The results of males were opposite. 4. normative and continuance). And also that female’s organizational commitment is increased by taskoriented behavior of leaders while decreased by relation-oriented behavior.is rejected. Third hypothesis was proved that Laissez-Faire behavior has a negative relationship with OC. and fifth hypothesis was proven that OC has positive relationship with job satisfaction.

Lok. Alvi & Ahmed provided the basis for literature review. decentralization. Steers. Previous work done by Bass & Avolio. and variety of skills used (Meyer & Allen. the likelihood of increasing commitment is apparently enhanced. Beyond other factors involved. Cohen. The research was prompted by lack of attention in the literature to the influence of leadership behavior and university faculty’s participation in decision making and its influence on organizational commitment. skills. and expect to find a work environment where they can utilize their abilities and satisfy many of their basic needs. and culture (Steers. fairness of policies. There are many factors that can have effect on organizational commitment. desires. Brown. Tagai. When the organizations provide such a vehicle. Values. commitment to the organization is probably most 123 . job challenges. climate. 1977). It also measured faculty’s job satisfaction. competence. attitude.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5.1 Introduction This research thesis examined university faculties’ commitment and how that commitment is affected primarily by the leadership style of public university’s Vice Chancellors and private university’s directors or owners. 1997): Individuals come to organizations with certain needs. Meyer & Allen. The main purpose of this thesis was to investigate the relationship between leadership behavior. Locke and Schweiger. personality. morale. Research also examined affect of participatory decision on faculty’s organizational commitment. including age. degree of autonomy. and its relationship with organizational commitment. and so forth. participatory decision making and organizational commitment. gender. The concept of Organizational Commitment played a central role in this study.

2 Discussion The main results of this thesis were derived from a questionnaire based survey. Employees who are highly committed to the goals of an organization and have positive attitude towards it should be more likely to have a strong desire to come to work and contribute toward goals attainment. on the other hand. And a university where a clear commitment to student learning is apparent. 1967. more faculty participation in decision making is crucial to the overall effective operations of the universities. The increased support for participatory management comes from a nation’s attention on education. interviews and observational data were also gathered to complement the findings of survey. (1979) suggested that organizational commitment was different from job satisfaction in a number of ways. 1977). which will in turn increase morale and satisfaction (Blake & Mouton. independence. which reflected the general affective response to the organization as a whole. 5. McGregor. 2004). 1960).reflective of how employees feel about leaders and the behavior they exhibit (Brown. respect. 1964. Highly committed employees should have a strong desire and intent to remain with the organization. Participation will lead to greater attainment of high order needs. coupled with the current push for accountability and the increased pressure on Vice Chancellors to run effective universities. Job satisfaction. and equality. The importance of decision making in educational institutions has been recognized as a key function by this research. Mowday et al. reflected one’s response either to one’s 124 . They argued that commitment is a more global concept. such as self expression. However. More highly educated people would be less committed to the organization and perhaps more committed to their profession or trade (Steers.

review of workload. the faculty must be willing to spare and spend time for it. For both administrators and faculty. Willingness and ability goes hand in hand in decision making. That would also mean coming to campus on week ends. (1979) concluded that commitment focused on attachment to the employing organization including its goals and values while satisfaction emphasized the specific task environment where as employee performed his or her duties. My findings suggested that both male and female faculty is committed but only the commitment of females is substantial and statistically significant were on the higher side. These were relatively important findings. reflecting a more immediate reaction to specific and tangible aspects of the work environment such as pay and supervision (Porter et al. This research found that job satisfaction and commitment were equally predictive of voluntary turn over. Mowday et al. But if this has to work and succeed. The degree of female commitment in Pakistan appears to be much higher than that of male workers. 1974. This study validated a study done by Steers (1977) that having expectations or needs met. Smith et al. which contributed substantially to the development of theory of organizational commitment. Participatory decision making takes time and time is what faculty might not be willing to spare.job or to certain aspects of one’s job. Another important finding from this thesis was that leadership style has positive effect on commitment while bureaucratic style of leadership had a negative affect on organizational commitment. Job satisfaction was found to be less stable measure overtime. 1987). led to satisfaction which resulted in greater commitment among employees. in service training and access to important information 125 . 1969). and age seems inversely related with commitment (Alvi & Ahmed.

Among the two types of leadership behavior which one contributes more towards faculty’s intention to stay with their universities? 3. Faculty members should bear the consequences of their decisions and actions. 1.3 Research Questions The four research questions and the responses that follow were the focus of the study. organization and profession? 4. If faculty is consulted in the university’s decision making process would it have positive influence on their loyalty towards university and what would be its effect on their satisfaction from their job. Is faculty’s commitment influenced by behavior of university leadership? 2. Male faculty members had positive relationship with relation-oriented behavior and negative relationship with task when compared separately. This research did provide answer to first question that faculty’s 126 . Female faculty members showed positive relationship with task and negative with relation-oriented behavior. Faculty must be ready for accountability if they are willing to accept authority. Faculty members are not sent for training but they are willing to go. The results of current study showed that 90% of the faculty members responded that they were not part of decisions which are pure academic related. 5. Job satisfaction and morale of faculty The results indicated that significant positive relationship was present between combined task and relation-oriented behavior and employees’ organizational commitment.is necessary. Faculty is willing to take this responsibility. What kind of relation exists between organizational commitment. they are not members of curriculum committees.

job satisfaction and morale of faculty have a positive relationship and on correlation matrix it was (0. 5. The administrators should recognize faculty accomplishments both formally and informally. There are many ways a university leadership can improve the level of satisfaction and subsequently the commitment and retention of its faculty. complementing them on their success in conversations and recognizing success during faculty meetings. his leadership behavior has a direct effect on job satisfaction. (recommended for higher education or positions) have an effect on their level of commitment to the university. The answer to second question was that Task and participatory decision making would be a better model for Pakistani universities.4 Conclusion The results of this study have important implications for policy makers in the area of higher education.OC is influenced by the university leadership behavior. Fourth research question was proven that Organizational commitment. 127 . For third research question suggestions have already been given in chapter 4 on page 117 and 118. particularly the intrinsic rewards. Specially. Vice Chancellors’ leadership style is also a key to the satisfaction of faculty.72). the Vice Chancellor’s ability to display “versatile” leadership behavior depending on the situation is important. A faculty member’s level of satisfaction with the university directly influences his level of commitment to the university. The reward that a faculty member receives. The first is that faculty satisfaction with their involvement in university governance is important and should be monitored by the university administration and by the Higher Education Commission.

which is quite a high response rate. Smith (1978) pointed out that. The survey was also conducted at the end of the spring semester when most of the faculty was going for their summer holidays. Hence the results can not be generalized. Further modification may also be required to increase their applicability especially with regards to the Pakistani university. the two variables of job satisfaction and morale which were used in the survey had not been used by the researchers who had done cutting edge research on the subject such as Bass and Avolio regarding multifactor leadership and MLQ and Meyer & Allen’s’ organizational commitment. 5. and giving faculty adequate representation on universities board of 128 . Both sampling techniques and a larger sample might have yielded better results. Second. and Splete: 1991). It may have been better to administer the survey when more faculty is present and they are less busy. If this is all true then the administration of universities must do all in its power to improve faculty’s working conditions. Other faculty members were busy with new admissions. However the researchers followed the method of convenience sampling which is a nonrandom method. That also means listening to faculty and taking their recommendations and suggestions in university governance issue and academic decisions. (Schuster & Bowen: 1985) as the faculty is important. “a university is its faculty” and “the excellence of a university is the excellence of its faculty”.5. ”Lives and work of faculty are central to institutional quality and students’ learning” (Austin.5 Limitations of the thesis The overall response rate for this study was 79%.6 Implications for Educators and Administrators “The faculty is the heart of our institutions of higher learning”.

must follow the guideline laid by HEC for appointing Vice Chancellors. research background. and who are confident enough of themselves to empower others. have PhD degrees and research background and Vice-Chancellors who can build trust and who can exercise authority not domination.studies. Administrators should not play a blame game and should not blame faculty if due to fulltime load they are not sparing time for the meetings. often by sending them abroad for training. all it needs is change of thinking in the way faculty is treated and how things are handled. None of these require huge financial resources. and involving them in policy making issues. Administrators also need the skills of open communication. Those who are eminent scholars. “If democracy fails. it does not mean dictators should take over” (Shahab. if it fails again you again need more democracy. If that happens the administrators should not say that the system does not work. selection. you need more democracy. skill of sharing vision with others. and hiring panels and serious implications for those who make appointment decisions of Vice Chancellors. It also requires that faculty should be consulted openly. 129 . board of governors. learn the skill to take criticism and teach them how to give positive feedback. Administrator needs a skill of consensus building. They should appoint those with high qualification. 1981). skill of relation and trust building and a skill of recognition and appreciation. sharing authority. respect for others views. The findings of this study have implications for people who sit in the interviews.

Each of the three-teaching. It took 50 years to establish 7 universities and by establishing 6 engineering universities in the next 2 years. Making any criteria alone on the basis of research for promotion and appointments would be negating the importance of the other two. Senior faculty members have spent their lives devoted to good teaching and whatever research they can do in the absence of required facilities. engineering. Instead of establishing new universities with foreign faculties there should have been efforts to improve the existing public and private universities and their existing faculties. electricity. one wonders what kind of results they would yield. it prepare the scholar to undertake research at an advanced level. technology. The graduates of this university were very instrumental in the manufacturing. This policy can only yield results when applied in a rational manner keeping in view the particular conditions in Pakistan.7 Implications for Higher Education Commission and Policy Makers The HEC wanted to increase the number of PhDs in Pakistan three fold at least. 130 . Universities of the country cannot attain the same level of international universities overnight. The first engineering university of Pakistan was established 15 years after the independence. while Pakistan’s job market has taken a turn around and its economy has become trade-oriented and lot of jobs for business graduates are available in the marketing sector. telephone and other related areas.5. Universities also need sound academic administration to enable them to excel in their academic performance. The policy makers must thus take in to account past and current realities. apart from sharing the very demanding administrative responsibilities. research and administrationare of equal importance. PhD is the most advanced education.

