UMI

NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ITS IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE
COMMITMENT IN A DOWNSIZING GOVERNMENT AGENCY
By
Dennis A. Gentry
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the
H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship
Nova Southeastern University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
DOCTOR OF BUSINESS AMINISTRATION
2005
UMI Number: 3164828
Copyright 2005 by
Gentry, Dennis A.
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3164828
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
A DISSERTATION
ENTITLED
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ITS IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE

COMMITMENT IN A DOWNSIZING GOVERNMENT AGENCY
By
Dennis A. Gentry
We hereby certify that this Dissertation submitted by

Dennis A. Gentry conforms to acceptable standards, and
such is fully adequate in scope and quality. It is
therefore approved as the fulfillment of the Dissertation
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Business
Administration.
Approved:
errell Manyak,
.o Ay.
myak, Ph. n- Date
Chairperson
y/27/e>S'
Bahaudj^f Mujtaba, D. Date
Committee Member
0 y
Denise Wooa, P'fXfe. Date
Committee Member
y/zj/es
Russe^tlL Abratt, PhD. Date
Chaik J Doctoral Programs
2 <Vv<
:ston Jones, D.B.A. Datte/
ssociate Dean, H. Wayne Huizenga School
t>f Business and Entrepreneurship
Nova Southeastern University
2005
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own
product, that where the language of others is set forth,
quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit
is given where I have used the language, ideas,
expressions or writings of another.
Signed:
Dennis A. Gentry
ABSTRACT
Transformational Leadership and Its Impact on Employee

Commitment in a Downsizing Government Agency
By
Dennis A. Gentry
Over the past half-decade, government agencies began

implementing the requirements outlined in the Federal
Activities Inventory Reduction (FAIR) Act of 1998. The
FAIR Act requires all positions within federal agencies to
be evaluated to determine those that are "inherently
governmental" as opposed to positions that could be
outsourced to the private sector.
This study was developed to assess if the
transformational leadership style positively impacts
commitment levels of government employees at a time when
agencies are downsizing and outsourcing jobs as they
implement the FAIR Act. A three part electronic survey
consisting of demographic, leadership, and organizational
commitment questions were sent to the sample of 532
employees. The leadership portion of the questionnaire
contained the 45 questions from Bass and Avolio's (1997)
Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire. The Organizational
Commitment portion of the questionnaire consisted of the 15
questions from Mowday, Porter, and Steer's (1979)
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire. Together these
survey instruments help to answer the research question"
Does transformational leadership impact the commitment
level of government employees?" and the three hypotheses
developed from it.
The research revealed agency employees responded that
their managers use the transformational leadership style
51% of the time, transactional leadership style 36% of the
time and laissez-faire style 13% of the time. The results
from the Organizational Commitment portion of the survey
revealed a high level of commitment among the agency's
employees, even employees currently being affected by the
FAIR Act.
Dennis A. Gentry
The results from the study's statistical analysis

found significance for all three hypotheses. There is a
positive relationship between transformational leadership
and the commitment level of government employees.
Transformational leadership does have a positive impact on
employees during the downsizing process and
transformational leadership style is the leadership style
most used by the organization's managers. The results show
a positive relationship and answers the research question.
Although the results show a positive relationship
between the two variables, transformational leadership
style alone cannot provide the answer as to why there are
such high employee commitment levels. Research examined as
part of this research indicates employees should be
reacting negatively to the effects of the FAIR Act. To
help answer this question, additional research is
recommended to analyze the impact organization culture and
employee growth needs have on employee commitment levels.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are so many people I wish to extend my

gratitude to. First I must thank my wife and children
who had to spend the many weekends and evenings without
me while I pursued my goal of obtaining this degree.
Without their support, I could not have succeeded in this
endeavor. To my father, who instilled in me the
importance of an education and the values of hard work,
persistence and perseverance.
A special thanks is extended to my dissertation
committee. To Dr. Manyak, my committee chair and friend,
I offer you my most sincere thanks and appreciation. I
enjoyed our conversations and time working together. To
Dr. Denise Wood, I am so thankful to have you working
with me as I tried and finally succeeded in analyzing the
statistical data I needed to complete Chapter IV. To Dr.
Mujtaba, my sincere thanks for being such a positive and
supportive member of my committee. I feel I had fine
examples to follow and could not have chosen a more
professional and caring dissertation committee.
I would be amiss if I did not say thanks for the
support my staff gave me during the past few years.
Also, I would like to thank the employees of the surveyed
organization, who took the time to complete the research
questionnaire. Finally, I want to extend my sincerest
gratitude to Mr. Tom Walker without whose support and
assistance I would have been unable to accomplish this
endeavor. You have not only made a significant impact on
my life, but numerous others as well.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables..................................... xi
List of Figures.................................... xiii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION.................................. 1
Introduction................................. 1
Background of the Problem................... 2
Legislation and Regulations Leading to
Development of the FAIR Act................. 4
The Federal Activities Inventory Reform
(FAIR) Act of 1998........................... 7
Organizational Background of the Agency
Being Studied................................ 8
The FAIR Act Impact on the Organization..... 11
Purpose of the Study......................... 14
Significance of the Study................... 15
Assumptions.................................. 16
Structure of the Study...................... 17
Chapter Summary.............................. 18
II. LITERATURE REVIEW............................ 20
Introduction................................. 20
The Evolution of Leadership Theory.......... 21
Trait Theory............................ 21
Style Theory............................ 23
Situational Leadership Theory.......... 26
Contingency Theory..................... 27
Path-goal Theory....................... 28
Leader-member Exchange Theory.......... 31
Team-leadership Theory................. 33
Transactional Leadership Theory........ 34
Laissez-faire Leadership Theory........ 35
Section Summary......................... 37
v ii
Chapter Page
Historical Perspective of
Transformational Leadership................. 38
Transformational Leadership Defined......... 40
Transformational Leadership................. 42
Gender Influence on Transformational
Leadership.............................. 48
Cultural Influence on Transformational
Leadership.............................. 50
Section Summary......................... 52
Historical Perspective of Organizational
Commitment................................... 52
Organizational Commitment Defined........... 54
Organizational Commitment.............. ...... 58
Organizational Commitment Theory Used
in this Study........................... 64
Section Summary........................ 67
Impact of Transformational Leadership on
Employee Commitment in the Public Sector 67
Impact of Downsizing on Employee Commitment... 70
Research Question............................ 73
Chapter Summary.............................. 74
III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY...................... 76
Introduction and Overview................... 76

Research Question and Hypotheses............ 77
Research Design.............................. 78
Variables: Dependent and Independent........ 80
Population and Sample....................... 82
Data and Statistical Analysis Procedures 83
Survey Instruments and Their Validity....... 84
Threats to Validity and Limitations......... 88
Chapter Summary.............................. 89
IV. RESULTS...................................... 91
Introduction................................. 91
Sampling Techniques......................... 92
Demographic Characteristics................. 93
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Analysis..................................... 99
Transactional Leadership Style.............. 100
Transformational Leadership Style........... 101
Laissez-faire Leadership Style.............. 102
viii
Chapter Page
Extra Effort...................... 104

Effectiveness................................ 106
Satisfaction................................. 107
Scoring of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire................................ 108
Analysis of the Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire................................ 110
Analysis of the Relationship Between
Leadership Styles and Organizational
Commitment................................... 112
Research Question and Hypotheses........ 120
Chapter Summary.............................. 122
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION................... 124
Overview..................................... 124
Demographic Characteristics and
Organizational Relationship................. 128
Leadership Style Findings................... 130
Organizational Commitment Findings.......... 132
Leadership Style and Organizational
Commitment Relationship..................... 133
Research Question and Hypotheses............ 135
Limitations on the Study.................... 137
Conclusion................................... 138
Recommendation for Future Research.......... 141
Chapter Summary.............................. 142
Appendix
A. Request for Approval to Survey Agency and

Approval to Survey............................. 143
B. Purchase and Request to Use MLQ Survey and

Permission to Use and Reprint Survey.......... 14 6
C. Request for Survey Participation.............. 14 9
D. Survey Instrument.............................. 151
E. Follow-up Letter for Survey Participation..... 156
ix
Appendix Page
F. Chapter IV Tables............................... 158
REFERENCES CITED.................................. 17 0
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................... 191
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Lewin's Three Classic Styles of Leadership........ 24
2. Contingency Relationships in Path-Goal Leadership

Model............................................... 30
3. Leadership Behavior and Performance............... 37
4. Evolution of Organizational Commitment............ 54
5. Analysis of Respondent's Gender.................. 94
6. Analysis of Respondent's Age..................... 94
7. Analysis of Respondent's Race..................... 95
8. Analysis of Respondent's Education............... 96
9. Analysis of Respondent's Work Position........... 96
10. Analysis of Respondent's Pay Grade............... 97
11. Analysis of Respondent's Years in Service........ 98
12. Statistical Analysis of Demographic Data.......... 99
13. Analysis of the Transactional Leadership Style

(see Appendix F)................................ ... 160
14. Statistical Analysis of Transactional Leadership

Questions (see Appendix F)......................... 161
15. Analysis of the Transformational Leadership

Responses (see Appendix F)......................... 162
16. Statistical Analysis of the Transformational

Leadership (see Appendix F)........................ 164
17. Analysis of Laissez-Faire Leadership Questions 103
xi
Table Page
18. Statistical Analysis of Laissez-Faire Leadership

Questions........................................... 103
19. Analysis ofthe Extra Effort Questions............. 105
20. Statistical Analysis of Extra Effort Questions 105
21. Analysis ofthe Effectiveness Questions............ 106
22. Statistical Analysis of the Effectiveness

Questions.......................................... 107
23. Analysis ofthe Satisfaction Questions............. 107
24. Statistical Analysis of the Satisfaction Question... 108
25. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Scoring...... 109
26. Analysis ofthe Organizational Commitment

Questions (seeAppendix F).......................... 166
27. Statistical Analysis of the Organizational

Commitment (see Appendix F)........................ 168
28. Correlation Matrix for Transactional Leadership

and Organizational Commitment...................... 113
29. Correlation Matrix for Transformational Leadership

30. Correlation Matrix for Laissez-Faire Leadership

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational

Commitment......................................... 63
2. Relationship Between the Transformational

Leadership Style and Organizational Commitment 68
3. Scatter-plot of the Best Fit of Transactional

Leadership and Organizational Commitment........... 114
4. Scatter-plot of the Best Fit of Transformational

5. Scatter-plot of the Best Fit of Laissez-Faire

6. Scatter-plot of the Best Fit for the Combined

Leadership Styles and Organizational Commitment 119
x iii
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
This study was developed to assess the impact of
transformational leadership on commitment levels of
government employees at a time when agencies are
downsizing and outsourcing jobs as they work to implement
the Federal Activities Inventory Reduction (FAIR) Act of
1998. Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) strongly believe
transformational leaders motivate their employees to
perform beyond normal expectations by transforming strong
organizational commitment and attitudes (Wofford,
Whittington & Goodwin 2001). The research data developed
from this study provides data that determines if
transformational leadership positively impacts commitment
levels of government employees. Chapter 1 illustrates
the background of the problem, the history of the FAIR
Act, the FAIR Act components, the organizational
background of the government organization being affected,
the significance of the study, and the study's research
question.
2
Background of the Problem
During the 1980s, President Reagan sought to
transform the federal government by decentralizing power
and seeking to create a smaller government. In the
1990s, President Clinton assigned Vice President Gore the
task of further decreasing government's size and re
inventing government. As part of this initiative, the
FAIR Act was created to identify those functions of the
federal government that are not inherently governmental.
The Bush administration also supports smaller government
and is requiring government agencies to expedite the
requirements of the Act. Agencies are required under
this Act to identify, reduce, and outsource those federal
jobs, that can be accomplished by the private sector.
However, the implementation of the provisions of this Act
cannot help but negatively impact the morale and
commitment of government employees. Consequently,
government Agencies are seeking ways to accommodate the
Act requirements while at the same time maintaining job
satisfaction and employee commitment.
Government agencies of various types routinely spend
millions of dollars to survey their employees to
determine levels of satisfaction within the organization.
3
The results of these surveys are often incorrect and
misleading due to employees having the perception that
honest responses may cause them to be perceived as
disgruntled or unhappy with their direct managers.
Surveys, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and
Kirton Adaptation Inventory, can provide managers with a
focus on their personality traits, without regard to
their leadership style, they use to lead the organization
(Church & Waclawski, 1998) . Agencies should focus their
survey dollars toward studying leadership style and the
results they obtain. The results of numerous research
studies (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985 & 1990; Groon, 1997;
Ackoff, 1999, Friedman, Langbert & Giladi, 2000; Hines,
2001) provide evidence that transformational leadership
enhances employee commitment and accomplishments.
Government agencies have traditionally been managed
by leaders schooled in the authoritative or transactional
style of leadership. Abshire (2001) describes these
leaders as managers that manage with what they have in
hand and make limited progress by making the best use of
the resources provided. Numerous government agencies
currently face problem of having older managers lead a
much younger, diverse work force, and finding that
traditional leadership styles are not producing committed
and loyal employees.
Legislation and Regulations Leading to the Development of

the FAIR Act
In 1970, President Nixon issued Executive Order
11541 (1970), which in part required all federal agencies
to evaluate their work inventory to identify functions
that could be accomplished through commercial services.
This Executive Order also authorized the Office of
Management and Budget to oversee the implementation of
this order and revise Reorganization Plan No. 2. The
Reorganization Plan No. 2 states "to improve economy and
efficiency in the United States Government, the Office of
Management and Budget shall make a study of each agency
to decide, and may send to Congress recommendations, on
changes requiring executive departments and agencies to
undertake to eliminate not less than 50 percent of its
civilian employees . . . not required by law" (OMB,
1970).
In 1981, President Reagan issued Executive Order
12318 (August, 1981) that amended Executive Order 11541
by ordering the implementation of Reorganization Plan No.
5
2. As a result of this order, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) issued 0MB Circular No. A-7 6 to all
executive federal agencies, requiring them to develop a
plan to implement the requirements outlined in the
Reorganization Plan No. 2. Through revisions issued in
1996, 1998, 1999, and 2003, the OMB Circular A-76 was
reformulated. "The longstanding policy of the federal
government has been to rely on the private sector for
needed commercial services and ensure the American people
receive maximum value for their tax dollars, commercial
activities should be subject to the forces of
competition" (OMB, 2003).
From 1981 until 1996, little attention was given to
the reorganization plan or OMB Circular No. A-7 6.
However, it was renewed when President Clinton tasked
Vice-President Gore to re-invent government by
outsourcing functions and make government smaller by
reducing the number of government employees. The Office
of Federal Procurement Policy issued a Policy letter in
September 1992, which defined inherently governmental
functions. The purpose of the policy was to assist the
agency executives in avoiding an unacceptable transfer of
official responsibility to government contractors. This
6
policy letter was unclear in meaning and caused confusion
and led agency executives to avoid any implementation
process. In 1998, the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform Act was developed to pin down specific outsourcing
and function reduction requirements. Agencies had to
adhere to the principles and requirements of the OMB
Circular. This Act required each agency head to present
the agency's competitive sourcing plan to Congress and
provide an annual update with detailed job listings and
the number of positions affected the up-coming year.
Developing a competitive sourcing plan became an integral
part of all executive agencies' critical job elements.
When President Bush took office in 2000, competitive
sourcing remained a priority and became a significant
element of the President's Management Agenda. President
Bush views competition between public and private sources
as an unfulfilled management promise to the American
taxpayer and has tasked all executive agencies to
increase competitive sourcing as required by the FAIR Act
(OMB, 2002) .
7
The Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act of
1998
The FAIR Act was developed to define the
responsibilities of all executive branch agencies for the
implementation of Reorganization Plan No.2 and OMB
Circular No. A-7 6. The Act's purpose is to "provide a
process for identifying the functions of the Federal
Government that are not inherently governmental
functions" (FAIR Act, 1998). The term "inherently
governmental function" means a function that is so
intimately related to the public interest as to require
performance by federal government employees (Office of
Federal Procurement Policy, 1992). The FAIR Act requires
agency executives to provide annually:
• A list of activities and the year they first

appeared in the A-7 6 competitive sourcing plan.
• The number of full-time employees that are

necessary for the performance of the activity by
a federal government source.
• The name of the federal government employee

responsible for the activity.
• Provide the activities list to the OMB for review

and consultation.
• Make the activity list available to the public
8
• Provide the activity list to Congress.
• Note any changes to the previously submitted

