Asia Pacific Business Review

This article was downloaded by: [University of York]
On: 22 September 2013, At: 00:37

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Asia Pacific Business Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fapb20
The relationship between leadership

styles and organizational commitment
in Malaysia: role of leader–member
exchange
a b c d
May-Chiun Lo , T. Ramayah , Hii Wei Min & Peter Songan
a
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak,
94300, Sarawak, Malaysia
b
Technology Management Lab, School of Management, Universiti
Sains Malaysia, 11900, Penang, Malaysia
c
Lim Kok Wing Institute of Creative Technology, Universiti Malaysia
Sarawak, Sarawak, Malaysia
d
Chancellery, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300, Kota
Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia
Published online: 24 Mar 2010.
To cite this article: May-Chiun Lo , T. Ramayah , Hii Wei Min & Peter Songan (2010) The relationship
between leadership styles and organizational commitment in Malaysia: role of leader–member
exchange, Asia Pacific Business Review, 16:1-2, 79-103, DOI: 10.1080/13602380903355676
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602380903355676
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of York] at 00:37 22 September 2013
Asia Pacific Business Review
Vol. 16, Nos. 1 –2, January – April 2010, 79–103
The relationship between leadership styles and organizational

commitment in Malaysia: role of leader – member exchange
May-Chiun Loa*, T. Ramayahb, Hii Wei Minc and Peter Songand
a
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Sarawak, Malaysia;
b
Technology Management Lab, School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11900 Penang,
Malaysia; cLim Kok Wing Institute of Creative Technology, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Sarawak,
Malaysia; dChancellery, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia
Building upon the ‘social exchange theory’ notion, this study hypothesized the
moderating impact of leader–member exchange (LMX) on the relationship between two

leadership styles and organizational commitment of employees. One hundred and fifty-six
Malaysian executives voluntarily participated in this study. Though the hypotheses for
direct effects received low to moderate support for transformational leadership styles, the
moderating hypothesis received substantial support, with a stronger relationship
particularly in the case of professional respect dimension of LMX. Implications of the
findings, limitations of the study and directions for future research are suggested.
Keywords: leader – member exchange; Malaysian executives; organizational commit-
ment (OC); productivity; transactional leadership; transformational leadership
Introduction
Organizational commitment is one of the salient ongoing organizational issues faced
by managers. Past literature has highlighted the importance of retaining committed
employees as an aspect of survival for organization (Messmer 2000, Walker 2001,
Das 2002). In response to these potential problems, many forward-thinking
organizations are striving to create a positive organizational climate in order to keep
those good employees through various human resource management initiatives (Chew
and Chan 2008). While a great deal of past research was done to investigate the link
between leadership and organizational commitment, relatively little research has been
conducted to examine these two components with the presence of LMX. It is important
for the company to know what aspects play important roles or have big impacts in
boosting the commitment of the employees. Moreover, there is a noticeable lack of
empirical examination of large Malaysian organizations with regard to the leadership
styles on commitment. The growth and development of Malaysian organizations have
been different from the Western countries. The changes in the Malaysian workplace are
brought about through changes in HRM practices (e.g. outsourcing), engaging the
services of expatriates, etc. In addition, the Malaysian workforce is from different
ethnic backgrounds, traditions, histories and social systems, which are shaped by many
religions where their feeling of kinship and family centeredness is embedded into an
organization (Selvarajah and Meyer 2008). Swanepoel et al. (2000) highlighted that
leadership styles that encourage employee commitment are essential in order for
*Corresponding author. Email: mclo@feb.unimas.my
ISSN 1360-2381 print/ISSN 1743-792X online

q 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13602380903355676
http://www.informaworld.com
80 M.-C. Lo et al.
an organization to successfully implement business strategies, achieve their goals, gain

competitive advantage and optimize human capital. Previous researchers on managerial
performance such as Kanter (1982) and Pavett and Lau (1983) pointed out that an
important component of successful management is the ability to influence others.
As such, committed employees are more motivated and dedicated towards meeting and
achieving organizational goals (Pfeffer 1998).
According to Nijhof et al. (1998), the achievement of an organization does not only
rely on how the organization utilizes its human capital and competencies but also on how it
incites commitment to the organization. Hence, the biggest challenge for Malaysian
organizations is to provoke a sense of commitment in the employees and go about
instilling commitment and loyalty in their employees. Employees with a sense of
organizational commitment are less likely to engage in withdrawal behaviour and are more
willing to accept change (Iverson and Buttigieg 1998).
Extensive research is available in the organizational behaviour literature investigating

the process of leadership and organizational commitment, but the two constructs –
leadership and organizational commitment – seem to have been examined almost
independently; that is, little research has been done to examine the relationship between
leadership and organizational commitment in organizations.
On the other hand, the quality of relationship between supervisors and subordinates has
been considered as fundamental to employees’ behaviour (Jablin 1979, Napier and Ferris
1993). In the past, few researchers have indicated that LMX played an important role in
several work outcomes such as organizational commitment, job performance and promotions
(e.g. Ang et al. 2005, Pellegrini and Scandura 2006, Bhal and Ansari 2007). Graen and
Cashman (1975) have elucidated that, in every supervisor–subordinate dyad, the nature of
the exchange is different between supervisors and subordinates. According to Howell et al.
(1986), most popular leadership paradigms include at least one moderator and quality of
leader–member relations is one of them. Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory was first
illustrated in the works of Dansereau et al. (1975) 32 years ago and has recently been gaining
momentum. Many studies have been conducted to investigate the role that the supervisor
plays in his or her relationship with subordinates. Essentially, the supervisor, the subordinate
or both will evaluate the relationship according to the quality of the interaction, and these
perceptions have a fundamental influence on individual outcomes. As mentioned by Murry
et al. (2001), the positive exchanges are typically reciprocated with positive outcomes from
the subordinates. Each member of the dyad has the other’s best interest at heart and this is
reflected in more supportive behaviour. Hence, this study is an attempt to examine the
relationship between leadership styles as a critical predictor of organizational commitment.
Moderating effects of LMX with employees’ commitment are also examined.
The major concern of this research is to determine whether leadership theory and
organizational commitment are applicable in the manufacturing companies located in
Malaysia.
In view of the above objective, the questions that are to be addressed in this study are:
(1) Is there a positive relationship between transformational leadership and

employees’ organizational affective, continuance and normative commitment?
(2) Is there a positive relationship between transactional leadership and employees’
organizational affective, continuance and normative commitment?
(3) Does LMX significantly moderate the relationship between transformational
leadership and transactional leadership in predicting organizational affective,
continuance and normative commitment of employees?
Asia Pacific Business Review 81
Literature review
Leadership
Leadership is a process of interaction between leaders and subordinates where a leader
attempts to influence the behaviour of his or her subordinates to accomplish organizational
goals (Yukl 2005). In other words, leadership is described as the selection of bases of
influence (Krause 2004). Kanungo (1998) regarded leadership as exercising influence over
others by utilizing various bases of social power in order to achieve organizational
objectives. Bass’s (1985) multi-factor leadership theory is the most widely cited in most of
the past leadership research articles as it has captured a broad range of leadership
behaviours. Earlier studies of leadership have gone through few distinct stages, where
major researches in leadership can be classified into four approaches, namely, (1) trait
approach, (2) behaviour approach, (3) power influence approach, and (4) situational
approach (Yukl 2005, Alimo-Metcalfe et al. 2008).