One area is to do a comparison of public versus private sector in the context of salaries. rewards. there are still many areas for future research. These comparisons could not be made in this study due to sample size. their own qualification. It may not be out of place to mention that some well qualified and well meaning incumbents have already left. It would also be interesting to evaluate gender differences within university faculty and examine the job satisfaction and commitment. housing and medical facilities and other benefits for the faculty. available resources. however here are some major findings of the study.8 Future Research Needs While this study added to the literature on faculty’s satisfaction and commitment with decision making and leadership behavior. A more thorough examination of their role. It may be inferred that only worldly unwise qualified persons shall seek the job in Public Sector University and those who already have jobs may stay for unknown reasons in public sector universities.9 Summary of Major Findings Much of the results and responses are explained in the results section of chapter 4.Private universities are offering twice or thrice the salary to PhDs as compared to public sector universities. job satisfaction and morale are 131 . experience and how it relates to the benefits of faculty members is needed. 5. A major finding of this study was that the university’s top leadership has a direct effect on faculty members’ commitment and satisfaction. Vice Chancellors or owners are to provide direction and guidance to the faculty. So the need is also to devise new and attractive pay-scales for university teachers. The study highlights the fact that commitment and leadership style and its outcomes. 5.

personal and social interactions. the faculty’s morale tends to rise and fall accordingly. There are examples of personal sacrifices. reward and job involvement and participative decision making in the universities. First. if positive. They should promote a trust building culture and take measures for the benefit of faculty to bring more commitment and create a positive environment in the universities and better working conditions. The basis for this complexity lies in the faculty’s opinion about their universities leadership.10 Contribution of This Thesis The findings of this study highlight a number of contributions. Another need arising from the study is that level of organizational commitment. job satisfaction and morale need to be studied separately in the 18 universities based on their status as private or public. it provides evidence for the importance of Vice Chancellors and university management’s leadership behaviors that it had direct relationship and effect on faculty’s commitment toward universities. 5. then faculty morale is something which requires non job elements such as informal. These results are of great importance for the university management and policy makers in the higher education in Pakistan. which should be focused by the decision makers of educational sector. This opinion. And if we see job satisfaction as a certain element. can take faculty to commitment to their universities and making efforts to achieve the goals.complex concepts. is that the management must listen to senior faculty 132 . These decision makers can and should focus on the training and development of faculty. Another important area. It is evident that there is a significant relationship between Vice Chancellors leadership styles and level of commitment and job satisfaction.

Lastly this thesis also revealed the non leadership behavior and bureaucratic and biased discouraging environment which is being created by non academic heads of universities. The third contribution of my thesis is that it had brought into limelight the elements that increase faculty’s job satisfaction. which can improve job satisfaction and morale in our universities. Professor Alvi’s comments of Concordia University Canada are worth mentioning here. Earlier researchers like Mowday (1982) and this thesis’s findings are also consistent on the issue that job satisfaction is an expression of attitude.members specially PhD professors and should see who should be truly running our higher education institutions both in public and private sector. morale and commitment. 133 . The findings also support theory Y of management that employees should be consulted and trusted in delegations and in the matters which are going to affect them. Bass and Avolio (1995) suggested relation oriented behavior to be more dominant in their findings and current research found task oriented behavior to be more dominant in Pakistani settings. And the policy makers can turn their attention to determine the critical variables. Also an important outcome is the finding that when faculty is involved in the decision making their job satisfaction and morale also increases. that there exists two significant types of leadership behavior over cross cultures. So focus should also be on increasing organizational commitment. And it is organizational commitment. The results also confirm the theory of Hershy & Blanchards (1985). which is more stable over time than job satisfaction. and those are task and relation oriented behaviors. “the policy makers in education sector should see it as a guiding light to focus their attention on the real issues”.

7. Organizational culture preference and personality in senior retail managers. Austin. 1988. Altbach.. D. 5. 1996. Spring. 134 . 1995. Change. The measurement and antecedents of affective and normative commitment to the organization. L. Academy of Management Journal. 39 (1). Washington. 1987. 1-18.. A. C. D. The National Times. 1991. Alvi Shafiq. Altman. Aaron. 1990. Anderson. Volume 40. 51-57. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1980. 12. 1994.. 63. Human Relations.org/reading room/ed lead. The academic workplace audit. 1996.E. 3. 1988. Assessing Organizational Commitment in a Developing Country: Pakistan. 1140-1157. Austin. 2. Change.References 1. DC: Council of independent Colleges.132.G. 11. 1996. Allen. R. 1971. University of Western Ontario. Academic Freedom. Number 5. J. a 13.Educational Leadership. N. 4. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 1993. & Ahmed.E. 1987. Angle. 1995. Report of Sub committee. A farewell to Sydney University.ascd. and Meyer. 1-14. Masters Thesis. 6. Mar/Apr. April 27May 3. The Academy of Management Journal. Punished by rewards: 53(1) www. A. W. pp 267-280 9. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict in strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. 1980. A. Edited by Carnegie foundation for the advance of teaching. High faculty morale. K. Alfie. G. Philip. 36. AAUP Bulletin. A. 8.. Amason. Portraits of fourteen countries. J. 26. & Perry. & Rice. R. 69-124. Altbach. 1981. Professional attitudes: An international survey. and Lewis. A case study.E. San Francisco: Josey – Bass. & Splete. An empirical assessment of organizational Commitment and organizational effectiveness. P. 1995. Rice. 5158. Nov/Dec. H. 10. Eric Document ED 338. Organizational commitment and Turnover: A Meta analysis.

Military. 1997. 2. Spring 1993. NY: Free Press.. B. New Directions for Institutional Research. Bass. 21. B. military. Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. B. 64. New York. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. 1998.. 19.A. New York. Waldman. 27. Bass.. Bass. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1993. B. Bass. Mahwah. Some effects on a group. Bass. San Francisco. 15. Bass. Bass. 20. B. B 1990. Transformational Leadership: Industrial. 22. D. B. Vol 17. Bass. and Educational impact. 26. F. Sydney. 1990. & Avolio.’ New South Wales College of Nursing. 23. 135 . and educational impact. Transformational leadership: industrial. Palo Alto. a report to the NSW College of Nursing. 1995. B. psychology and organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1985. Transformational leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. B. 1985. Leadership. Factors influencing the turnover and retention of registered nurses in NSW hospitals. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 1991. NY: Harper. Leadership and performance beyond expectations.14. of whether and when the head reveals his opinion. NY: Free Press. and Yammarino. Avolio. 235-382. 1985. B. Journal of European Industrial Training. Resources in a period of constraint. 17. 110-112. Bass. B. D. Red Wood City. New York: The Free Press. 24. Leadership and performance beyond expectations New York: Free Press. CA: Mind Garden. B. and Avolio. B. MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire.. 18. CA: Mind Garden. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 16. Bass. 22-33. Red Wood City. Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Public Administration Quarterly. & Avolio. New York. Jossey-Bass Inc. Inc. 1967. B. Bass. The four I’s of transformational leadership. B. Bass. B. Inc. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. B. Battersby. & Avolio.J. 1990.M. Mahwah. 25. 1960.J. 1998. 26. Australia.

H. 40. Spring (1993). Blake. 2004. B. Bureaucracy. M. USA. R. 1987. 66. Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture. A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment. Character. A syncretical model of charismatic& transformational leadership.S. 35. & Strasser. P. 1990. 1964. D. & Avolio. 37. 33. Blair. (Winter 1990). & McFillen . Notes on the concept of commitment. USA 136 . M. Behling. 32. Bass. J. 1978. North Carolina University. Journal of Occupational Behavior. Ethics. 1995. and Authentic Transformational Leadership Behavior. 2. Blake. Ownership and control. From Transitional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision. T. 39. & Blackburn. Public Administration Quarterly.G. 38. and Mouton. 2.. Volume 10. issue 1 pp 112. Bernard M. Bass & Steidlmeier. 1985. Vol. The condition of the professoriate: The variables and the data bases in college faculty: Versatile Human. Bass. & Mouton. 1985. 21 No.. S. Open University Press. 1983. 95-112. Beetham. Bernard M. Raleigh. Houston.28. 34. TX: Gulf.C. Blake & Mouton. R. R. Becker. J. 1999. 17-30. 27. 32-42 31. The Brookings Institution. 36. Baldwin. Beth. J. and Chassie. 30. UK. Bernard M. 1993. 29. O. 1984. M. R. Bhagat. 1996. The managerial grid. 163-191. Bateman. R. Milton Keyness. Leadership Quarterly. The managerial grid III. 41. Summer (1999). Group & Organizational Management. Washington. Academy of Management journal. 1960. 1981. Organizational Dynamics. Faculty satisfaction and organizational commitment with industry-university research centers. J. Volume 17. American Journal of Sociology. Gulf Houston. The new management Grid. Issue 2. 1981. Houston: Gulf Publishing. USA. Determinants of organizational commitment in working women: Some implications for organizational integration. Doctorate Dissertation. Scotland.

Relation-oriented behavior. 51. Administrative Science Quarterly. Working papers on Economics. Buchanan. Buchanan.B. 1977. W. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 43. 49. 441-461. Organizational Commitment: Clarifying the concept and simplifying the existing construct typology. P. Leadership Quarterly. Bass & Jung. J. Volume 11. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 153. 1989. Brubacher. B. E-Leadership: Implications for theory. 18-24. research and practice. 45. Administrative Science Quarterly. 55. Bradley. 2003. Review of Public Personnel Administration. DAWN 25 January. 1-19. 19. R.S. 2004. 533-546. 533-546. Faculty Participation in university governance and the effects on university performance. The determinants of employee absenteeism: an empirical test of a causal model. 54. Claremont. J. Virginia Polytechnic Institute. 1974. 230251. On the philosophy of higher education. W. 46. Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. 2009. Employees’ organizational commitment and their perception of supervisors’ relation-oriented and task-oriented leadership behavior. 2009 137 . 1974. Issue 4. Bowers & Seashore. Journal of Occupational Psychology 62 (1). 52. USA. B. Brown. Bernard M. Pitman London.42. Brown. University Governance and Academic Tenure: A Property Rights Explanation. & Kim. 48. Participation’s influence on job satisfaction. Avolio. 1996. S.. 1997. U. E.P. Brown. Bruce J. O.W. Avolio. B. B. D. 1977. 24. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Cultivating fields of gold. Journal of Educational Administration and Management. 1974. Bukhari. Australian Universities Review. 47. Re-examining the Components of Transformational and Transactional leadership using the multifactor questionnaire. Building organizational commitment: the socialization of managers in work organizations. 50. M. 1995. Claremont College. & Price. 49. 2000. Volume 2. Brown. 53. 19. 20 (3) 1972. Brown. Thesis published 2003. Part 4 pp 441. 2005. Bruce J. A. Brooke. 1999. 44. December (1999). CA. 1966.K. Organizational Culture. USA. winter 2000. S.