list.
Organizational Background of the Agency being Studied
To better understand the impact of the FAIR Act on
government employees, it is important to understand the
background of the government organization and employees
being studied. The agency involved in this study was
created by Congress in 1949 to coordinate and provide
interagency policy and be a clearinghouse for agency
purchases to meet their operational requirements. This
agency's mission is to "help federal agencies better
serve the public by offering, at best value, superior
workplaces, expert solutions, acquisition services and
management policies". Organizational values include:
• Ethics and integrity
• Respect for fellow associates
• Teamwork
• Results orientation
• Professionalism
9
The agency strives to work together to achieve the goals
set by its leadership. These goals include:
• Provide best value for the customer agencies and
taxpayers.
• Achieve responsible asset management.
• Operate efficiently and effectively.
• Ensure financial accountability.
• Maintain a world class workforce and a world
class workplace.
• Carry out social, environmental, and other
responsibilities as a federal agency.
The agency manages an annual budget of more than $66
billion and has assets totaling more than $500 billion.
The agency's approximately thirteen thousandemployees,
almostall of whom will be affected by the FAIR Act, are
organized into four major functions. The organization is
further subdivided into eleven regions that extend its
influence nationwide. Regional offices are headquartered
in the metropolitan centers of Atlanta, Boston, Chicago,
Denver, Fort Worth, Kansas City, New York, Philadelphia,
San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington D.C. Numerous
10
Field Offices/Customer Service Centers located within
major cities make up the further decentralized operation
of each region. Each regional office provides financial
and logistical support to the field operations.
The agency is responsible for the development of
interagency policy, the acquisition of telecommunication
services and information management, supplies and
services, and the office and warehouse space needs of all
federal agencies. This agency can be considered a
monopoly within the federal community since it is the
mandatory source for the purchase of material and
equipment for all federal agencies. Due to the nature of
the agency's function, there is no threat to it being
eliminated, however, the means by which it accomplishes
its mission will be evaluated under the FAIR Act
requirements.
This agency strives to create an organizational
culture that incorporates its values. In a government-
wide employee survey conducted in 2003, it ranked fourth
among all federal agencies as being overall one of the
Best Places to Work with the federal government
(Partnership for Public Service, 2003). This survey also
showed that it tied for a number one ranking in
11
"Strategic Management". The agency ranked second among
all agencies in "Effective Leadership", "Work/Life
Balance", and "Performance Based Rewards and
Advancement". It was ranked third in "Teamwork", "Family
Friendly Culture and Benefits", and "Training and
Development". Employees ranked it fifth in "Pay and
Benefits", "Support for Diversity", and "Employee
Skills/Mission Match. The agency carefully benchmarks
private sector practices and closely observes best
practices in other federal agencies as part of its key to
success. The results of this survey may prove to be an
important factor to how employees view the agency during
the implementation of the FAIR Act provisions.
The FAIR Act Impact on the Organization
As a result of the OMB Circular A-7 6 and the FAIR
Act, the agency developed its Competitive Sourcing
Program Management Guide, A-7 6 Acquisition Plan Process,
and Competitive Sourcing list. Together these documents
outline the strategy developed by the organization to
meet the requirements in Circular A-7 6 and the FAIR Act.
The Competitive Sourcing Program Management Guide
outlines the policy, procurement process, and lists the
work inventories affected by the FAIR Act. A partia
list of this inventory includes:
• Cleaners
• Maintenance Workers
• Mechanics
• Shipping Clerks
• Equipment Operators
• Administrative Personnel
• Procurement Clerks
• Construction Workers (electricians, plumber
etc. )
• Construction Estimators/Managers
• Project Managers
• Real Estate Personnel
• Property Management Personnel
• Human Resource Personnel
• Information Technology Personnel
• Engineers/Architects
• Marketing Personnel
13
The Agency A-7 6 Acquisition Plan Process Plan
provides a- flow chart that illustrates the procurement
and procedural process the organization takes in
implementing the competitive sourcing plan.
The competitive sourcing plan identifies the number
of full-time personnel affected each year and the time
frame for implementation. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2002, 398
positions were competitively outsourced; in FY 2003,
1,122 positions were outsourced, and in FY 2004, 629
positions are planned to be competitively outsourced
(Agency Competitive Sourcing List, 2003). The agency
administrator annually provided the organization a list
of the work inventory being affected the next fiscal year
and provides quarterly updates as to the status of the
competitive sourcing process. The work inventory list to
be implemented in FY 2005 will be provided late in the
year of 2004.
Up to this point, the segment of the organization
that will be surveyed has lost relatively few federal
government employees to the competitive sourcing process.
The organization's executives continuously communicate
which functions are being affected and where they are in
the process in order to keep affected employees informed.
14
They also encourage employees to pursue furthering their
education to enhance promotion opportunities. Through
normal attrition and limited hiring of new personnel, the
organization has been able to progressively promote
personnel ahead of the competitive sourcing process.
Personnel affected by the FAIR Act that have a short
period of time (generally six months or less) before
being eligible for retirement are allowed to continue to
work in the affected position until their retirement
requirements are met. To date, this effort is favorably
seen by the organization's employees and may positively
impact employee commitment. It is predicted that the
FAIR Act will start to have a much greater negative
impact to the agency's employees due to limited future
promotion potential and the inability to place employees
in positions not being affected.
Purpose of the Study
This study focuses on the critical elements of
transformational leadership and employee commitment,
along with the background of the organization being
affected and the elements of the FAIR Act to evaluate
significant outcomes. The purpose of this study is to
15
determine if the transformational leadership style
positively impacts employee commitment as the agency
downsizes and outsources positions are identified as not
being inherently governmental. Data obtained from this
study may identify how the agency can train its managers
to better interact with employees being negatively
affected by the FAIR Act, calm employee fear, and help
maintain employee commitment to the organization. This
study may identify additional information other than that
being sought, which may help the agency to address more
effectively the downsizing and outsourcing problems
resulting from the FAIR Act.
Significance of the Study
As the baby boomers are replaced with younger
employees and leaders, managers with leadership styles
that transcend the diversity of government employees must
be identified and recruited. This is especially true at
a time when government agencies expect a 15% force
reduction by 2005 as they continue to implement the FAIR
Act. Employees are also being asked to do more with
less, and these changes are having a tremendous impact on
the current work force. This study provides data
16
necessary to determine if transformational leadership is
the leadership style needed to continue the current high
level of commitment in the highly diverse work force
found within this government agency.
Research Question
This study addresses two research questions, "Does
transformational leadership style impact the commitment
level of government employees?" This study focuses on
critical elements of transformational leaderships and
employee commitment. The results provided from this study
may determine if transformational leadership is key in
the future to developing an organizational culture within
government agencies, which produces high levels of
commitment from employees.
Assumptions
In organizing the structure of the organization of
this study, several assumptions became evident. These
assumptions include:
1. The FAIR Act will have a negative impact on the
agency's employee commitment.
17
2. Transformational leadership motivates and empowers
employees.
2. Transformational leadership may positively
influence employee commitment.
3. Transformational leadership may minimize the
negative impact the FAIR Act will have on employee
commitment.
4. Agency employees are cognitive of the impact the
FAIR Act is having on the organization and its
employees.
5. Employees will honestly and accurately answer the
questions in the questionnaire based on their
perception.
Structure of the Study
This study is composed of five chapters. Chapter I,
the introduction, provides an overview of the study
giving the problem statement, purpose and significance of
the study, history of the FAIR Act, and the background of
the organization being surveyed. Chapter II is the
literature review, which describes the history and
advanced research on transformational leadership and
organizational commitment. This chapter also provides
18
research on how transformational leadership and
organizational commitment impacts, or is affected by the
result of downsizing in an organization. Chapter III
contains information regarding the method and research
design, research question and hypotheses, variables,
sample and subject information, survey instruments, and
the procedures used in the data collection and analysis,
along with any limitations placed on the study. Chapter
IV reports the findings obtained from the survey. It
includes demographics and question results obtained from
the transformational leadership and organizational
commitment survey instruments. Chapter V summarizes the
study, the literature review, limitations, result of the
survey, and provides a conclusion, along with
recommendations for further research.
Chapter Summary
Chapter I has identified the problems government
agencies currently face as they try to manage effectively
a highly diverse work force that is under-going massive
downsizing and job outsourcing required by the FAIR Act.
Also discussed in this chapter is the background of the
19
agency being studied, the significance of the study, and
assumptions derived for the study. The results of this
study will help to determine if the transformational
leadership is the leadership style that government
agencies need to transcend the diversity of the current
work force and provide the level of commitment necessary
to continue to produce at current levels with less
employees.
20
Chapter II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The primary focus of this review will be on
transformational leadership and its critical elements,
which include charismatic leadership or idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individual consideration (Bass & Avolio,
1994; Kelly, 1998; Tracey & Hinkein, 1998). This review
will also look at influences that gender and culture may
have on transformational leadership. The secondary
aspect of this review will concentrate on organizational
commitment, specifically, the critical commitment
creating elements that employees feel are important for
their commitment to the organization and the impact that
downsizing may have on their commitment. To better
understand transformational leadership, it is important
to briefly discuss the development of leadership theory
and how transformational leadership adds a new dimension
to our understanding of this critical management concept.
21
The Evolution of Leadership Theory
This historical review of leadership theory will
address the Trait theory, Behavioral Styles theory,
Situational theory (model), Contingency theory, Path-goal
theory, Leader-member Exchange theory, and Team
Leadership theory. During the 1980s organizations began
to focus on becoming more effective and efficient and the
constant state of change caused a major paradigm shift in
approaches to leadership theory (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-
Metcalfe, 2001). From this state of constant change came
a new leadership paradigm. Research conducted by Bass
and Avolio (1990) developed three primary leadership
styles; transactional, laissez-faire, and
transformational leadership. Transactional and laissez-
faire leadership styles will be discussed in this
chapter, however, greater emphasis will be placed on the
transformational leadership style, since this study
focuses on transformational leadership and how it effects
employee commitment.
Trait Theory.
Early studies on leadership investigated the
personal and psychological characteristics of successful
22
leaders. Trait theory was initially developed as the
great-man approach where it was believed that a person
had to be born with leadership traits (Cawthon, 1996).
This approach emphasizes that a leader must have a
certain set of traits to provide effective leadership and
their personality is central to the leadership process.
A study conducted by Stogdill in 1948, concluded a leader
is above average in five traits: (1) intelligence, (2)
dominance, (3) self-confidence, (4) level of energy and
activity, and (5) task-relevant knowledge.
Northouse (2001) identified numerous strengths and
criticisms for the leadership theory. Strengths include:
it is intuitively appealing, it provides a guide for what
traits to look for in perspective leaders, and
significant amounts of research support the affect that
personality traits have on leadership. Criticisms
against this theory include; its failure to provide a
definitive list of traits, the research results have been
ambiguous at best, it fails to look at situations, and it
fails to look at the outcomes achieved by the leader.
23
Style Theory.
This theory emerged by reviewing the behavior of the
leader rather than personality. This approach included
two kinds of behaviors, task and relationship. The task
behaviors help individuals reach their goals, and the
relationship behaviors help subordinates feel comfortable
in the process. In the 1940's, Ohio State University
conducted a study, which resulted in the identification
of two leader behavior types, initiating structure and
consideration. According to Stogdill (1974) initiating
structure behaviors were essentially task behaviors, such
as organizing work or defining role responsibilities.
Consideration behaviors are relationship behaviors such
as building camaraderie, trust, and respect between
leaders and followers.
A modification of this study was conducted by the
University of Michigan and revealed two types of
leadership behaviors, employee and production
orientation. From these results the Leadership Grid was
developed. Employee orientation describes the behavior
of leaders, that develop strong human relationships with
their followers. Production orientation refers to the
production and technical aspect of the work. From this
24
orientation, workers are viewed as a means to
accomplishing work. According to Hersey and Blanchard
(1996), this grid is an attitudinal model, which measures
values and feelings of the leader and is designed to
assist the leader in attaining their goals by balancing
concerns for production and followers.
Lewin, et al. (1939) indentified the three classic
styles of leadership: authoritarian, democratic, and
laissez-faire. Table 1 illustrates the three styles of
leadership defined by Lewin and each style's relationship
with the follower.
Table 1.
Lewin's Three Classic Styles of Leadership

A u th o rita ria n D em ocratic Laissez-F aire
N ature Leader re tains a ll a u th o rity Leader delegates a Leader grants

and re s p o n s ib ility great deal o f re s p o n s ib ility and
a u th o rity w h ile a u th o rity to group
re ta in in g u ltim a te
re s p o n s ib ility
Leaders assign people to W o rk is d ivid e d and G roup m em bers

c le a rly d e fin e d task assigned on the basis are to ld to w o rk
o f p a rtic ip a to ry th in g s out
decision m a kin g the best they can
P rim a rily a dow nw ard flo w A c tiv e tw o -w a y P rim a rily

o f co m m u n ica tio n flo w o f upw ard and h o rizo n ta l
dow nw ard com m unications
am ong peers
25
Lewin's Three Classic Styles of Leadership (cont'd.)

A u th o rita ria n D e m o cra tic L aissez-F aire
P rim a ry Stresses p ro m p t, o rd e rly , Enhances personal P erm its s e lf-
starters to
S trength and p re d icta b le perform ance com m unication do th in g s th e y see
f it
th ro u g h p a rtic ip a tio n w ith o u t leader
interfe re n ce
P rim a ry A pp ro a ch tends to s tifle D e m o cra tic process G roup m a y d rift

W eakness in d iv id u a l in itia tiv e is tim e consum ing a im le ssly in the
absence o f
d ire c tio n fro m
leader
According to Northouse (2201) the Style approach has
several strengths and weaknesses. This approach includes
the study of leadership behavior in additional to traits,
it is supported by a wide range of research, and it
underscores the importance of the two core dimensions of
leadership behavior: task and relationship. Criticisms
include; no universal set of behaviors identified that
consistently effects effective leadership and research
has not shown that the relationship between leader
behavior and outcomes such as job satisfaction and
productivity. Overall, this approach is not a refined
theory that provides a set of behaviors, but provides a
framework for accessing leadership as it relates to task
and relationship.
26
Situational leadership Theory (Model) .
• This theory was developed by Hersey and Blanchard
(1969) and was based on Reddin's (1967) 3-D Management
Style Theory (Northouse, 1997). Situational leadership
theory supports the concept that different situations
require different styles of leadership. It classifies
four leadership styles from two dimensions, high
directive-low supportive style, high directive-high
supportive or coaching, high supportive-low directive,
and the low supportive-low directive styles. The
developmental level of the follower is also considered.
They are classified into four levels of development
ranging from high to low. This situational leadership
approach to leadership is currently in high use by many
Fortune 500 companies to train their leaders and is
considered highly effective (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993).
The situational approach to leadership has several
strengths, particularly for practitioners (Northouse,
2001). It is well known and highly used to train
leaders, it is easy to understand and use, and it has
prescriptive value in that it tells what should or should
not be done in specific situations. Even though this
approach is widely utilized, there are numerous
27
criticisms against it. There has been relatively little
research to support the theory, it does not consider
employee commitment, or leader style and the follower's
development level.
Contingency Theory.
The Contingency Theory states that the leader's
behavior must be matched to the appropriate situation,
and effectiveness is contingent on matching the leader's
behavior to the situation variables (Bass, 1990).
Fielder (1964) developed the Contingency or "leader-
match" theory, which provides the following assumptions:
the performance of the leader depends on two factors,
leadership style and the situation. Leadership styles
described within this theory are either task or
relationship motivated. Situational variables are
described by accessing three factors: leader-member
relationships, task structure and position power.
Fielder developed the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC)
scale to identify high and low scorers on the basis of
preferred leadership styles, compared to the situational
variables. High scorers are relationship motivated and
the low scorers are task motivated.
28
The contingency theory is highly supported by
empirical research, compares leadership style with
situations, provides predictability of which type of
leadership style will most likely be effective, provides
important data to the organization, which is taken from
real life situations, and can help develop leadership
profiles (Northouse, 2001). Several criticisms toward
the contingency theory include; it fails to explain why
certain leadership styles perform better in certain
situations than in others, the LPC scale is difficult to
work with, and the theory is cumbersome to use in real
world settings.
Path-Goal Theory.
Developed in 1971 (House), this theory describes the
manner in which a leader's behavior can influence the
follower's motivation and job satisfaction. This theory
suggests a relationship between four leadership styles,
subordinate characteristics, and task characteristics.
The four leadership styles are; directive, supportive,
participating, and achievement-oriented styles.
Subordinate characteristics determine how well the
leader's behavior is accepted by the subordinates in
given work situations. Focus is placed on the
subordinate's needs for affiliation, preference for the
organizational structure, and control measures, and thei
ability to accomplish tasks. The task characteristics
influence the leader's behavior toward the subordinates
through task design, formal authority system, and
development of work groups.
The leader is responsible for helping the followers
by clarifying their roles and to understand the
organizational goals to better accomplish their work in
satisfactory fashion. This process improves the
psychological state of the follower and provides higher
job satisfaction. The path-goal theory helps to explain
how task and employee characteristics affect leadership
and impact performance (Filley, et al., 1976). Table 2
illustrates the relationship between the Contingency and
Path-Goal model.
30
Table 2.
Contingency Relationships in the Path-Goal Leadership

Model
Leadership Effect
Style
Directive Positively affects satisfaction and

expectances of subordinates working on
ambiguous task.
Negatively affects satisfaction and

expectancies of subordinates working on
dissatisfying, stressful, or frustrating
tasks.
Supportive Positively affects satisfaction of

Subordinates working on clearly defined
Tasks.
Participative Positively affects satisfaction of

subordinates who are ego involved with
with non-repetitive tasks.
Achievement Positively affects confidence that effort

will lead to effective performance of
subordinates working on ambiguous and
non-repetitive tasks.
Source: Filley,A., House, R. and Kerr, S. (1976).
Managerial Process and Organizational Behavior, New York:
Scott, Foresman and Company
According to Northouse (2001) the path-goal approach
provides a useful framework for understanding how various
leadership behaviors affect employee satisfaction of
followers and their work performance. It attempts to
integrate motivation into the theory of leadership and
provides a model that illustrates ways leaders can help
31
subordinates. The major criticism against this theory is
complexity. The approach has so many aspects that it
quickly becomes confusing. It also fails to explain
adequately the relationship between leader behavior and
worker motivation and is viewed as "one-way", because the
burden is placed only on the leader to develop and guide
the follower to a successful completion of the task.
Leader-Member Exchange Theory.
This theory includes the relationship between
leaders and their followers in supporting mutual
influences and obligation between them (House, 1997).
Early studies (Dansereau e t . al, 1975; Graen & Cashman,
1975) of the Exchange Theory initially focused on
vertical relationships that the leaders formed with
followers. These studies suggest that leaders may
develop very different relationships with different
members of the same work group. This theory describes
how leaders develop different exchange relationships over
time with various followers. Two types of relationships
resulted from this approach; the in-group, whose
relationship was built on expanded and negotiation role
responsibilities and the out-group whose relationship was
32
developed based on the formal organizational structure
and defined roles. The leader-member exchange
relationship developed through three phases. The first
was the stranger stage, which is scripted or one way.
With time the relationship develops into the acquaintance
stage where communication is two-way. The relationship
further develops to the maturity stage, whereby a
partnership and a trusting relationship is developed. It
is believed that it is at this stage in the relationship
that positive organizational outcomes such as lower
turnover, increased productivity, employee satisfaction
and commitment are developed.
The positive aspects of this leadership approach
focuses on interactions between leaders and followers, it
challenges the assumptions that leaders treat all
followers the same, identified different relationship
between leaders and followers, and identified its linkage
to positive organizational outcomes (Northouse, 2001).
Weaknesses of this leadership approach include; it fails
to identify how high leader-member exchanges are created,
does not explain how to develop trust or respect, and is
difficult to use in a practical application.
33
Team-Leadership Theory.
This theory involves the leadership functions that
are necessary for group effectiveness such as monitoring
verses taking action. Two critical functions are
identified as part of this leadership approach; task
function, helping the group accomplish the task: and
maintenance function, to keep the group functioning. In
this theory, leadership is viewed as an ongoing process,
with a goal of meeting the needs of the team. Research
in this area has identified criteria that impact group
effectiveness. These criteria include clear goals,
results driven structure, competent team members, unified
commitment, a collaborative climate, standards of
excellence, external support and recognition, and
principled leadership. Bass (1990) reported that
effective leader-group relationships include group
structure and the members' relative positioning, along
with the effects of reaching group goals. The goal of
the team-leadership theory is for the team to manage
itself effectively while leadership works to support its
effort.
The major strength of this theory is that it has a
real-life focus on performance and team effectiveness.
34
It also allows leaders and members to diagnose and
correct team problems, it provides a comprehensive guide
to help leaders design and maintain effective teams
especially when performance becomes substandard, and
takes in account the changing roles of leaders and
followers within the organization. Criticism against
this leadership approach include; it is highly complex,
has not been convincingly tested, and does not provide
immediate responses to specific situations for the leader
(Northouse, 2001).
Transactional Leadership Theory.
Burns (1978) was the first theorist to use the term
transactional leadership when he described the leadership
behaviors of political leaders (Humphreys e t . al, 2003).
Bass (1985) working from the previous research of Burns,
further develop the transactional leadership theory.
Bass asserts that transactional leadership entails an
exchange between leader and follower in which the leader
rewards the follower for specific behaviors, and for
performance that meets with the leader's expectations
(Alimo-Metcalfe et. al, 2001). Criticism, punishment, or
sanctions are given to followers for non-performance or
35
lack of achievement. Transactional leaders do not
individualize the needs of the followers nor do they
focus on their personal development (Northouse, 2001).
Bass and Avolio's (1997) full range of leadership
included transactional leadership and identified three
factors of transactional leadership: contingent reward,
management-by-exception (active) , and management-by-
exception (passive). The contingent reward factor refers
to an exchange process between the leader and follower in
which the effort provided by the follower is exchanged
for a specified reward, feedback, or praise. Management-
by-exception (active) involves the leader actively
searching for errors and correcting problems as they are
detected. Management-by-exception (passive) is described
as when a leader sets standards and waits for problems to
arise and then reluctantly intervenes (Humphreys et. al,
2 003) . Management-by-exception (passive) and laissez-
faire represent the passive forms of leadership.
Laissez-Faire Leadership Theory.
The most passive leadership behavior is laissez-
faire, it is characterized by delays of action, absence,
36
and indifference (Sosik e t . al, 2002). This leadership
approach is considered non-leadership. As the French
phase implies, the leader takes a "hands off" or "it will
work itself out" approach. In this approach, the leader
abdicates responsibility to the group or others, delays
decisions, provide little to no feedback, and makes no
effort to solve or correct deteriorating conditions.
According to Lewin (1939) the single strength to
come from this form of leadership is that leaders will
emerge and establish themselves and they will accomplish
the work as they see fit without the fear of leader
interference. If leadership does not emerge, the group
may drift aimlessly without direction from a leader.
In 1997, Bass and Avolio further refined their
leadership theory. They developed the full range of
leadership model, which describes leadership across a
diverse range. The full range of leadership model
proposes that leaders display some degree of
transactional, laissez-faire, and transformational
leadership style behaviors dependent on the situation
(Sosik e t . al, 2002). Table 3. illustrates the
relationship between the three leadership styles and
worker performance.
37
Table 3.
Leadership Behaviors and Performance