On the other hand, some studies suggested that individual similarities or differences
might influence the extent to which people respond favourably to organizational efforts to
establish social exchange relationships (Shore and Coyle-Shapiro 2003). This implies that
reciprocation deserves more attention as potential antecedents to the development of
leadership in the future, since social exchange relationships are likely to have more
positive consequences for employees and organizations.
In view of the fact of Malaysia’s colonial heritage, coupled with more recent foreign
direct investments by Japanese and Westerners, the traditional patterns of leadership and
business management have been modified (Sin 1991). It is evidenced that Malaysians’
management styles and practices are being westernized especially in those working in
manufacturing companies that reported directly to their foreign partners and/or bosses.
In spite of the above statement, it has been found that Malaysian leaders are not expected
to be self-serving such as placing their own interest ahead of the group, as they are still
governed by their key cultural and religious values which underpin their behaviour, beliefs
and attitudes (Kennedy and Mansor 2000).
Past studies on leadership have not found conclusive evidence on Malaysian
leadership style. For example, Gill (1998) suggested that Malaysian managers are found to
be more direct, delegate less and are more transactional. However, Govindan (2000)
reported that Malaysian leaders lean more towards participative and consultative styles.
This is in line with the assertion of Abdullah (1992) that the use of stronger tactics in
Malaysian context is not likable as Malaysians generally are not in favour of overt display
of anger and aggressive behaviour.
Past literature had indicated clear links between certain kinds of leadership, especially
a ‘post -heroic’ style of leadership, and staff attitudes to work and their wellbeing at work
(Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe 2000, Borrill et al. 2005). However, what has so far
been elusive has been evidence of a direct relationship between transformational and
transactional leadership styles and employees’ organizational commitment, with the
moderating impact of LMX. Hence, this suggests that a study is needed to investigate
the missing gap between these three components. It is believed that management of an
organization needs to pay attention to the quality of LMX and leadership styles, as both
aspects are required for an effective individual, team or organization.
According to Elangovan and Xie (2000), organizations nowadays are multifunctional
teams moving along a horizontal structure where it is vital to fully understand the
employees’ perceptions of supervisors’ power. Subordinates have been given considerable
autonomy to set goals and evaluate output, which used to be the traditional role
82 M.-C. Lo et al.
of supervisors. In fact, organizations have reengineered themselves to be more efficient

and therefore no longer practice the traditional corporate hierarchy, thus pushing more
decision-making to lower level management. These new workplace trends stress the
importance of developing and expanding the roles of followers in the leadership of
organization. These trends also rationalized the willingness of leaders to embrace the
notion of sharing power with subordinates. When a minority opinion is attributed to an
outgroup member, it can influence individuals who are in the majority (Phillips 2003).
This implies that lower status workers now possess certain power that can be used to
influence not only one another but also their supervisors. This coincides with Kanter’s
(1974) observation that power should be shared by managers and employees so that
employees are able to act effectively on their own.
Transformational leadership
Burns (1978) discussed leadership as transforming in which the leaders and the followers
are often transformed or changed in performance and outlook. Further, the leader –
follower interaction is known as the transformational influence process and it is also
referred to as transformational leadership (Bass and Avolio 1993). According to Bass and
Avolio (1993), transformational leaders may make use of one or more of the following five
factors: (1) idealized influence (attributed); (2) idealized influence (behavioural),
(3) inspirational motivation – leader energizes followers with optimism and vision;
(4) intellectual stimulation; and (5) individualized consideration. Transformational leaders
delegate assignments as opportunities for growth (Conger et al. 2000, Judge and Bono
2000, Erkutlu 2008).
Past studies have constantly reported that transformational leadership is more effective,
productive, innovative and satisfying to followers, as both parties work towards the good of
an organization propelled by shared visions and values as well as mutual trust and respect
(Avolio and Bass 1991, Fairholm 1991, Lowe et al. 1996, Stevens et al. 1995).
Transformational leadership is often linked to high levels of effort (Seltzer and Bass 1990).
Transformational leaders treat followers as individuals and would spend time coaching them
in order to develop their capabilities and subsequently create meaningful exchanges between
them (Lee 2005). This implies that transformational leaders believed in sharing of
formalized power and more often practice the use of personal power. In the same vein,
another study has drawn a distinction between authentic transformational leadership and
pseudo-transformational leadership (Bass 1985). It was found that pseudo-transformational
leaders would seek power and position even at the expense of their followers’ achievements,
thus their behaviours are inconsistent and unreliable (Bass and Steidlmeier 1999). In addition
to that, transformational leadership generates more of a learning culture than other types of
leadership styles where the transformational leaders focus on new norms, creative
behaviours and better values (Popper and Lipshitz 1995, Mannheim and Halamish 2008).
Transactional leadership
Another type of leadership which has been widely used in organizational behaviour studies
is transactional leadership. Burns (1978), who pioneered the study of transactional
leadership, indicated that transactional leaders are those who sought to motivate followers
by appealing to their self-interests. These leaders motivate subordinates to achieve
expected levels of performance by helping them to recognize task responsibilities, identify
goals and develop confidence about meeting desired performance levels (Bass 1990).
According to Bass and Avolio (1994), transactional leaders employ three factors:
(1) contingent reward; (2) management-by-exception active; and (3) management-by-
exception passive. In contingent rewards, the leader provides followers with material and
psychological rewards contingent on the fulfilment of contractual obligations. Bass (1985)
emphasized that by providing contingent rewards, a transactional leader might inspire a
reasonable degree of involvement, loyalty, commitment and performance from
subordinates. On the other hand, management-by-exception is where the leader is vigilant
and ensures that followers meet predetermined standards. In management-by-exception, a
passive leader intervenes with followers only after non-compliance of standards has
occurred or when mistakes have already happened.
Transactional leadership involves contingent reinforcement where followers are
motivated by their leaders’ promises, rewards and praises. At the same time, the leaders
react to whether the followers carry out what the leaders and followers have ‘transacted’
to do (Bass and Steidlmeier 1999). It may take the form of employees being rewarded
accordingly and the leader will clarify to the followers through direction or participation
(Erkutlu 2008). This implies that subordinates who work under transactional leaders
would have a greater power and the ability to affect the strength of a leader’s influence,
style of behaviour and the performance of the group (Hollander 1993). Conversely, this
type of leadership may take the form of passive leadership, especially when the leader
practices passive managing-by-exception by waiting for issues or problems to surface
before taking corrective measure (Burns 1978, Northouse 2001).
Leader – member exchange (LMX)

The leader – member exchange (LMX) theory conceptualizes leadership as a process that
is centred in the interaction between leaders and followers. It involves the inter-personal
relationships between leaders and followers. Liden and Maslyn (1998) divide LMX into
four dimensions: affect; contribution; loyalty; and professional respect. Subsequently,
some other researchers such as Bhal and Ansari (1996) have come out with a two-
dimensional scale known as LMX-Contribution and LMX-Affect. Interestingly, Maslyn
and Uhl-Bien (2001) proposed that affect, loyalty and professional respect dimensions are
focusing more on the social exchange between the leader and member, whereas the
contribution dimension is more work-related. According to Yukl (2005), LMX describes
how a leader and an individual subordinate develop a relationship as they influence each
other and negotiate the subordinate’s role in the organization. As the relationship
develops, the latitude given to the subordinate by the supervisor can be increased.
The LMX theory was once known as the vertical dyad linkage theory because of its focus
on reciprocal influence processes within vertical dyads and it consists of one person who
has direct authority over another person (Dansereau et al. 1975, Graen and Cashman
1975). Dienesch and Liden (1986) noted that leadership domain is the notion of the dyad
relationship between the supervisors and their subordinates. These relationships are
defined by the roles that the subordinates have built or negotiated with their supervisors.
The differentiation in the LMX is further exacerbated by the constraints on supervisors.
Therefore, only a few key subordinates are likely to have a close relationship with their
supervisors. Nonetheless, the relationship between leaders and followers are becoming
increasing important for organizations to learn how to build better trust among themselves
in order to achieve greater commitment from the subordinates (Ansari et al. 2007).
Blau (1964) rationalized that social exchange theory can be used to explain leadership
influence in human interactions, and this is further supported by Hollander and Offermann
84 M.-C. Lo et al.
(1990), where they endorsed the importance of social exchange or transaction over time
that exists between the supervisors and subordinates, including reciprocal influence and
interpersonal perception. In other words, the ability of individuals to behave in ways
consistent with their identities and to invoke an identity in others is possibly affected by
social context (Stryker 1994). It is believed that the supervisors could earn the credits from
followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ competence and loyalty, and in return the
supervisors could use these credits to influence followers’ compliance and commitment to
achieve the organizational goals.
In general, the dyadic exchanges range on a continuum from low to high. High-quality
exchanges are known to have a higher level of trust, interaction, support and rewards than
low-quality exchanges (Dienesch and Liden 1986). Early works in LMX had found two
types of relationship between the subordinate and supervisor, namely the in-group and the
out-group. Sparowe (1994) found a significant association between LMX and member
perceptions of the degree of empowerment. Those who become in-group members