Bycio. Campisano. 285-308. Chao. 65. 2006. Bush.M. R.M. D. 1959. S. J. & Allen. 1993. Department of Industrial Education and Technology. 81-105. 60. Management Decision Making.. USA. Leadership. A theoretical model for the effects of the schoolwork environment in Jesuit high school. Employee involvement. March/Apr 1986.C. 66. Chughtai.. & Nigel. CA: Sage. Lin. 1978. A. Leadership.56. Burns. Cook. 63. J. P. Carnegie Foundation (for the advancement of teaching). 67. Cotton. 1992. 56. The effects of quality circles on performance and promotions. and Fiske. Cohen. Huang. A. 2006. Human Relations. 69. Relationships among five forms of commitment: An empirical assessment. 12-32. & Zafar. Chi W.. Hackett. 39-64. London. Psychological Bulletin. Bryman. 64. Journal of Applied Psychology. Educational & Psychological Measurement. Pan Books Ltd. L. Harper and Row. 59. K. R. Chi Yang. Burns. Newbury Park. Journal of Organizational Behavior. A. Charisma and leadership in organization. 2006. 43. A. R. no1. Antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment among Pakistani university teachers. 1986. 2007. New York. F. J. Abstract form: Pro Quest file: Dissertation Abstracts International Item: 54/01. 573-582. Further assessment of Bass’s 1985 conceptualization of transactional & transformational leadership. 1999. National Changua University of Education. The relationship between behavior of a principal and quality of work life teachers in an industrial vocation high school in Taiwan. 1995. Vol 56. 20. 62. 68. 1978. S. 57. On the discriminant validity of the Meyer &Allen measure of organizational commitment: How does it fit with the work commitment construct. Sage London. 1992. 80. D. Changhua. & Spangler. 1996. VII. Campbell. NY: Harper & Row 58. 494-503.A. 1990. 138 . 468-478. Change. Cohen. Yi Li. New York.O. Taiwan. Applied Human Resources Management Research.T. J. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. 61.

R. ‘Health and wellbeing in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. 357-384.. F. 77. B. 1140-1157.. Decotis. Fiedler. A theory of leadership effectiveness.09./ 6-28.70. 83. Abstract from Pro Quest File: Dissertation International Item: 58. Kenneth. Conger. A.. 75. B. R. T. 1999. 2003. The Academy of Management Review. 2000. Organizational commitment and turnover: A meta-analysis. American Review of Public Administration. A theory of leadership effectiveness. Mark. San Francisco. Cotton. 27-42. and Griffin. Administrative Science Quarterly (June 1996) 139 . 1993. C. J.S. Vollrath. The Academy of Management Journal. 1967. A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment’. 1994. & Kanungo. Human Relations.. 17. and Summers. 40: 445-470. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. 79. Lengnick-Hall. 1987. Reflections of Transformational Leadership. NY: McGraw Hill. Research on leadership selection and training: One view of the future.’ Journal of Management. Fisher. L. 70-90. Danna. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 82. 1999. & Bailey. An analysis of selected variables regarding teacher absenteeism in selected urban elementary school.. 1996. 1988. Davis. New York. New York.W. 1997. 1. Organizational Commitment: a mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. J. J. D. F. 73.36. New York. David. Vol 13.’ McGraw Hill. T. A. Cohen. A. Vol. McGraw-Hill Inc. Job satisfaction and organizational continuance commitment: A two-wave panel study. Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. K. 8(1). 15 No. Fiedler. 76. Froggatt. 72. 71. R. 74. Darwish A. 1988. K. 25. 8-22. Daniels. Journal of Organizational Behavior. (3). 389-400. L. F. problem-oriented policing. 78. pp. 1967. Kirk. Josey Bass. Vol. Strategy development processes and participation in decision making: predictors of role stressors and job satisfaction.A. & Wright. Davis.1996. 81. Fiedler. Journal of Applied Management Studies..L. Cramer. 33(1). 80. Job satisfaction in the public sector: the role of the work environment.

Spring. P. B. P. P. The evolving paradigm of leadership development. Goodwin L. Hansmann. McGraw Hill. The ownership of Enterprise. 86. 140 . 79. 2. Sardy. 1996.A. 94. 2003. Orlando: Academic Press. Delegation. Gouldner. 1985. A.. 1957. and Suggestions for Future use. M. 444-480.216. Leadership Quarterly. 1997. October (2004) pp 593-606. Vol 8. OH: Ohio State University... & Whittington J. Content analysis in leadership research: Procedures. Personnel Research Board. R. 96. The Leadership Quarterly. 1994. A research primer for the social and behavioral Sciences.. Brian. 80. Halford. Grosorf. 1986. Phoenix. P. 212. Further assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three component model of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly. Issue 5. I. 2004. R. Columbus. 157188. & Hansdorf. Hagedorn. Issue 1. Organizational Dynamics. Participative leadership. J. Feb 23-26. V. 85. Further assessment of a threecomponent model of organizational commitment. Volume 15. goal difficulty. 92. Fleishman. Cosmopolitans and locals: toward an analysis of latent social roles. Spring 1997. Faculty morale-enhancing it in spite of diminishing resources and challenges. 1958. Bycio. H. and Empowerment. 90. 95. Leadership climate and supervisory behavior. 15-23. AZ. Hacket. E. 281-306. Cambridge. 93. Griffin. 87. A. Proceedings of the Academy of Management. Gary Y.1951. M. and job design: Independent and interactive effects on employee outcomes. R. paper presented at the international conference for community college chairs. R. and Hausdorf.84 88. H. Research in Higher Education. 89. 25(4). 1994. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment.D. Retirement proximity’s role in the prediction of satisfaction in academe. and other instructional leaders. Harvard University Press. 1991. 1994. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. & Bateman. Bycio. Fullmer. 91. L. 59-73. 1991.84. 1994. Hacket. T. 1997. dean. Gary S. 35 (6) 711-728. Transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Moore.

100. 64.. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. 19-30. Schoorman. P. R. 1969.. Dawn. & Kerr. Journal of Applied Psychology. Ahmed. 99. 35. October 1. J. P. 1998. Sunday.. Australian Universities Review. Hersey. Englewood Cliffs. 1979. Lower expectation. M.97. S. 103. 43. job involvement and turnover. Hoodbhoy. 1980. 1982. Hom. & Hulin. Bass. 695-702. Haque. 2000.K. Faculty morale in higher education.2009. 1980. 109. (2) 13-16. 1971. Nancy E.. Bass. R. Englewood Cliff. L. 1979. DAWN 18 January 2009 106.A model of Relational Leadership: The integration of Trust and Leader-member exchange. Journal of Teacher Education. Columbus. C. Journal of Applied Psychology.. Hater.. A substitute and methodological analysis. Hersey. Hemphill. 280-290. Kateberg. 102. David F.J. Management of organizational behavior. 104. Supervisor’s evaluation and subordinates perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. 1991. 1952. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2006. Huselid. H. 101. 1998. 76. Mark A & Day. P. 2006. 31(2). 380-394. Volume 11. 107.. NJ: Prentice-Hall. A. House. Mary. 141 . Brower. Issue 2. Journal of Applied Psychology. 105. J. B.. K. Leadership Quarterly.W. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Blanchard. 321-328. N. l. Management of organization behavior: utilizing human resources. Relation of leader consideration and initiating structure to R and D subordinates satisfaction. summer (2000). 1992. & Blanchard. Hort. March-April. & Hwee Hoon T. 98. House. Supervisor’s evaluation and subordinates perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. NJ: Prentice Hall. Hunter.J. Administrative Science Quarterly. 108. Holly H. R. 4th ed. 73(4). Ventimiglia. Academic perceptions of their roles pre and post the new higher education policy. 1971. Crow. B. Leader behavior description. J. 73(4). OH: Ohio State Leadership Studies. 110. and Oxley. 695-702. J. S. T. 16(1). Filley. A poisoned chalice. Hater. Organizational Commitment. Comparative commitment of three approaches to the prediction of turnover. R.

Leadership in Organizations. Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trusts and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. A causal model of behavioral commitment: Evidence from a study of Australian Blue-Collar employees. The Art of Decision-Making.M.. Different goal setting treatments and their effects on performance and job satisfaction. B. & Avolio. and Brymer. Vollrath. Kirk L. Routledge London. 2000. Leader behavior in a police command Bureaucracy: A closer look at the quasi-military model. Carlson. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2003. J. Current Issues and Key Trends. 2004. Antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment: A comparison of two scales. Public Sector Quality Fair. London. Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 1021-1030 114. Mark L. & Berkes. Abdulla. R. Journal of Management. Journal of Organizational Behavior. J. L. Academy of Management Journal. National Quality Institute Canada. The leadership factor: Management Practices can Make employees sick. Froggatt. D. 113. Employee Participation: Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes. Decision Traps. John L. 112. & Jossey. Jermier.. 1989. Kenneth R. L. 21. 119. Jean.59. M. The World’s Work Ltd. Joan B. 1999.B. 1996. 1979. 1961. 15-41. Lengnick-Hall. J.. 1-23. K. Jason D.. October (2004). 949-964. D. Issue 1. Cotton. 1994. 976-994.D. John S. Organizational Commitment and performance among guest workers and citizens of an Arab country. P. and Roy. 1988. 116. Iverson. 142 . Shaw. 115. J 1988. 120. Ten Barriers to decision making and how to overcome them. 3-11. 1 Jan. Joseph D. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Kacmar. 117. Leadership Quarterly. UK 122. Ivancevich. Routledge. P. 2004. 123. The path-Goal theory of Leadership: A sub textual Analysis. Volume 10. B. The connective Edge: A review by John K. Edward Russo & Schoemaker. Issue 3. Spring (1999). 8-22 121.S.psqf. Vol. R. The Academy of Management Review. Kennedy Jr. 1999. 20(1). fall 1996. www. Volume 7. 13 No. Jermier. 20. David A. 1977. Leadership Quarterly. 118. 24. M.org. 406-419. Jung.111.

& Jermier. 125. R.) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. 1990. Thousand Oaks. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. In R. Leadership in organizations: looking ahead to the 21 century. ‘What leaders really do’? Harvard Business Review. and Steers.P. McKee-Ryan. J. Journal of Applied Psychology.J. Quinn.N.Kotter. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance. Kuresa. Kanungo. 71-82.M. B. Organizational Stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. R. and Rosenthal. Job attachment. Koch. J. 133. K. R. 2002. 22. 14-32. 375-403.. Sydney.J. Vol 12. 1978. R. 134. 128.M. Kramer.. J.’ Journal of Social Psychology. 1978. and turnover among public employees. 130. Managerial Behavior and a Journey Through Time. F. J... 10. 1998. 132. S.M. & Jermier. Schriesheim. 271300. An experimental approach to the study of autocracy and democracy: A preliminary note. What leaders really do? Harvard Business Review. satisfaction. 119-128. 1999. 135. 1978. The human organization: its management and value. Likert. 39(1-2).124.day Adventist tertiary institutions. 1990. J. Factors affecting faculty morale in Seventh . 375-403. Leadership Quarterly. J. A. 103-105. Journal of Vocational Behavior.L. CA: Sage. Research dissertation. Wolfe. 131. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. M. Kotter.. Snoek.. 45. 1964. Issue 1. 87.D. Leonard R. 129. 1938... R. Tyler (Eds.N.. 1982. Wiley. & Lippitt.’ Journal of Applied Psychology. 1999. New York. Kinicki. 2000. R. D. 22. S. Measurement of job and work involvement. Lewin. & Carson.K. Kramer and T. Kanungo. 136. R. Kerr. 1996. Kerr.M. Volume 10. 103-105 126. Assessing the construct validity of the job descriptive index: a review and Meta analysis.B. ‘Canadian Psychology. University of New South Wales. and Hanna. 67. Kahn. CA.L. New York: McGraw-Hill’s 143 . Collective trust and collective action: The decision to trust as a social decision. R. Spring (1999). & Sorenson. J. 341-349. Brewer.R. 127. 1967. T.