Leadership behaviors Performance
Transformational
• Visioning
• Inspiring
• Stimulating Beyond Expectations
• Coaching
• Team-building
Transactional
• Rewarding Meets Expectations
• Coaching
Laissez-faire
• Avoiding Below Expectations
Section Summary.
This section discussed the historical
development of the various leadership theories and how
the theory influenced the behavior of leaders or the
followers. These theories include the trait, behavior
style, situational leadership, contingency, path-goal,
leader-member exchange, and team-leadership theories.
Also discussed were the transactional, laissez-faire, and
transformational leadership styles, all of which are the
current focus of leadership research. The
38
transformational leadership style of leadership is
discussed in greater detail in the next section.
Historical Perspective of Transformational Leadership
Although the transformational model is a relatively
new construct, the components, factors, and behaviors
that make up transformational leadership have long been
part of management thought (Humphreys, et al., 2003).
Written principles regarding leadership and the
leader/follower relationship were beginning to emerge as
much as 5,000 years ago. Chinese leaders, such as
Confucius and Asoka encouraged those in power to become
moral for the purpose of doing good for their followers
and their development (Humphreys, et al., 2003).
According to Plato, a leader must have charisma, a gift
of grace, to be successful in his action; without
charisma, a leader is unable to do his/her job (Aaltio-
Marjosola, et al., 2000). Freud made it clear in his
research that leadership involved more than simple
exchange processes implicit in most situational theories
(Van Wart, 2003). He indicates that positive responses
from leadership increased positive responses and improved
self-esteem of the follower. Leadership theory can also
39
be traced to the work of Max Weber (1947), who
differentiated charismatic forms of authority (Javidan,
et al., 2003). He asserted that charismatic authority
derived its legitimate power from faith in the personal
character of the leader, not from rules or traditions
(Conger e t . al, 1998).
The term transformational leadership was developed
by Downton in 1973. In 1978, Burns was the first scholar
to distinguish between transactional and transformational
leadership. He described transactional leadership as a
series of exchanges and bargains between leaders and
followers. Transformational leadership goes beyond
exchanges or inducements for desired performance by
developing intellectually stimulating and inspiring
followers to transcend their own self-interests for a
higher collective purpose (Boehnke, et al., 2003). He
also described transformational leadership as the
transformation of the organization and personnel in the
leadership process (Rada, 1999). In 1997, Bass and
Avolio further distinguished transformational leaders as
leaders that work to change the organization, whereas
transactional leaders work within the existing
organizational structure (Tucker, et al., 2004). With
40
this approach defined, the 1980s observed a major shift
from transactional to transformational leadership that
continues today.
Transformational Leadership Defined
Burns' theory of transformational leadership refers
to "the process whereby an individual engages with others
and creates a connection that raises the level of
motivation and morality in both the leader and the
follower" (Northouse, 2001, p.132). Burns (1978) stated,
"moral leadership emerges from and always return to, the
fundamental wants and needs of the followers" (p. 4). He
adds that "transforming leadership ultimately becomes
moral in that it raises the level of human contact and
ethical aspiration of both the leader and the led, and
thus it has a transforming effect on both" (p. 20). In
his research Burns first identified this form of
leadership as "transforming leadership," which occurs
when one or more persons engage with others in such as
way that leaders and followers raise one another to
higher levels of motivation and morality (Humphreys e t .
al, 2003).
41
Bass (1990) describes transformational leadership as
superior leadership performance, which occurs when
leaders broaden and evaluate the interests of the
followers, when they generate awareness and acceptance of
the purposes and mission of the group, and when they stir
the followers to look beyond their own self-interest for
the good of the organization. Black and Porter (2000)
define transformational leadership as, "leadership that
motivates followers to ignore self-interests and work for
the larger good of the organization to achieve
significant accomplishments; emphasis is on articulating
a vision that will convince subordinates to make major
changes" (Friedman, et al., 2000). Hines (2002)
describes transformational leadership as a process of
positive influence that changes and transforms
individuals, organizations, and communities. While there
is no consensus as to the definition of transformational
leadership, all definitions make it clear that
transformation represents a change within organizations
and their leaders.
42
Transformational Leadership
Organizations today are facing enormous and
demanding challenges, especially government agencies.
These agencies face major budget restraints and
downsizing to meet the requirement of a smaller
government bureaucracy. It will take strong leadership
to maintain current levels of service or production with
fewer resources. Transformational leadership theories
may provide a useful lens for understanding how leaders
impact the management of the organization. Leadership,
like intelligence, is mostly an innate quality (Sibson,
1994). Drucker (1974) stated,
"there are ... thousands if not millions of managers and
leadership is always the rare exception and confined to a
very few individuals" (p.368). Most effective managers
can learn to become transformational leaders or
transition from transactional to transformational
leadership styles.
Friedman, et al. (2000) developed six
characteristics, they believe are key to the
transformational style of leadership:
• Vision - transformational leaders have to be able
to develop a clear vision of the future.
43
• Charisma and Inspiration - charismatic leaders have
the ability to influence others because of their
inspirational qualities. According to Bass (1990)
attaining charisma in the eyes of the followers is
a critical step in becoming a transformational
leader. Charismatic leaders exert an enormous
amount of influence on followers (Conger, et al.,
1988 and Howell, et al. 1989).
• Intellectual Stimulation and Creativity -
transformational leaders are agents of
revolutionary change. Enabling followers to think
of old problems in new ways (Sosik, et a l ., 2000).
• Individual Consideration/Interactivity -
transformational leaders must communicate their
vision and provide guidance for their followers.
Personalized attention is given to followers to
promote their development and achievement (Sosik,
et a l ., 2000) .
• Honesty and Integrity - a transformational leader
must be honest and ethical to be effective.
• Confidence and Optimism - transformational leaders
must project confidence and optimism.
44
Another perspective developed by Boehnke, et al.
(2003) contends that five primary behaviors create
success.
• Visioning - the leader clearly communicates a
vision for the future that is shared by the
members of the organization. This vision must be
optimistic for the future, the need for
achievement, and instill confidence and
enthusiasm.
• Inspiring - the leader generates excitement for
work and heightens the expectations of the
followers by using symbols and images
effectively. Followers are motivated to accept
the leaders optimism, passion, and confidence,
which in-turn builds self-confidence in the
followers.
• Stimulating - the transformational leader arouses
interest in new ideas and makes followers to
think in new ways. The transformational leader
encourages followers to guestion the old way of
accomplishing tasks, and creating innovative.
45
• Coaching - the transformational leader coaches,
advises, and provides hands-on guidance to the
followers. They listen attentively and express
encouragement to achieve the high expectations of
the leader's vision.
• Team building - The transformational leader
builds effective teams, whose skills complement
each other. They instill trust and self-
confidence in the team by sharing information,
removing obstacles, and relinquishing leadership.
This study will use the Bass and Avolio
transformational leadership dimensions when analyzing the
government agency being studied as part of this research.
Bass and Avolio (1994) proposed that transformational
leadership is comprised of four major dimensions:
• Idealized Influence is described as behavior that
results in follower admiration, respect and
trust. "Hesselbein, Goldsmith & Beckhard (1996)
described leader trust as, "the best leaders are
transparent: they do what they say; they "walk
the talk" ... people believe them because they act
46
in line with the values they espouse" (p. 137).
Trust involves risk sharing on the part of
managers. O'Toole (1995) wrote, "the leadership
challenge is to provide the 'glue' to cohere
independent units ... only one element has been
identified as powerful enough ... that is trust"
(Peters, 1997, p. 142).
• Inspirational Motivation - this dimension is
reflected in behaviors that provide meaning and
challenges for followers. Charismatic leadership
is a key element of this dimension. Charismatic
leaders can inspire and excite their employees
with the idea that they may be able to accomplish
great things with extra effort (Bass, 1990).
Sosik, Potosky, and Jung (2002) described
inspirational motivation as communicating high
performance expectations through the powerful,
confident, and dynamic presence.
• Intellectual Stimulation - this dimension enables
followers to question assumptions, to try new
approaches, and to think-out old problems in new
ways. Transformational leaders help followers
47
focus on long-term oriented and high-end needs
such as self-esteem and self-actualization (Jung
& Yammarino, 2001) .
• Individual Consideration - this dimension is
reflected by leaders that pay special attention
to follower achievement and personal growth.
These transformational leaders pay close
attention to the concerns and developmental needs
of the followers (Cacioppe, 1997).
Research indicates that leaders can expect better
performance when they use transformational leadership
principles (Wofford, et a l ., 2001). This same research
indicates that transformational leadership principles are
best used with followers who have high growth needs as
opposed to those with low motive or growth requirements.
Other research (Church & Waclawski, 1998) results
indicate transformational leaders are innovators and
motivators, whereas transactional leaders are more
planned and controlled. Transformational leadership has
a strong positive relationship with employee commitment
(Bass, 1998, Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001) .
48
Gender Influence on Transformational Leadership.
Claes (1999) describes gender as the cultural,
social, and psychological traits of individuals as
masculine or feminine, based on typicality for each sex,
but which may be ascribed to traits of either biological
sex (Vinnicombe, et al., 2002). Spence, et al. (1975)
defines sex roles as the characteristics, attitudes,
values, and behaviors that society specifies as
appropriate for the particular biological sex type.
"Many authors explicitly refer to transformational
leadership as a "feminine" leadership style" (Carless,
1998; Van Engen, Van Leeden, & Wilemsen, 2001;Helgesen,
1990). In leadership research, gender has been
distinguished from sex, with the former viewed as a
collection of qualities labeled male and female (Gray,
1994; Ponder, et al ., 2002). A number of studies support
the notion that men and women value different leader
characteristics (Valentine, et al., 2000). Male gender
qualities are characterized as aggressive, independent,
objective, logical, rational, analytical, decisive,
confident, assertive, ambitious, opportunistic, and
impersonal (Park, 1996). These are distinguished from
female gender qualities described as emotional,
49
sensitive, expressive, cooperative, intuitive, warm,
tactful, receptive to ideas, talkative, gentle,
empathetic, and submissive, (Park, 1996). Women, in
general, are more likely to describe the style of
leadership they adopt as transformational; men, in
general, are more likely to describe their leadership in
transactional terms, (Rosener, 1990; Alban-Metcalfe, et
all, 2000). By distinguishing gender from sex allows the
female leader to exhibit male gender qualities and vise
versa. Rosener (1990) found that women tended to spend
more time building relationships, understanding the
people they work with to determine what motivates them
while men tend to have employees adapt to their
management style (Lee, 1994). Transformational leaders
scored low on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) on measures of masculine attributes, dominance,
aggression, and criticalness (Ross & Offermann, 1997).
During the past two decades, research on transformational
leadership has shown support that gender differences do
exist in a limited number of studies (Rosener, 1990;
Bass, et al., 1996), while previous research had revealed
that no gender differences existed (Bass, 1981; Powell,
1990) . Most of the research indicates that men and women
50
leaders actually engage in similar leadership behaviors
(Butterfield & Grinnell, 1999; Dobbins & Platz, 1986;
Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Klene, 1993; Van Engen &
Willensen, 2000; Van Engen & Willensen, 2001; Vinkenburg,
Jansen, & Koopman, 2000). Hackman, et al., (1992)
described transformational leadership as an androgynous
style, equally available to men and women (Manning,
2002 ) .
Cultural Influence on Transformational Leadership.
Bass (1997) has argued that transformational
leadership is universally applicable. Bass proposed
that, regardless of culture, transformational leadership
inspires followers to transcend their own self-interests
for the good of the group or organization, (Carless,
1998). Bass also proposes that the globalization of the
use of transformational leadership style is based on the
United States being used as the example for educational
and business practices, which promotes transformational
leadership.
Results from a multinational GLOBE study confirmed
that elements of transformational leadership such as
vision, proactivity, and ability to motivate are
51
recognized universally. These elements effectively
change leadership behaviors and emotions, which are
congruent with culturally accepted models of leadership
are more effective in most cultures (Den Hartog, et al.,
1999; House, et al., 1997 and Manning, 2003). A
multinational study conducted by Gardner and Stough
(2002),revealed that cross-cultural leadership
competencies, emotional self-regulation and recognition
of other's emotions (empathy) were strongly related to
transformational leadership (Manning, 2003).
Transformational leadership emerges more readily in
the collectivistic societies of East Asia (Jung, et al.,
1995). A study by Jung and Yammarino (2001) comparing
transformational leadership efforts among Asian Americans
and Caucasian Americans found that Asian Americans were
more group oriented, which relates to the team building
aspect of transformational leadership. This study also
revealed that these effects of transformational
leadership were more positive, and generally stronger
among Asian Americans than among Caucasian Americans.
52
Section Summary.
This section provided a literature review and
discussed several aspects related to transformational
leadership. Described in this section are the key six
characteristics of transformational leadership developed
by Friedman, et a l ., the five primary behavior factors
for success developed by Boehnke, et a l ., and Bass and
Avolio's four dimensions of transformational leadership.
Also discussed in this section was the relationship of
transformational leadership to gender and cultural
influences.
Historical Perspective of Organizational Commitment
This section will briefly discuss the historical
development of the major organizational commitment
theories. A more detailed analysis of the theories or
models will be conducted later in this chapter.
Becker (1960) was the first researcher to define and
operationalize the organizational commitment concept.
His theory was based on the premise that organizational
commitment is built on the principle of consistent
behavior. Etzioni (1961) suggests an organizational
commitment model focusing on employee compliance with
53
organizational objectives. Grusky's (1966) commitment
research is based on the rewards system: the greater the
rewards to the individual, the greater the commitment to
the organization. Kanter (1968) was another
organizational commitment researcher, who suggests
different types of commitment result from different
behavioral requirements imposed on employees by the
organization. Sheldon (1971) proposes that
organizational commitment is investment oriented and that
it takes both investment and social involvement to
develop commitment to the organization.
More recent research on organizational commitment
includes Straw and Salancik (1977) who developed an
organizational model consisting of two principle aspects
of organizational commitment, behavior and attitudinal.
Steers (1977) conducted extensive research into the
processes by which organizational commitments are formed
and identified potential antecedents such as personal,
job, leader/group relations, and organizational
characteristics. Mathieu and Zajac (1990) conducted a
meta analysis of organizational commitment and concluded
that two prominent types of organizational commitment are
attitudinal and calculated. Meyer and Allen's (1990)
54
model recognizes the values of different facts toward
commitment and integrates them into a three dimensional
construct consisting of three components, affective,
continuance, and normative commitment. Table 4 depicts
the development of organizational commitment as it
relates to the theory or models of the researchers.
Table 4
Evolution of Organizational Commitment

Researcher(s) Y ear P ropositions
1 2 3
B ecke r 1960 Side B ets
G ru sky 1966 Rew ards
K a n te r 1968 C ontinuous C ohesion C o n tro l
S heldon 1971 S o c ia liz a tio n Investm ent
P o rte r et al. 1974 A ffe c tiv e C ontinuance
W e in e r & G echm an 1977 S o c ia liz a tio n N o rm a tive
S alan ick & Staw 1977 A ttitu d in a l B eh a vio ra l
M a th ie u & Z ajac 1990 A ttitu d in a l C alculated
A lle n & M e ye r 1990 A ffe c tiv e C ontinuance N o rm a tive
1991
1997
Source: K im b e l, R . (2002). The re la tio n sh ip betw een em ployee’s co n stru ctive
th in k in g a b ility and o rg an iza tion a l com m itm ent. U npub lish e d d o c to ria l disse rtatio n ,
N o va Southeastern U n iv e rs ity , F t. Lauderdale, F L
Organizational Commitment Defined
Organizational commitment has over the years been
defined and measured in many different ways. However,
the various definitions and measures share a common theme
in that organizational commitment is considered to be a
55
bond or linking of individuals to the organization,
(Meyer & Allen, 1997; Lee, et al. 1992; Mowday, et al.,
1979; Weiner & Gechman, 1977; Salancik, 1977; Buchanan,
1974; Hrebiniak & Aultto, 1972; Sheldon, 1971; Hall, et
al., 1970; Brown, 1969; Ranter, 1968; Grusky, 1966:
Becker, 1960). Because of the significant differences in
the definitions of organizational commitment, no single
definition has been established. A review of previous
research resulted in the following list of definitions:
• An attitude or an orientation toward the
organization, which links or attaches the
identity of the person to the organization
(Sheldon, 1971, p. 143).
• The willingness of socialactors to give their
energy and loyalty to social systems, the
attachment of personality systems to social
relations, which are seen as self-expressive
(Ranter, 1968, p. 499).
• A structural phenomenon, which occurs as a result
of individual-organizational transactions and
alterations in side bets and investments over
time (Hrebiniak & Aultto, 1972, p. 556).
56
• A state of being in which an individual becomes
bound through his or her actions and through
these actions to beliefs that sustain the
activities and his own involvement (Salancik,
1977, P. 62) .
• The process by which the goals of the
organization and those of the individual become
increasingly integrated or congruent (Hall, et
al., 1970, p. 489).
• The nature of the relationship of the member to
the system as a whole (Grusky, 1966, p. 489).
• (1) It includes something of the notion of
membership; (2)it reflects the current position
of the individual; (3) it has a special
predictive potential, providing predictions
concerning certain aspects of performance,
motivation of work, spontaneous contribution, and
other related outcomes; (4) and it suggests the
differential relevance of motivational factors
(Brown, 1969, p. 347).
57
• When a person, by making a side-bet, links
extraneous interests with a consistent line of
activity (Becker, 1960, p. 32).
• Socially accepted behaviors that exceed formal
and/or normative expectations relevant to the
object of commitment (Weiner & Gechman, 1977, p.
48) .
• A partisan, affective attachment to the goals and
values of an organization, to one's role in
relation to goals and values, and to the
organization for its own sake, apart from its
purely instrumental worth (Buchanan, 1974, p.
533) .
• The relative strength of an individual's
identification with and involvement in a
particular organization (Mowday, Steers & Porter,
1979, p. 26) .
• An individual's involvement with and strong
identification to an organization (Lee, et al.
1992)
• A psychological state that characterizes the
employee's relationship with the organization,
58
and has implications for the decision to continue
membership in the organization (Meyer & Allen,
1997, p. 11).
Even though no clearly defined definition of
organizational commitment could be found, it is clear
that commitment is dependent on how the followers define
their relationship to the organization.
Organizational Commitment
Becker (1960) proposes that "commitment comes into
being when a person, by making a side-bet, links
extraneous interests with a consistent line of activity"
(p. 32). A side-bet is described as anything the
follower would view as valuable or as an investment such
as time, effort, money, pension plans, work
relationships, or organizational skills. Becker's theory
views commitment as a behavioral approach that
predisposes employees to engage in those behaviors
consistently as a result of the accumulation of "side
bets" that would be lost if the behaviors were
discontinued (Meyer & Allen, 1984). If the follower or -
organization discontinued this relationship, these
investments would be lost. Thus the follower would have
59
to consider the possible negative consequences of leaving
the organization and evaluate the rewards if' they decided
to continue their service.
Etzioni's (1961) commitment model is based on the
argument that any actual or perceived authority or power
of organizations over individuals is rooted in the nature
of their commitment to the organization. Based on this
model, organizations have substantially less authority or
power over individuals who have lower levels of
commitment and more authority over individuals with
higher commitment levels.
Etzioni (1961) suggests that individual involvement
or commitment takes one of three forms: (1) morale
involvement, (2) calculative involvement, and (3)
alienative involvement. Morale involvement represents a
positive and intense orientation toward the organization
based on internalization of the organization's goals,
values, norms, and identification with authority.
Calculative involvement represents a less intense
relationship with the organization and is based on an
exchange relationship. Alienative involvement represents
a negative orientation toward the organization and is
60
typically found in situations where individual behavior
is severely constrained such as prison environments.
Kanter (1968) takes a different view of
organizational commitment. Her model suggests three
different forms of commitment: (1) continuance, (2)
cohesion, and (3) control commitment. Continuance
commitment represents the individuals' dedication to the
survival of the organization. It requires individual's
to make personal sacrifices to join or remain with the
organization. Cohesion commitment is identified as an
attachment to social relationships in an organization
brought on by techniques as public renunciation of
previous social ties or by engaging in activities that
influence group cohesion (Kanter, 1968). Control
commitment is identified as an individual's attachment to
the organization's norms that shape behavior in desired
directions. It exists when employees believe their
organization's norms and values serve as a model for
suitable behavior. Consequently, these behaviors
translate into, "What is good for the organization is
good for me."
Kanter (1968) views the commitment forms that
comprise this model as being very interrelated.
61
Organizations can use all three approaches simultaneously
to influence higher levels of organizational commitment.
The approaches are viewed as being mutually reinforcing
as they jointly influence different aspects of the three
different commitment approaches.
Research conducted by Staw (1977) and Salancik
(1977) synthesized the many commitment models into two
aspects: (1) behavioral commitment based on the idea that
an individual's past behavior binds them to the
organization, and (2) attitudinal commitment is based on
the individual's identification with the goals and values
of the organization and their strong desire to remain.
The behavior approach to organizational commitment mainly
concerns the processes by which individuals develop a
sense of attachment, not to any particular organization,
but to their own behavior issues (Oliver, 1990). The
exchange relationship also influences the behavior
approach to commitment in that individuals weigh the
costs with the rewards and determine an appropriate level
of commitment. Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972) emphasize
this exchange relationship between individuals and their
organization by suggesting that the more favorable the
exchange, the greater the commitment.
62
The attitudinal approach views organizational
commitment as an attitude reflecting the nature and
quality of the linkage between an individual and the
organization (Oliver, 1990; Mowday et al., 1974; Porter
et al., 1974, 1979). This approach portrays a highly
committed individual as having: (1) a strong belief in
and acceptance of the organization's goals and values,
(2) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf
of the organization, and (3) a strong desire to maintain
membership in the organization (Porter, et al., 1979).
Steers (1977) suggest that there are antecedents
(causes) and consequences (results) to organizational
commitment. Steers conducted in-depth research into the
processes by which organizational commitment is formed.
He identified potential antecedents of commitment such as
personal characteristics including age, marital status,
and education; role states such as role ambiguity, role
conflict, and role overload; job characteristics such as
skill variety and job challenge; group/leader relations
such as group cohesiveness and leader communication; and
organizational characteristics such as size and
centralization. Steers also researched the consequences
of organizational commitment and how commitment
63
influences vocational behaviors such as the desire to
maintain employment, engage in appropriate attendance,
and job performance activities. Figure 1 illustrates the
relationship between the antecedents and outcomes of
organizational commitment as developed by Steers.
Figure 1
Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment
1. Antecedents 2. Outcomes
Personal C haracteristics
(need fo r achievem ent,
age, education)
O utcom es
D e sire to rem ain
In te n t to R em ain
Job C haracteristics O rg an iza tio na l
(task id e n tity , o ptio n al C om m itm ent
A ttendance
in te ra ctio n , feedback)
E m ployee R etention
Job P erform ance

W o rk E xperience
(group attitu d es,
o rg a n iza tio n a l
d e p e n d a b ility, personal
im p o rt)
Source: Steers, R. (1977).
64
Organizational Commitment Theory Used in this Study.
The most recent and most widely used theory is the
organizational commitment theory by Meyer and Allen
(1997). They define commitment as "a psychological state
that (a) characterizes the employee's relationship with
the organization, and (b) has implications for the
decision to continue membership in the organization" (p.
11). These researchers further subdivide commitment into
the three components of affective, continuance, and
normative commitment. They describe the characteristics
of these components as:
• Affective Commitment - refers to the employee's
emotional attachment to, identification with, and
involvement in the organization. Research conducted
by Finegold and Mohrman (2001) found that employees
identify more closely with the company if they
believe that management has a viable and well-
communicated strategy for success and that being
part of an innovative organization is important for
retention and commitment. Employees that fall into
this category express feelings that they are
65
valuable assets to the organization and contribute
greatly to its success.
• Continuance Commitment refers to an awareness of the
costs associated with leaving the organization.
Many employees realize they are unhappy; however,
the prospect of leaving may not provide the current
level of security or stability. Risks associated
with this component may be financial, relate to
personal satisfaction, or position status. Goldman,
et al., (2001) identified the late career group
(personnel over 50) as one group in particular that
believed job security was the major factor for their
retention.
• Normative Commitment reflects a feeling of
obligation on the part of the employees.
Organizations that have high levels of personal
self-development programs such as free education or
family in crisis programs tend to develop loyalty
from those employees that benefit from such
programs. This commitment component creates the
perception that employees have a moral obligation to
repay the goodwill provided by the organization by
66
being loyal and remaining with the organization.
The "leader-member exchange" theory created by Graen
and Haga (1975) identifies this association as a
strong relationship that supports this commitment
component (Graen & Haga, 1975; Graen, Liden & Hoel,
1982; Griffeth & Horn, (2001).
Almost all research on the topic of commitment
discusses one other key factor that has strong
implications for organizational commitment, that element
is employee involvement in the organization. For
instance, research conducted by Weiss (1998) concludes
that employee involvement, cooperation, and commitment
are primary reasons for successful leadership. O'Malley
(2002) asserts that employee commitment is good for
business in three ways:
• Enhanced persistence - employees with high levels
of commitment are less likely to quit, retire or
be absent from work.
• Higher citizenship levels - committed employees
are more likely to help others and volunteer for
special projects, and tend to be more ethical.
67
• Increased organizational performance - committed
employees are more likely to increase the level
and quality of their productivity.
Section Summary.
This section briefly described the historical
evolution of organizational commitment and the numerous
definitions of the organizational commitment concept.
This section also described the various aspects of the
different organizational commitment theories to include
the conceptual models and antecedents and outcomes
obtained from the research.
Impact of Transformational Leadership on Employee