basically got along well with the leader and they are willing to expand their roles and
responsibilities (Dansereau et al. 1973). These in-group members have high-quality
exchanges characterized by ‘mutual trust, respect, and obligation’ contrary to the
out-group members who have low-quality exchanges that have less trust, respect and
obligation. (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995). They further illustrated that LMX is related to
performance, organizational commitment, job climate, innovation, organizational
citizenship behaviour, empowerment, procedural and distributive justice, career progress
and many other important organizational variables. This is congruent with the social
exchange theory, where individuals who are engaged in a high-quality relationship will
behave in such a way that their exchange partner will also get the benefits (Murphy et al.
2003). In searching for answers to the above questions, there is a need to develop a general
framework that can depict the fundamental elements and concerns of the leadership field.
Hence, the four dimensions of leader – member exchange comprising affection, loyalty,
contribution and respect would stand as moderators to examine if relationship would play
a dominant role in determining or facilitating the process between leadership styles and
organizational behaviour.
Organizational commitment
The main focus of this study is on organizational commitment as a multi-dimensional
concept that represents the relationship between an employee and employer. According to
Mathieu and Zajac (1990), if organizational commitment is intact, then there will be
relatively no turnover. Employees with a sense of organizational commitment are less
likely to engage in withdrawal behaviour and more willing to accept change (Iverson and
Buttigieg 1998). In a few studies related to organizational commitment, Meyer and
associates (Allen and Meyer 1990, Meyer and Herscovitch 2001) came up with a
three-component model of organizational commitment which incorporates affective,
continuance and normative as the three dimensions of organizational commitment. Meyer
and Allen (1991) found that the three forms of commitment are related yet distinguishable
from one another as well as from job satisfaction, job involvement and occupational
commitment. A recent study by Schyns and Wolfram (2008) has also confirmed the
importance of LMX with work outcomes, where the contribution dimension of LMX was
found to be related to organizational commitment in the banking and insurance industry in
Germany. On the other hand, a study done on Malaysian engineers has concluded that
employee perception and attitudinal characteristics have significantly influenced
organizational commitment and subsequently affected organizational outcomes

(Muthuveloo and Che Rose 2005).
On another occasion, affective commitment was found to have a positive relationship
with regard to turnover, absenteeism, job performance and organizational citizenship
behaviour (Meyer and Herscovitch 2001). These employees have less intention to leave
their respective organizations and are more willing to accept change (Iverson and
Buttigieg 1998). In addition, other researchers found affective commitment as a consistent
predictor of turnover. Normative commitment is also expected to have similar
consequences as affective commitment. Employees feel obliged to reward their
organization and therefore are less likely to leave, have low absenteeism and are more
open to change (Hackett et al. 1994). According to Iverson and Buttigieg (1998),
employees who have high levels of continuance commitment have negative reactions
towards change but have positive results towards low absenteeism and low turnover. Past
researchers have indicated that employees will be more committed when their values are
more aligned with the organization’s values (Abbott et al. 2005, Kristof-Brown et al.
2005) and that, employees are more likely to remain in organizations that provide a
positive match (Van Vianen 2000).
Hypotheses
This study sets out to examine the extent to which quality of leadership, reflected in the
way that staff perceives the leadership styles of their employers and relationship with their
supervisors, affect their commitment.
Lee (2005) found that transformational leadership correlates significantly with
organizational commitment with samples of research and development professionals in
Singapore. On the other hand, some researchers contended that transformational leaders have
the effect of creating a warmer and friendlier atmosphere at work and hence allow for better
flexibility in the relationship between leaders and followers (Liden et al. 1997). Walumbwa
et al. (2005) contended that 20 years of leadership studies have concluded that leaders who
possess some values of transformational leadership style would generate higher levels of
employees commitment and satisfaction. On the other hand, Hayward et al. (2004) noted that
transformational leadership has a moderate positive correlation with affective commitment.
Lower correlation coefficients between transformational leadership and normative and
continuance commitment were also found. The findings have further indicated that no
correlation was found between transactional leadership and affective, normative and
continuance commitment. Nonetheless, Meyer and Allen (1991) suggested that there is a
relationship between transactional and continuance commitment. This is further supported by
a recent study by AL-Hussami (2008), who concluded that there is a positive relationship
between transactional leadership styles and organizational commitment.
Other researchers such as Kent and Chelladurai (2001) posited that individualized
consideration has a positive relationship with both affective commitment and normative
commitment. Similarly, positive correlations were found between intellectual stimulation
and both affective commitment and normative commitment. Transformational leadership
helps to increase trust, commitment and team efficacy (Arnold et al. 2001).
Bass and Avolio (1994) revealed that transformational leaders who encourage their
followers to think critically and creatively can have an influence on their followers’
commitment. This is further supported by Walumbwa and Lawler (2003), who found that
transformational leaders can motivate and increase followers’ motivation and
organizational commitment by getting them to solve problems creatively and also
86 M.-C. Lo et al.
understanding their needs. Price (1997) further suggests that employees are far more likely
to be committed to the organization if they have confidence in their leaders. Hence,
hypotheses are formulated as follows:
Hypothesis 1: There is positive relationship between transformational leadership and the
affective, continuance and normative dimensions of organizational
commitment;
Hypothesis 2: There is positive relationship between transactional leadership and the
affective, continuance and normative dimensions of organizational
commitment.
Studies in the past have shown that the strength of LMX relationships can predict
organizational outcomes such as performance-related and attitudinal variables (Gerstner and
Day 1997). Some examples are performance ratings (Liden et al. 1993); satisfaction
(Duchon et al. 1986); and organizational commitment (Nystrom 1990, Liden et al. 2000). Lee
(2005) identified that transformational leadership behaviour has significant effects on all
dimensions of LMX and organizational commitment. Owing to the transactional nature of
exchange between transactional leaders and followers, transactional leadership does not have
significant associations with most dimensions of LMX. She added that while leadership is
found to have direct impact on organizational commitment, at the same time it also works
indirectly through the mediator, LMX, in predicting organizational commitment. Poor LMX
has similarly been viewed as an undesirable attribute in an employment relationship and has
been observed to explain employees’ quit decisions (Griffeth and Hom 2001). Hence, if there
is apparent and systematic LMX, employees will be more committed and have low intention
to leave. Higher quality LMX has been linked with a number of benefits for organizations,
including better performance and productivity (Scandura and Graen 1984, Deluga 1992),
reduced turnover (Vecchio 1997) and improved organizational citizenship behaviours
(Deluga 1992, Basu and Green 1997). Hence, the following hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 3: Leader–member exchange has significant moderating effect on the
relationships of all dimensions between transformational and transactional
leadership and the affective, continuance and normative dimensions of
organizational commitment.
Methodology
Research design, sample and procedure
This study focuses on manufacturing employees in East Malaysia as a population of
interest. Currently, the manufacturing sector is considered as one of the cornerstones of
Malaysia’s economic diversification strategy. A total of 200 questionnaires were
distributed from January 2008 to April 2008. A random sampling procedure was
employed, with information on a possible sample of approximately 500 executives
randomly selected from the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers list. Initially, the
researcher had written to the management of the selected MNCs and local companies to
get the approval from the companies to conduct the survey. Then, to further convince the
companies to participate, the researcher visited these companies and followed-up on
the buy-in persuasion with phone calls and faxes. The questionnaires, together with
cover letters (seeking their cooperation and explaining the purpose of the study) and
self-addressed stamped envelopes (for the completed questionnaires), were mostly
personally handed to supervisors after a brief personal communication concerning the
topic and the goals of the study. Data was collected through survey questionnaires from
subordinates comprising working executives who are currently reporting to lower- and
middle-level managers. However, only 156 subordinates from 11 companies responded to
the survey giving a response rate of about 78%.
This study adopts the repertoire of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
originating from Bass and Avolio (1997). The MLQ was formulated from the Full Range
Leadership Development Theory (Avolio and Bass 1991). Thus, the MLQ is based on the
work of renowned leadership theorists like Bass, Avolio and Yammarino (Avolio and Bass
1991). Thirty-two questions were used to measure each of the components of
transformational and transactional leadership such as idealized influence (attributed),
idealized influence (behaviour), inspirational motivation, individualized consideration,
intellectual stimulation, contingent rewards, management-by-exception active and
management-by-exception passive.
In order to measure the quality of exchange between the subordinates and their
supervisors, this study adopted Liden and Maslyn’s (1998) 12-item LMX scale with the
dimensions of contribution, loyalty, affection and respect, with three items being
measured in each dimension. The researcher chose to use the LMX – MDM measurement
as it has undergone reasonable psychometric testing and has shown promising evidence of
satisfactory reliability and validity (Ansari et al. 2007). Besides, it has broader domain
coverage and better reflects the subordinate’s evaluation of the relational characteristics
and qualities of the supervisor – subordinate relationship than other unidimensional
measure of LMX (Wang et al. 2005). This scale consists of items that measure various
aspects of the working relationship between the supervisors and subordinates.
This study adopted Allen and Meyer’s (1996) 18-item scale method to measure the
three dimensions of organizational commitment, namely, affective commitment,
continuance commitment and normative commitment, because of the conceptual
consistency underlying the definitions that were used in its development and because it
was proven to have adequate psychometric properties.
Data analysis
Profile of the respondents
Table 1 shows the demographic profile of the respondents. Eleven large multinational
companies located in East Malaysia were chosen for this study. The companies selected
were diverse in terms of production process and they were primarily dealing with
consumer products (33%), followed by industrial products (26%), trading products (25%)
and construction products (16%). A large majority of them (38.6%) were held degrees.
With regards to their gender, 59% were male and 41% were female. The biographical
details were as shown in Table 1.
The 32 items of MLQ measuring components of transactional and transformational
leadership were subject to a varimax rotated principal component analysis and were
subsequently reduced to three and four interpretable factors respectively with eigenvalues
greater than 1. In total, the three factors of transactional leadership styles and four factors
of transformational leadership styles explained a total of 75.16% and 76.96% of the
variance as shown in Tables 2 and 3 respectively.
On the other hand, organizational commitment was also subjected to a varimax rotated
principal component analysis with three interpretable factors with eigenvalues greater than
1 and explained 70.79% of the variance. This is illustrated in Table 4.
As shown in Table 5, 12 items that assessed LMX – namely contribution, professional
respect, affect, and loyalty – were subjected to varimax rotated principal component
88 M.-C. Lo et al.
Table 1. Demographic characteristic of respondents.
Demographics Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 92 58.97
Female 64 41.03
Education background High school 11 26.6
Diploma 31 27.8
Degree 96 38.6
Postgraduate 13 3.8
Others 1.9
Gross salary Less than RM1500 10 6.41
Between RM1501 and RM3000 61 39.1
Above RM7500 6 3.85