& Nyhan. 1995. K. Techniques to involve teachers in schools decision making process. 1977. Journal of Elementary Education. 171-194. Administrative Science Quarterly. Understanding employee commitment in the public organization: A study of the juvenile detention center. 9 1-2)University of The Punjab. A. 1999. Psychological Review. Leadership Quarterly. 1996.. 1976. Volume 7. 139. 21. P. Leadership style. A theory of human motivation. Mathieu. Craig. C.. 108. A review and meta analysis of the antecedents. Madron. Vol 2. K. 1996. Masih C. 1999. 84-104. 18(8). Locke. New York: Lexington Books. Motivation and Personality. Sydney. International Forum April 1999. 140. 144. Maslow. N. leadership style and job satisfaction.W. No 1. 148. 99118.. 1999. Vol 5. Dimensions of organizational commitment in the public sector: An empirical assessment. J. 142. & Bennett. J. 18. 1954. University of Technology. 1977. Doctoral Dissertation. The essence of leadership. Marsh & Mannari. Australia. 141. and Mendal. 147. 50. subculture. Loui. & John W.137.J. 149. R.L. Organizational Commitment and turnover: A prediction study. H. 144 . E. Lok. Graduate School of Business. R. 1991. D. 1994. J. 145.House’s path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin. 1269-1295. 22. 83-94. International Journal of Public Administration. R. Mahmood. Public Administration Quarterly. 370-396.Maslow. The role of justice judgments in explaining the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. school climate. The relationship between commitment and organizational culture. Departmental morale as a function of the perceived performance of department heads. Research in Higher Education. and Zajac. 1999. 1943. Martin. E. correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. Lahore Pakistan 143.R. 138. New York: Harper and Row. 1990. and the institutional commitment by Teachers.T. Loui. Group and Organization Management. Issue 3 pp 305 146. A.. T. 57-75.. Martin G. S.

& Herscovitch. 156. Journal of Applied Psychology. J. 13. S. 1993. 69. N. M. S. 1960. University Governance: A property Rights Perspective.. &Allen. S. &Allen.. 13) 1). & Schapiro. J. 1993. 299-326. R. J. 161. McFarlene. Commitment in the workplace: towards a general model. S. Allen.. 2001. N. & Smith. J. Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. & Wayne. 774-780.. The two authority structures of bureaucratic organization. conflict resolution behavior. 61-89. The Journal of Law and Economics 1. 1989. 152.k. Abstract from Pro Quest File: Dissertation Abstracts International Item. Testing the ‘side-bet’ theory organizational commitment. correlates and consequences. 423-442. 155. 78. McDaniel. A comparison of elementary and secondary school with respect to level of conflict.150.Stanely. R. Herscovitch. 159. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Allen. teacher commitment. Meyer. 1(1). L. Meyer. 154. (in the press). 774-780. Meyer. M. Journal of Economics Perspective.. 211-228. Meyer.. 160. Administrative Science Quarterly. 372-378. Meyer. NY: McGraw Hill. 1999. M. C.. 153. reexamination of the continuance and affective scales. 11. & Wayne. continuance. A three component conceptualization of organizational commitment. and normative commitment to the organization: A Meta analysis of antecedents. 157. 1992. McCormick. 145 . & Topolnytoky. Affective. and organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology. Commitment to organizational and occupations. (5).P. A. McPherson. McGregor. (5). 53/07. 85-98. and Meiners. Tenure issues in higher education. L. Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. 158. 78. 162. Human Resources Management Review. Meyer. 1993.L. 78. McFarlene. J. N.. 1968. 151. 372-378. L. Journal of Applied Psychology. N. Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. 1991. 538-551. New York. The human side of enterprise. 69. J.L.E. 1984. Meyer. D. D. Human Resources Management Review. 1984.S. Journal of Applied Psychology.

J. Griffith. 29 (4). W. Englewoods Cliffs. 171. East Lansing. 512-526. P. 12. ‘Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work environment. 165.. The state of academic profession: An Australia-United Kingdom comparison. CT. 1981. Miller. 1992. Morrow. 1974. Middlehurst. 219232. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Psychological Bulletin.H. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 21-25. 24. Leading Academics.. 231-248. 493-522. Economics. Review and conceptual analysis of the employer turnover process. 1979.C. W. Griffith. & Meglino. Academy of Management Journal. P. B. R. 168.. I. 35(2). P. UK... 173. Morrow. 86. The behavioral science of leadership: An interdisciplinary Japanese research Program. and Productivity: A Meta analytic Review. & Dubbin. R. Hand. J. Faculty in a time of change: job satisfaction and career mobility. Generalizability of an organizational commitment model. 169. and McElroy. 727-753. 1993. The theory and measurement of work commitment.. Buckingham. P. situational factors and employee attitudes in spatially separated work units. Mobley.. J. Mobley. 1983. Meglino. Milgrom. 1992. and Gardner. R.I. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. K. J.H. Concept redundancy and rater naivety in organizational research. Academy of management Journal. Mowday. 176. 1985. Unit performance. 493-522. A Research and Technical Report. CT: JAL. Greenwich. The Society for research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Greenwich.163. and Roberts. The theory and measurement of work commitment. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1983. Michigan State University. & Sherman. Eastman. 166. 175. Morrow. J. P. 146 . 167.. 1986.H. K. Australian Universities Review. N. 1974.T. 1981. 172. 486-500. Porter. 86. organization and management. Misumi.. 1979. Morrow. P. 1992. Participation. Academy of Management Review. and Monge P. R. 1991. 8(3). 1993. 164. Satisfaction. 170.M.. B. H. Psychological Bulletin. Morris.W. Miller. 174. Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. K. 21. Moore. JAI Press.

Nienhuis. Calcutta. R. 14. MA. 1982. Graduate School of Business. The influence of organizational culture. Personnel Administration: A point of View and a Model. Steers.177. Charles A. W. Peter G 1995. Lyman. 1996. New York 187. Theory Z. January 1996. L. 181. 188. 1997. Mowday.. absenteeism.14-27. Organizational Structures and job attitudes. and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Steers.Porter. and Porter. Nov10-13. Journal of Vocational Behavior. Ouchi. 190. D. Richard. 178. The measurement of organizational commitment. 1986. 1974. 1994). 1995. 59: 603-609. 180. New York: John Wiley & Sons.J. R. AZ. Richard. Sydney. 1981. The Minerva Associates. New York. Doctoral Dissertation.. University of Technology. 185. Noel M. Organizational commitment. McGraw-Hill Book Company. T.Y. February 2006. &Porter. Steers. Australia. M. Great Ideas: Revisiting the Life Theory of Leadership. and turnover. Inc. 183. Pestonjee. R. M. 1979. W. R. 1994. R. Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. leadership style and job satisfaction on organization commitment’. L. 147 . paper presented at the annual meeting of the association for the study of higher education. 1986). Journal of Vocational Behavior. Addison Wesley. Satisfied faculty and Involved chairpersons: Keys to faculty retention. Peter. The Transformational Leader. subculture. Reading. & Steers. Employee organization linkage. Mowday. R. T. Journal of Applied Psychology. Mowday. Leading & Managing. 14. Academic Press. Mowday. 1982.. L. 184. job satisfaction. 1951. R. Paul Pigors. & Mary.. R. 224-247. Steers. V. Employee organization linkage: The psychology of commitment. 224-247. (Tucson. Cycle 186. and Paul. Mowday. Higher Education Commission. L. Porter. Training & Development Journal. 1979. A. The Current Obsession with Transformational Leadership. 180. News and Views. 179. 1973... The measurement of organizational commitment. L.W.. 189. R. & Porter. 1(1). New York: Academic Press.

460-471. G.E. 203. House. 199. Employees and responsibilities Journal. 1988. M. Commitment and the organization: the organizational man revisited. 198. 1970. Ritzer.191. & Steers. Rice. 1988. 1983. G. 85-108. Rhodes. 15: 87-98. H. 51-58. Ritzer. R. Rizzo. 1985. and Smith. Faculty participation in university governance: Australia and the United States. J. High faculty morale: What exemplary colleges do right? Change. Organizational commitment and managerial turnover: Longitudinal study. C. Administrative Science Quarterly. Communication Research. 1981. 197. USA. An empirical study of Howard Becker’s side bet theory.. 202. 196.. A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment.. Price. J. H. and Austin. 201. Porter.J. Who should head a university? Dawn December 05.2006 Islamabad. and Lirtzman. D. 2006. Role conflict and Ambiguity in complex organizations. 475-477. 1976. 1969. Academy of Management Review. Organizational commitment: A construct validation of two measures and an examination of antecedents and consequences. 465-476. Randal.. A. no 1. & Lovett. G.E. F. New York. 1987. 1971. & Trice. workers owned organizations. 47. 195. & Mueller. A.Electronic emotion: Socio-emotional content in a computer mediated network. 1981. 1992.W. 1969.. ‘An empirical study of Howard Becker’s side bet theory’. 21. S.. L. Professional turnover: the case of nurses. Rice. 148 . Rahman. Sociological Forces. Ritzer.. S. Graduate School of Administration. 204. Conventional vs. 150-163. 15. 10. 53. 194. W. Potter. Dissertation Abstracts International. Academy of Management Review. Vol 12.. Pakistan. R. Medical and Scientific Books. The Journal of Educational Administration. March/April.W. 475-477. A. 121-139. 1987) . 200. L. Porter. (1) 52-68. R. R. & Smith. Reichers. 2. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Sociological Forces. F. Etiology and organizational commitment. University of California. 192. Campton.15. L. 47. 193. R. 3. & Trice.