Commitment in the Public Sector
According to Bycio, et al., 1995 and Podsakoff, et
al., 1990, findings suggest that transformational
leadership behavior is associated with employee
commitment as well as trust in the leader and positive
organizational citizenship behaviors (Humphreys, et al.,
2003). Bass (1985), McCloskey and McCain (1987), and
McNeese-Smith (1995) also established a linkage between
leadership and the organizational commitment of
employees. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between
68
transformational leadership style and organizational
commitment.
Figure 2
Relationship Between the Transformational Leadership

Style and Organizational Commitment
Leader ------ ► Behaviors --------- ► Followers
T ra n sfo rm a tio n a l * C harism atic * Shared V is io n

Leadership * In sp ira tio n a l * A S e lf-w o rth /
* In te lle c tu a l esteem
s tim u la tio n * M e a n in g fu l
* In d iv id u a l w o rk
consideration * Feels va lu ed
Organizational Outcome
R esults in * L o y a lty is up
C o m p e titive A dvantage < --- * O rg an iza tio na l C o m m itm en t
is up
* Job S a tisfa ctio n is up
* M o ra le is up
* Job P erform ance is up
Little empirical data exists relating to studies of
transformational leadership and its impact on the public
sector. A 10-year ABI-Inform literature review conducted
69
by Javidan and Waldman (2003) on charismatic leadership
in the public sector produced only minor references.
Weber (1996) believes this is probably because public
bureaucracies are created to minimize human interaction
and to maximize standardization of rules and procedures.
Guyot (1962) conducted a study during the 1960s,
which studied the variation between private and public
sector leaders (Van Wart, 2003). Fisher's (1962)
research revealed that federal managers did not have any
formal management/leadership training. Almost no
attention was given to public sector leadership during
the 1970s, and it was not until the introduction of
transformational leadership in management during the
1980s that leader training was provided. Even during
this period, studies were conducted primarily for the
military (Van Fleet, et a l ., 1986). Today, almost all
federal agencies have their own leadership programs where
various types of leadership theories are taught,
including transformational leadership.
Research conducted by Parry, et al. (2003) of
federal leadership and performance found the public
sector had a higher level of transactional organizational
culture and lower levels of transformational
70
organizational culture. They concluded that by promoting
transformational leadership within the organization it
would become more transformational and more open to
innovation. Chen (2004) suggests that training leaders
to exert transformational leadership, employee's
commitment, job satisfaction, and performance may be
enhanced.
Impact of Downsizing on Employee Commitment
Employers and researchers have recently given
considerable attention to the effect on employees
commitment during organizational downsizing (Allen, et
al., 2001). Most empirical research relating to
organizational downsizing has focused on changes in the
survivor. Little research is available that provides
information relating to the perceptions of the layoff
victims or how they felt during the downsizing process.
Most research indicates that downsizing results in
negative outcomes such as loss of skills, learning,
innovation, and the rise of negative emotions including
anger, frustration, and guilt (Sahdev, 2003).
A study conducted by Naumann (1998) studied the
impact lay offs have on organizational commitment. This
71
study suggests that a positive relationship exists
between interactional justice (trust and honest
communication) and organizational support with a high
degree of commitment observed by the downsizing victim.
Shirley (1973) reinforced the importance of trust in top
management as a determinant of employee reactions to
proposed change (Schraeder, et al., 2003). Research by
Eisenberger, et al., (1990), suggests that employees who
perceive their employers as being highly supportive will
(1) more often interpret organizational gains and losses
as their own, (2) develop evaluation basis in assessing
organizational characteristics and actions, and (3) adopt
organizational values and norms as their own. McFarlin
and Sweeney (1992) argue that if employees have evidence
they are being treated fairly in a negative situation,
they will continue to have a high level of commitment. A
study by Isaksson and Johansson (2000) supports this
finding. They report that the perceived fairness of the
downsizing process, influence over the downsizing
process, and prior organizational commitment are all-
important in the reactions of the followers to downsizing
and continued job satisfaction (Roan, et al., 2002).
72
Research conducted by House and Aditya (1997) and
Lowe, et al . (1996) found that transformational and
charismatic leadership styles "result in a high level of
follower motivation and commitment and well-above-average
organizational performance, especially under conditions
of crisis or uncertainty" (Bryant, 2003). According to
Greenspan (2002), only by treating employees as
enlightened and empowered individuals during their
employment, during a downsizing, and after they have been
terminated, can an organization expect to hold onto the
loyalty, respect, and commitment it received from its
workforce. When an organization provides employees
advance warning of an organizational downsizing, it
provides time for the employees to explore the job
market, adjust to the changes, and may also send the
message of concern for the employees, which could have a
positive long-term impact on employee morale and
commitment (Ting, 1996; Brocker, et al., 1992 and Guinn,
1988). Additional research (Chadwick, et al., 2004)
suggests that, especially for survivors, advance notice
can lessen distractions and disaffection and allow
employees to focus on their work. Results from a study
(Allen et al. 2001), found that downsizing had a
73
generally negative impact on work attitudes; but after
time organizational commitment returned when
organizational support was provided prior to the
downsizing process (Devine, et al., 2003).
Research Question
This study addresses the research question, "Does
transformational leadership impact the commitment level
of government employees?" The results obtained from this
study may determine if transformational leadership is a
key element to employee commitment in a downsizing
organization. The following hypotheses will be tested:
Hypothesis 1
H 1. There is a positive relationship between
transformational leadership and the commitment level of
government e m p l o y e e s .
H n 1. There is no relationship between transformational
leadership and the commitment level of government
employees.
74
Hypothesis 2
H 2. Transformational leadership will have a positive
impact on government employees during the downsizing
process.
H n 2. Transformational leadership will have no impact on
government employees during the downsizing process.
Hypothesis 3
H 3. Transformational leadership is the primary style of
leadership effecting government employee commitment.
Hn 3. Transformational leadership is not the primary
style of leadership effecting employee commitment.
Chapter Summary
Chapter II examined two constructs, transformational
leadership and organizational commitment and is divided
into three sections. The first section discussed the
evolution of leadership and the various leadership
theories. It also discussed the historical perspective
of transformational leadership and how transformational
leadership is defined by numerous researchers. The
section concluded with a detailed discussion of the
75
aspects of transformational leadership and the impact it
has on gender and cultural influences.
The second section of this chapter described the
historical perspective of organizational commitment and
how it evolved. Also discussed were various definitions
currently being considered to describe organizational
commitment and an in-depth discussion of the various
theories of organizational commitment.
The third section of this chapter discussed
additional aspects effecting employee commitment. The
impact of transformational leadership on employee
commitment of a government organization is discussed.
Also discussed was the impact that downsizing has on the
victim's and survivor's level of commitment. This
section provided background data for data obtained as the
result of this research.
As illustrated by the literature review,
transformational leadership and organizational commitment
are tightly linked. Research by Fuller, Morrison, Jones,
Bridger, and Brown (1999) supports this by indicating
that employee empowerment has been determined to enhance
the relationship between job satisfaction, commitment,
and transformational leadership.
76
Chapter III
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Introduction and Overview
Chapter I provided the purpose and significance of
the study: to determine if transformational leadership
will impact the commitment level of government employees
during a time of organizational downsizing. Chapter II
provided background and a detailed literature review of
and the impact both have on employee commitment.
Chapter III presents the design and methodology used
to obtain data to answer the study's research question
and hypotheses. This chapter defines the variables used
in the survey instrument, population and sample size, and
data analysis procedures. This chapter also describes,
is the instruments selected to survey the impacts of
transformational leadership and employee commitment along
with previous research that supports the instrument's
validity. The statistical analysis techniques that will
be used to evaluate the data obtain from the surveys will
be discussed, along with the threats to the study's
validity and limitations.
77
Research Question and Hypotheses
This study addresses the research question, "Does
of government employees?" The results obtained from this
study may determine if transformational leadership is a
key element to employee commitment in a downsizing
organization. The following hypotheses were tested:
Hypothesis 1
H 1. There is a positive relationship between
transformational leadership and the commitment level of
government employees.
Hn 1. There is no relationship between transformational
leadership and the commitment level of government
employees.
Hypothesis 2
H 2. Transformational leadership will have a positive
process.
Hn 2. Transformational leadership will have no or little
process.
78
Hypotheses 3
H 3. Transformational leadership is the primary style
of leadership effecting government employee commitment.
H n 3. Transformational leadership is not the primary
style of leadership effecting government employee
commitment.
Research Design
This study examines the relationship between
in order to determine the impact that transformational
leadership has on the commitment level of government
employees during the downsizing process. The study will
evaluate the relationship between the independent
variable of leadership and the dependent variable of
organizational commitment and will be a correlation
rather than causal relationship. Correlation studies
describe relationships between variables and provide
evidence for or against a particular theoretical
perspective (Brink & Wood, 1998).
The population being studied is a defined group of
federal employees from one segment of one specific
agency, whom are facing the prospect of downsizing due to
79
the implementation of the Federal Activities Inventory
Reduction Act of 1998. Variables are neither controlled
nor manipulated, with no artificial settings created for
this study. The results obtained from the survey of the
segmented population can be extended to the agency as a
whole.
The three-component survey was formulated into an
electronic survey format. The survey was developed to
obtain information relating to three demographics,
leadership styles, and employee commitment. The
electronic survey was transmitted to the survey
population through the agency's electronic mail system.
The survey was accompanied with an email cover letter
asking the employee's voluntary assistance in completing
and returning the completed survey. The accompanying
cover letter explained the purpose of the survey, that
their responses would be confidential, that the data
gathering technique could not single out any specific
respondent or leader, and request that surveys be
returned in ten working days. On the seventh working day
a reminder email was sent as a reminder for those
employees who had not returned the survey. The results
80
of the survey were consolidated into an electronic
database for analysis.
Survey subjects were provided the explanation for
the purpose of the survey, which was to obtain data to
determine the relationship between leadership styles and
organizational commitment. In order to not influence the
research results, the cover letter made no mention that
transformational leadership style was the specific
leadership style being studied. Also no mention was
given relating to the Fair Act, or its impact on
employees as the Act is implemented. It is assumed the
employees are cognizant of the knowledge of and impact
the FAIR Act is having on the organization and employees.
It is believed this knowledge is reflective of their
commitment level and will influence their response to the
survey questions.
Variables: Dependent and Independent
The research conducted through this study represents
an attempt to identify the relationships between two
variables' a single dependent variable of organizational
commitment and the single independent variable of
transformational leadership. This research seeks to
81
understand the relationship among the variables
identified by the study and to determine if
transformational leadership impacts the commitment level
of government employees during the downsizing process
imposed by the FAIR Act.
The dependent variable identified for this research
project was organizational commitment, which was measured
using the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ)
developed by Mowday, Steers, and Porter. The construct
of organizational commitment, as it relates to employee
identification with the organization (Lee et al., 1992).
The definition of employee commitment used for this study
is "the reflective strength of an individual's
identification with and involvement in a particular
organization" (Mowday et a l ., 1979, p. 226).
The independent variable identified for this
research was transformational leadership, which was
measured using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
developed by Bass and Avolio. Bass (1990) describes
transformational leadership as superior leadership
performance, which occurs when leaders broaden and
evaluate the interests of the followers, when they
generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and
82
mission of the group, and when they stir the followers to
look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the
organization. Bass and Avolio (1994) proposed that
transformational leadership comprises four major
dimensions. These dimensions are idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individual consideration. These dimensions are the
transformational leadership dimensions being evaluated as
part of the survey.
Population and Sample
The unit of measurement used for this study was
government employees. This study was designed to survey
532 employees from one segment of a specific government
agency, coming from one of the agency's thirteen regions.
This region has an identical organizational structure and
is located in eight states in the southern and
southeastern United States. The sample is made up of a
diverse group of employees of various ethnic groups,
gender, and professions. Employees being surveyed occupy
blue collar, administrative, technical, supervisory,
managerial, and senior executive positions. This sample
and segment is representative of the agency's other
83
twelve regions and diversity of employees being affected
by the FAIR Act downsizing requirement.
Data and Statistical Analysis Procedures
The formulation of the study's questionnaire was
developed from a combination of two established survey
instruments along with a section created to obtain
demographic information. Data was analyzed using the
Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS)
software.
The first section of the questionnaire focuses on
demographic background data regarding age, gender,
ethnicity, education level, occupational category, pay
grade, and years with the agency. Descriptive statistics
was used to summarize and describe demographic and
organizational data. Frequency distribution,
percentages, the mean, and cross tabulation analysis were
used to obtain specific measurements of each variable.
The second section of the questionnaire is the
Multiple Leadership Questionnaire, Form 5x (MLQ-5)
developed by Bass (1985) and refined by Bass and Avolio
(1997) . Data obtained from this 45-question survey was
84
analyzed using correlation and logistic regression to
determine relationship significance.
The third section of the questionnaire consists of
the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire developed by
Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979). Data obtained from
the 15-question survey was also analyzed using
correlation and logistic regression to determine
relationship significance.
Testing of the research question and hypotheses will
also be analyzed using correlation to determine
relationships between transformational leadership and
organizational commitment.
Survey Instruments and Their Validity
The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire
(OCQ)developed by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) to
measure organizational commitment among individual
employees. This questionnaire was selected to measure
organizational commitment in this study because of its
high levels of internal consistency, reliability, test-
retest validity, convergent validity, discriminate
validity, and predictive validity. Mowday et al. (1979)
suggests organizational commitment is constructed of
85
three major factors: a strong belief in and acceptance of
the organization's goals and values, a willingness to
exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization,
and a strong desire to maintain a part of the
organization.
The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire is
composed of 15 questions utilizing a seven-point Likert
scale using the following answers, (1) strongly disagree,
(2) moderately disagree, (3) slightly disagree, (4)
neither agree or disagree, (5) slightly agree, (6)
moderately agree, and (7) strongly agree. A scoring
value of one for the response strongly disagree to seven
for strongly agree was assigned to each question. Of the
15 descriptive questions, six items (3, 7, 9, 11, 12, &
15) are negatively phrased and scored in an effort to
reduce response bias.
The core theory of this research is built on
Mowday's et a l . (1979) organizational commitment theory
that supports the commitment construct of attitudinal or
effective commitment. Mowday et a l . initiated a number
of validity and reliability tests to assure that this
instrument can be used as a "general measure of
commitment" (p. 228). Hackett et al. (1994) identified
86
motivation as the strongest antecedent related to
affective commitment and suggests affective commitment is
most influenced by employee work experience. Durham et
a l . (1994) conclude, the Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire also identifies strongest with the
affective commitment construct. Dunham et al. (1994) and
Hackett et al. (1994) both conclude the Organizational
Commitment Questionnaire measures what it intends to
measure.
The Multiple Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) designed
by Bass (1985) and updated by Bass and Avolio (1990) is
the best known and most rigorously used instrument to
test leadership styles. The Multiple Leadership
Questionnaire Form 5X (MLQ-5) was selected as one part of
the research questionnaire for this study.
The Multiple Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X is
comprised of 45 items rated on a five-point scale to rate
frequency. The five-point scale consists of the
following responses, (1) not at all, (2) once in awhile,
(3) sometimes, (4) fairly often, and (5) frequently, if
not always. A scoring value of zero was given to the
response not at all to the value of four being given to
the response frequently, if not always, to score answers.
87
This instrument measures seven factors of leadership in
relationship to two leadership styles, transactional and
transformational leadership. The three transactional
leadership dimensions include contingent-reward and two
management-by-exception dimensions (active and passive).
Studies by Bass and Avolio (1995 & 2000) indicate that
contingent rewards are positively correlated with
outcomes related to transformational leadership in the
Multiple Leadership Questionnaire such as extra effort,
effectiveness, and satisfaction with leadership. This
research links both management-by-exception (passive) and
laissez-faire leadership, negatively with the
transformational leadership variables. The
transformation dimension includes four factors: (1)
charisma, (2) inspirational motivation, (3) intellectual
stimulation, and (4) individualized consideration.
The internal consistency reliability for the
Multiple Leadership Questionnaire was assessed by
coefficient alphas in several studies. Hater and Bass
(1988) reported internal consistency reliability data
from a study of business leaders and Yammarino et al.
(1990) reported data from navy officers and business
managers. Bass and Avolio (1990) reported a test retest
88
reliability estimates from a study of middle and upper
level business managers. The results indicate sufficient
internal consistency reliability and stability over time.
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to determine
convergent and discriminate validity. Results from
research conducted by Howell et al. (1993) supported
previous research showing validity for the Multiple
Leadership Questionnaire. Bycio's et al. (1995) research
offers additional information regarding the reliability
and validity of the Multiple Leadership Questionnaire.
The results indicate that the Multiple Leadership
Questionnaire can be an effective instrument for
measuring the relationship between transformational
leadership and organizational commitment.
Threats to Validity and Limitations
This study assumes the questionnaire collection
method were adequate to respond to the research question
and hypotheses being tested; and also, if employees
completing the questionnaire honestly and accurately
responded to the questions based on the way they perceive
their organizational leadership and feelings of
commitment.
89
To date there has been limited empirical research
and data on the impact of transformational leadership and
the impact it may have on organizational commitment. Also
there is limited data as to whether transformational
leadership will be effective on employee commitment
during a period of downsizing.
This study is limited to a small population of one
segment of a government organization. Possible
limitations of this study also includes volunteer bias,
sample selection, geographic area, and whether the
subjects should have been informed of the leadership
style (transformational) being studied and the impact the
FAIR Act may have on their commitment level.
Chapter Summary
The purpose of this study is to determine the impact
transformational leadership may have on the
organizational commitment level of government employees
in the downsizing process caused by the FAIR Act. This
chapter described how the methodology and design of the
study was developed. This chapter also identified the
make up of the research sample and population to be
surveyed. Also discussed was the research question and
hypotheses, data analysis procedures, the survey
instrument components along with their validity and
reliability data, and any threats and limitations
associated with the study.
91
Chapter IV
RESULTS
Introduction
This study examines the relationship between
in order to determine the impact transformational
leadership has on the commitment level of government
employees during the downsizing process. The study
evaluates the relationship between the independent
organizational commitment and should help determine if
there will be a cause and effect rather than a causal
relationship. This study will also expand and extend the
work of Bass and Avolio (1997) in leadership and Mowday
et al.(1979) in organizational commitment.
Chapter IV discusses the results obtained from a
questionnaire sent to a large federal agency that is in
the process of downsizing. The questionnaire was
designed to obtain data relating to demographics,
leadership styles, and employee commitment. Part two of
the questionnaire was developed using Bass and Avolio's
(1997) Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire. The
92
questionnaire was designed to analyze the three
leadership styles:
(a) transformational, (b) transactional, and (c) Laissez-
faire. It also analyzes the additional sub scales of
Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and Satisfaction. Part
three of the questionnaire was developed using Mowday,
Porter and Steer's (1997) Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed to
identify three organizational commitment factors: (a)
affective, (b) continuous, and (c) normative commitment.
Sampling Techniques
The three-component survey was formulated into an
electronic survey format. The questionnaire was
transmitted to the survey population of 532 employees
through the agency's electronic mail system on January 5,
2005. The survey was accompanied with an email cover
letter asking the employees' voluntary* assistance in
completing and returning the completed survey. The
accompanying cover letter also explained the purpose of
the survey, the ten work day period provided to complete
the survey, and requested that each respondent answer all
questions as each perceived it. On the seventh working
93
day (January 15, 2005) a reminder email was sent as a
reminder for those employees who had not returnedthe
survey. The results of the survey were consolidated on
January 18, 2005, into an electronic database for
analysis. From the population of 532 employees, 220
completed the survey. This represented a 41% response
rate. However, 12 (2%) of the questionnaires were
rejected due to incompleteness, thus leaving 208
responses or a response rate of 39%.
Demographic Characteristics
Part one of the questionnaire was designed to obtain
demographic data relating to the agency and its
employees. Seven questions were developed; they include
gender, age, race, education, work position, pay grade,
and years of service. This section describes the results
obtained from the questionnaire and tables 5-12
illustrate the analysis of each of these demographic
areas.
The information relating to gender determined the
organization was fairly evenly split between female and
male employees. Females represent 47% of the
organization, while males make the remaining 53%.
94
Table 5
Analysis of Respondent’s Gender