Sector attached Consumer product 52 33.33
Industrial product 41 26.28
Construction product 24 15.39
Trading product 39 25
Table 2. Rotated component matrix for transactional leadership.

Management-by- Contingent Management-by-
Variables exception active rewards exception passive
Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing 0.908
with mistakes, complaints, and failures
Keeps track of all mistakes 0.900
Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, 0.809
exceptions, and deviations from standards
Directs my attention toward failures to 0.796
meet standards
Makes clear what one can expect to receive 0.871
when performance goals are achieved
Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations 0.843
Discusses in specific terms who is 0.806
responsible for achieving performance targets
Provides me with assistance in exchange for 0.734
my efforts
Waits for things to go wrong before taking 0.822
action
Fails to interfere until problems become serious 0.798
Shows that he/she a firm believer in ‘If it ain’t 0.767
broke, don’t fix it’.
Demonstrates that problems must become 0.725
chronic before I take action
Total variance explained
Eigenvalues 4.714 2.292 1.363
% of variance 27.918 24.988 22.257
Cumulative % 27.918 52.906 75.163
analysis. The 12 items of LMX were loaded into two interpretable factors known as
respect – contribute and loyalty –affect. The two interpretable factors explained a total of
79.41% of the variance.
Table 3. Rotated component matrix for transformational leadership.
Intellectual Idealized Individualized Inspirational

Variables stimulation influence consideration motivation
Re-examines critical assumptions to question 0.837
whether they are appropriate
Gets me to look at problems from many 0.818
different angles
Suggests new ways of looking at how to 0.750
complete assignments
Seeks differing perspectives when solving 0.732
problems
Spends time teaching and coaching 0.654
Helps me to develop my strengths 0.634
Talks about their most important values and 0.844
beliefs
Emphasizes the importance of having a 0.804
collective sense of mission
Specifies the importance of having a strong 0.759
sense of purpose
Talks optimistically about the future 0.687
Considers the moral and ethical consequences 0.610
of decisions
Articulates a compelling vision of the future 0.577
Treats me as an individual rather than just 0.795
as a member of a group
Goes beyond self-interest for the good of 0.796
the group
Considers me as having different needs, 0.684
abilities, and aspirations from others
Instils pride in me for being associated with 0.600
him/her
Displays a sense of power and confidence 0.834
Expresses confidence that goals will be 0.794
achieved
Acts in ways that builds my respect 0.791
Talks enthusiastically about what needs 0.699
to be accomplished
Eigenvalues 10.056 2.301 1.898 1.139
% of variance 22.610 21.305 17.041 16.018
Cumulative % 22.610 43.916 60.957 76.975
The reliability coefficients, means and standard deviations of the study variables are
contained in Table 6. As shown in Table 6, the internal reliabilities of scales were between
.67 and .93, which is clearly acceptable (Nunnally 1978), whereas standard deviations of
the variables were either close to or exceeded 1.0, indicating that the study variables were
discriminatory.
Table 7 illustrates the intercorrelations among the subscales obtained using Pearson
correlation to determine whether the subscales were independent measures of the same
concept. Generally, intercorrelations among the two dimensions of LMX registered value
of between .39 to .79 ( p , .01), whereas the intercorrelations for the subscales of
transactional and transformational leadership ranged from .21 to .70 at the level of
p, .01. As stated by some past researchers (e.g. Bass 1985, Bass and Avolio 1993),
90 M.-C. Lo et al.
Table 4. Rotated component matrix for organizational commitment.
Affective Normative Continuance

Variables commitment commitment commitment
I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving 0.803
this organization
I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career 0.803
with this organization
Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of 0.778
necessity as much as desire
I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization 0.697
I feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organization 0.690
Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it 0.659
would be right to leave my organization
I would feel guilty if I left my organization now 0.632
Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for 0.594

achieving performance targets
I would not leave my organization right now 0.870
because I have a sense of obligation to the
people in it
I feel there is an obligation to remain with my 0.865
current employer
I feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization 0.687
I owe a great deal to my organization 0.648
This organization has a great deal of personal 0.602
meaning for me
Too much in my life would be disrupted if I 0.558
decided I wanted to leave my organization now
I would feel guilty if I left my organization now 0.554
One of the few serious consequences of leaving this 0.813
organization would be the scarcity of available
alternatives
If I had not already put so much of myself into this 0.785
organization, I might consider working elsewhere
This organization deserves my loyalty 0.617
Eigenvalues 9.636 1.892 1.211
% of variance 29.723 28.338 12.730
Cumulative % 29.723 58.067 70.791
transformational leadership is a higher order construct comprising theoretically distinct

but highly inter-correlated scales. On the other hand, the intercorrelations among the three
components of commitment registered values of between .34 to .81 ( p , .01). On the
whole, the results have demonstrated acceptable levels of correlation.
A three-step hierarchical multiple regression analysis was carried out to test the
hypotheses that comprised the direct and moderating effects of leadership styles, LMX and
organizational commitment. The purpose of hierarchical regression is to get information
regarding the form or the pattern of the relationship between the variables.
Tables 8, 9, and 10 present the results of the analyses. As noted in Tables 8 and 9, Step
1 was found to be significant ( p , .01). Hence the direct effects of the predictors
significantly explained 66% and 65% of the variability in affective commitment and
normative commitment. The analysis on affective commitment and normative
commitment revealed that three dimensions of transformational leadership – namely,
Table 5. Rotated component matrix for leader member exchange.
Professional
Variables respect-contribute Affect-loyalty
I respect my supervisor’s knowledge of and 0.917
competence on the job
I admire my supervisor’s professional skills 0.889
I am impressed with my supervisor’s knowledge 0.871
of his/her job.
I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond 0.636
those normally required, to meet my supervisor’s
work goals.
I like my supervisor very much as a person 0.633
I do not mind working my hardest for my 0.581
supervisor
My supervisor defends my work actions to a 0.794

superior, even without complete
knowledge of the issue in question
I do work for my supervisor that goes 0.774
beyond what is specified in my job descriptions
My supervisor would come to my defence if 0.751
I were ‘attacked’ by others
My supervisor would defend me to others in 0.707
the organization if I made an honest mistake
My supervisor is the kind of person one 0.669
would like to have as a friend
My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with 0.667
Eigenvalues 7.645 1.165
% of variance 39.034 39.380
Cumulative % 39.034 79.414
Table 6. Descriptive of the main variables.