Smith. Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of effective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. 1993. 6. Leadership Dilemmas-Grid Houston: Gulf Publishing. Wang Z. NJ: Prentice Hall. De C. J. 149 . 213. 1985. 10 No3. 1981. Solutions. A. Academy of Management Review. Englewood Cliffs. Chicago: rand McNally & Co. Shahab Nama. The charismatic leader as narcissist: understanding the abuse of power. 4 (fourth quarter 1999). Event Management within Chinese Joint Ventures. 215. Karvan-i-Adab Lahore 1980 216. Differentiating commitment from expectancy as a motivating force. 211. controversies. Organizational Dynamics. L. and Bowen. P. 57-71. D. S. NJ: Prentice Hall. Peter B. 13-21. Schuster. Q. 78(5). 214. 2002. E. Journal of International business Studies. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. L. Vol 8. Decision Making and Cultural Context. Using a Notion of acceptable in uncertain ordinal decision making. 1991. Scholl. 1995. September 1971. Leadership Behavior & Organizational Commitment: A comparative study of American and Indian Sales persons. S. Leadership Quarterly. 30. 210. International Journal of Uncertainty.. G.. Administrative Science Quarterly. C. A Path-Goal theory of leader effectiveness. 589-599. 1970. pp 727743. 1977. 212. 218. Thomas E. 1-55. issue 4.. Vol. Sankowsky. 206. St. Shore.. Clair Press. 1985. 1980. 23(4). 774-780. 1999. A. September & October. H. & Shyam B. Chicago. 1989. winter 1997. Commitment and the control of organizational behavior. Organizational behavior: concepts. Organizational psychology. Schein. 208. Robert.. & Hulin. Journal of Applied Psychology. R. 209. and applications. Kendall. Sanjeev. Salancik. Shahab. The faculty at risk.H. & McCanse. R. 1969. 1997. Robbins. Smith. Fuzziness and Knowledge based Systems. Leadership. 207. New Direction in Organizational Behavior.Ronald R. 1977. Robert J 1971. 217. 241-256. & Wayne. Change..205.

Stevens. 228. 231. J. th Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 2001. 1990. 36-40. Journal of Nursing Administration. 1978. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1977. M.L. Bureau of Business Research. R. R 2009. L.. Tariq. R. Educational Administrations: Concepts and practices. fall 1990 pp 9-26. Job characteristics and job attitudes: A multivariate study. 28. Tabachink. and organizational predictors of managerial commitment. Stone. ‘Using multivariate statistics. 417-426. Chicago: St Clair press. Higher education in crises. OH: Ohio State University. Academy of Management Journal. An initial test of theory of charismatic leadership based on the responses of subordinates. 223. & Talpade. & Fidel. 230. & Trice. Organizational involvement and commitment to organization and profession.6.. Faculty of management. H.. J. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1991. 220. Steers. Tang. Stevens. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.E. Beyer. B.. B. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Assessing personal role. 22. 46-56. Stogdill. Public Personnel Management. 21(3). M. Get innovative or get dead. Stevens. 21. 150 . DAWN January 2009 229.G. Beyer. 1999.. F. ‘Manual for the leader behavior questionnaire-Form XII. and Porter. New directions in organizational behavior. L. 57-64. G.. B. Tom P. 224. 1978. 1975. 225.219. California Management Review. & Salancik. Columbus. T. The head nurse as manager. R. 345-349. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1963. J. 1991. Stogdill and Coons. 221. 380-396. 232. 1977. Academy of Management Journal.’ (4 ed). and organizational predictors of managerial commitment. Smith. 1970. 226. 380-396.. 1978. Thornton. Staw. J. and Trice. Belmont CA: Wad worth 98222. 4(1). M. Sex differences in satisfaction with pay and coworkers: Faculty and staff at a public institution of higher education. N. University of Toronto. 15(4). Leadership behavior quadrants. 227.S. Assessing personal role. B. 1982.

233. Tracey, J.B., T.R. Hinkin, S. Tannebaum., & Mathieu, J. 2001. The influence of individual characteristics and the work environment on varying levels of training outcomes. Human Resources Development Quarterly. 12(1), 5-23. 234. Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J. 1993. The culture of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 235. Victor. V., & Philip Y. 1973. Leadership and decision making Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press. 236. Vicere, A. 2000. Ten observations on e. learning and leadership development. Human Resource Planning, 23(4), 34-47. 237. Vicere, A. 2000. Ten observations on e. learning and leadership development. Human Resource Planning, 23(4), 34-47. 238. Virk. M. 2006. Toil and Trouble. Dawn, Sunday. November 5 and 12. 2006. 239.Virk,.m & Issani, “Higher Education In Pakistan” 2004 240. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. 1988. The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 241. Vroom, V. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley. 242. Vroom, V. 1987. Some personality determinants of the effects of participation. New York: Garland Publication. 1987, c1960. 158.7. 243. Vroom, V.H., Yetton, W. 1973. Leadership & decision making. University of Pittsburgh Press. (1973) 303-340. 244. Vroom, V.H., & Jago, A.G. 1988. ‘The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations.’ Engle wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 245. Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. 1973. Leadership and decision making. University of Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg. 246. Wallace, J. 1995. Organizational and professional commitment in professional and non-professional organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 228-255. 247. Waldman, D.A., & Yammarino, F. 1999. CEO and charismatic leadership: Levels of management and levels of analysis effects. Academy of Management Review; 24(2), 266-286.

151

248. Wasti, S. 2004. Combinations of organizational commitment forms and job outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior 1-19 249. Weber, M. 1947. The theory of social and economic organizations.’ Translated by T. Parsons. New York: Free Press. 250. Weiss, H.M., & Cropanzeno, R. 1996. Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74. 251. Weiner, Y. and Verdi, Y. 1980. Relationships between job, organization and work outcomes: An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 81-96. 252. Westley, F & Mintzberg, H. 1989. Visionary leadership and strategic management. Strategic management Journal, 10: 17-32. 253. White. M. 1993. Employee commitment and the skills revolution. Policy Studies Institute London UK. 254. WWW.dawn.com/weekly.education/education 1.htm. 255. Yair, B. & Bruce J. 2004. Transformational leadership and the dissemination of Organizational Goals: A case study of a Telecommunication firm. Leadership Quarterly 15(2004) pp 625-646. 256. Yammarino, F., Spangler, W., & Bass, B. 1993. Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation’. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 81-102. 257. Yoon, J., & Thye, S. 2002. A dual process model of organizational commitment, Job satisfaction and organizational support. Journal of Work and Occupations, 29, 97124. 258. Yukl, G. 1989. Leadership in organization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 259. Yukl, G. 2002. Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 260. Zalezinik, A. 1977. Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard

Business Review, 55(5).

152

APPENDIX A, Covering Letter
Center for Advance Studies in Engineering G-5 Islamabad 22 May 2006 Dear Colleague, You are invited to participate in a study of leadership behavior and participatory decision makings effect on employee’s organizational commitment, a study of Pakistani higher education. I hope to find out factor that effect job satisfaction and morale and commitment in Pakistani universities. I have selected 18 universities across the country and your university is one of them. Would you please take a little time from your busy schedule to respond to the questionnaire – if at all possible within the next two weeks? It is confidential, and I am hoping that it would only take 15 to 20 minutes of your time. When completed please return it in the stamped envelope provided. After receiving back the questionnaire I plan to follow it up with several semistructured interviews done face-to-face. If after responding to the questionnaire you decide that, I can interview you, and then please return the enclosed interview card in the same envelope. I would be contacting you after I receive the questionnaire. If you would like to receive the findings of this research, then please tick at the box on the interview card, I will Inshallah send you a summary of the findings. Thank you sincerely for your time and cooperation

Muhammad I. Ramay

153

Questionnaire Personal Demographics Survey Questionnaire for Research Respected Sir/Madam I am working on my thesis for PhD and title of my research is: Leadership Behavior and Participatory Decision Making Influence the Employees Organizational Commitment: A case of Pakistani Higher Education In this regard I am contacting faculty members of selected private and public universities. Current Job Title: Professor / Associate Professor /Assistant Professor / Lecturer / Other __________ 4. Do you supervise others? Yes / No 6. No individual data will be reported.co. Thank You! Muhammad I. Any work experience outside of Pakistan? _____________________________ 154 . You are requested to participate in this survey to provide the following information that will help me complete this research and eventually the findings would help improve the working environment of Pakistani Universities. How long have you worked for this University / Institute? Years___ Months_____ 7.APPENDIX B. Ramay Email: miramay_64@yahoo. Participation in this survey is voluntary and confidentiality is assured. 1. How long have you worked with current Vice Chancellor /Dean/ Director/Rector? _______________ 8. 2006 Appendix: B1 The following questions concern your position and other personal information.uk May 15. Age:-_________________Years 2. Qualification: Masters / M Phil / PhD 5. Please do not put your name or Organizations name on this questionnaire. If you wish to get the summary of findings kindly note my email. Gender Male / Female 3.

1 8) This university deserves my loyalty……………………………………..1 2) I do not feel my obligation to remain with my current institution ….. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) In this section. …………………………………1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 Appendix B3: Leadership Behavior.1 5) Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to Leave my department now………………………………………………1 6) I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this university.... Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree 2 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 3 Agree 4 Strongly Agree 5 11) He/She spends time teaching and coaching others.1 13) He/She considers an individual as having different needs.....1 12) He/She treats others as individual rather than just as a member of a group……………………………………………………………………. Appendix B2: Organizational Commitment Questionnaire Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree 2 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 3 Agree 4 Strongly Agree 5 1) It would be very hard for me to leave my university right now.. Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by circling a number from 1 to 5. you are asked to describe your immediate supervisors (that could be Dean/Rector/Vice Chancellor) leadership style as you perceive it. abilities and aspirations from others……………………………………………. …………………. even if I wanted to …………………….……………………….1 9) If I had not already put so much of myself into this university.1 2 3 4 5 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 155 . I might consider working elsewhere……………………………………1 10) I Would not leave my university right now because I have a Sense of obligation to the people in it.…………….. …………………………………………………………………1 4) I owe a great deal to my university……………………………………..1 14) He/She helps others to develop their strengths……………………….The following statements concern how you feel about the organization you work..1 3) I would be very happy to spend rest of my career with this university.1 7) I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this institution……………….

Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree 2 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 3 Agree 4 Strongly Agree 5 36) The administration tells me what needs to be done and how it should be accomplished…..…..1 22) He/She emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission……………………………………………………………….1 29) He/She keeps track of all my mistakes………………………………..1 18) He/She displays a sense of power and confidence…………………….…....1 27) He/She expresses satisfaction when others meet expectations………...……1 35) He/She delays responding to urgent questions………………….....1 33) He/She is absent from office when needed………………………….1 31) He/She fails to interfere until problem become serious……………….……..1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 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 3 4 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 5 Appendix B4: Participative Management and Decision Making The statements below relate to you and your supervisors supervisory orientation and decision making style.…1 30) He/She directs my attention towards failures to meet standards…….1 16) He/She seeks differing perspectives in solving problems……………1 17) He/She acts in ways that build others respect for him/her…………..1 26) He/She provides others with assistance in exchange for their efforts...1 34) He/She avoids making decisions…………………………………….1 19) He/She instills pride in others for being associated with him………. mistake.1 32) He/She waits for things to go wrong before taking actions………….…1 25) He/She uses methods of leadership that are satisfying………………....1 20) He/She is effective in meeting others’ job-related needs…………. 1 23) He/She is effective in representing others to higher authority……..….15) He/She talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished..…1 24) He/She leads a group that is effective………………………………..…………………………………………1 37) The administration in my university tries to eliminate situations that can lead to disagreement………………………………………..1 28) He/She focuses attention on irregularities. exceptions and deviations from standards……………………………………………..1 21) He/She considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions.1 38) Difference in opinions on how work should be done makes our administration angry ……………………………………………1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 156 .