Gender Frequency Percentage Cumulative %
Female 98 47 47
Male 110 53 100
Total N= 208 100 100
Data obtained relating to age revealed that
employees 25 years of age or younger represent only 2%
(4) of the organization. Twenty-six to thirty-five year
olds represent 8% (17), and 36 to 45 year old employees
represent 17% (35) of the organization. The two largest
age groups within the organization are the 46 to 55 year
olds and employees over 55. These two groups make up 4 6
(95) and 27% (57) respectively. Table 6 illustrates the
profile of the organization based on age.
Table 6
Analysis of the Respondent’s Age
Age Frequency Percentage Cumulative %
<25 4 2 2
26-35 17 8 10
36-45 35 17 27
46-55 95 46 73
> 55 57 27 100
Totals N= 208 100 100
95
The organizational demographics relating to race
revealed that-Caucasians represent 75% (156) of the
organization. African Americans represent 19% (40),
Native Americans represent 1% (3), Asian represent 1%
(3), and other races represent 3% (7) of the
organization.
Table 7
Analysis of Respondent's Race
Race Frequency Percentage Cumulative %
Caucasian 156 75 75
African American 40 19 94
Native American 3 1 95
Asian 3 1 96
Other 7 3 99
Totals N= 208 99 99
Note: Rounding may provide responses less than 100%.
Data obtained from the questionnaire found that 8%
(16) employees had a high school education or less.
Twenty-seven percent (57) had some college, while 46%
(95) of the employees had obtained a college degree. The
remaining 19% (40) had obtained a graduate degree.
96
Table 8
Analysis of Respondent's Education
Education Frequency Percentage Cumulative %
Level
High School < 16 8 8
Some College 57 27 35
College Degree 95 46 81
Graduate Degree 40 19 100
Totals N= 208 100 100
The data obtained from the questionnaire revealed
the agency has no blue-collar employees based an a 0%
response to the survey. Administrative employees
represent 17% (36) of the organization, while technical
and professional employees represent 38 (79) and 13% (27)
respectively. Managerial employees represent 30% (62) of
the organization, while executives represent 1% (3).
Table 9
Analysis of Respondent's Work Position

Work Position Frequency Percentage Cumulative %
Blue Collar 0 0 0
Administrative 36 17 17
Technical 79 38 55
Professional 27 13 68
Managerial 62 30 98
Executive 3 1 99
Totals N= 208 99 99
97
Note: Rounding may provide responses less than 100%.
As illustrated from data obtained by work position,
the organization has no special or wage grade employees.
Two percent (4) of the employees occupy grades of GS 1-5,
8% (16) occupy GS 6-9, and 45% (94) occupy GS 10-12 pay
grades. Forty-five percent (95) of the organization's
employees occupy positions with a pay grade of GS 13 or
above.
Table 10
Analysis o f Respondent’s P ay Grade ___________________________

Pay Grade Frequency Percentage Cumulative %
Special WG 0 0 0
GS 1-5 4 2 2
GS 6-9 16 8 10
GS 10-12 94 45 55
GS 13 > 95 45 100
Totals N= 208 100 100
The questionnaire provided the respondent's data
relating to years of service. The survey revealed that
2% (4) of the employees have three years of service or
less. Data obtained also revealed 3% (7) have 3 to 5
years, 6% (12) have 5 to 10 years, 18% (38) have 10 to 15
years, and 18% (38) have 15 to 20 years of service. An
98
additional 18% (38) of the organization's employees have
20 to 25 years of service, while the remaining 33% (69)
have 25 years of service or more. Table 11 illustrates
the demographic make-up of the organization's employee
years within the organization.
Table 11
Analysis of Respondent's Years in Service

Yrs in Svc Frequency Percentage Cumulative %
< 3 yrs 4 2 2
3-5 yrs 7 3 7
5-10 yrs 12 6 13
10-15 yrs 38 18 31
15-20 yrs 38 18 49
20-25 yrs 38 18 67
25 > 69 33 100
Totals N= 208 100 100
The descriptive statistical analysis of the
demographic data was conducted to obtain the mean,
median, variance and standard deviation. This,
descriptive statistical analysis of the demographic data
is illustrated in Table 12.
99
Table 12
Statistical Analysis of the Demographic Data

Demographic Mean Median Variance Standard
Deviation
Gender 1.52 2.0 0.25 0.50
Age 3.88 4 .0 0. 93 0. 97
Race 1.40 1.0 0.76 0.87
Education 2.76 3.0 0.72 0.85
Work Position 3.59 3.0 1.28 1.13
Pay Grade 4.34 4 .0 0.50 0.70
Yrs in Svc 5.37 6.0 2.45 1.57
N= 208
Multi factor Leadership Questionnaire Analysis
The Multiple Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X is
comprised of 45 items rated on a five-point scale to rate
frequency. The five-point scale consists of the
following responses, (1) not at all, (2) once in awhile,
(3) sometimes, (4) fairly often, and (5) frequently, if
not always. A scoring value of 0 was given to the
response not at all to the value of 4 being given to the
response frequently, if not always to score answers.
This instrument measures seven factors of leadership in
relationship to two leadership styles: (a) transactional
and (b) transformational leadership. The three
transactional leadership dimensions include contingent-
100
reward and two management-by-exception dimensions (active
and passive). The transformational leadership
dimension includes four factors, (a) charisma, (b)
inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation,
and (d) individualized consideration. The Laissez-faire
leadership style is identified as one of four sub-scales
analyzed in the MLQ, but for the purpose of this study,
it will be analyzed as a separate leadership style. The
additional three sub-scales are: (a) extra effort, (b)
effectiveness, and (c) satisfaction.
Transactional Leadership Style.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire has 12
questions that address transactional leadership.
Questions 8, 18, 23, and 42 relate to contingent reward;
questions 10, 19, 24, and 27 relate to management-by-
exception (passive); and questions 11, 29, 31, and 34
relates to management-by-exception (active). Table 13
(see Appendix F) provides the transactional leadership
related questions and the percentages of responses for
each score. The responses to these questions show a
slightly higher use for the contingent reward subscale
101
and lower responses to the management by exception
questions.
Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to
identify the mean, median, variance, and standard
deviation of the questions within the survey instrument.
The mean of these questions range from 1.02 to 2.7 9,
which indicates the respondents use transactional
leadership once in a while to sometimes. The descriptive
statistical analyses of these questions are illustrated
in Table 14 (see Appendix F).
Transformational Leadership Style.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire has 16
questions that relate to transformational leadership.
Questions 13, 21, 30, and 41 align with Idealized
Influence; questions 16, 20, 33, and 43 relate to
Inspirational Motivation; questions 9, 15, 37, and 39
relates to Intellectual Stimulation; and questions 22,
26, 36, and 38 relates to Individualized Consideration.
The fifth sub-scale of attributed charisma is also listed
as an element of transformational leadership with
questions 17, 25, 28, and 32. Table 15 (see Appendix F)
102
provides the questions that relate to transformational
leadership and the percentages of responses for each
score. Respondents recorded more positive responses
within the fairly often to frequently, if not always
scales.
A descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to
determine the mean, median, variance, and standard
deviation of the survey questions related to
transformational leadership. The range of the means was
1.11 once in a while to 2.7 9 fairly often. The
descriptive statistical analyses of the transformational
leadership questions are provided in Table 16 (see
Appendix F).
Laissez-faire Leadership Style.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire has four
questions relating to the laissez-faire leadership style.
Table 17 provides the questions relating to this style
and the percentages of responses for each score. The
responses obtained from the questionnaire revealed that
respondents observed the laissez-faire style of
leadership as the least used style by their managers.
103
The majority of responses were scored at 0 (not at all)
to 1 (once in awhile) .
Table 17
Analysis of Laissez-Faire Leadership Questions

Question % of Responses
0 1 2 3 4
Q. 12 A v o i d s g e tting involv ed w h e n 54 17 14 8 6
important issues arise
Q. 14 Is absent w h e n needed 45 24 15 10 5
Q. 35 A v o i d s m a k i n g decisions 51 18 12 12 7
Q. 4 0 Delays r e s p o n d i n g to u r g e n t 48 19 18 11 4
questions
A descriptive analysis was conducted to determine
the mean, median, variance, and standard deviation of the
laissez-faire questions. The range of means were .95 to
1.06. The descriptive statistical analysis of the
laissez-faire leadership style is provided in Table 18.
Table 18
Statistical Analysis of Laissez-Faire Leadership

Questions
Question Mean Median Variance Standard
Deviation
Q.12 Avoids 0.95 0.0 1.58 1.26
getting involved
Q .14 Is absent 1.05 1.0 1.49 1.22
104
Statistical Analysis of Laissez-Faire Leadership

Questions (cont'd.)
Deviation
Q.35 Avoids 1. 05 0.0 1.72 1.31

decisions
Q.40 Delays 1.06 1.0 1.51 1.23

responding
Extra Effort.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire has four
questions which relate to the subscale extra effort.
Table 19 provides the questions and the percentages of
responses for each score for these questions. The
questionnaire responses indicate that the employees
surveyed feel their managers prompt them to accomplish
more. This feeling is seen in the higher scoring within
the 3 (fairly often) and 4 frequently if not always
scales.
105
Table 19
Analysis of the Extra Effort Questions

0 1 2 3 4
Q. 4 6 Gets me to do more t h a n I 16 13 18 31 23
e x p e c t e d to do
Q. 4 9 H eightens m y desire to succeed 14 10 16 24 37
Q. 51 Increases m y w illin gness to try 14 10 18 26 32

harder
N= 208
deviation of the extra-effort questions. The mean range
was 2.33 to 2.59 (sometimes to fairly often). The
descriptive statistical analysis of the extra effort
questions are provided in Table 20.
Table 20
Statistical Analysis of Extra Effort Questions

Deviation
Q.4 6 Gets me 2.33 3.0 1.89 1.37
to do more
Q.49 Desire to 2.59 3.0 2.05 1.43

succeed
Q .51 Try 2.51 3.0 1.97 1.40

harder
106
Effectiveness.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire has three
questions that relate to effectiveness. The response
like those of extra-effort indicates a higher degree for
the employee to do more. The employees scored this
subscale primarily in the 3 (fairly often) and 4
(frequently, if not always) scales. These questions and
the percentages of responses are provided in Table 21.
Table 21
Analysis of the Effectiveness Questions_________________

0 1 2 3 4
Q. 44 Is eff ective in m e e t i n g my 10 9 19 32 30
jo b- relate d n e eds
Q. 47 Is effe ctive in repr es e n t i n g me 15 12 16 25 32

to highe r a u t h o rity
Q. 50 Is e f f e ctive in m e e t i n g 6 8 14 34 41
organi zatio nal requirements
Q. 52 Leads a group that is effective 11 7 10 36 37
deviation. The range of the means was 2.48 (sometimes)
to 2.94 (fairly often). The descriptive statistical
analysis of the sub-scale effectiveness is provided in
Table 22.
107
Table 22
Statistical Analysis of the Effectiveness Questions

Deviation
Q.4 4 Meets job 2.65 3.0 1. 60 1.26
needs
Q.47 Higher 2.48 3.0 1. 93 1.42

authority
Q.50 Meets 2.94 3.0 1.40 1.18

organizational
requirements
Q.52 Leads a 2.80 3.0 1. 68 1.30

group effectively
Satisfaction.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire has two
questions pertaining to satisfaction. The respondents
score this subscale high with the majority of responses
within the 3 (fairly often) and 4 (frequently, if not
always) scale. The. questions and percentage of responses
are provided in Table 23.
Table 23
Analysis of the Satisfaction Questions

Question % Of Responses
0 1 2 3 4
Q. 45 Uses methods of lea dershi p that 14 9 18 25 34
are satisfying
Q. 48 Works with m e in a sati sf y i n g 13 10 15 26 31

way
108
deviation of the satisfaction questions. The range of
the means was 2.55 to 2.62 (sometimes). The descriptive
statistical analysis of the sub-scale satisfaction is
provided in Table 24.
Table 24
Statistical Analysis of the Satisfaction Questions

Deviation
Q. 45 2.55 3.0 1. 95 1.40
Q. 48 2. 62 3.0 1. 93 1.39
Scoring of the Multi factor Leadership Questionnaire.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire contains 12
sub-scales. Bass and Avolio (1997) describe the MLQ
scale scores as average scores for each item on the
scale. The score is developed by summing the total of
each item within the scale and then divided by the number
of questions used in the questionnaire. All leadership
style scales have four items, extra effort has three
items, effectiveness has four items and satisfaction has
two items. Table 25 provides the results for this
109
scoring method. The score developed from the
questionnaire corresponds with the five- point Likert
scale used with the questions.
Table 25
Multi factor Leadership Questionnaire Scoring

Sub-scale N Mean Score
Idealized
Influence 4 9. 92 2.48
Inspirational
Motivation 4 10.84 2 .71
Intellectual
Stimulation 4 9.40 2 .35
Individual
Consideration 4 9.28 2.32
Attributed
Charisma 4 10.36 2 .59
Contingent
Reward 4 10.68 2. 67
Management
by Exception 4 5. 64 1.41
(passive)
Management
by Exception 4 6. 92 1.73
(active)
Laissez-
Faire 4 4.12 1. 03
Extra Effort 3 7.44 2.48
Effectiveness 4 10 .96 2 .72
Satisfaction 2 5.12 2 .56
110
The overall Grand Mean for the three leadership
styles are; transactional leadership 1.93,
transformational leadership 2.49, and the laissez-faire
leadership scored 1.03.
Analysis of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire
Part three of the questionnaire is comprised of the
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire. This
questionnaire is composed of 15 questions utilizing a
seven-point Likert scale using the following answers, (1)
strongly disagree, (2) moderately disagree, (3) slightly
disagree, (4) neither agree or disagree, (5) slightly
agree, (6) moderately agree, and (7) strongly agree. A
scoring value of 1 for the response, strongly disagree,
to 7 for strongly agree was assigned to each question.
Of the 15 descriptive questions, six items (3, 7, 9, 11,
12, & 15) are negatively phrased and scored in an effort
to reduce response bias. With the scoring range being
from 1 to 7, the higher the score the more
organizationally committed the respondent. Table 26 (see
Appendix F)provides the percentages of responses obtained
from each organizational commitment question. Responses
Ill
obtained from the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire
revealed a higher response in the 5 to 7 (slightly agree
to strongly agree) range.
deviation. The range of means obtained was 1.72
(moderately disagree) to 6.38 (moderately agree). The
descriptive statistical data for the Organizational
Commitment Questions are provided in Table 27 (see
Appendix F ) .
The Grand Mean of 4.8 9 of the response data was
obtained by adjusting the means of the reversed scored
questions (questions 3, 7, 9, 11, 12,& 15) then
calculating the mean for the questionnaire. This mean is
consistent with the range of means (4.0 to 6.1) obtained
during the reliability testing conducted by Mowday et al.
(1979).
The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire was
developed using seven affective commitment questions
(#53, 54, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65, & 66), six continuance
commitment questions (#55, 59, 61, 63, 64, & 67), and two
normative commitment questions (#56 & 57). The Grand
112
Mean from these types of commitment are 5.42, 3.08, and
4.83 respectively.
Analysis of the Relationship Between Leadership Styles

and Organizational Commitment
To answer the questions posed by this study, "Does
of government employees?" The correlation between the
leadership styles of transactional, transformational, and
laissez-faire were analyzed against the organizational
commitment responses to determine if a relationship
exists. To determine if a relationship exists, a Pearson
correlation and multinomial logistic regression analysis
were used to obtain the results of this study. The mean
from the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire was used
to measure commitment and the specific sub-scales for
each leadership style were used to measure leadership.
The analysis of transactional leadership and
organizational commitment using multinomial logistic
regression revealed a Chi-Square of 61.114 and
significance of .013. Analysis provided significance less
than the alpha p= <0.05. Table 28 provides the
correlation between transactional leadership and
113
organizational commitment, while Figure 3 illustrates
best fit.
Table 28
Correlation Matrix for Transactional Leadership and

Commitment Cont. Mgt -by Mgt-by
R ewa rd Excpt (P) Excpt (A)
N= 208
Commitment 1.00
Contingent 0.461* 1.00

Reward
Ma n a g e m e n t - b y - -0.399* -0.395* 1. 00
Exc eption
(passive)
Management-by- -0.165 -0.042* 0.307* 1.00

Exc eption
(Active)
*p= <.01
114
Figure 3
Scatter-plot of the Best Fit of Transactional Leadership

and Organizational Commitment _______ _______
Line of best fit of means of Transactional

Leadership style and Commitment level
70.00
60.00
50.00
« 40.00
©
>
©
30.00
♦Y
I 20.00
■ Predicted Y
i 10.00
10.00
- 20.00
30.00
Transactional Leadership Means
The upward slope of the Predicted Y indicates a positive

relationship between transactional leadership and
The analysis of transformational leadership and
regression provided a Chi Square of 101.37 and
significance of .01. Significance were less than the
115
alpha p= <0.05. Table 29 provides the correlation between
transformational leadership and organizational
commitment, while Figure 4 illustrates best fit.
Table 29
Correlation Matrix for Transformational Leadership and

Organizational commitment
Commt. Char. Intel. Ideal. Insp. Ind.
Stim. Influ. Movt. Consid.
N= 208
Commit ment 1.00
C h a ri sma 0.480* 1. 00
(Attributed)
Intellectual 0.452* 0.839* 1.00

S t imu lation
I d e a li zed 0.461* 0.876* 0.795* 1.00

Influence
Inspirational 0.451* 0.883* 0.825* 0.857* 1.00

Motivation
Individual 0.479* 0.850* 0.820* 0.796* 0.780* 1.00

C o n s ide ratio n
*p= <.01
116
Figure 4
Scatter-plot of Best Fit for Transformational Leadership

and Organization Commitment
Line of best fit of means for Tansformational

Leadership style and Commitment level
70.00
60.00
♦ ♦
50.00
■§ 40.00 ♦:* •
J 30.00
♦ ♦♦ .
♦* * * ♦Y
» ♦ ■ Predicted Y
♦7
§ 10.00
E
O 0.00
0 .1 0 * l5>0 2.00 3.00 4.00
- 10.00
♦
♦
- 20.00
-30.00
Transformational Leadership Means

relationship between transformational leadership and
The analysis of laissez-faire leadership and
regression resulted in a Chi Square of 649.71 and
significance of .620. Significance was greater than
117
statistically significant to the alpha p= <0.05. Table 30
provides the correlation between transactional leadership
and organizational commitment, while Figure 5 illustrates
best fit.
Table 30
Correlation Matrix for Laissez-faire Leadership and

C ommitment Laiss ez-fa ire
N= 208
C ommitment 1. 00
Lai ssez- faire 0.397 1.00

P=<.01
118
Figure 5
Scatter-plot o f Best Fit for Laissez-faire Leadership and

Line of best fit of means for Lassez-Faire

Leadership Style and Commitment levels
70.00 -r
♦
60.00 *♦
50.00 11 ♦ * ♦ * * *
_ 40.oo i : | • i * ♦
> *
® 30.00 ^ * * *
* ft ♦ ■ I ♦Y
£ 20.00^ ♦ !
I .. .1 **♦♦ . '•
■ Predicted Y
£ 10.00 -
♦
o ° ♦ t*
O ♦ » ♦
0.00 — i—
3
- 10.00
- 20.00
-30.00
Lassez-Fair management means
The downward slope of the Predicted Y indicates a

negative relationship between laissez-faire leadership
and organizational commitment.
The analysis of the combined leadership styles and
119
regression resulted in a Chi Square of 217.839 and
significance of .010. The analysis reveals significance
less than statistically significant to the alpha p=
<0.05. Figure 6 illustrates best fit between the combined
leadership styles and organizational commitment.
Figure 6
Scatter-plot of Best Fit for the Combined Leadership

Styles and Organizational Commitment
Line of Best Fit for Combined Leadership styles

and Commitment level
70.00 -i
60.00
50.00 -
40.00 -
♦♦♦ ♦
30.00 -
♦Y
20.00
■ Predicted Y
10.00
0.00 -
- 10.00 -
- 20.00 -
-30.00 J
Combined Leadership Style Means
120
relationship between the combined leadership styles and