Variable Mean Standard deviation Reliability (alpha)
Transactional leadership
Management-by-exception active 4.13 1.18 .91
Contingent rewards 4.78 1.06 .89
Management-by-exception passive 2.53 .98 .81
Transformational leadership
Intellectual stimulation 4.21 1.17 .93
Idealized influence 4.22 1.06 .91
Individualized consideration 3.82 1.04 .86
Inspirational motivation 4.94 1.01 .87
Organizational commitment
Affective commitment 3.95 1.23 .93
Normative commitment 4.35 1.00 .90
Continuance commitment 3.56 1.01 .67
Leader – member exchange
Professional respect– contribute 5.31 .97 .92
Affect – loyalty 4.41 1.13 .89
92
M.-C. Lo et al.
Table 7. Intercorrelations of the study variables.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Contigent rewards 1.00
2. Management-by-exception passive 2.46** 1.00
3. Management-by-exception active .38** 2.01 1.00
4. Intellectual stimulation .62** 2.34** .62** 1.00
5. Idealized influence .54** 2.15 .55** .70** 1.00
6. Individualized consideration .55** 2.09 .36** .67** .60** 1.00
7. Inspirational motivation .67** 2.40** .21** .38** .50** .55** 1.00
8. Affective commitment .48** 2.20* .54** .74** .75** .55** .30** 1.00
9. Normative commitment .67** 2.37** .46** .68** .68** .60** .60** .81** 1.00
10. Continuance commitment .21** .11 .14 .05 .19* .38** .32** .33** .34** 1.00
11. Professional respect – contribute .66** 2.47** .20* .58** .50** .60** .74** .52** .74** .25** 1.00
12. Affect – loyalty .64** 2.28** .39** .65** .62** .72** .59** .67** .76** .44** .79** 1.00
Note: N ¼ 156, **p , .01, *p , .05.
Table 8. Hierarchical regression results using LMX as a moderator in the relationship between
leadership styles and affective commitment.
Variables Std beta Step 1 Std beta Step 2 Std beta Step 3
Model variables
Contingent rewards (CR) .16
Management-by-exception passive (MEP) 2 .10
Management-by-exception active (MEA) .07
Intellectual stimulation (IS) .21*
Idealized influence (IF) .25**
Individualized consideration (IC) .08
Inspirational motivation (IM) .19*
Moderating variable
Professional respect– contribute (RC) 3.41**
Affect – loyalty (AL) 2.45*
Interaction terms
CR*RC 2 2.34*
CR*AL .46
MEP*RC 2 1.49*
MEP*AL .49
MEA*RC 1.70*
MEA*AL 2 .54
IS*RC 2 2.46
IS*AL .58
IF*RC .99
IF*AL .53
IC*RC .41
IC*AL 2 .60
IM*RC 2 .59
IM*AL 1.32
R2 .66 .73 .78
Adj R2 .64 .72 .71
R2 change .65 .08 .05
F value 39.73** 20.31** 2.32**
Note: **p , 0.01, *p , 0.05.
intellectual stimulation, idealized influence and inspirational motivation – were

significantly predicting affective commitment and normative commitment respectively.
In Table 10, Step 1 was found to be significant ( p , .01). Only two dimensions in
transformational leadership – namely, intellectual stimulation and individualized
consideration – were found to be significantly related to continuance commitment
( p , .01). The incremental variance in Step 3 was significant at p , .01. One dimension
of transactional leadership and three dimensions of transformational leadership were
found to be interacted with both dimensions of LMX. This indicated that the interaction
effects of LMX and leadership styles had significant contribution in explaining the
variation in continuance commitment.
Discussion
Overall, the stated research hypotheses received partial to moderate support from the data.
As stated by Selvarajah and Meyer (2008), managerial behaviour is one of the important
components associated with the excellent leadership in Malaysia. First, the statistical
results have indicated a positive direct relationship between three dimensions of
transformational leadership styles, namely intellectual stimulation, idealized influence and
94 M.-C. Lo et al.
leadership styles and normative commitment.
Model variables
Contingent rewards (CR) .16 .09 1.25**
Management-by-exception passive (MEP) 2 .10 2.06 1.15**
Management-by-exception active (MEA) .07 .12 2 .84*
Intellectual stimulation (IS) .21* .07 1.52*
Idealized influence (IF) .25** .23 2 .77*
Individualized consideration (IC) .08 2.05 2 .11
Inspirational motivation (IM) .19* .01 2 .25
Moderating variable
Professional respect– contribute (RC) .33** 2.05**
Affect – loyalty (AL) .22* 2 1.07
Interaction terms
CR*RC 2 2.34*
CR*AL .46
MEP*RC 2 1.48*
MEP*AL .49
MEA*RC 1.70*
MEA*AL 2 .54
IS*RC 2 2.46
IS*AL .58
IF*RC .99
IF*AL .54
IC*RC .41
IC*AL 2 .60
IM*RC 2 .59
IM*AL 1.32
R2 .65 .73 .78
Adj R2 .64 .71 .74
R2 change .65 .08 .05
F value 39.73** 20.31** 2.32**
Note: **p , 0.01, *p , 0.05.
inspirational motivation, and affective and normative commitment. Two dimensions of

transformational leadership, namely intellectual stimulation and individualized consider-
ation, were found to have positive relationship with continuance commitment. As stated
by Meyer and Allen (1997), employees who stay with an organization because they feel
obligated do not exhibit the same eagerness and involvement as employees who willingly
stay with an organization. As such, transformational leadership behaviours are not as
strongly related to continuance commitment as to affective and normative commitment.
This is also supported by research done by Arnold et al. (2001), and they further
commented that transformational leadership helps to increase trust, commitment and team
efficacy. As stated by Alimo-Mecalfe et al. (2008), transformational leaders would
encourage and motivate the development of their employees based on integrity, openness
and transparency, and the genuine valuing of others and their contributions. In addition,
the results also revealed a positive relationship between individualized consideration of
transformational leadership and continuance commitment. This implies that the leaders
who give advice, support and pay attention to the individual needs of followers will
enhance the level of organizational commitment of the employees (Kent and Chelladurai
2001). Hence, Hypothesis 1 is partially supported.
leadership styles and continuance commitment.
Model variables
Contingent rewards (CR) .13 .03 .75
Management-by-exception passive (MEP) .11 .13 1.33
Management-by-exception active (MEA) .19 .13 .70
Intellectual stimulation (IS) 2.50** 2.47** .95
Idealized influence (IF) .02 2.09 2 .65
Individualized consideration (IC) .50** .26 .64
Inspirational motivation (IM) .14 .19 2 1.89
Moderating variable
Professional respect– contribute (RC) 2.23 .31
Affect – loyalty (AL) .65** .57
Interaction terms
CR*RC 2 3.38*
CR*AL 2.45
MEP*RC 2 .98
MEP*AL 2 .14
MEA*RC 2 .29
MEA*AL 2 .71
IS*RC 2 1.47
IS*AL 2 .49
IF*RC 3.33*
IF*AL 2 2.92*
IC*RC 2 4.03*
IC*AL 4.10**
IM*RC 5.46**
IM*AL 2 2.04
R2 .28 .39 .59
Adj R2 .24 .35 .52
R2 change .28 .11 .20
F value 8.14** 13.05** 4.66**
Note: **p , 0.01, *p , 0.05.
Secondly, none of the dimensions of transactional leadership styles were found to have
significant impact on all three components of organizational commitment. Thus, following
this call, the second hypothesis is rejected. Generally, the present study has exhibited that
transformational leaders have a more significant and stronger relationship with
organizational commitment. This is consistent with previous studies by Shamir et al.
(1998) and Walumbwa and Lawler (2003), who elucidated that leaders who exhibit
transformational leadership styles are more effective in achieving significantly higher
commitment levels than transactional leaders.
On the other hand, Brower et al. (2000) stated that effective managers do not work in
isolation from their subordinates, but instead would prefer to work with their subordinates.
The nature of the relationship between the manager and subordinate has been
acknowledged as complex and interactive, with the existence of reciprocity in the dyad.
Cohen and Bradford (1990) emphasized that agents of power for a target are not only
those who are authorized by the organizations or those holding positions of hierarchical
positions over him or her, but any member of his or her role-set who possesses any form of
power, even if they are low in the hierarchical structure (Katz and Kahn 1978). As pointed
out by Moscovici (1984), every member of a group, independent of his or her position in it,
96 M.-C. Lo et al.
is also a potential agent and target of influence. This study is an attempt in that direction.
It is worth investigating the impact of LMX between supervisors and subordinates on the
supervisors’ leadership styles, in view of the fact that managers who rely on formal
authority to accomplish change are unlikely to be successful in the long term. This is
because as companies continue to flatten their hierarchies, the ability to influence is critical
if one wants to get things done (Church and Waclawski 2001).
As hypothesized, affect–loyalty has a direct relationship with all dimensions of
organizational commitment. This is supported by Bhal and Ansari (2007) where LMX
influences organizational commitment of subordinates. Even though transactional leadership
did not have direct impact on organizational commitment, it was found that some dimensions
of transactional leadership such as management-by-exception passive and contingent reward
have significant relationship with affective and continuance commitment when LMX was
used as moderator. This is because employees may want to apply LMX to reinforce and
enhance the reciprocal nature of transactional leadership. Hence, if there is apparent and
systematic LMX, employees will be more committed. As stated by Lee (2008), in an exchange
characterized by trust and loyalty, leaders would delegate more challenging and relevant
responsibilities that involve greater risk-taking to subordinates that they trust (Tierney and
Farmers 2002). These findings can be explained by the theory of social exchange (Blau 1964)
where employees would continue to commit themselves and stay with the organization if they
are contented with the needs, expectations, desires or preferences (Chew and Chan 2008).
Lee (2005) noted that while leadership styles were found to have direct impact on
organizational commitment, it also works indirectly through LMX in predicting
organizational commitment. This is particularly true in a high power–distance country like
Malaysia, as leading is a hierarchical relationship (Kennedy 2002, Ansari et al. 2004) between
subordinates who would tend to yield to superior authority and leaders who are expected to be
paternalistic (Farh and Cheng 2000). Hence Hypothesis 3 is partially supported.
On the other hand, three dimensions of transformational leadership, namely
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, were
found to significantly impact affective and continuance commitment when it interacted
with LMX. On a similar note, a study by Garger and Jacques (2008) supported the view
that intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration operate at the dyadic level.
Lee (2008) posited that transformational leadership has positive association with the
dimensions of LMX. LMX suggests that interaction between supervisors and employees
are frequently interest-based (Wang et al. 2005). In addition to that, Lee (2005) concluded
that transformational leaders who lead their followers by setting themselves as role models
can deepen their followers’ feelings of loyalty and contribution. Research by Vigoda-
Gadot (2007) have concluded that better performances can be achieved when there is a
reasonable level of expectation-fit and when the social exchange between supervisors and
subordinates is fair and equal. Hence, the above findings clearly suggest that LMX is
critical to attitude-related outcomes in the Malaysian context (Ansari et al. 2007) due to its
collectivist society which has a stronger preference for hierarchical relationship (Hofstede
1991, Abdullah 1996, Ansari et al. 2004).
Implications
This research has a number of theoretical and practical implications both for scholars and
practitioners, especially in the domain of organizational behaviour. From a theoretical
viewpoint, results of this study revealed the important link between leadership styles and
the importance of having a good relationship between leaders and subordinates, and
enhanced further the understanding of the employees’ organizational commitment. Hence,