…. …………………………………………………………..1 41) When I am in a supervisor role .. …………………1 43) I am able to influence decisions that affect my work………………1 44) I am satisfied with the level of faculty representation on the university board of governance…………………………………..1 45) I am satisfied with the level of faculty participation in this institution’s decision-making process.1 46) Enrollment of students to the courses I teach.1 47) I have a significant role in the academic policies of this university1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 157 .……………. ……………………………….1 40) Our administration finds it difficult to understand why faculty resist every change. mostly is my decision………………………………………………….. I know I must not change my opinion on a significant work situation…………………………………………1 42) Our administration listens carefully to each person in my department group when any significant change is being made..39) When changes in rules and procedures must be made. the ideas are gradually introduced so that faculty do not get upset……….

..1 58) The administration allows the faculty adequate academic freedom………. 5 53) I frequently communicate with my supervisor…………………………1.1 49) There is flexibility of work hours in this university………………….1 52) I have been recommended for higher education/seminars and trainings by my university………………………………………………………….1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 5 3 3 4 4 5 5 3 4 5 3 3 4 4 5 5 3 4 5 Thank you for participating in this survey 158 ....……………………………………………………….1 55) The administration in my organization effectively leads the university..….………………………………………………………………..1 60) The administration of this institution has improved physical conditions for faculty work…………………………………………………………..1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 .…....….1 51) I see a lot of opportunity for advancement in this university……….. 2 54) I frequently receive recognition from my supervisor on my performance……………………………………………………………….1 59) I am happy with the current system of faculty pay scale…………….1 50) Physical working environment at this university is appropriate…….Appendix B5: Faculty Job Satisfaction and Morale Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree 2 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 3 Agree 4 Strongly Agree 5 48) I feel there is strong connection between my pay and my Performance…………………………………………………………….…1 56) My work in this institution gives me a great sense of achievement…1 57) I feel a strong sense of direction and purpose provided by the administration of this institution……………………………………..

APPENDIX: C Interview Card I am willing to be interviewed by Muhammad Ramay within the next four weeks. I understand Muhammad Ramay will contact me to arrange a suitable time and venue for the interview. Name………………………………………………………. University………………………………………………….. Phone ……………………………………………………… Would you like to receive the findings of this study Yes / No 159 .

would you kindly take a little time from your busy program to respond to the questionnaire and then return it – preferably in the next day or so? I will greatly appreciate your help and co-operation with this request coming at a particularly busy time of the year for you when some faculty members are busy in fall admissions and some might be planning to take some time off for summer. 10 June 2006 Sincerely Muhammad I. G-5 Islamabad Dear Colleague. Please disregard this note if you have already returned the questionnaire on Leadership behavior and participatory decision making I sent you earlier this month. Ramay 160 . However. if you have not done so.APPENDIX: D Reminder Letter Center for Advance Studies in Engineering Ataturk Avenue.

APPENDIX: E Why Regression Analysis was done? This was done for several reasons: To obtain a partitioning of the total sums of squares (variance) into regression and residual components. dependent variable should have a normal distribution. Acquiring the Instrument Researcher s can purchase all forms of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire from publishers in United States. to reveal the effect coefficients (beta scores) for each variable and multiple correlation coefficients (r values) for variables entered into the equation. 161 . and these questionnaires are also available online with payment. In order to use multiple regressions. This researcher asked permission from the original authors. and to indicate the percent of total variance (R square) explained by all of the relevant variables. Multiple regressions and correlation were used in this study since this study was more concerned with finding relationship and effect between variables.

Faisalabad 2. Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Sci. Lahore 6. Business/ I. National College of Arts.T. of Management Sciences (LUMS). Lahore Uni. University of Agriculture (UAF). Pakistan Institute of Engg. & Tech. Peshawar 3. Karachi 3. Art/ Design. Engineering.APPENDIX: F Higher Education Commission and University Ranking The university ranking list . Institute of Business Administration (IBA). Defence View. Tandojam Art / Design 1. Karachi Business / I. 1. Engineering 1. Lahore School of Economics (LSE) . Indus Valley School of Art & Architecture. Islamabad 162 . University of Arid Agriculture. Iqra University. Karachi 3. Karachi 7.T. NWFP University of Agriculture. Textile Institute of Pakistan. General and Health Sciences Ranking of Universities by Type of University Agriculture / Veterinary 1.CECOS Peshawar 8. City University of Science and technology Peshawar. Institute of Business Management (IBM). Rawalpindi 4. published by the Higher Education Commission. Karachi 4. Lahore 2. and Applied Sciences. Lahore 2. Sindh Agriculture University. Karachi 5. has been divided into 6 subject categories: Agriculture/ Veterinary.

12. University of Peshawar. University of AJK Muzafarabad 15. 13. Mehran University of Engg. Peshawar 5. Lahore 3. Lahore College for Women University Lahore 16. Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering. Lahore 5. University of the Punjab. Karachi 4. Mohammad Ali Jinnah University Karachi 18. Quaid-i-Azam University (QAU). Bahauddin Zakariya University. University of Sindh Jamshoro 10. Isra university Haiderabad 8. National University of computer and emerging sciences Islamabad 8. NED University of Engineering and technology Karachi 11. Hamdard university Karachi 11. Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology Karachi. Lahore 7. Multan 6. Jamshoro 6. Quaid-i-Awam University Nawabshah. University of Engg. National University of Sciences & Technology Rawalpindi 3.2. Hazara University. Islamia University Bahawalpur 14. Taxila 7. & Technology (MUET). University of Engineering and technology Peshawar 10. Islamabad 2. & Technology (UET). Swabi 4. University of Karachi. International Islamic University Islamabad 9. University of Engg. University of Baluchistan Quetta 12. Dhodial Mansehra 17. Fatima Jinnah Women University Rawalpindi 163 . Government College Lahore University. & Technology (UET). Gomal University Dera Ismail khan 13. COMSATS Institute of Information Technology Islamabad 9. Baluchistan University of Engineering and Technology Khuzdar General 1.

Jamshoro 3. Karachi 4. Bahria University Islamabad 20. Kohat University of Science and Technology Kohat 23. National University of Modern languages Islamabad. Health Sciences 1. Karachi (HEC Report 2006) 164 . Chakdara. Aga Khan University. Baqai Medical University. University of Malakand. Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences.19. Shah Abdul Latif University. Karachi 2. Khairpur 21. Malakand 22. Zia-ud-din Medical University.

00 -0.54 1.06 0.57 1.31 0.36 1.00 0.27 0.27 -0.32 0.00 0.57 1.00 0.07 0.14 -0.11 0.05 0.31 0.23 0.15 0.00 0.31 0.63 1.26 0.49 -0.01 -0.1 Correlation Analysis Pilot Study Variables Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment Task Oriented Relation Oriented Laissez-Faire Participative Decision Making Job Satisfaction Morale Affective Commitment 1.14 0.27 0.Table 3.00 0.49 -0.13 0.25 0.26 -0.43 0.90 -0.26 Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment Task Oriented Relation Oriented LaissezFaire Participative Decision Making Job Satisfaction Morale 1.54 1.00 0.38 0.25 -0.03 1.46 0.40 0.00 165 .00 0.

Task-Oriented Leadership Behavior 3.2407 .2234 . 166 . Job Satisfaction 7. Relation-Oriented Leadership Behavior 4.20 Reliability Analyses – Scale (Alpha) Method (covariance matrix) 1.1909 .0859 .2074 .5044 .1501 .4282 Explanations The matrices given above are covariance matrices which is different than correlation matrix.1504 . Morale Covariance Matrix OC .0978 LB_TO .2388 -. Participatory Decision Making 6. In contrast.1800 .4473 . It’s not a pure number and does possess units.0916 .0573 -.9296 -.Table 4. the inter correlation among the variables is given in the form of a matrix.3631 -.2651 .1017 .1861 LB_RO LZF PDM OC LB_TO LB_RO LZF PDM JS MORALE JS MORAL JS .3977 -. Laissez-faire Behavior 5. In correlation matrix.2605 .2183 .2983 . the covariance tells us that how much a variable varies with respect to the other variables. Organizational Commitment 2.1719 .0767 .3319 MORAL . The correlation is a pure number without any units and its value varies between -1 and +1 depending on the strength of relationship between the variables.0193 -.

51 Mean = 3.25 1.00 2.00 LB_TO 167 .25 4.75 4.50 2.54 0 1.25 4.67 Mean = 3.50 2.00 0 OC Graph 2 Task-Oriented Leadership Behavior 40 30 20 10 Std.00 3.75 2.00 1.50 4.50 3.Graph 1: Employees Organizational Commitment 60 50 40 30 20 10 Std.75 3.25 3. Dev = .50 N = 237.25 2.25 3.00 4.75 5.00 1.50 4.50 3.00 3. Dev = .75 4.75 2.00 4.75 3.75 5.24 N = 237.25 2.00 2.

81 N = 237.50 4.50 3.50 N = 237.75 2.63 Mean = 3.00 1.52 0 1.00 0 LZF 168 .00 4.75 4.25 2.00 4.75 3.25 1.50 4.50 5.00 3. Dev = .25 4.96 Mean = 2.50 2.00 LB_RO Graph 4: Laissez-faire Behavior 60 50 40 30 20 10 Std.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.50 2. Dev = .50 3.00 2.Graph 3: Relation-Oriented Leadership Behavior 50 40 30 20 10 Std.75 5.25 3.

00 4.50 2.25 2.71 Mean = 3.25 3.Graph 5: Participatory Decision Making 60 50 40 30 20 10 Std.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 4.50 5.16 N = 237.00 JS 169 .75 N = 237.25 4.00 2.25 4.75 4.49 Mean = 3. Dev = .00 2.19 0 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.75 3.00 4.00 1.00 3.75 2.75 4. Dev = .75 3.25 2.75 0 PDM Graph 6: Job Satisfaction 50 40 30 20 10 Std.25 3.50 3.25 1.75 2.