The research question this study was designed to
answer is, "Does transformational leadership impact the
commitment level of government employees?" To answer
this question, three hypotheses were tested.
Hypothesis 1. There is a positive relationship
between transformational leadership and the commitment
level of government employees. To test this hypothesis,
the five sub-scales from the transformational leadership
portion of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,
along with the questions contained in the Organizational
Commitment Questionnaire, were used. Significance was
found between transformational leadership and
organizational commitment. This significance is
illustrated by the Pearson significance of .014 and the
multinomial logistic regression significance of .001.
Both are less than the alpha of p= <.05.
Hypothesis 2. Transformational leadership will have
a positive impact on government employees during the
downsizing process. For the purpose of this study,
transformational leadership causes employee's to ignore
121
self-interests and work toward achieving the
organizational goals. To test this hypothesis the five
sub-scales from the transformational leadership portion
of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, along with
the questions contained in the Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire, were used. Significance was found between
commitment. This significance is illustrated by the
Pearson correlation results of .014 and the multinomial
logistic regression significance of .001. Both analyses
are less than the alpha of p= <.05.
Hypothesis 3. Transformational leadership is the
primary style of leadership effecting government employee
commitment. To test this hypothesis the three leadership
styles identified in the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire was used. The means of each leadership
style were used to answer this hypothesis. Analysis of
the transactional leadership sub-scales resulted in a
mean of 1.93, transformational leadership had a mean of
2.49, and laissez-faire leadership had a mean of 1.03.
The transformational leadership mean 2.49 (sometimes) was
the leadership style employees reported was used most
often.
122
Chapter Summary
The purpose of this study is to determine the impact
transformational leadership may have on the
organizational commitment level of government employees
in the downsizing process. This chapter described the
results of the three- part questionnaire specifically
developed to provide answers to the research question and
associated hypotheses. The first section of this chapter
discusses the results obtained from the demographic data
relating to the respondent's gender, age, race,
education, work position, pay grade, and years of
service. Responses from Part 2 of the questionnaire
provided data relating to the three leadership styles
along with the additional sub-scales of extra effort,
effectiveness, and satisfaction. The responses from Part
3 provided data relating to the respondent's perception
of their organizational commitment level for the
organization.
Data obtained from this study provided responses to
the hypotheses developed to answer the research question,
"Does transformational leadership impact the commitment
level of government employees?" Significance was found
to support Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3
123
was supported by the data obtained from the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire.
124
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Overview
This study was developed to assess the impact of
transformational leadership on commitment levels of
government employees at a time when agencies are
downsizing and outsourcing jobs as they work to implement
the Federal Activities Inventory Reduction (FAIR) Act of
1998. Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) strongly believe
transformational leaders motivate their employees to
perform beyond normal expectations by transforming strong
organizational commitment and attitudes (Wofford,
Whittington & Goodwin 2001). The research data developed
from this study provides data that determines if
transformational leadership positively impacts commitment
levels of government employees.
Chapter 1 illustrates the background of the problem,
the history of the FAIR Act, the FAIR Act components, the
organizational background of the government organization
being affected, the significance of the study, and the
study's research question.
125
Chapter II examined two constructs, transformational
leadership and organizational commitment and is divided
into three sections. The first section discussed the
evolution of leadership and the various leadership
theories. It also discussed the historical perspective
of transformational leadership and how transformational
leadership is defined. The second section of this
chapter described the historical perspective of
organizational commitment and how it evolved. Also
discussed were various definitions currently being
considered to describe organizational commitment. The
third section of Chapter II discussed additional aspects
effecting employee commitment. Also discussed was the
impact that downsizing has on the victim's and survivor's
level of commitment.
Chapter III presented the design and methodology
used to obtain data to answer the study's research
question and hypotheses. This chapter defined the
variables used in the survey instrument, population and
sample size, and data analysis procedures. Also
described in this chapter were the specific instruments
used to survey the impact of transformational leadership
126
and employee commitment along with previous research that
supports the instrument's validity.
This study addresses and will answer the
research question, "Does transformational leadership
impact the commitment level of government employees," and
the three hypotheses associated with it. The results
obtained from this study will determine if
transformational leadership is a key element to employee
commitment in a downsizing organization. This chapter
evaluates the relationship between the independent
organizational commitment and explains the relationship
between variables to provide evidence for or against a
particular theoretical perspective.
The population being studied is a defined group of
federal employees from one segment of one specific agency
of the federal government, who are facing the prospect of
downsizing due to the implementation of the Federal
Activities Inventory Reduction Act of 1998. The three-
component survey was formulated into an electronic survey
format and designed to obtain data relating to
demographics, leadership styles, and employee commitment.
127
The questionnaire was transmitted to the survey
population of 532 employees through the agency's
electronic mail system.
Chapter IV discussed the results obtained from the
questionnaire. From the population of 532 employees, 220
completed the survey, but 2% of the questionnaires were
rejected due to incompleteness, thus leaving a 39%
response rate or 208 responses available for analysis. A
statistical analysis of the demographics, leadership, and
organizational commitment were conducted to obtain the
data required to develop the discussion and conclusions
described in this chapter.
The present chapter will discuss the results
obtained from the research analysis and findings from the
questionnaire as the data relates to the demographics,
leadership styles, and organizational commitment. Also
discussed in this chapter is the answer to the research
question and its associated hypotheses. The conclusion
for the study will present the overall findings and
recommendations for future research.
128
Demographic Characteristics and Organizational

Relationship
The demographic data gathered from Part 1 of the
questionnaire provided valuable insight into the make-up
of the organization being studied. The organization is
fairly evenly split between female and male employees,
but the race mix consists of 75% Caucasian and 25%
others.
There are a number of demographic elements that may
help explain the findings of this study. This
organization is primarily older employees with 72% of
employees being older than 4 6 years of age. As expected,
this older population explain why 52% have over 20 years
of service.
The organization also has an extremely high
educational level with 93% of the employees having some
college and 65% having a college degree. This
organization provides very liberal educational benefits
to its employees, therefore this benefit may help explain
the high level of organizational commitment employees
have for the organization.
There is also evidence from the demographic data
that the FAIR Act is being implemented throughout the
129
organization and is affecting its employees. A zero
percent response rate for blue-collar employees
illustrates the extent to which the FAIR Act has
negatively impacted this classification of employees.
Also evident is the 83% of the total population, which
occupy technical, professional, and managerial positions
and are at the pay grades of GS 10 or higher. These
positions will not be effected by the FAIR Act for
several years. The limited number of new hires, five
percent within the past five years supports the
organization's policy of promoting affected employees
ahead of the FAIR Act implementation. This policy should
also benefit from the older employee population and the
33% of employees having over 25 years of service. This
data indicates that within the next one to three years
one third of the work force could retire, thus providing
additional promotional opportunities for employees soon
to be affected by the FAIR Act. Sixteen percent of the
sampled work force occupy administrative positions, that
are being affected by FAIR Act in 2005.
130
Leadership Style Findings
This section of the chapter will discuss the
findings relating to the three leadership styles obtained
from the questionnaire responses. Briefly discussed is
transactional and laissez-faire, but transformational
leadership will be discussed in greater detail.
The key to transactional leadership style is the
exchange between the leader and employee. Burns (197 8,
p.19) summarizes this form of leadership as, "such
leadership occurs when one person takes the initiative in
making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange
of valued things." Until the mid 1980s, this form of
leadership was the primary form of leadership taught to
government managers. With 33% of organization's
employees having 25 years of years or more, it can be
concluded that these employees were exposed to and were
initially taught the transactional style of leadership.
Based on the responses from the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire, transactional leadership is used by the
organization's leaders 36% of the time. The mean range
of the questionnaire responses was between 1.02 (used
once in awhile) to 2.79 (used "fairly often"). The
scoring of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for
131
transactional leadership is 1.93, which falls between the
mean range of and indicates this style of leadership is
primarily "used sometimes".
The key to the laissez-faire style of leadership is
the absence of leadership. There is no exchange with
employees or any attempt to help them grow (Northouse,
2001). The responses from the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire indicate the laissez-faire style of
leadership is utilized 13% of the time. The mean range
obtained from the questionnaire responses was .95 to 1.06
(used "once in awhile"). The score obtained from the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire scoring method was
1.03, which indicates this leadership style is used
"infrequently".
"Transformational leadership occurs when one or more
persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and
employees raise one another to higher levels of
motivation and morality" (Burn, 1978). Based on the
results from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,
transformational leadership is the primary leadership
style used in the organization. This was illustrated by
the mean range of 2.07 to 2. 86 (sometimes to fairly
often) and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire score
132
of 2.49. These results indicate this form of leadership
is being used most often, 51% of the time, which helps to
explain the results of the organizational commitment
portion of the questionnaire.
Organizational Commitment Findings
Results from the Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire indicate a high level of affective
commitment exists within the organization. This high
level of commitment is illustrated by the Grand Mean of
5.42, compared to the Grand Mean of 3.08 for continuance
and 4.83 for normative commitment. The Grand Mean for
all the survey guestions was 4.89 and the range was 2.80
to 6.38, which also supports the outcome of a positive
commitment level among the employees. Respondents
provided a 69% positive response to the rating scales of
slightly agree (5), moderately agree (6), and strongly
agree (7) to the questions posed in the questionnaire.
To determine if a relationship exists between the
organizational commitment level and the FAIR Act a
comparison between the group of administration employees,
which are currently being affected and the overall sample
was conducted. The overall positive response from the
133
administration group was 62% which is slightly lower as
compared to the overall population, which responded with
a positive response of 69% to the questions. This
indicates a slightly negative impact toward the
organization from this group towards the organization,
but not to the degree one might expect from employees
facing the downsizing process. Only 20% or 3 of the 16
employees being affected by the FAIR Act provided
negative responses to the organizational commitment
questions compared to 5% or 10 employees within the
overall sample. Based on previous research (Chadwick et
al, 2004; Sahdev, 2003) these employees should be
experiencing lower levels of commitment than those shown
by the results of this study.
Leadership Style and Organizational Commitment

Relationship
To answer the research question posed by this study,
"Does transformational leadership impact the commitment
level of government employees?"; the transactional,
laissez-faire and transformational leadership style
questionnaire responses were analyzed against the
organizational commitment questionnaire responses to
134
determine what relationships exists. To determine
significance, a Pearson correlation and multinomial
logistic regression statistical analysis were used to
obtain the results of this study. The Grand mean from
the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire was used to
measure commitment and the specific sub-scales for each
leadership style were used to measure leadership.
The analysis of transactional leadership and
organizational commitment by this analysis resulted in
significance less than 0.044, which is statistically
significant to the alpha p= <0.05. The best-fit scatter
plot of the transactional leadership and organizational
commitment relationship shows a relationship between the
two variables.
The analysis of laissez-faire leadership and
organizational commitment by Pearson correlation and
multinomial regression resulted with significance of
.913, which is greater than statistically significant to
the alpha p= <0.05. The scatter-plot of the laissez-
faire leadership and organizational commitment shows the
downward slope of the predicted Y and the mean grouping,
which illustrates the negative relationship of the two
variables.
135
The analysis of transformational leadership and
organizational commitment by Pearson correlation and
multinomial logistic regression resulted with
significance of .001, which is less than statistically
significant to.the alpha p= <0.05. The best-fit scatter-
plot outlining best fit for the transformational
leadership and organizational commitment relationship
illustrates the positive relationship between the two
variables.
The research question this study was designed to
answer is, "Does transformational leadership impact the
commitment level of government employees?" To answer
this question, the following three hypotheses were
answered.
Hypothesis 1. There is a positive relationship
between transformational leadership and the commitment
level of government employees. To test this hypothesis
the five sub-scales from the transformational leadership
portion of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire along
with the questions contained in the Organizational
Commitment Questionnaire were used. Significance was
136
found between transformational leadership and
organizational commitment. This significance is
illustrated by the statistical analysis results of
significance of .001, which is less than the alpha of p=
<.05, therefore we can reject the null and find support
for this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2. Transformational leadership will have
a positive impact on government employees during the
downsizing process. To test this hypothesis, the five
sub-scales from the transformational leadership portion
of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire along with
the questions contained in the Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire, were used. Significance was found between
commitment. This significance is also illustrated by the
analysis results of significance of .001, which is less
than the alpha of p= <.05, therefore we can reject the
null and find support for this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3. Transformational leadership is the
primary style of leadership effecting government employee
commitment. To test this hypothesis the three leadership
styles identified in the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire was used. The Grand mean of each
137
leadership style were used to answer this hypothesis.
Analysis of the transactional leadership sub-scales
resulted in a Grand mean of 1.93, laissez-faire
leadership had a Grand mean of 1.03, whereby
transformational leadership had a Grand mean of 2.49.
The descriptive statistical analysis found that 51% of
respondents reported transformational leadership the
leadership style most utilized by managers, therefore
there is support for this hypothesis.
Limitations of the Study
The study was designed specifically to determine
what impacts the transformation style of leadership has
on organizational commitment during the downsizing
process. The study was limited to the results which could
be obtained through the use of the Multi-factor
Leadership Questionnaire Form 5-X (MLQ-5X) and the
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). The MLQ-5X
specifically provided data to analyze the manager's
perceived use of transactional, transformational, and
laissez-faire leadership styles along with sub-scales of
extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction. The OCQ
by design obtains data to analyze the employee's
138
perceived use of affective, continuance, and normative
commitment within the organization. The statistical
analysis was limited to the data obtained from the two
questionnaires and the demographic data obtained from the
study.
Conclusion
While transformational leadership is the leadership
style employees say is used most often by their leaders,
transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles are
also utilized. This finding indicates that the use of
each of the leadership styles is dependent on the
situation in which it is being applied. This result
supports the full range of leadership model developed by
Bass and Avolio (1997), which proposes that leaders
display some degree of transactional, laissez-faire, and
transformational leadership style behaviors dependent on
the situation (Sosik et. al, 2002).
One aspect this study does not take into
consideration is the age and experience factor of the
employees within the agency. The question is raised as
to whether older and more experienced employees
facilitate the use of transformational leadership due to
139
a lesser need for supervision. The data provided from
this study could not provide the answer to this question.
The relationship between transformational leadership
and organizational commitment is observable by the data
obtained from the research questionnaire. The research
data suggests a higher level of organizational commitment
than should be expected from employees facing a
downsizing process. Research conducted by Chadwick et
al. (2004) suggests that downsizing does not typically
result in subsequent improvements in organizational
performance. Previous research (Sahdev, 2003; Devine et
a l ., 2003; & Chadwick et al., 2004) on organizational
downsizing supports the proposition that downsizing has a
negative impact on the organization's employees through
negative emotions and their feelings of frustration.
Based on the survey responses obtained from this study,
there is little evidence that these effects have occurred
within the organization being studied. Several factors
could contribute to this fact. The organization's policy
toward working to educate and promote affected employees
into positions that are not soon to be affected by the
FAIR Act. This policy also helps prepare employees for
140
employment outside the organization, should the employee
be unable to be promoted or moved into another position.
Another factor that could affect the resistance to
negative impact on organizational commitment is the
number of years of service and age of the organization's
employees. One-third of the organization's employees has
20 years of service or more and at the age where
retirement would be a consideration. The policy of the
organization has in the past been to work with the
employees close to retirement to ensure their retirement
is not jeopardized. The organization in the past has
also offered cash buy-outs to employees affected by the
FAIR Act.
The organizational climate of the organization is
the most likely cause for the high organizational
commitment responses and lack of negative resentment
toward the organization. The organization has worked
diligently to minimize the negative impact the FAIR Act
would have on its employees through its policies and
efforts. The results of these efforts can be illustrated
by the 2003 governmental survey that ranked the
organization as one of the top five agencies to work
within the entire federal government.
141
Research conducted by Bass (1990) found that
employees perform better and-are more satisfied when
working for transformational leaders. However,
transformational leadership alone cannot explain the
reason employees are not showing significant negative
affects to the downsizing process within this
organization. To find support for this hypothesis,
additional research is needed to analyze other factors
that may help identify the reason for the high level of
organizational commitment during this downsizing process.
Recommendation for Future Research
This project examined the relationship between the
employees' perception of the manager's use of leadership
styles and the organizational commitment level of the
agency's employees. The conclusions drawn from this
study indicate a positive relationship does exist between
commitment. Although the results did indicate a positive
relationship, the study could not provide a direct
relationship between the transformational manager and
organizational commitment. To provide this type of
results, further research should conduct a self
142
assessment survey of each leader's perceived leadership
style and analyze the results against the employee's
perception of their manager's leadership style and the
employee organizational commitment questionnaire results.
Additional research should also test the
relationship between transformational leaders and the
impact transformational leadership has on employees with
high or low growth needs. This research should also
include the impact an employee's age and length of
service have on the specific leadership styles.
The final recommendation for future research is to
analyze the relationship between leadership styles and
organizational climate. This research may provide
insight into how the leadership styles of top leaders
affect the overall climate and organizational commitment
levels within the organization.
Chapter Summary
This chapter provided a discussion of the results
obtained from the data analysis accomplished in Chapter
IV. The findings obtained from the demographic data were
discussed along with the findings of the three leadership
styles. Organizational commitment findings were
143
discussed along with its relationship with the leadership
styles. This chapter provided the answer to the research
question and the hypotheses associated with it. An
overview of the additional findings was presented in the
conclusion along with recommended future research needed
to examine the questions left unanswered by this study.
APPENDIX A
REQ UEST FO R A P P R O V A L TO SU R V E Y AG EN C Y
AND
A P P R O V A L TO SU R VEY
145
j 0 Dennis A. Gentry-
"CONFIDENTIAL"
12/07/2004 08:47 AM
cc
bcc
Subject P'e; Electronic Survey Request®
D ennis,
It seem s that the results o f your study w ill benefit managers to better cope with the effects o f A76
initiatives and to strengthen the Q12 program. Therefore, you m ay use the em ail system to conduct
the survey.
Please w ork with to set up the survey. Best o f luck in your efforts.
Dennis A. Gentry
Dennis A
Gentry To "C O N F ID E N T IA L "
cc
12/06/2004 05:09 PM Subject Electronic Survey Request
"CONFIDENTIAL"
As part o f my doctorate program, I selected to write m y dissertation on the "Im pact of Transform ational •
Leadership on the C om m itm ent Level of G overnm ent Employees". It is my desire to survey the approx
500 em ployees in to obtain my research data to complete my dissertation. The survey will
consist o f a cover letter, approx 70 questions, and it w ill be distributed and retrieved through the Lotus
Notes em ail system. Completion of the survey will be voluntary. I would like for the survey to be in the
em ail system for 10 w orking days, with a reminder on the seventh day asking employees who' have not
com pleted the survey to do so. I w ill aiso require assistance in establishing the data-base for the
e lectronic survey.
The su rve y being used has been tested and validated by experts.The survey consists of three parts;
Part 1 w ill obtain dem ographic inform ation relating to em ployee age, gender, pay grade, time with the
agency, and position type. Employee names or work locations will not be part of the survey to maintain
anonym ity. This portion of the survey will be created by me and tailored to fit
Part 2 w ill gather em ployee’s perception o f their m anager's leadership style and the effectiveness of that
style.
Part 3 w ill assess the em ployee's level of com m itm ent to the organization.
The benefit of the survey is two-fold. First, I obtain research data to complete my dissertation and
obtains valuable data relating to its em ployee's perception of the organizational leadership and
com m itm ent levels. "
S pecific benefits obtained from this study for includes:
1. Identifies current leadership styles being utilized.
2. Identifies the most effective style o f leadership.
3. Identifies the com m itm ent level of em ployees by age, gender, pay grade, and position type and
the possible reason fo r their com m itm ent
NOTE: Areas left blank were removed to maintain the anonymity of the agency.
146
4. Identifies the impact the FAIR Act has on. employee's well-being and jo b security.
5. Identifies the employees perception of management's responsibility fo r o r caring about
them as employees.
If approved, I w ill provide with a copy of my dissertation along with a report tailored for use,
which w ill contain an executive sum m ary and all results obtained from the survey.
Although is the agency being studied, no reference to our agency's name w ill be in the dissertation
nor will any em ployee other than those requiring a need-to-know fo r approval of this request know the
survey is related to studying the im pact the FAIR A ct may have on the organization's em ployees
Your consideration in approving this request is greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
Dennis
APPRENDIX B
PU R C H ASE A N D REQ UEST TO USE M L Q S U R V E Y
AND
P E R M IS S IO N TO U S E A N D R E P R IN T S U R V E Y
D ecem ber 2 0 ,2 0 0 4
M r. D e n n is A . G e n try
1403 B ro a d vie w C irc le
S e v ie rv ille , Tennessee 37876
M r. R ob M o st
M in d G arden, In c.
1690 W oodside R oad, S uite 202
R edw ood C ity , C a lifo rn ia 94061
R E : Purchase and Perm ission to U se the M u ltifa c to r Leadership Q uestionnaire
D ear M r. M o st;
Per o u r recent telephone conversation, I am a d o c to ria l student p re p a rin g m y

disse rtatio n . A s p a rt o f th is re q uirem en t, m y research requires the M u ltifa c to r
Leadership Q uestionnaire (M L Q ) as one p art o f m y three p a rt survey in stru m e nt.
M y research survey w ill be d is trib u te d to a p p ro xim a te ly 500 subjects th ro u g h an
o rg a n iz a tio n ’ s in te rn a l e le ctro n ic m a il system . T he M L Q w ill be u tiliz e d o n ly fo r
the purpose o f th is d isse rta tio n and in the m anner in w h ich I described.
Paym ent fo r th e purchase and use o f the M L Q shall be b y cre d it card, w ith
w h ic h in fo rm a tio n I p re v io u s ly p ro vid e d . S hould the num ber o f surveys exceed the
q u a n tity purchased, I s h a ll contact y o u r firm w ith the correct sam ple size.
Y o u r assistance in p ro v id in g the M L Q package to m e as q u ic k ly as p ossible
is g re a tly appreciated. S hould yo u have any questions regarding th is m atter, please
contact m e at (865) 545-4330.
R e sp e ctfu lly,
D en n is A . G entry
149
m f n d garden
MLQ Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire
Permission Set
Leader Form, Rater Form, and Scoring

Key for MLQ Form 5x~Short
Permission for Dennis Gentry to reproduce either leader

or rater forms for up to 500 copies in one year from
date o f purchase:
December 20, 2004
by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio
D istrib u ted b y M in d G a r d e n
1690 Woodside Road Suite 202, Redwood City California 94061 USA
Phone: (650)261-3500 Fax: (650) 261-3505
info@mindgarden.com
www.mindgarden.com
Copyright © 1995 by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio. All rights reserved.
It is your legal responsibility to compensate the copyright holder of this work for any reproduction in any medium. If any
part o f this Work (e.g., scoring, items, etc.) is put on an electronic or other media, you agree to remove this Work from that
media at the end of this license. The copyright holder has agreed to grant permission to reproduce the above number of
copies of this work for one year from the date of purchase for non-commercial use only. Non-commercial use means that
you will not receive payment for distributing this document. If you need to make additional copies than the above stated,
please contact M in d G a r d e n .
APPENDIX C
R E Q U E S T FO R S U R V E Y P A R T IC IP A T IO N
151
January 5, 2005
D e a r C olleagues;
O ve r the past three years, I have been w o rk in g to co m p lete a D octorate o f Business

A d m in is tra tio n degree. M y course w o rk is com plete and I have begun w ritin g m y
dissertation. T he to p ic o f m y d isse rta tio n relates to leadership styles and the im p a ct th e y
have on an em ployee’ s co m m itm e n t to the o rg a n iza tio n . O u r agency has been gracious
enough to a llo w m e to request y o u r v o lu n ta ry assistance in co m p le tin g the attached
research survey, w h ich I need to com plete m y d isse rta tio n . In re tu rn fo r g ra n tin g m e
perm issio n to use the agency’ s e le ctro n ic em a il system , I w ill p ro v id e o u r senior
m anagers w ith a report o u tlin in g the c o lle c tiv e results o f the survey, w h ic h m ay assist the
agency in d e te rm in in g e ffe c tiv e leadership styles and h o w they im p a c t em ployees.
The survey consists o f three parts and is designed to gath er in fo rm a tio n regarding
dem ographics, m anagem ent leadership styles, and the co m m itm e n t le v e l o f the agency’ s
em ployees. T h e survey is structured to analyze the data c o lle c tiv e ly , w hereby no one
respondent o r m anager can be singled o ut. In fo rm a tio n y o u p ro vid e in th is survey w ill
be c o n fid e n tia l. The survey w ill be rem oved fro m the L o tu s N otes e m a il system on
January 18, 2005.
Y o u r assistance in th is endeavor is g re a tly appreciated.
D e n nis A . G e n try
APPRENDIX D
S U R V E Y IN S T R U M E N T
Leadership and Employee Commitment Questionnaire
Part I. Demographics
Directions: Answer the question which best matches your demographic information by
selecting the most appropriate response. All responses are completely
confidential and anonymous
Questions 1-7
Gender: I
Age:
I
Race:
Education:
__
Work Position:
hi 1 I d i 1 ti i I mi M i O li i [’
Y ears in Service:
i i
n
Pay Grade:
EP98HR
154
Part H This portion o f the questionnaire is developed to describe the leadership style of
your manager/supervisor as you perceive it. Please answer all questions. .
Directions: Answer the question which best matches your perception of the.person you are
describing by clicking on the circle following the appropriate response. Use the
following rating scale:
0= Not at all
1= Once in-a while
2= Sometimes
3= Fairly often
4= Frequently or always
Questions 8-53
Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts
Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriai • •

Fails to interfere until problems become serious • •
Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations
from standards
Avoids getting involved when important issues arise
Talks about their most important values and beliefs
Is absent when needed
Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems
Talks optimistically about the future
Instills pride in m e for being associated with, him/her

Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performanci
targets
Waits for things to go wrong before taking action
Talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished
Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose
Spends time teaching and coaching
Makes clear what one can expect when performance goals are achieved
Shows that he/she is a firm believer iri"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
155
Goes beyond self interest for the good o f the group
Treats me as an individual rather than a member of a group
Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action
A c ts i n a w a y th a t b u ild s m y re s p e c t
Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints,

and failures
Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions
Keeps track of all mistakes
Displays a sense o f power and confidence
I Articulates a compelling vision of the future
Directs m y attention toward failures to meet standards
Avoids making decisions

Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from
others
Gets me to look at problems from many different angles
Helps me to develop my strengths
Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments
Delays responding to urgent questions
Emphasizes the importance o f having a collective sense o f mission
| Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations
Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved
Is effective in meeting m y job-related needs
Uses methods o f leadership that are satisfying
Gets me to do more than I expected to do
Is effective in representing me to hiaher authority
Works with me in a satisfying w7ay
Heightens my desire to succeed
Is effective in meeting organizational requirements
Increases my rhliingness to try harder
Leads a group that is effective
| Cares about me as a person
156
Part IH. - This portion o f the questionnaire is developed to describe your commitment to the
organization. Please answer all questions.
Directions: Answer the question which best describes your degree of agreement/disagreement
with each statement by selecting the appropriate response. Use the following
rating scale:
1= Strongly disagree
2= Moderately disagree
3= SHghtLy disagree
4= Neither agree or disagree
5= Slightly agree
6= Moderately agree
7= Strongly agree
Questions 54-71
I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected

in order to help this organization be successful _____
I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for
I feel very little loyalty to this organization

I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working
for this organization
I find that my values and the organization’s values are very similar
I am very proud to tell others that I am part o f this organization

I could just as well be working for a different organization as long as the
type o f work was similar_________________________________________
This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job
performance _______
It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to
leave this organization
I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for, over others
was considering at the time I joined _____________
There’s not too much to be gained by sticking with this organization
indefinitely
Often, I find it difficult to agree with this organization’s policies on
important matters relating to its employees
I really care about the fate o f this organization
For me, this is the best o f all possible organizations for which to work
Deciding to work for this organization was a definite mistake on my part

I plan to leave this organization in the next five years
I plan to retire from this organization
The organization cares about me and will continue my employment
APPENDIX E
F O L L O W -U P L E T T E R FO R S U R V E Y P A R T IC IP A T IO N
January 13, 2005
D e a r C olleagues;
L a s t week I asked fo r y o u r v o lu n ta ry assistance in co m p le tin g the Leadership

and C o m m itm e n t Q uestionnaire I posted o n o u r L o tu s N otes e m ail system . I
w o u ld lik e to ta ke th is o p p o rtu n ity to th a n k everyone th a t has already taken
th e tim e to co m p lete the su rve y. I w o u ld also lik e to ask anyone th a t has n o t
com pleted th e survey to ta ke th e fe w m in u te s re q uired to com plete the survey
fo r me.
A g a in , c o m p le tio n o f the su rve y is v o lu n ta ry , b u t I w o u ld g re a tly appreciate

y o u r assistance in th is endeavor.
APPENDIX F
CHAPTER I.V TABLES
160
Table 13
Analysis of the Transactional Leadership Responses

0 1 2 3 4
Q. 8 Provides me w i t h assista nce in 8 10 20 28 35
exchange for m y efforts
Q. 10 Fails to i n t e r f e r e until 29 17 22 16 16
problems b eco me seriou s
Q.ll Focuses a t t e n t i o n on 16 26 23 22 14
irregularities, mistakes, exceptions,
and d eviations from standards
Q.18 Discusses in s p e c i f i c terms who 8 10 17 32 33

is responsible for a c h i evin g
p erf ormanc e targets
Q. 19 Waits for t hings to go w r o n g 45 23 15 7 9

before t ak ing action
Q. 23 Makes clear w h a t one can expect 12 13 20 28 27

when p erform ance goa ls are a c h i e v e d
Q. 24 Shows that h e / s h e is a fir m 22 19 31 17 11

believe r in "if it a i n ' t broke, don't
fix it"
Q. 27 Demonstrates t h a t problems must 47 22 17 7 6

become chronic b e f o r e taking a c t i o n
Q.29 Concentrates h i s / h e r full 17 25 23 22 13

attention on dealing with mistakes,
complaints, and failu res
Q. 31 Keeps track of all mistak es 22 29 19 18 13
Q. 34 Directs my a t t e n t i o n t o w a r d 31 18 22 13 7
failures to meet st andard s
Q. 42 Expresses s atisf a c t i o n w h e n I 10 9 16 27 40
meet expectations
N= 208
161
Table 14
Statistical Analysis of Transactional Leadership Questions

Deviation
Q.8 Provides 2.72 3.0 1.58 1.26
Assistance
Q.10 Fails to 1.73 2.0 2.06 1.44

Interfere
Q.ll Focuses 1.93 2.0 1. 67 1.29

on mistakes
Q.18 Disc, who 2.72 3.0 1.56 1.25

is responsible
Q .19 Slow to 1.11 1.0 1.70 1.30

take action
Q.23 Clear on 2.46 3.0 1.79 1.34

expectations
Q.24 If 1.78 2.0 1. 66 1.29

unbroken, don't
fix it
Q.27 Problems 1.02 ■1.0 1.48 1.22

must be chronic
Q.2 9 Focuses 1.8 9 2.0 1.69 1.30

on mistakes
Q.31 Keeps 1.71 1.0 1.73 1.32
track of mistakes
Q.34 Directs 1.37 1.0 1.51 1.23

attention to
failure
Q.42 Satisfied 2.79 3.0 1.73 1.32

When expectations
are met
162
Table 15
Analysis of the Transformational Leadership Responses

1 2 3 4
Q. 9 Re-examines critical ass umptions 10 13 23 29 21
to questi on w h ethe r they are
app rop r i a t e
Q . 1 3 Talks about their mos t important 13 17 24 28 19

va l u e s and beliefs
Q. 15 Seeks d i f f er ing perspectives 16 15 30 22

w h e n solving problem s
Q. 16 Talks o p t i misti cally about 11 16 23 32

the future
Q. 17 Instills p ride in me for being 11 16 23 32

a s s o c i a t e d with him/her
Q. 20 Talks e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y about 18 26 39
wh at needs to be a c c o m p l i s h e d
Q. 21 Specifies the importa nce of 11 13 21 30 25

h a v i n g a strong sense of purpose
Q. 22 Spends time tea ching and 16 22 26 17

coaching
Q. 25 Goes b e y o n d self-interes t for 14 10 13 28 35

the good of the group
Q. 2 6 Treats m e as an individual 13 12 27 40
r a t h e r than a m e m b e r of a group
Q.28 Acts in ways that b u ilds my 14 13 31 33

re s p e c t
Q. 30 Considers the moral a n d ethical 11 11 11 33 38

co ns equenc es of decisions
Q. 32 Displays a sense of p o w e r and 12 16 35 32

con fiden ce
Q. 33 Articu lates a compe lling vision 11 13 18 32 25

of the future
Q. 36 Considers me as h aving different 16 22 26 18

needs, abilities, and aspirations from
oth ers
163
Analysis of the Transformational Leadership Responses

(Cont'd.)
Question % of R e s p o n s e s
0 1 2 3 4
Q. 37 Gets me to look at p r o b l e m s from 15 10 24 32 19
m a n y different angles
Q. 38 Helps m e to d e v el op m y strengths 19 12 16 27 25
Q. 39 Suggests new ways of l o o k i n g at 17 10 25 29 19

how to complete assignments
Q. 41 Emphasizes the importance of having a 13 11 18 34 25

collective sense of mission
Q. 43 Expresses confidence that goals will 8 6 20 25 47

be achieved
N= 208
164
Table 16
Statistical Analysis of the Transformational Leadership

Questions
Deviation
Q .9 Re- 2.41 375 1.56 1.25
examines
assumptions
Q .13 Talks 2.23 2.0 1.69 1.29

about values
Q .15 Seeks 2.44 3.0 1.44 1.20

deferring
perspectives
Q .16 Talks 2.69 3.0 1.61 1.27

about future
Q.17 Instills 2.41 3.0 2.18 1.48

pride
Q.20 Enthusias-2.81 3.0 1.59 1.26

tic about needs
to be accomplished
Q.21 Strong 2.45 3.0 1.68 1.30

sense of
purpose
Q.22 Coaches 2.07 2.0 1.84 1.36
Q .25 Goes 2.61 3.0 1.97 1.41

beyond self-
interest
Q.26 Treats as 2.80 3.0 1.70 1.30

individual
Q .28 Builds 2.59 3.0 1.92 1.39

respect
165
Statistical Analysis of the Transformational Leadership

Questions (Cont'd.)
Deviation
Q.30 Ethical 2.74 3.0 1. 81 1.35
Q .32 Sense of 2.76 3.0 1.38 1.17

power
Q.33 Vision 2.48 3.0 1. 69 1.30
Q.36 Considers 2.12 2.0 1.86 1.36

me from others
Q.37 Problems 2.30 3.0 1.72 1.31

from different
angles
Q.38 Develops 2.28 3.0 2. 10 1.45

strengths
Q.39 New ways 2.24 2.0 1.78 1.33

to complete
assignments
Q.41 Collective2.50 3.0 1.73 1.32

sense of mission
Q.43 Confidence2.86 3.0 1.53 1.24
166
Table 26
Analysis of the Organizational Commitment Questions

__________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q. 53 I am w i l l i n g to p u t in
a great deal of effort
b e y o n d that norma l l y e x p e c t e d 1 1 1 2 8 23 64
in order to h e l p this
o r g ani zation b e successful
Q. 54 I talk up this
o r g ani zation to my friends 3 3 2 12 13 25 41
as a great o r ganiz ation to
work for
Q.55 I feel v e r y little

loyalty to this or ganization 50 16 6 6 6 5 11
Q.56 I would accept almost

any type of job assignment
in order to keep working for 16 17 13 15 22
this organiza tion
Q. 57 I find that my values

and the organization's v alues 6 10 36 23
are very similar
Q. 58 I am v e r y proud to tell
others that I am part of this 3 15 26 42
org anization
Q.59 I could just as well be

w o rki ng for a different
o r g an izatio n as long as the 10 15 12 16 16 13
type of work was similar
Q. 60 This organization
r e a l l y inspires the very best 14 15 27 20
in me in the w a y of job
perfor mance
Q. 61 It woul d take very

little change in my presen t 28 19 13 16 11
circumstances to cause me
to leave this organiz ation
167
Analysis of the Organizational Commitment Questions

(Cont'd .)
O
Question of Responses O
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q. 62 I am e x t r e m e l y glad
that I chose this
o rga ni z a t i o n to w o r k for,
over others I was considering 4 2 3 20 10 19 40
at the time I j o i n e d
Q: 63 There's not too m u c h to

be g a i n e d by s t i cking with 35 20 7 15 6 8 9
this organ i z a t i o n
ind efini tely
Q.64 Often, I find it

dif ficult to ag ree with this 15 19 6 18 15 15 12
organi zatio n's poli c i e s on
i mpo rtant m a t te rs relating to
its employees
Q.65 I really care about the 3 2 0 6 8 27 53

fate of this organ i z a t i o n
Q. 66 For me, this is the

best of all p o s s i b l e
organizations for which to 3 6 4 17 16 24 30
work
Q. 67 Deciding to work for 70 12 4 9 2 2 1

this o r g a n i z a t i o n was a
definite mist ake on m y part
168
Table 27
Statistical Analysis of the Organizational Commitment

Questions
Deviation
Q.53 Desire 6.38 7.0 1.23 1.11
for the Org.
to succeed
Q .54 Talk-up 5.67 6.0 2.48 1.58

the Org.
Q .55 Feel 2.64 2.0 4.64 2.12

little loyalty
Q.56 Accept any4.36 4.0 4.48 2.12

position
Q.57 Similar 5.29 6.0 2.76 1.66

values
Q.58 Proud of 5.76 6.0 2.35 1.53

organization
Q.59 Work for 4.12 4.0 3.64 1.91

other org.
Q.60 Inspires 4.87 5.0 3.43 1.85

me
Q.61 Little to 3.12 3.0 3.75 1.94

change org.
Q.62 Glad I 5.49 6.0 2.83 1.68

choose org.
Q .63 Not much 2.97 2.0 4.13 2.03

to gain by
staying
169
Statistical Analysis of the Organizational Commitment

Questions (Cont'd.)
Deviation
Q.64 Difficult 3. 92 4 .0 4.01 2.00
to agree
w/policy
Q.65 Really 6. 07 7.0 1. 96 1.40

care about org,
Q.66 Best org. 5.26 6.0 2.79 1. 67

to work for
Q.67 Working 1.73 1.0 1.86 1.36

for this org.
is a mistake
170
References
Aaltio-Marjosola, I. & Takala, T. (2000). Charismatic
leadership, manipulation and the complexity of
organizational life. Journal of Workplace Learning,
12(4), 146-162.
Abshire, D. (2001,May). A call for transformational
leadership. Vital Speeches, 67(14), 32-437.
Ackoff, R .(1999,January/February). Transformational
Leadership. Strategy & Leadership, 27(1), 20-26.
Agency's (1999, August). A-76 Acguisition Plan Process
Flow.
Agency's (2003, December 1) Competitive Sourcing List.
Allen, N. & Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and
antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative
commitment to the organization. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
Allen, T., Freeman, D., Russell, J., Reizenstein, R. &
Rentz, J . (2001). Survivor reactions to
organizational downsizing: Does time ease the pain?.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology. 74, 145-164.
Alimo-Metcalf, B. & Alban-Metcalfe, R. (2000). The
transformational questionnaire (TLQ-LGV): A
convergent and discriminate validation study,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
21 (6), pages 28.
Alimo-Metcalf, B. & Alban-Metcalfe, R. (2001, March). The
development of a new transformational leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 74(1), 1-24.
Avolio, B., Bass, B. & Jung, D. (1999). Reexamining the
components of transformational and transactional
leadership using the Multi-factor Leadership
Questionnaire. Journal of Organization and
Occupational Psychology, 12, 441-462.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York, New York: The Free Press
Bass, B. (1990). Handbook of leadership, (3r ed) . New
York: Free Press
Bass, B. (1990, Winter). From transformational
leadership: Learning to share the vision.
Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
172
Bass, B. (1997). Does the transactional- transformational
leadership paradigm transcend organizational and
national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, ISO-
139.
Bass, B. (1998, August). Current developments in
transformational leadership: Research and
applications. Address to the American Psychological
Association.
Bass, B. & Avolio, B. (1990). Transformational leadership
development: Manual for the multi factor leadership
questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Bass, B. & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving organizational
effectiveness through transformational leadership.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishers.
Becker, H. (1960). Notes on the concept of
commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-
40.
Boehnke, K. , Bontis, N., DiStefano, J. & DiStefano, A.
(2003). Transformational leadership: An examination
of cross-national differences and similarities.
24(1/2), 5-15.
Brockner, J., Tyler, T. & Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992).
The influence of prior commitment to an institution
on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher
they are, the harder they fall. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 37, 241-261.
Brown, M. (1969). Identification and some conditions
of organizational involvement. Administration
Science Quarterly, 14, 346-355.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment:
The socialization of managers in work organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.
Burns, J. (1978) . Leadership. New York: Harper and Row
Burke, S. & Collins, K. (2001). Gender differences in
leadership styles and management skills. Women In
Management Review, 16, 244-256.
Butterfield, D. & Grinnell, J. (1999). Re-viewing gender,
leadership and managerial behavior: Do three decades
of research tell us anything? Handbook of gender.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishers.
Cacioppe, R. (1997, August). Leadership moment by moment.
Leadership & Development Journal, 18(6), 335-346.
174
Carless, S. (1998). Assessing the discriminant validity
of transformational leader behavior as measured by
the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Occupational
Psychology, 71, 353-358.
Carless, S. (1998, December). Gender differences in
transformational leadership: An examination of
superior, leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex
Roles: A Journal of Research, 39(11), p. 887.
Cawthon, D. (1996, June). The great man theory
revisited. Business Horizons, 1-4.
Chadwick, C., Hunter, L. & Walston, S. (2004). Effects of
downsizing practices on the performance of
hospitals. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 405-
427 .
Chen, L. (2004). Examining the effects of organization
culture and leadership behaviors on organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance at
small and middle-sized firms in Taiwan. Journal of
American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 432-438.
Church, A. & Waclawski, J. (1998, June). The relationship
between individual orientation and executive
leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational and
Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. (1998). Charismatic leadership
in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publishing
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. & Haga, W. (1975) A vertical
Dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal
organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance 13, 46-78.
Den Hartog, D., House, R., Hanges, P., Ruiz-Quintanilla,
S. & Dorfman, P. (1999). Culture-specific and cross-
culturally generalizable implicit leadership
theories: Are attributes of
charismatic/transformational leadership universally
endorsed?. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219-257.
Devine, K., Reay, T., Stainton, L. & Collins-Nakai, R.
(2003). Downsizing outcomes: Better victim than
survivor?. Human Resources Management, 42(2), 109-
126.
Dobbins, G. & Platz, S. (1986). Sex differences in
leadership: How real are they? Academy of Management
Review, 11, 118-127.
Drucker, P. (1974). Management. New York, New York:
Harper & Row.
Dunham, R., Grube, J. & Castaneda, M. (1994).
Organizational commitment: The utility of an
integrative definition. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 3, 37 0-38 0.
Eagly, A. & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership
style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108,
233-256.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990)
Percieved organizational support and employee
diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of
Applied Pychology, 75, 51-59.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A Comparison Analysis of Complex
Organizations (3rd ed.), New York: Free Press.
Executive Order #11541, 35 FR 10737 (1970).
Executive Order #12318, (1981).
Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998, Public
Law 105-270,STAT 2382 p.112.
Fielder, F. (1964). A contingency model of leadership
effectiveness. Advances in experimental social
psychology, New York: Academic Press.
Filley, A., House, R. & Kerr, S. (1976). Managerial
Process and organizational behavior (2nd Ed.),
Glenview, CA: Scott.
177
Finegold, D. & Mohrman, S. (2000, June). Company leaders
see competitive advantage threatened by employee
retention & commitment discrepancies. Market News
Publishing, p. (3).
Fisher, J. (1962). Do federal managers manage. Public
Administration Review, 22(2), 59-64.
Friedman, H., Langbert, M. & Giladi, K. (2000, May).
Transformational leadership. The National Public
Accountant, 45(3), 8-14.
Fuller, J., Morrison, R., Jones, L., Bridger, D., &
Brown, V. (1999, June). The effects of psychological
empowerment on transformational leadership and job
satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology
139(3), 389-391.
Gardner, L. & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the
relationship between leadership and emotional
intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership
and Organizational_Development Journal, 23(2), 68-
78.
Graen, G., Liden, R. & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of
leadership in the employee withdrawal process.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 868-872.
Gray, H. (1993), Gender issues in management training.
Women in Educational Management.
Greenspan, D. (2002, Autumn). Downsizing with dignity.
Employment Relations Today, 29(3), 39-48.
Griffeth, R. & Horn, P. (2001) . Retaining valued
employees. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.
Grusky, 0. (1966). Career mobility and organizational
commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10,
488-503.
Guinn, S. (1988). Outplacement programs: Separating myth
from reality. Training and Development Journal, 42,
48-49.
Guyot, J. (1962). Government bureaucrats are different:
Public Administration Review, 22(4), 195-202.
Hackman, M., Furniss, A. Hills, M. & Paterson, T. (1992),
Perceptions of gender-role characteristics and
transformational leadership behaviors. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 75, 311-319.
Hall, D., Schneider, B. & Nygren, H. (1970). Personal
factors in organizational identification.
Administrative_Science Quarterly, 15, 176-190.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1969). Management of
organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M. & Beckhard, R. (1996). The
leader of the future. New York, New York: Jossey-
Bass Publishers
Hines, C. (2002, January). Session explores dynamic
transformational leadership. Nation's Cities Weekly,
25, p. 12.
Hinkin, T. (1998, September). Transformational leadership
or effective managerial practices? Group &
organizational management, 23(3), 220-136.
House, R. (1974). A path-goal theory of leader
effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly,
16(3), 321-338.
House, R. (1977). Leadership: The cutting edge.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press
House, R. & Aditya, R. (1997). The social scientific
study of leadership: Quo vadis. Journal of
Management, 23(3), 409-47 4.
Hrebriniak, L.& Alutto, J. (1972). Personal and role-
related factors in the development of organizational
commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18,
555-572.
Humphreys, J. & Einstein, W. (2003). Nothing new under
the sun: transformational leadership from a
historical perspective. Journal of Management
History: Management_Decision. 41{1/2), 85-95.
Isaksson,K. & Johannson, G. (2000). Adaption to continued
work and early retirement following downsizing:
Long-term effects and gender differences. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Behavior, 73(2),
241-256.
Javidan, M. & Waldman, D. (2003). Exploring charismatic
leadership in the public sector: Measurement and
consequences. Public Administration Review, 63(2),
229-241.
Jung, D. & Yammarino, F. (2001, Summer). Perceptions of
transformational leadership among Asian Americans
and Caucasian Americans: a level of analysis
perspective. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8, 3-21.
181
Kanter, R. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A
study of commitment mechanisms in Utopian
communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499-
517.
Kelly, E. (1998, Summer). Transformational leadership:
Industry, military and educational impact. Journal
of Leadership Studies, 5, 169-172.
Klenke, R. (1993). Meta-analytic studies of leadership:
Added insights or added paradoxes. Current
Psychology: Development, Learning Personality,
Social, 12, 326-343.
Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (1999), Leadership Practices
Inventory: Psychometric properties. San Francisco,
Jossey Bass, Inc.
Kreinter, R. (1998). Management (2nd ed.) New York:
Houghton Mifflin.
Lee, T., Ashford, S., Walsh, J. & Mowday, R. (1992).
Commitment propensity, organizational commitment,
and voluntary turnover: A longitudinal study of
organizational entry processes. Journal of
Management, 18(1), 15-32.
Lee, C. (1994). The feminization of management. Training,
31(11), 25-31.
Lewin, K., Lippert, R. & White, R. (1939). Patterns of
aggressive behaviors in experimentally created
"social climates". Journal of Social Psychology, 10,
271-299.
Maher, K. (1997) Gender related stereotypes of
transformational and transactional leadership. Sex
Roles, 37(3/4), 209-225.
Mandell, B. & Pherwani, S. (2003), Relationship between
emotional intelligence and transformational
leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of
Business (3), 387-404.
Manning, T. (2002), Gender, managerial level,
transformational leadership and work satisfaction.
Women In Management Review, 17(5/6), 207-216.
Manning, T. (2003). Leadership across cultures:
Attachment style influences. Journal of Leadership
and_Organizational Studies, 9(3), 20-27.
Mathieu, J. & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta
analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment.
Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194.
McCloskey, J. & McCain, B. (1987) . Satisfaction,
commitment, and professionalism of newly employed
nurses. Image, 19, 20-24.
McFarlin, D. & Sweeney, P. (1992). Distributive and
procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction
with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy
of Management Journal, 35, 62 6-637.
McNeese-Smith, D. (1995). Job satisfaction, productivity,
and organizational commitment: The result of
leadership. Journal of Nursing Administration, 25,
17-26.
Meyer, J. & Allen, N. (1984) . Testing the side-bet theory
of organizational commitment: Some methodological
considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,
372-378.
Meyer, J. & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the-
workplace: Theory, research and application.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. & Porter, L. (1979). The
measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. & Porter, L. (1982) . Employee
organizational linkages: The psychology of
commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York:
Academic Press.
Naumann, S., Bennett, N., Bies, R. & Martin, C. (1998).
Laid off, but still loyal: The influence of
perceived justice and organizational support.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4),
356-365.
Northouse, P. (2001). Leadership: Theory and practice.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Office of Federal procurement Policy (1992). Policy
Letter 92-1 "Inherently Governmental Functions".
Office of Management and Budget (2003). Circular A-76
(Revised)Performance of Commercial Activities.
Office of Management and Budget (1970). Reorganization
Plan No.2,31 USC Section 1111.
Office of Management and Budget (2002). The President's
Management Agenda.
Oliver, N. (1990). Rewards, investments, alternatives,
and organizational commitment: Empirical evidence
and theoretical development. Journal of Occupational
185
O'Malley, M. (2002). Creating commitment: How to attract
and retain talented employees by building
relationships that last. New York, New York, Wiley &
Sons.
O'Toole, J. (1995). Leading change: Overcoming the
ideology of comfort and the tyranny of custom. San
Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Parry, K. & Proctor-Thompson, S. (2003, May). Leadership,
culture and performance: The case of the New Zealand
public sector. Journal of Change Management, 3(4),
376-391.
Partnership for Public Service (2003). NASA, National
Science Foundation, General Services Administration,
OMB and EPA rise to the top in first "best places to
work in federal government" rankings.
Park, D. (1996), Gender role, decision style and
Leadership style. Women In Management Review, 11(8),
13-17.
Peters, T. (1997). The circle of innovation: You can't
shrink your way to greatness. New York, New York:
Knopf Inc.
Pounder, J. & Coleman, M. (2002), Women- better leaders
than Men? In general•and educational management it
still "all depends". Leadership and Organizational
Development Journal, 23(3/4), 22-33.
Powell, G. (1990), One more time: Do females and male
managers differ?. Academy of Management Executive,
4(1), 26-30.
Rada, D . (1999, Summer/Fall). Transformational leadership
and urban renewal. Journal of Leadership Studies,
18-32.
Roan, A . , Lafferty, G. & Loudon, R. (2002, June).
Survivors and victims: A case study of
organizational restructuring in the public health
sector. New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations,
27(2), 151-166.
Ross, S. & Offrerman, L. (1997, October).
Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality
attributes and work group performance. Personality &
Social_Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), p. 1078.
Sahdev, K. (2003). Survivor's reaction to downsizing: The
importance of contextual factors. Human Resource
Management Journal, 13(4), 56-74.
Salancik, G. (1977). Commitment and the control of the
organizational behavior and belief. New direction in
organizational behavior, Chicago, IL: St. Clair
Press.
Schraeder, K. & Self, D. (2003). Enhancing the success of
mergers and acquisitions: An organizational culture
perspective. Management Decision, 41(5/6), 511-521.
Sheldon, M. (1971). Investments and involvement as
mechanisms producing commitment to the organization.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 143-150.
Shirley, R. (1973). Analysis of employees and physician
attitudes toward hospital merger. Academy of
Management Journal, 16(3), 465-480.
Sibson, R . (1994). Maximizing employee productivity: A
manager's guide. New York, New York: American
Management Association.
Sosik, J. & Godshalk, V. (2000, June). Leadership styles,
mentoring functions received, and job-related
stress: A conceptual model and preliminary study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(4), 365-390.
Sosik, J., Potosky, D. & Jung, D. (2002, April). Adaptive
self-regulation: Meeting others' expectations of •
leadership and performance. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 142(2), 211-233.
Spence, J., Helmreich, R. & Strapp, J. (1975), Ratings of
self and peers on sex roles, attitudes and their
relationship to self-esteem and conceptions of
masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 32(1), 29-39.
Staw, B. (1977). The escalation of commitment to a course
of action. Academy of Management Review, 6, 577-587.
Steers, R. (1977) . Problems in the measurement of
organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22, 46-56.
Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal factors associated with
leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of
Ting, Y. (1996). Workforce reduction and termination
benefits in governments: The case of advance notice.
Public Personnel Management, 25, 183-198.
Valentine, S. & Godkin, L. (2002), Supervisor gender,
leadership style, and perceived job design. Women In
Management Review, 15(3), pages 17.
Van Engen, M. & Willemsen, T. (2000, October). Gender and
leadership styles: A review of the past decade.
WORC-paper. Tilburg University.
Van Engen, M., Van leaden, R. & Willemsen, T. (2001,
December). Gender, context and leadership styles: A
field study. Journal of Occupational and
Van Fleet, D. & Yukl, G. (1986). Military leadership: An
organizational perspective. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Van Wart, M. (2003, March/April). Public-sector
Leadership theory: An assessment. Public
Administration Review, 63(2), 214-225.
Vinkenburg, C., Jansen, P. & Koopman, P. (2000). Feminine
leadership: A review of gender differences in
managerial behavior and effectiveness. London,
England: Sage Publishers.
Vinnicombe, S. & Singh, V. (2002), Sex role stereotyping
& requisites of successful top managers. Women In
Management Review, 17(3/4), 120-130.
Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in psychology.
Edited by Charles Mills and translated by Hans
Gerth, New York: Oxford University Press.
Weber, Y. (1996). Corporate cultural fit and performance
in mergers and acquisitions. Human Relations, 49(9),
1181-1195.
Weiner, Y. & Gechman, A. (1977). Commitment: A behavior
approach to job involvement. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 10, 47-52.
Weiss, W. (1998, November). Employee involvement,
commitment and cooperation: Keys to successful
supervision. Supervision 59(11), 12-16.
Wofford, J., Whittington, J. & Goodwin, V. (2001,
Summer). Follower motive patterns as situational
moderators for transformational leadership
effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues,
13(2), 196-207.
Yammarino, F.& Bass, B. (1990). Transformational
Leadership at multiple levels of analysis. Human
Relations, 43, 975-995.
191
Bibliography
Alban-Metcalfe, R. & Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2000). The
transformational leadership questionnaire (TLQ-LGV):
A convergent and discriminant validity study.
21(6), 280-298.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. & Alban-Metcalfe, R. (2001). The
development of the new transformational leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 74, 1-27.
Amos-Wilson, P. (2000). Women civil servants and
transformational leadership in Bangladesh. Equal
Opportunity International, 19(5), 23-31.
Anderson, D. (2003). The integration of gender and
political behavior into Hambrick and Mason's upper
echelons models of organizations. Journal of
American Academy of Business, 3(1/2), 29-36.
Anonymous. (1995). Leadership, management styles and
decision making. Journal of Management in Medicine,
9(3), 59-68.
Armstrong, M. (1998). Downsizing the federal government:
A longitudinal study of manager's reactions. Revue
Canadienne des Sciences de 1'Administration, 15(4),
310-321.
Arnold, K., Barling, J. & Kelloway, E. (2001).
Transformational leadership or the iron cage: Which
predicts trust, commitment and team efficacy.
Leadership & Organization Development
Journal,22(7/8), 315-320.
Bashford, S. (2004, June). The survivor syndrome. Human
Resources, 43-45.
Behling, 0. & McFillen, J. (1996). A syncretical model
charmastic/transformational leadership. Group &
Organization Management, 21{2), 163-191.
Belasen, A., Benke, M., DiPadova, L. & Fortunato, M.
(1996). Downsizing and the hyper-effective manager:
The shifting importance of managerial roles during
organizational transformation. Human Resources
Management, 35(1), 87-117.
Benkhoff, B. (1997). Ignoring commitment is costly:
Approaches establish the missing link between
commitment and performance. Human Relations, 50(6),
701-726.
193
Bennett, H. (2002). Employee commitment: The key to
absence management in local government. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 23(8), 430-441.
Brewer, G. & Coleman, S. (2000). Why elephants
gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational
performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 685-711.
Crocitto, M. & Youssef, M. (2003). The human side of
organizational agility. Industrial Management,
103(5/6), 388-397.
Dehler, G. & Welsh, A. (1994). Spirituality and
organizational transformation: Implications for the
new management paradigm. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 9(6), 17-27.
Dess, G., Picken, J. & Lyon, D. (1999, May).
Transformational leadership. Human Resources
Management International Digest, 8-11.
De Vries, R. , Roe, R. & Taillieu, T. (1998). Need for
supervision: Its impact on leadership effectiveness.
The Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 34(4), 486-
501.
Doehrman, M. (2003, March). Creating leadership ranks
high on the list. The Colorado Springs Business
Journal, 1.
Felfe, J. & Schyns, B. (2004). Is similarity in
leadership related to organizational outcomes: The
case of transformational leadership. Journal of
Leadership and_Organizational Studies, 10(4), 92-
102.
Ference, G. (2001, April). Coaching plan helps managers
increase employee commitment. Hotel and Motel
Management, 216{ 6), 16.
Fuller, J., Morrison, R., Jones, L., Bridger, D. & Brown,
V. (1999, June). The effects of psychological
empowerment on transformational leadership and job
satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology,
139(3), 389-391.
Grenny, J. (1993,February). A culture of commitment.
Executive Excellence, 10(2), 16.
Haddock, C. (1989, Summer). Transformational leadership
and the employee discipline process. Hospital &
Health Services Administration, 34(2), 185-194.
Hansen, H., Sandvik, K. & Seines, F. (2003, May). Direct
and indirect effects of commitment to a service
employee on the intention to stay. Journal of
Service_Research, 5(4), 356-368.
Hellgren, J. & Sverka, M. (2001, November). Unionized
employees' perception of role stress and fairness
during organizational downsizing: Consequences for
job satisfaction, union satisfaction and well-being.
Economic and Industrial Democracy, 22(4), 543-568.
Hernez-Broome, G. & Hughes, R. (2004). Leadership
development: Past, present, and future. HR. Human
Resource Planning, 24(1), 24-31.
Hooijberg,R. & Chopi, J. (2001, September). The impact of
organizational characteristics on leadership
effectiveness models. Administration & Society,
33(4), 403-431.
Humphreys, J., Weyant, L. & Sprague, R. (2003, Spring).
Organizational commitment: The roles of emotion and
practical intellect within the leader/follower dyad.
Journal of Business and Management, 9(2), 189-209.
Jaussi, K. & Dionne, S. (2004, Winter). Unconventional
leader behavior, subordinate satisfaction, effort
and perception of leader effectiveness. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(3), 15-26.
Kim, S. (2003, Winter). Linking employee assessments to
succession planning. Public Personnel Management,
32(A), 533-547.
Kontoghiorghes, C. & Byrant, N. (2004, Fall). Exploring
employee commitment in a service organization in the
health care Insurance industry. Organization
Development Journal, 22(3), 59-73.
Korac-Kakabadse, A., Korac-Kakabadse, N. & Myers, A.
(1998). Demographics and leadership philosophy:
Exploring gender differences. The Journal of
Management Development, 17(5), 351-392.
Krishnan, V. (2001). Value systems of transformational
leaders. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 22(3), 126-132.
Lee, S. & Olshfski, D. (2002,September). Employee
commitment and firefighters: It's my job. Public
Administration Review, 62, 108-114.
Margaret, J. (2003, September). Leadership style and its
relationship to individual differences in
personality, moral orientation and ethical judgment-
a Ph.D. proposal. Journal of American Academy of
Business,. 3(1/2), 104-112.
Mayfield, J. & Mayfield, M. (2002, June). Leader
communication strategies critical paths to improving
employee commitment. American Business Review,
20(2), 89-94.
O'Neill, R. & Blake-Beard, S. (2002, April). Gender
barriers to the female mentor-male protege
relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 51-
62.
Pawar, B. & Eastman, K. (1997, January). The nature and
implications of contextual influences on
transformational leadership: A conceptual
examination. Academy of Management, 22(1), 80-109.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S. & Bommer, W. (1996).
Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes
for leadership as determinants of employee
satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2),
259-299.
198
Pratto, F. & Espinoza, P. (2001). Gender, ethnicity, and
power. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 763-780.
Price, Q. (2002, November). Failure to commit. HR
Magazine, 47(11), 99-104.
Rachid, Z. (1996). Dyamics of strategic change: Critical
issues in fostering positive organizational change.
17(7), 36-40.
Roan, A., Lafferty,G. & Loudoun, R. (2002, June).
Survivors and victims: A case study of
organizational re-structuring in the public health
sector. New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations,
27(2), 151-168.
Schramn-Nielsen, J. (2001). Cultural dimensions of
decision making: Denmark and France compared.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(6), 404-423.
Somers, M. & Birnbaum, D. (2000, Fall). Exploring the
relationship between commitment profiles and work
attitudes, employee withdrawal, and job performance.
Public Personnel Management, 29(3), 353-365.
Sosik, J. & Potosky, D. (2002). Adaptive self-regulation
Meeting others'pectations of leadership and
performance. The Journal of Social Psychology,
142(2), 211-232.
Stelter, N. (2002). Gender differences in leadership:
Current social issues and future organizational
implications. The Journal of Leadership Studies,
8(4), 88-99.
Stum, D. (1999, January/February). Workforce commitment:
Strategies for the new work order. Strategy and
Leadership, 27(1), 4-7.
Stum, D. (2001, July/August). Maslow revisited: Building
the employee commitment pyrimid. Strategy and
Leadership, 29(4), 4-9.
Trevino, L., Hartman, L. & Brown, M. (2000, Summer).
Moral person and moral manager: How executives
develop a reputation for ethical leadership.
California Management Review, 42(4), 128-142.
Wasti, S. (2003, September). Organizational commitment,
turnover intentions and the influence of cultural
values. Journal of occupational and Organizational
Weakland, J. (2001, Summer). Human resources holistic
approach to healing downsizing survivors.
Organization Development Journal, 19(2), 59-69.
Weil, T. (2003, February). Hospital downsizing and
workforce reduction strategies: Some inner workings
Health Services Management Research, 16(1), 13-23.
Witham,D. & Glover, J. (1987, April). Recapturing
commitment. Training and Development Journal, 41(4)
42-45.
Wright, T. & Hobfoll, S. (2004, Winter). Commitment,
psychological well-being and job performance: An
examination of conservation of resources (COR)
theory and job burnout. Journal of Business and
Management, 9(4), 389-406.
Zajac, G. & Al-Kazemi, A. (1997, June). Reinventing
government and redefining leadership: Implications
for personnel management in government. Public
Productivity & Management Review, 20(4), 372-384.
Zehir, C. & Zehra Savi, F. (2004, September). A field
research about implications of organizational
downsizing on employees working for Turkish public
banks. Journal of American Academy of Business,
5(1/2), 343-349.

UMI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UMI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

DOCTOR OF BUSINESS AMINISTRATION

All rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ITS IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE

We hereby certify that this Dissertation submitted by

Nova Southeastern University

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own

product, that where the language of others is set forth,

quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit

is given where I have used the language, ideas,

expressions or writings of another.

Transformational Leadership and Its Impact on Employee

Over the past half-decade, government agencies began

The results from the study's statistical analysis

There are so many people I wish to extend my

List of Figures.................................... xiii

II. LITERATURE REVIEW............................ 20

III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY...................... 76

Introduction and Overview................... 76

Extra Effort...................... 104

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION................... 124

A. Request for Approval to Survey Agency and

B. Purchase and Request to Use MLQ Survey and

C. Request for Survey Participation.............. 14 9

D. Survey Instrument.............................. 151

E. Follow-up Letter for Survey Participation..... 156

F. Chapter IV Tables............................... 158

1. Lewin's Three Classic Styles of Leadership........ 24

2. Contingency Relationships in Path-Goal Leadership

3. Leadership Behavior and Performance............... 37

4. Evolution of Organizational Commitment............ 54

5. Analysis of Respondent's Gender.................. 94

6. Analysis of Respondent's Age..................... 94

7. Analysis of Respondent's Race..................... 95

8. Analysis of Respondent's Education............... 96

9. Analysis of Respondent's Work Position........... 96

10. Analysis of Respondent's Pay Grade............... 97

11. Analysis of Respondent's Years in Service........ 98

12. Statistical Analysis of Demographic Data.......... 99

13. Analysis of the Transactional Leadership Style

14. Statistical Analysis of Transactional Leadership

15. Analysis of the Transformational Leadership

16. Statistical Analysis of the Transformational

17. Analysis of Laissez-Faire Leadership Questions 103

18. Statistical Analysis of Laissez-Faire Leadership

19. Analysis ofthe Extra Effort Questions............. 105

20. Statistical Analysis of Extra Effort Questions 105

21. Analysis ofthe Effectiveness Questions............ 106

22. Statistical Analysis of the Effectiveness

23. Analysis ofthe Satisfaction Questions............. 107

24. Statistical Analysis of the Satisfaction Question... 108

25. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Scoring...... 109

26. Analysis ofthe Organizational Commitment

27. Statistical Analysis of the Organizational

28. Correlation Matrix for Transactional Leadership

29. Correlation Matrix for Transformational Leadership

30. Correlation Matrix for Laissez-Faire Leadership

1. Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational

2. Relationship Between the Transformational

3. Scatter-plot of the Best Fit of Transactional

4. Scatter-plot of the Best Fit of Transformational

task of further decreasing government's size and re