this finding highlights the importance of leadership styles as well as recognition of LMX as
a valuable approach for organizational commitment. This study perhaps is the first that has
systematically attempted to integrate leadership styles, LMX and organizational
commitment in organizations.
Without a doubt, the research on leadership styles on organizational commitment is
still limited in its ability to provide an unequivocal guideline and to advise on the best way
to exercise power. However, by drawing upon the diverse literatures, this study has
inevitably and successfully developed some guidelines for scholars as well as readers on
the effective use of leadership styles. Therefore, this study provides a conceptual
foundation for the effective use of leadership styles. It has also enhanced understanding
about the antecedent of leadership styles which subsequently resulted in a better
knowledge of the organizational commitment factors fundamental to employees’
work-related attitudes and behaviours. This study also extends extant research on the
leadership styles, LMX and organizational commitment and hopefully stimulates the need
for more research incorporating the perspectives of both parties.
At the organizational level, top management should encourage and provide sufficient
training for managers to learn and improve their skills to correctly evaluate which leadership
styles are appropriate to their power status to increase the chances of achieving desired
outcomes. It is believed that it can be done by creating the awareness of the importance of
effective leadership through training and development programmes which incorporate
leadership elements for the professionals. Practically, the research has shown that if
supervisors maintain a good relationship with their subordinates, the subordinates are likely
to develop organizational commitment. More importantly, it allows management to control
and accurately predict employees’ behaviours and attitudes by using the appropriate
leadership styles for successful targeted outcomes such as compliance or commitment. This
suggests that increasing a leader’s awareness of how his or her self-perceptions compare to
the subordinates’ perceptions can lead to greater agreement. Hence, this study provides a
basis for researchers who are interested in this field to further test the relationships among
these constructs, especially in the manufacturing industry.
Limitations
In view of the fact that the supervisors and subordinates were mainly from local
manufacturing companies, different cultural and international contexts may limit the
generalizability of results. Comparative studies across professions, cultures and industries
are needed in order to truly understand many of the constructs included in this study.
Clearly, this is an area that calls for further investigations. Next, this is not a longitudinal
study; hence the direction of causality cannot be determined. Clearly, a longitudinal
approach would have placed the researcher in a better position to draw causal conclusions.
Therefore, only conclusions or discussions of the general relationships between the
variables of interest could be drawn. However, the current study makes an important
contribution to the understanding of how leadership styles and LMX could have significant
impact on the use of organizational commitment.
Direction for future research

Though this study has contributed to the importance of leadership theory, future
endeavours should be dedicated to comparing these findings with similar predictors and
98 M.-C. Lo et al.
criteria in other sectors. All in all, this study suggests that managers in the manufacturing
sector should seriously looked into their leadership styles, as they play an important role in
motivating and inspiring employees. Additionally, these factors can also be used to
increase an individual’s career satisfaction or multiple aspects of organizational
performance. Besides, in view of the fact that the supervisors and subordinates were
mainly from local manufacturing companies, the results of the study are very similar to the
traditional cultural descriptor of collectivism (Hofstede 1984, Abdullah 1996). Thus,
managers may anticipate less conflict between supervisors and subordinates in
organizations when subordinates’ values reflect their culture. Clearly, this is an area
that calls for further investigations.
Conclusion
No known researches on LMX have been observed to empirically examine its impact on
the supervisors’ leadership styles and organizational commitment. Hence, this study has
added to the growing body of research linking LMX to leadership styles and
organizational commitment and expands the domain of this relationship. Considering the
potential cascading effect that LMX can have on supervisors’ leadership styles, previous
research may have underestimated the impact of LMX on organizational commitment.
It is time for practitioners to take a long hard look at their own leadership styles within the
supervisor – subordinate relationship. This research is perhaps the first that contributes to
management in general and Malaysian leadership and management in particular. It is
believed that this current model has outlined the roles of leadership styles and their
impact on organizational commitment, with the LMX an influence. This study may be
useful to those who are in positions of influence, to help the supervisors and subordinates
understand more clearly the basis of their own actions and the possible alternatives to
those actions. The results of this study confirm results of previous studies that
supervisors’ leadership styles play an instrumental role in of employees’ eventual
organizational commitment. Specifically, this study provides evidence on the importance
of relationships between supervisors and subordinates in predicting the various
dimensions of organizational commitment. Thus, organizations that are serious about
positive work outcomes should be more cognizant of the importance of applying effective
leadership styles.
From the results of this study, it can be concluded that the leadership styles of
supervisors are important dimensions of the social context because they shape
subordinates’ organizational commitment in various important ways, as discussed
above. This study has provided empirical evidence of the impact of supervisors’ leadership
styles on subordinates’ commitment. In addition to that, these results revealed that the
relationship of the persons involved in the interaction is important in understanding one of
the most basic components of leadership. This study has inevitably provided some
empirical support to verify the notion that LMX between supervisors and subordinates
does play a role in moderating the effective use of leadership styles. Even though LMX
appears to be complementing leadership in the determination of organizational
commitment, the importance of building good and quality relationships between
supervisors and subordinates should not be neglected. It is believed that this study would
have added value to the literatures on supervisors’ leadership styles, especially in the
Malaysian settings, since there is limited literature based in similar settings. Practically,
this research points to the fact that Malaysian managers and executives need to be trained
in the effective use of influence tactics.
Notes on contributors
Dr May-Chiun Lo is a Senior Lecturer of Economics and Business at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak,
Sarawak, Malaysia.
Associate Professor T. Ramayah is a Lecturer attached to Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang,
Malaysia.
Hii Wei Min is a Lecturer attached to Lim Kok Wing Institute of Creative Technology Universiti
Malaysia Sarawak, Sarawak.
Professor Peter Songan is a Deputy Vice Chancellor of Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Sarawak,
Malaysia.
References
Abbott, G.N., White, F.A., and Charles, M.A., 2005. Linking values and organizational
commitment: a correlational and experimental investigation in two organizations. Journal of
occupational and organizational psychology, 78, 531–551.

Abdullah, A., 1992. Influence of ethnic values at the Malaysian workforce. In: A. Abdullah, ed.
Understanding the Malaysian workforce: guidelines for managers. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian
Institute of Management, 1– 17.
Abdullah, A., 1996. Going glocal: cultural dimensions in Malaysian management. Kuala Lumpur:
Malaysian Institute of Management.
Alban-Metcalfe, R.J. and Alimo-Metcalfe, B., 2000. The convergent and discriminant validity of the
transformational leadership questionnaire. International journal of selection and assessment,
8 (3), 158– 175.
AL-Hussami, M.R.N., 2008. A study of nurses’ job satisfaction: the relationship to organizational
commitment, perceived organizational support, transactional leadership, transformational
leadership, and level of education. European journal of scientific research, 22, 286– 295.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban –Metcalfe, J., Bradley, M., Mariathasan, J., and Samele, C., 2008.
The impact of engaging leadership on performance, attitudes to work and wellbeing at work.
A longitudinal study. Journal of health organization and management, 22 (6), 1477– 7266.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P., 1990. The measurement and variables associated with affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational
psychology, 63, 1 – 18.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P., 1996. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: an examination of construct validity. Journal of vocational behavior, 49,
252– 276.
Ang, C.H., Ansari, M.A., and Jantan, M., 2005. Upward influence and work outcomes: the mediating
role of LMX and organizational support. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy
of Management, Honolulu, HI, August.
Ansari, M.A., Ahmad, Z.A., and Aafaqi, R., 2004. Organizational leadership in the Malaysian
context. In: D. Tjosvold and K. Leung, eds. Leading in high growth Asia: managing
relationships for teamwork and change. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 109– 138.
Ansari, M.A., Kee, D.M.H., and Aafaqi, R., 2007. Leader – member exchange and attitudinal
outcomes: role of procedural justice climate. Leadership and organization development journal,
28 (8), 690– 709.
Arnold, K.A., Barling, K., and Kelloway, E.K., 2001. Transformational leadership or the iron cage:
which predicts trust, commitment and team efficacy? Leadership and organization development
journal, 22, 315– 320.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M., 1991. Full-range training of leadership: manual Bass/Avolio and
associates. New York: Binghamton.
Bass, B.M., 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M., 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial
applications. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J., 1993. Transformational leadership: a response to critiques.
In: M. Chemmers and R. Ayman, eds. Leadership theory and research, perspective, and
directions. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 49 – 80.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J., 1994. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
100 M.-C. Lo et al.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J., 1997. Full range of leadership development: manual for the multi-
factor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden Inc.
Bass, B.M. and Steidlmeier, P., 1999. Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership
behavior. The leadership quarterly, 10, 181–217.
Basu, R. and Green, S.G., 1997. Leader – member exchange and transformational leadership: an
empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader – member dyads. Journal of applied
social psychology, 27, 477–499.
Bhal, K.T. and Ansari, M.A., 1996. Measuring quality of interaction between leaders and members.
Journal of applied social psychology, 26, 945– 972.
Bhal, K.T. and Ansari, M.A., 2007. Leader – member exchange – subordinate outcomes relationship:
role of voice and justice. Leadership and organizational development journal, 28, 20 – 35.
Blau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Borrill, C., West, M.A., and Dawson, J.F., 2005. The relationship between leadership, people
management, staff satisfaction and intentions to leave. Aston, UK: Aston University.
Brower, H.H., Schoorman, F.D., and Tan, H.H., 2000. A model of relational leadership: the
integration of trust and leader– member exchange. Leadership quarterly, 11, 227– 250.
Burns, J.M., 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Chew, J. and Chan, C.C.A., 2008. Human resource practices, organizational commitment and
intention to stay. International journal of manpower, 29 (6), 503–522.
Church, A.H. and Waclawski, J., 2001. Hold the line: an examination of line vs. staff differences.
Human resource management, 40, 21 –34.
Cohen, A.R. and Bradford, D.L., 1990. Influence without authority. New York: John Wiley.
Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N., and Menon, S.T., 2000. Charismatic leadership and follower effects.
Journal of organizational behavior, 21 (7), 747– 767.
Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., and Graen, G., 1973. Instrumentality theory and equity theory as
complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among
managers. Organizational behavior and human performance, 10, 184– 200.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., and Haga, W., 1975. A vertical dyad approach to leadership within formal
organizations. Organization behavior and human performance, 13, 46 – 78.
Das, H., 2002. The four faces of pay: an investigation into how Canadian managers view pay.
International journal of commerce and management, 12, 18 – 41.
Deluga, R.J., 1992. The relationship of leader– member exchange with laissez faire, transactional,
transformational leadership in naval environments. In: K.E. Clark, M.B. Clark and
D.P. Campbell, eds. Impact of leadership. Greensboro, NC: Centre of Creative Leadership,
237– 247.
Dienesch, R.M. and Liden, R.C., 1986. Leader – member exchange model of leadership: a critique
and further development. Academy of management review, 10, 527– 539.
Duchon, D., Green, S.G., and Taber, T.D., 1997. Vertical dyad linkages: a longitudinal assessment of
antecedents, measures and consequences. Journal of applied psychology, 71, 56 –60.
Elangovan, A.R. and Xie, J.L., 2000. Effects of perceived power of supervisor on subordinate work
attitude. Leadership and organization development journal, 21, 319– 328.
Erkutlu, H., 2008. The impact of transformational leadership on organizational and leadership
effectiveness. The Turkish case. Journal of management development, 27 (7), 708–726.
Fairholm, G.W., 1991. Value leadership: toward a new philosophy of leadership. New York:
Praeger.
Farh, J.L. and Cheng, B.S., 2000. A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese
organization. In: J.T. Li, A.S. Tsui and E. Weldon, eds. Management and organizations in the
Chinese context. London: Macmillan, 84 – 127.
Garger, J. and Jacques, P., 2008. A level approach to student perceptions of leadership. International
journal of educational management, 22 (3), 251– 258.
Gerstner, C.R. and Day, D.V., 1997. Meta-analytic review of leader – member exchange theory:
correlates and construct issues. Journal of applied psychology, 71, 56 – 60.
Gill, R., 1998. Cross-cultural comparison of the leadership styles and behavior of managers in the
UK, USA and Southeast Asia. Asian academy of management journal, 3, 19 – 32.
Govindan, J.T., 2000. The influence of social value orientations and demographic factors on
leadership preference among Malaysians. Unpublished thesis (MBA), University Science
Malaysia.
Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M., 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of
leader– member exchange LMX theory. Leadership quarterly, 6, 219– 247.
Graen, G. and Cashman, J., 1975. A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: a
developmental approach. In: J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson, eds. Leadership frontiers. Kent, OH:
Kent State University Press, 143–165.
Griffeth, R.W. and Hom, P.W., 2001. Retaining valued employees. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hackett, R.D., Bycio, P., and Hausdorf, P.A., 1994. Further assessments of Meyer and Allen’s (1991)
three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of applied psychology, 79(1),
15 – 23.
Hayward, Q., Goss, M., and Tolmay, R., 2004. The relationship between transformational and
transactional leadership and employee commitment. Grahamstown, SA: Rhodes University.
Hofstede, G., 1984. Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., 1991. Management in a multicultural society. Malaysian management review,
26, 3 – 12.
Hollander, E.P., 1993. Legitimacy, power, and influence: a perspective on relational features of
leadership. In: M.M. Chemers and R. Ayman, eds. Leadership theory and research: perspectives
and directions. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 29– 48.
Hollander, E.P. and Offermann, L.R., 1990. Power and leadership in organizations. American
psychologist, 45, 179– 189.
Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W., and Kerr, S., 1986. Moderator variables in leadership research.
Academy of management review, 11, 88 – 102.
Iverson, R.D. and Buttigieg, D.N., 1998. Affective, normative and continuance commitment: can the
‘right kind’ of commitment be managed? Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
Jablin, F.M., 1979. Superior-subordinate communication: the state of art. Psychological bulletin, 86,
1201– 1222.
Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E., 2000. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership.
Journal of applied psychology, 85 (5), 751–765.
Kanter, R.M., 1974. Intimate oppression. Sociological quarterly, 15, 302– 314.
Kanter, R.M., 1982. The middle manager as innovator. Harvard business review, 60, 95 – 105.
Kanungo, R.N., 1998. Leadership in organizations. Looking ahead to the 21st century. Canadian
psychology, 39, 71 – 82.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L., 1978. The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kennedy, J.C., 2002. Leadership in Malaysia: traditional values, international outlook. Academy of
Management executive, 16, 15 – 26.
Kennedy, J. and Mansor, N., 2000. Malaysian culture and the leadership of organizations: a GLOBE
study. Malaysian management review, 35, 44 – 53.
Kent, A. and Chelladurai, P., 2001. Perceived transformational leadership, organizational
commitment, and citizenship behavior: a case study in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of
sport management, 15 (2), 135–159.
Krause, D.E., 2004. Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of
innovation-related behaviors. An empirical investigation. The leadership quarterly, 15, 79 – 102.
Kristof-Brown, A., Zimmerman, R.D., and Johnson, E.C., 2005. Consequences of individuals’ fit at
work: a meta-analysis of person – job, person – organization, person – group, and person–
supervision fit. Personnel psychology, 58, 281– 342.
Lee, J., 2005. Effects of leadership and leader– member exchange on commitment. Leadership and
organization development journal, 26, 655– 672.
Lee, J., 2008. Effects of leadership and leader – member exchange on innovativeness. Journal of
managerial psychology, 23 (6), 670– 687.
Liden, R.C. and Maslyn, J.M., 1998. Multidimensionality of leader – member exchange: an empirical
assessment through scale development. Journal of management, 24 (1), 43 – 73.
Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T., and Wayne, S.J., 1997. Leader – member exchange theory: the past and
potential for the future. Research in personnel and human resources management, 15, 47– 119.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., and Stilwell, D., 1993. A longitudinal study on the early development of
leader– member exchanges. Journal of applied psychology, 78, 662– 674.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., and Sparrowe, R.T., 2000. An examination of the mediating role of
psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships and
work outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, 85, 407– 416.
102 M.-C. Lo et al.
Lowe, K., Kroeck, K.G., and Sivasubrahmanian, N., 1996. Effective correlates of transformational
and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review. Leadership quarterly, 7, 385– 425.
Mannheim, B. and Halamish, H., 2008. Transformational leadership as related to team outcomes and
contextual moderation. Leadership and organization development journal, 29 (7), 617– 630.
Maslyn, J. and Uhl-Bien, M., 2001. Leader – member exchange and its dimensions: effects
of self-effort and other’s effort on relationship quality. Journal of applied psychology,
86, 697– 708.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M., 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological bulletin, 108, 171– 194.
Messmer, M., 2000. Orientation programs can be key to employee retention. Strategic finance,
81, 12 – 15.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J., 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human resources management review, 1, 61 – 98.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J., 1997. Commitment in the workplace: theory, research, and application.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J.P. and Herscovitch, L., 2001. Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model.
Human resources management review, 11, 299– 326.

Moscovici, S., 1984. Psychologie sociale. Paris: PUF.
Murphy, S.M., et al., 2003. Understanding social loafing: the role of justice perceptions and
exchange relationships. Human relations, 56 (1), 61 –84.
Murry, D.W., Sivasubramaniam, N., and Jacques, P.H., 2001. Supervisory support, social exchange
relationship, and sexual harassment consequences: a test of competing models. The leadership
quarterly, 12, 1 –29.
Muthuveloo, R. and Che Rose, R., 2005. Antecedents and outcomes of organisational commitment
among Malaysian engineers. American journal of applied sciences, 2, 1095– 1100.
Napier, B.J. and Ferris, G.R., 1993. Distance in organizations. Human resources management
review, 3, 321– 357.
Nijhof, W.J., De Jong, M.J., and Beukhof, G., 1998. Employee commitment in changing
organizations: an exploration. Journal of European industrial training, 22, 243– 248.
Northouse, P.G., 1997. Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nystrom, P.C., 1990. Vertical exchanges and organizational commitments of American business
managers. Group and organization studies, 15, 296– 312.
Pavett, C. and Lau, A., 1983. Managerial work: the influence of hierarchical level and functional
specialty. Academy of Management journal, 26, 170– 177.
Pellegrini, E. and Scandura, T.A., 2006. Leader – member exchange (LMX), paternalism, and
delegation in the Turkish culture: an empirical investigation. Journal of international business
studies, 37, 264– 279.
Pfeffer, J., 1998. Seven practices of successful organizations. California management review,
40, 96 – 123.
Phillips, K.W., 2003. The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: the
importance of congruence. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 29, 3 – 13.
Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R., 1995. Organizational learning mechanisms: a structural – cultural
approach to organizational learning. Working paper, University of Haifa, Haifa.
Price, J.L., 1997. Handbook of organizational measurement. International journal of manpower,
18 (4/5/6), 305– 558.
Scandura, T.A. and Graen, G.B., 1984. Moderating effects of initial leader – member exchange status
on the effects of leadership intervention. Journal of applied psychology, 69, 428– 436.
Schyns, B. and Wolfram, H.-J., 2008. The relationship between leader– member exchange and
outcomes as rated by leaders and followers. Leadership and organization development journal,
29 (7), 631– 646.
Seltzer, J. and Bass, B.M., 1990. Transformational leadership: beyond initiation and consideration.
Journal of management, 16, 693– 703.
Selvarajah, C. and Meyer, D., 2008. One nation, three cultures: exploring dimensions that relate to
leadership in Malaysia. Leadership and organization development journal, 29 (8), 693– 712.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., and Popper, M., 1998. Correlates of charismatic leader behavior
in military units: subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superior’s appraisals of leader
performance. Academy of management journal 41 (4), 387– 409.
Shore, L.M. and Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M., 2003. New developments in the employee-organization
relationship. Journal of organizational behavior, 24, 443– 450.
Sin, T.T., 1991. Managing process in Bumiputra Society—Malaysia. In: J. Putti, ed. Management
Asian context. Singapore: McGraw-Hill, 1 – 5.
Sparowe, R.T., 1994. Empowerment in the hospital industry: an exploration of antecedents and
outcomes. Hospitality research journal, 17, 51 – 73.
Stevens, C.U., D’Intino, R.S., and Victor, B., 1995. The moral quandary of transformational
leadership: hange for whom? Research in organizational change and development, 8, 123– 143.
Stryker, S., 1994. Freedom and constraint in social and personal life: toward resolving the paradox of
self. In: G.M. Platt and C. Gordon, eds. Self, collective behavior, and society: essays honoring
the contributions of Ralph H. Turner. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 1 – 5.
Swanepoel, B., et al., 2000. South African human resource management: theory and practice.
Kenwyn: Juta.
Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M., 2002. Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship
to creative performance. Academy of Management journal, 45, 1137– 1148.
Van Vianen, A.E.M., 2000. Person organization fit: the match between newcomers and recruiters
preferences for organizational cultures. Personnel psychology, 53, 113– 122.

Vecchio, R.P., 1997. Leadership: understanding the dynamics of power and influence in
organizations. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., 2007. Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of
compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of business and psychology, 21 (3),
377– 405.
Walker, J.W., 2001. Perspectives. Human resource planning, 24, 6 – 10.
Walumbwa, F.O. and Lawler, J.J., 2003. Building effective organizations: transformational
leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes, and withdrawal behaviors in three
emerging economies. International journal of human resource management, 14, 1083– 1101.
Walumbwa, F.O., et al., 2005. Transformational leadership effects on work-related attitudes: the
moderating effects of collective efficacy and self-efficacy across cultures. Journal of leadership
and organizational studies, 11, 3 – 16.
Wang, H., et al., 2005. Leader – member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between
transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior.
Academy of Management journal, 48, 420– 432.
Yukl, G.A., 2005. Leadership in organizations. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Asia Pacific Business Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Asia Pacific Business Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of York]

On: 22 September 2013, At: 00:37

Asia Pacific Business Review

The relationship between leadership

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602380903355676

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The relationship between leadership styles and organizational

moderating impact of leader–member exchange (LMX) on the relationship between two

*Corresponding author. Email: mclo@feb.unimas.my

ISSN 1360-2381 print/ISSN 1743-792X online

an organization to successfully implement business strategies, achieve their goals, gain

Extensive research is available in the organizational behaviour literature investigating

(1) Is there a positive relationship between transformational leadership and

approach (Yukl 2005, Alimo-Metcalfe et al. 2008).

of supervisors. In fact, organizations have reengineered themselves to be more efficient

Leader – member exchange (LMX)

perceptions of the degree of empowerment. Those who become in-group members

organizational commitment and subsequently affected organizational outcomes

Table 1. Demographic characteristic of respondents.

Demographics Frequency Percentage

Above RM7500 6 3.85

Table 2. Rotated component matrix for transactional leadership.

Table 3. Rotated component matrix for transformational leadership.

Intellectual Idealized Individualized Inspirational

Table 4. Rotated component matrix for organizational commitment.

Affective Normative Continuance

Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for 0.594

transformational leadership is a higher order construct comprising theoretically distinct

Table 5. Rotated component matrix for leader member exchange.

My supervisor defends my work actions to a 0.794

Table 6. Descriptive of the main variables.

Table 7. Intercorrelations of the study variables.

intellectual stimulation, idealized influence and inspirational motivation – were

inspirational motivation, and affective and normative commitment. Two dimensions of

enhanced further the understanding of the employees’ organizational commitment. Hence,

Direction for future research

occupational and organizational psychology, 78, 531–551.

Burns, J.M., 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Human resources management review, 11, 299– 326.

preferences for organizational cultures. Personnel psychology, 53, 113– 122.

You might also like