Graph 7 Morale 50 40 30 20 10 Std.75 3.25 4.50 2.75 2.75 N = 237.25 3.50 1. Dev = .25 2.00 3.00 4.50 4.00 2.00 MORAL 170 .37 0 1.50 3.75 4.65 Mean = 3.

If management could collect all of the pertinent facts bearing on a decision. Green. They must therefore concentrate on obtaining the key pertinent facts. Taylor. Morris. which is likely to reduce any unwarranted fears and anxieties about it. (William. Decision Acceptance People who have considerable influence in making a decision tend to identify with it to be their decision. within reasonable time. they would be having few problems of difficult decision. Bierman. When adverse consequences are likely. (Gary Yukl.Appendix G Definitions and Theories Decision Quality Decision quality would improve if certain points are taken into account. different interpretations and different conclusions. Participation in decision-making also provides a better understanding of the nature of the decision problem and the reasons why a particular alternative was accepted and others rejected. 2005). This feeling of ownership increases their motivation to implement it successfully. participation allows 171 . (Brown. Participants gain a better understanding of how they will be affected by a decision. It is also important for the quality of the decision that the fact-finders get as close as possible to the primary sources of information. Different people at work on the same problem may be expected to bring different facts. This brings in the element of personal judgment in the determination of need and relevance. 1969). 2002).making and the decision quality would improve. the risk which this entails may be a procedural approach which assures that the right people are assigned to get to the facts and that they have a method for obtaining them which is most likely to produce what is needed. Couts.

they recommended that additional attention be given to investigating (a) the strength of relation between the components of commitment. 1987). Meyer & Allen’s Model Although they argued that the model was generally supported. Satisfaction with the Decision Process There could be many points to think during inviting others to participate in the decision making. and in short this type of environment will generate and foster a climate for initiative and action.people an opportunity to express their concerns and help to find a solution that deals with these concerns. Absence of pressure from top management for false unanimity among those participating in or contributing to the decisions. The dynamics of organizational commitment outside of North America has received only scant attention (Alvi and Ahmed. 172 . then the group is likely to apply social pressure on any reluctant members to their part in implementing the decision (Yukl. when a decision is made by participative process considered legitimate by most members. (b) the dimensionality of the CCS. enlistment of the positive talent of many people in the decision-making process.2002). Finally. most notably affective and normative commitment. Specifically. Allen and Meyer (1996) identified a few issues that warranted further investigation. genuine participation in the decision-making process by those who would have to carry out the decision. and an atmosphere of freedom to maintain a critical position. such as giving them enough time to think. and (c) The generalizability of the model outside North America.

Bycio & Hackett & Allen (1995) reported positive correlations between the leadership behaviors of 173 . need and obligation to remain with the current employer (Meyer. Even though the authors present this argument. Wiener and Verdi (1980) uncovered a relationship between commitment and job performance. job involvement. Angle and Perry (1981) uncovered a relationship between commitment and turnover. Studies have linked organization commitment to measures of effectiveness that are similar to those found when investigating the outcomes of leadership behaviors. 1997). DeCotiis & Summers (1987) found that when employees were treated with consideration. Loui. (1995) for instance found that commitment was significantly related to trust. Allen. Research has also linked organizational commitment to leadership behaviors that are relation-oriented and task-oriented. they displayed greater levels of commitment. Finally a third employee might experience a considerable degree of desire. For example. and job satisfaction. one employee might feel both a strong attachment to an organization and a sense of obligation to remain. A second employee might enjoy working for the organization but also recognize that leaving would be very difficult from an economic standpoint. Jermier & Berkes (1979) discovered that employees who were allowed to participate in decision-making had higher levels of commitment to the organization. continuance and normative commitment were components rather than types because employees could have varying degrees of all three. they do not imply that there is a rationale for summing all scales to obtain an overall score for organizational commitment. Meyer & Allen (1991) contended that affective.In arguing for their framework.

charisma. pension and other accumulated benefits. and Trice (1978) and. though not denied. Beyer. and normative commitment. which induce workers to stay with the organization. which view commitment to be largely a result of all benefits and advantages. There are studies. Thus the degree of commitment becomes largely. This approach has also found support in Stevens. a function of the extent to which workers’ psychological. & 174 . This relationship offers a way to further explore the subject of leadership. 1974) and identification with its goals and values (Porter. continuance. in Bhagat and Chassie (1981). individualized consideration. Alvi and Ahmeds Model and its approach Exchange Approach. safety. This study points out that there are certain extrinsic benefits. are relegated a secondary importance. which accrue to a worker for being part of an organization. Psychological Approach The studies based on this approach treat commitment as a more active and positive orientation toward the organization (Porter & Smith. and security needs are met. Stevens. Steers. Beyer. These benefits are lost once the membership in the organization is terminated. Fulfillment of psychological and other needs. to some extent. and Trice (1978) categorize them as those based on “exchange approach.” Becker (1960) was the pioneer in the study of exchange approach. though not entirely. intellectual stimulation. Mowday. and the possibility of upward mobility. 1971) including loyalty to it (Buchanan. Becker calls them “side bets”. such as seniority rights. Organizational commitment provides a broad measure of the effectiveness of leadership behaviors. and contingent reward and affective.

union presence. Likewise. 1974). organizational size. it suggests a pattern of needs selection and their satisfaction from basic to psychological. Hence. 175 . for instance. if not more. It is assumed that the main preoccupation of relatively less affluent workers is the satisfaction of physiological. Further. At the top are physiological needs. found that the role related factors are more important predictors than other variables of workers’ commitment to their organizations. workers. 1981) that neither approach alone is sufficient to explain the degree of workers’ commitment to their organizations in any society regardless of its degree of affluence. psychological factors may be equally important for less affluent workers. this one relies heavily on rolerelated and organizational factors such as work overload. organizational. followed by psychological ones. managerial level. Clearly in this form. there is the need to blend the two prevailing approached in order to explain this phenomenon.Boulin. and security needs. Workers in an advanced economy may attach as much. The importance of psychological variables (rolerelated. safety. Blended Approach The above-mentioned approaches are based on Maslow’s contention that human needs are hierarchically inborn in rank of importance. and personal) in determining commitment has further been confirmed by Morris and Sherman (1981). importance to the satisfaction of their basic needs as do those in a less developed nation. Stevens (1978). most workers turn to satisfying their psychological needs. basic needs met. In contrast to the exchange approach. this view divides societies. and so on. As affluence grows. and their needs in terms of the degree of affluence. There is a growing awareness among many researchers (Morris & Sherman.

While they consider the “team Management” style of leadership to be ideal. desires. meeting their just demands. skills. attract a workforce largely. in all likelihood. (1985) refined the leadership grid which identified various types of managerial leadership based on concern for people. and they understand the need to change. they recognize that it may be difficult to implement in some work situations. Effective managers have great concern for both people and production. committed to it. or other needs alone will find itself with workers who are less likely to stay. An organization. and properly utilizing their skills will. An organization which fulfills its employees’ psychological. Blake and Anne Adams McCanse. High Quadrant III High Consideration and Low initiating Structure Quadrant II High Consideration and High Initiating Structure Quadrant IV Low Consideration Low Initiating Structure Quadrant I Low Consideration High Initiating Structure Low Low Initiating Structure High 176 . individuals have certain needs. and expectations. which provides its workers with a work environment conducive to realizing their expectations. or show other manifestations of their lack of commitment. They work to motivate employees to reach their highest levels of accomplishment.As Steers (1977) points out. They are flexible and responsive to change. Leadership Theories Managerial Grid Robert R. frequently abstain themselves from work. financial.

The quadrant II leader is efficient and effective in managing both people and tasks. Task structure: the degree to which the followers’ jobs are routine as contrasted with non routine. The Quadrant IV leader’s management is characterized by group chaos and effectiveness. Position power: the power inherent in the leadership position.Stogdill and Coons’ from Ohio State University (Stogdill. a Quadrant I leader is production-oriented and interested in getting the work done. The Quadrant III leader maintains a friendly relationship with the subordinates and concerned about subordinate welfare. and the support that the leader receives from supervisors and the overall organization. and often forgets that he is dealing with human beings. developed a contingency theory or situational theory of leadership. It includes the rewards and punishments typically associated with the position. 1962) suggested that leaders exhibiting consideration and initiating structure behavior can be grouped into four quadrants. They are: Leader-member relations. To briefly summarize. but is ineffective in getting things done. the degrees of confidence subordinates have in their leader. It also includes the loyalty shown to the leader and leader’s attractiveness. Contingency Theory Fred Fiedler (1965). the leader’s formal authority (based on ranking in the managerial hierarchy). 177 . Fiedler postulates that three important situational dimensions are assumed to influence the leader’s effectiveness.

Make sure that they have control over outcomes their subordinates desire. A summary dichotomy: Manager versus Leaders (John Storey. Reward subordinates for performing at a high level or achieving their work goals by giving them desired outcomes. John Storey in his study suggested that leadership is different in many ways from management.Path-Goal Theory The path goal theory postulates that the most successful leaders are those who increase subordinate motivation by charting out and clarifying the paths to high performance. Raise their subordinates’ beliefs about their ability to achieve their work goals and perform at a high level. effective leaders: Motivate their followers to achieve group and organizational goals. 2004) Managers They are transactional Seek to operate in the current system Control & Monitor Trade on exchange leaderships Have a short-term focus Focus on detailed procedure Leaders They are transformative Create new visions and new Meanings Empower Seek to inspire and transcend Have a long-term focus Focus on the strategic big picture . According to Robert House’s path-goal theory. Take into account their subordinates’ characteristics and the type of work they do. 178 .

Islamabad Gomal University. Box 1243. Rawalpindi Cantt. National University of Sciences & Technology. & Technology.Box 1090. Pakistan Institute of Engineering & Applied Sciences. Lahore Fatima Jinnah Women University. Lahore Lahore College for Women University. New Campus. Lahore Lahore School of Economics. Islamabad National University of Modern Languages. Islamabad. Islamia University. Rawalpindi University of Arid Agriculture. 105-C-2. Bahawalpur International Islamic University. Sector U.O.O. Sector H-8.University. P. Murree Road. Tameez-ud-Din Road Lal Kurti.Z. 4 Shahrae Quaid-I-Azam. Gulberg III. 60800. Lahore University of Management Sciences.I. Multan. Lahore. Lahore University of Engg. Lahore. Rawalpindi Government College. D. Islamabad 179 .Khan B. 54792.Appendix H Chartered Universities of Pakistan Punjab University. P. Islamabad National College of Arts. Faisalabad Quaid-e-Azam University. Lahore Cantonment Co-operative Society. Islamabad Allama Iqbal Open University. Opp. Rawalpindi Bahria University. Lahore University of Agriculture. Old Defence College Building.

Lahore University of Education. Faisalabad Govt. Zafar Ali Road. Gulberg-III. Lahore University of Faisalabad. Egerton Road. Plot No. Thokar Niaz Baig. Sciences and Technology. Islamabad Kinnaird College for Women. Lahore University of Gujrat. 31-Main Gulberg. Sector H-8. Sargodha National Textile University. Lahore National College of Business Administration & Economics. Islamabad. Islamabad University of Sargodha. FAST House. 30. Lahore Imperial College of Business Studies. Lahore University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences. Lahore University of Central Punjab. . Lahore Virtual University (VU) 3 rd floor Building # 1-2. Gulberg-III. Islamabad Federal Urdu University of Arts. Lahore 1-K. Gujrat 180 . 43/44-Industrial Area. Lahore University of Health Sciences. Rohtas Road. Lahore Hajvery University. Islamabad COMSATS Institute of Information Technology.M.40-E-1.National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences. Gulberg-III. Lahore Riphah International University. Faisalabad University of Lahore.. Institute of Management Sciences. Faisalabad Institute of South Asia. College University. G-9/4. Lahore Air University. 23 E-III. Islamabad Foundation University. Aiwan-e-Iqbal Complex.

Abbottabad Balochistan University. Azad Kashmir NWFP Engg. Peshawar Pakistan Military Academy.Box 1090.O. 2. Azad Kashmir Balochistan University of Engg & Technology.& Technology. No.O. Peshawar Qurtaba University of Science & Information Technology. Peshawar NWFP Agriculture University. Kakul. Islamabad Peshawar University. Mirpur. Khuzdar Quaid-I-Awam University of Engineering. Box 814. Forest Institute Peshawar Al-Khair University. P. Jamshoro University of Hazara (Functional in October. Sir Syed Road. Sariab Road. Lahore The Superior College. P. Pak.The Gift University. Nawabshah Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University. P. AJK The Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences. Gujranwala The University of Management & Technology. Jamshoro Azad Jammu & Kashmir University. Cantt Kohat University of Science & Technology. Lahore University of Agriculture. Peshawar. Peshawar Sarhad University of Science & Information Technology. Peshawar CECOS University of Information Technology & Emerging Sciences. Peshawar 181 . Nerian Sharif (Trarkhal). University.O. Science and Technology. 2001) City University of Science & Information Technology. Faisalabad Quaid-e-Azam University. Kohat University of Malakand. Muzaffarabad. Quetta Mehran University of Engg.

Sindh University of Karachi. Karachi Isra University. Taxila Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences & Technology.O. & Technology. Karachi 74700 University of Engg. Karachi 74800 Shah Abdul Latif University. Nowshera Gandhara University. Quetta Sindh University . Sindh Hamdard University . Block B. Muhammad Bin Qasim Avenue. Hyderabad 182 . Stadium Road.. Karachi 75270 Sindh Agriculture University. 51 Deh Tar. University Road. Street. P. Karachi-75300 Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science & Technology. Gadap Road. Karachi Baqai Medical University. University Road. Karachi-75600 Institute of Business Administration. Clifton. Jamshoro.O. & Technology. Karachi Zia-ud-din Medical University. Quetta Karakurum International University. 33. University Road . 90-Clifton.Balochistan University of Information Technology & Management Sciences. North Nazimabad Karachi Sir Syed University of Engineering & Technology. Peshawar Preston University. Halla Road P. Karachi 75270 Pakistan Naval Academy. Peshawar Northern University. Tandojam. Madina-tal-Hikmat. Scheme-5.O. Box 313. Block-2. Topi. Box 2407. Box 3500. Gilgit Institute of Management Science. Kohat Iqra University. Sindh Aga Khan University. Distt. P. Swabi Indus Valley School of Art & Architecture. Khairpur. Karachi NED University of Engg.

O. Karachi The Newport Institute of Communications and Economics. Karachi Dadabhoy Institute of Higher Education. Sindhi Muslim Housing Society. Karachi The Nazeer Hussain University. Korangi Creek. Karachi DHA Suffa University. Karachi Iqra University. Karachi Institute of Business Management. Shaheed-e-Millat Extension.Greenwich University. 84-B. Karachi-75190 Jinnah University for Women. City Campus A-142. Karachi Institute of Business & Technology. P. Defence View. Karachi 75400 Khadim Ali Shah Bokhari (KASB) Institute of Technology. P. Sindhi Muslim Cooperative Housing Society.O. Nazimabad Karachi 74600 Mohammad Ali Jinnah University. Box 10526. Karachi Dow University of Health Sciences Karachi 183 . Karachi Karachi Institute of Economics and Technology. 5-C. PAF Base Korangi Creek. Box 12240. Karachi Preston Institute of Management Science and Technology. Karachi-75500 Textile Institute of Pakistan.

Appendix I Private Universities in Pakistan Aga Khan University [Karachi] Baqai Medical University [Karachi] CECOS University of Information Technology and Emerging Sciences [Peshawar] City University of Science and Technology [Peshawar] Dadabhoy Institute of Higher Education [Karachi] DHA Suffa University [Karachi] Foundation University [Islamabad] Gandhara University [Peshawar] Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering and Technology [Topi] Gift University [Gujranwala] Greenwich University [Karachi] Hajvery University [Lahore] Hamdard University [Karachi] Imperial College of Business Studies [Lahore] Indus Valley School of Arts and Architecture [Karachi] Institute of Business and Technology [Karachi] Institute of Business Management [Karachi] Institute of Management Sciences [Lahore] Institute of South Asia [Lahore] Iqra University [Karachi] Iqra University [Quetta] 184 .

Isra University [Hyderabad] Jinnah University of Women [Karachi] Karachi Institute Economics and Technology [Karachi] Khadim Ali Shah Bukhari Institute of Technology [Karachi] Lahore School of Economics [Lahore] Lahore University of Management Sciences [Lahore] Muhammad Ali Jinnah University [Karachi] National College of Business Administration and Economics [Lahore] National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences (FAST) [Islamabad] Nazir Hussain University [Karachi] Newport Institute of Communication and Economics [Karachi] Northern University [Nowshera] Preston Institute of Management and Technology [Karachi] Preston University [Karachi] Preston University [Kohat] Qurtaba University of Science and Information Technology [D.I.Khan] Riphah International University [Islamabad] Sarhad University of Science and Information Technology [Peshawar] Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology [Karachi] Superior College [Lahore] Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science & Technology [Karachi] Textile Institute of Pakistan [Karachi] University of Central Punjab [Lahore] University of Faisalabad [Faisalabad]

185

University of Lahore [Lahore] University of Management and Technology [Lahore] Zia ud Din Medical University [Karachi]

Appendix J
Abbreviations used in the text
HEC (Higher Education Commission of Pakistan) IBA (Institute of Business Administration) LUMS (Lahore University of Management Sciences) HEI (Higher Education Institutions) IT (Information Technology) AAUP (American Association of University Professors) FAUP (Federal Association of University Professors) MLQ (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire) OCQ (Organizational Commitment Questionnaire) EOC (Employees Organizational Commitment) OC (Organizational Commitment) JS ( Job Satisfaction) PDM (Participatory Decision Making) ANOVA (Analysis of Variance)

186

Appendix K
Other Researcher’s Results and Explanations As discussed in chapter 3, job satisfaction and organizational commitment appear to be related to one another. A comparison of the antecedents, correlates, and predictors of the Kinicki (2002), Meta analysis of the Job Description Indexes (JDI) and the Meta analysis of the organizational commitment by Methew and Zajac (1990) showed a strong relationship between the two concepts. Kinicki (2002) found moderately positive correlations between organizational commitment and the five job satisfaction facets of the JDI (pay, r = 0.29, promotion, r = .35, coworkers, r = .34, work itself, r = .50 and supervision, r = .35). Methew and Zajac (1990) found a significant correlation of .53 between the two variables. Neither of these studies specified a causal direction between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. However, Kacmar, Carlson, and Brymer (1990) found a positive significant coefficient of 0.63 for the effect of job satisfaction on organizational commitment. (as measured by the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire). A number of studies have looked more closely at this relationship, to determine the causal order of the two constructs. The results of these studies appear to be mixed between no support for the specific causal relationship, and between job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and that it is predicted by job satisfaction (Yoon and Thye, 2002). In a longitudinal study of professional employees at a British engineering company that spanned 13 months (n = 295), Cramer (1996) found no temporal causal relationship between job satisfaction at time and organizational commitment at time two. When both variables were measured at the same point time (for example the

187

job satisfaction is antecedent to organizational commitment. the significant correlations between the two constructs from this study would suggest they are not independent from one another.relationship between the job satisfaction at time one and organizational commitment at time one). and work conditions. However. Procedural and distributive gestures were also measured and controlled for in the regression analysis.40 for pay. This would suggest that there is in fact a relationship.23. organizational commitment is a product of an employee’s present job appraisal and not based on past appraisal. Martin and Bennett (1996) tested three possible models of the relationship between the job satisfaction and organizational commitment using multiple regressions. satisfaction was measured as four factors: satisfaction with pay. Data were collected from financial services companies (n = 1. 188 . benefits. benefits and work conditions respectively).001). Still. organizational commitment is antecedent to job satisfaction and there is a reciprocal relationship between the two variables.31. . the variables were significantly correlated with one another (r = . and .30. p< . there was significant positive correlation between the two variables (r = . The authors suggest that it is really procedural and distributive justice that has the direct relationship with commitment and that many previous studies have included measure of this construct in their measure of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. 337) organizational commitment was measured using items from scales identification and internalization. This suggests that while there is a causal relationship between the two variables. appraisal. suggesting that they are independent constructs.35. . appraisal. The results showed no support for a causal model between job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Analyses were done via structural equation modeling. However. Results in this study were not unusual when task-oriented behavior showed more significant. greater effort. and controls and covariates) and organizational commitment (as measured by the OCQ). organizational related variables. Hersey and Blanchard (1977) suggested that leaders need to display more relation-oriented behavior in some instances and more task-oriented behavior for other situations. effectiveness. the model explained 51% of the variance in organizational commitment. and satisfaction can be achieved through transformational methods. Results showed support for the model 87% of the impact exogenous variables on organizational commitment was mediated through job satisfaction and 36% was mediated through organizational support. data was collected from 2 large organizations in Korea (n = 2.443). Results from a number of studies Bass & Avolio. job satisfaction and organizational support (defined in this research as the employees believes that organization values their contributions and is concerned about their well-being) mediated the relationship between the exogenous variables (job characteristics. Overall. 1997) indicate that transactional leadership provides a basis of effective leadership.Yoon and Thye (2002) tested a more comprehensive model of organizational commitment in the model. Both job satisfaction and organizational support had a direct effect on organizational commitment. 189 . To validate the model.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful