Fikadu Thesis Final

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP STYLE AND EMPLOYEE
COMMITMENT: THE CASE OF ABYSSINIA BANK
FEKADU ADUGNA A/KADIR
MBA/630/13
Advisor,Abera Legese (phd)
THESIS SUBMITTED TO GAGE UNIVERSIY COLLEGE, SCHOOL OF

GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFIIMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINSTRATION
June, 2022
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, declare that this study entitled “Relationship Between Leadership Style and
Employee Commitment: The Case of Abyssinia Bank” is my own work. I have undertaken
the research work independently with the guidance and support of the research advisor. This
study has not been submitted for any degree or diploma program in this or any other institutions
and that all sources of materials used for the thesis have been duly acknowledged.
___________________ ___________________
Name of Student Signature Date
2
STATEMENT OF APPROVAL
This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Fekadu Adugna entitled “RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN LEADERSHIP STYLE AND EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT: THE CASE OF
ABYSSINIA BANK” is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters of
Business Administration complies with the regulations of the college and meets the accepted
standards with respect to originality and quality.
Signed by the Examining Committee:
Name: _______________ ___________
Advisor Signature Date
Name: _____________________ _______________ ___________
Internal Examiner Signature Date
Name: _____________________ _______________ ___________
External Examiner Signature Date
Name: _____________________ _______________ ___________
Dean, SGS Signature Date
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to praise the almighty God who gave endurance and strength in all my
life. I am also grateful to employees and managers of CBE, AIB, DB and BoA for providing me
vital information and being participant in this study. I would like to also express my heartfelt
gratitude to my advisor Dr. Hailemariam (Phd) for his invaluable and constructive orientation
and guidance.
4
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between leadership styles and employee’s
commitment of Bank of Abyssinia (BoA) in selected branches in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. For this study
employed descriptive survey and explanatory research with quantitative research approaches. To achieve
the objective of this study, primary data was collected from employees of 10 selected branches of Bank of
Abyssinia (BOA) in Addis Ababa. Structured questionnaires were distributed to the samples of 144
employees, out of which 83.4 % completed responses were returned from the employees. For this study
systematic random sampling techniques has been pursued to collect data. Questionnaires were analyzed
using descriptive and inferential statistical analysis methods. The major findings of the study revealed
that although transformational leadership was found to be the dominant leadership style in BoA, leaders
at the bank were not exhibiting the ideal levels of transformational leadership behaviors. Thus,
transformational leadership is not being practiced effectively which points to the fact that there is need
for improvement. Moreover, the findings revealed that the most dominant dimension of organizational
commitment in BoA is affective commitment. Thus, BoA’s employees’ feeling of “desire” was stronger
than the feelings of “need” and “obligation” to continue work in the bank. The findings have also
indicated that transformational leadership is effective in positively affecting, although not strongly,
employees’ affective, continuance and normative commitment in BoA while transactional leadership is
effective in positively affecting, to a weak extent, employees’ affective, continuance and normative
commitment in BoA. Compared to transformational and transactional leadership, laissez-faire leadership
has a relatively weaker and negative correlation with affective, continuance and normative
organizational commitment. Hence, it can be concluded that transformational and transactional
5
leadership behaviors play a more important role in developing and improving affective, continuance and
normative commitment than the laissez-faire leadership style at BoA. Keywords: Leadership styles,
Organizational commitment
Table of Contents
DECLARATION..............................................................................................................................ii
STATEMENT OF APPROVAL.....................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT................................................................................................................v
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................vi
CHAPTER ONE...............................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background of the study..................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the problem.................................................................................................2
1.3 Objectives of the study......................................................................................................3
1.3.1 General Objective.....................................................................................................3
1.3.2 Specific objectives.....................................................................................................4
1.4 Hypothesis of the study.....................................................................................................4
1.5 Significance of the study...................................................................................................5
1.6 Scope of the study.............................................................................................................5
1.7 Limitation of the study.....................................................................................................5
1.8 Organization of the study.................................................................................................6
CHAPTER TWO..............................................................................................................................7
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES....................................................................................7
2.1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................7
2.2. Theoretical review.................................................................................................................7
2.2.1 The Concept of Leadership and Types of Leadership Style.........................................7
2.2.2 The Concept of Employee’s Commitment...................................................................10
2.3. Empirical Review.................................................................................................................14
6
2.4. Summary of literature and Research Gaps.......................................................................15
2.5. Conceptual/Theoretical framework....................................................................................16
CHAPTER THREE........................................................................................................................17
METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................17
3.1 Research Approach............................................................................................................18
3.2 Research Design.................................................................................................................18
3.3 Population Of the study....................................................................................................18
3.4 Method of Sampling.............................................................................................................18
3.4.2 Sample Size Determination...........................................................................................19
3.5 Data Source and Method of Data collection.......................................................................21
3.5 Method of Data Analysis......................................................................................................21
3.6 Reliability and Validity of the MLQ and OCQ..................................................................22
3.7 Ethical Considerations.........................................................................................................24
CHAPTER FOUR..........................................................................................................................25
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION..........................................25
4.1 Response Rate.......................................................................................................................25
4.2 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents....................................................................25
4.3 Descriptive Analysis of Leadership Scores.........................................................................26
4.3.1 Descriptive Analysis of Transformational Leadership Scores....................................26
4.3.2 Descriptive Analysis of Transactional Leadership Scores..........................................32
4.3.3 Descriptive Analysis of Laissez-faire leadership Scores..............................................36
4.4 Descriptive Analysis of Organizational Commitment........................................................37
4.4.1 Responses on Affective Commitment...........................................................................37
4.4.2 Responses on Continuance Commitment.....................................................................38
4.4.3 Responses on Normative Commitment........................................................................39
4.5 Relationship Between Leadership Style and Organizational Commitment.....................40
4.5.1 Correlation Between Transformational Leadership Style and Affective Commitment
..................................................................................................................................................41
4.5.2 Correlation Between Transformational Leadership Style and Continuance Commitment
..................................................................................................................................................42
7
4.5.3 Correlation Between Transformational Leadership Style and Normative Commitment
..................................................................................................................................................43
4.5.4 Correlation Between Transactional Leadership Style and Affective Commitment. .44
4.5.5 Correlation Between Transactional Leadership Style and Continuance Commitment45
4.5.6 Correlation Between Transactional Leadership Style and Normative Commitment46
4.5.7 Correlation Between Laissez-faire leadership Style and Affective Commitment.....47
4.5.8 Correlation Between Laissez-faire leadership Style and Continuance Commitment48
4.5.9 Correlation Between Laissez-faire leadership Style and Normative Commitment...49
CHAPTER FIVE............................................................................................................................50
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................50
5.1 Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................51
5.2. Conclusions........................................................................................................................53
5.3. Recommendations.............................................................................................................54
References.......................................................................................................................................56
8
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter introduces the proposal. Thus, the chapter has incorporated different sections
that deal with background of the problem, Statement of the problem, Objectives of the
study, Significance of the study, Scope of the study, Limitation of the study and
Organization of the study.
1.1Background of the study
Organizations are continuously in a consistent struggle to remain competitive in the ever-

changing business environment. Consequently, Leadership with its different styles has been
always a central issue to enable organizations survives and succeeds under different
contexts. Encyclopedia of leadership indicates “Leadership is ... an interactive process that
provides needed guidance and direction” (Goethals, Sorenson & Burns, 2004, p.820).
Armstrong (2006) also defines leadership as guiding, encouraging and motivating
individuals and teams to achieve a desired result. This entails that Leadership is an
important function of management which helps to maximize efficiency and to achieve
organizational goals. Imen (2014) puts forward that, in spite of the multitude definitions of
leadership, most definitions have a common theme of directing a group towards a goal.
Accordingly, the leader’s role is to influence and provide direction to his/her followers and
provide them needed support for their and the organization’s success. But, this multitude of
definitions pertains to a range of leadership concepts among which leadership styles and
their related effects on organizational success or failure make part of body of the leadership
literature.
Predominantly, transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles have been

major concern of leadership research. According to Bass and his colleagues as described in
London ( 2002), transactional leadership is visible through the effective use of management
systems and practices, such as goal setting, performance review, and feedback while
transformational leadership is characterized by engaging employees as partners in the
1
design and implementation of a new vision for the organization. London further illustrates
that Transactional leadership works well when the organization needs clarity, structure,
communication, and focus on bottom-line performance, whereas transformational
leadership works well when the organization needs major change in response to rapidly
evolving business conditions. Laissez-faire leadership is an abdication of responsibility
characterized by setting job expectations and standards and an emphasis on punishment
associated with not meeting the standards. In this leadership style, the role of the leader is
indifference, and non-involvement. As a resultant effect of the leadership style in place,
organizational success depends up on level of employees’ commitment and engagement.
According to Stum in Imen (2014), employee commitment reflects the quality of the
leadership in an organization. Armstrong (2006) notes down “Employee commitment is
also more likely if they are kept well informed of what is proposed, why it has been
proposed and how it will affect them”
(p.104), and this shows that leadership styles have a significant relationship with
employee’s commitment.
According to Newman in Ahmed (2011), even though, several studies found a positive
relationship between leadership styles and organizational commitment, the findings were
not entirely consistent. This makes the investigation of relationships of leadership styles
and employee commitment worthwhile. Accordingly, this study uncovers the relationships
of the two factors in the context of Bank of Abyssinia in Addis Ababa.
1.2Statement of the problem
The Financial sector is one of the most important sectors in any economy where leadership
effectiveness and employee organizational commitment are of paramount importance. But,
whether or not the style of leadership of managers influences the level of employee
commitment dimensions remains a subject of controversy (Aghashahi, et al., 2013 as cited
in Addis & Samuel, 2020). Teshome in Mesfin and kiflom (2018) describes that both
transformational and transactional leadership styles have been found to have a significant
and positive relationship with employee Commitment.
2
Ahmed (2011) used Correlation research design, collected data using a questionnaire and
found that autocratic and democratic leadership styles are negatively and positively related
to employee commitment respectively. Tewodros (2019) investigated the relationship
between leadership styles and employee commitment in selected Branch offices of Bank of
Abyssinia in Addis Ababa, using descriptive research design, and revealed that
transformational leadership style has significant and positive correlation with affective,
continuance and normative employee commitments while transactional leadership style has
no significant and positive correlation with all the three types of commitment. A laissez-
faire leadership style is found to be not significantly correlated with affective & normative
commitment but significantly and positively correlated with continuance commitment.
Mesfin and Kiflom (2018) adopted explanatory research design and quantitative research
approach, used multifaceted Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and Employee Commitment
Poll Questionnaire (OCQ) and found positive and significant relationships between
transformational and laissez-faire leadership styles and the dimensions of employees'
commitment but no significant relationship between transactional leadership and
dimensions of employee commitment (affective, normative and continuance).
As the inconsistency in research findings recall further investigation of the issue, this study
examines the relationship between transformational, transactional and laissez-faire
leadership styles and the dimensions of employee commitment, i.e., affective, continuance
and normative in the context of Bank of Abyssinia.
1.3Objectives of the study
1.3.1 General Objective
The general objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between leadership
styles and employee’s commitment of Bank of Abyssinia (BoA) in selected branches in
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
3
1.3.2 Specific objectives
The specific objectives of this study are
1. To assess the dominant leadership styles, as perceived by the employees, of in

selected branches of BoA in Addis Ababa.
2. To examine the dominant dimension of organizational commitment prevailing
among employees of BoA at in selected branches of in Addis Ababa.
3. To identify whether there exists a relationship between transformational,
transactional, laissez-faire leadership styles and affective, continuance and
normative employee commitment at selected branches of BoA in Addis Ababa
1.4Hypothesis of the study
In order to achieve the purpose of this study the following null hypotheses are formulated in
the study:
H01: There is no significant relationship between transformational leadership and affective

commitment to the organization.
H02: There is no significant relationship between transformational leadership and
continuance commitment to the organization.
H03: There is no significant relationship between transformational leadership and
normative commitment to the organization.
H04: There is no significant relationship between transactional leadership and normative
H05: There is no significant relationship between transactional leadership and continuance
H07: There is no significant relationship between Laissez-faire leadership and affective
4
H08: There is no significant relationship between Laissez-faire leadership and continuance
H09: There is no significant relationship between Laissez-faire leadership and normative
1.5Significance of the study
This study is expected to add to the existing body of knowledge on the impact of leadership
styles on employee organizational commitment and will avail data for future research. It
may create awareness of the need to apply appropriate leadership styles depending on their
context to create employee commitment and tap their potential to ensure effectiveness and
efficiency in the business transaction of Bank. The study also may instigate other
researchers to further investigate the issue.
1.6Scope of the study
This study is concerned with the relationship between leadership style and employee
commitment at the Bank of Abyssinia selected branches located in Addis Ababa. Data will
be taken from the non-management staff, in selected branches of the bank as they can
provide more relevant information regarding the leadership styles of their immediate
leaders on the basis of insights developed in working relationships while they can also be
assessed for the type and level of their commitment through the crafted questionnaire.
Thus, the standard multifactor leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X) and Employee
Commitment Poll Questionnaire (OCQ) to realize the purpose.
1.7Limitation of the study
This study could be constrained by different factors. Some employees may decline to
participate in the study. Additionally, the openness and commitment level of the
participants in responding to the questionnaire may negate data quality.
5
1.8Organization of the study
This study is organized in five chapters. The first chapter of the study is an introduction
which consists of background of the study, statement of the problem, research questions,
objectives, significance, scope and limitation of the study. The second chapter presents
review of related literature with respect to the theoretical and empirical studies
perspective of leadership styles and organizational commitment and the third chapter
deals about research methodology. In the fourth chapter data collected from respondents
is presented and analyzed, and in the fifth chapter, which is the last chapter, summary of
findings, conclusions and recommendations are presented.
6
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES
2.1. Introduction
This chapter has included Theoretical review, the Concept of Leadership and Types of
Leadership Style, Transformational leadership, Transactional leadership,. lassie faire
leadership, The Concept of Employee’s Commitment, Affective commitment, Normative
Commitment, continuance commitment, Empirical Review, Summary of literature and
Research Gaps and Conceptual/Theoretical framework
2.2. Theoretical review
2.2.1 The Concept of Leadership and Types of Leadership Style
Leadership concept roots from different assumptions and philosophical foundations

embedded in different leadership theories. Thus, varied definitions of leadership constitute
body of the leadership literature. A person in a Leadership position manages or administers
others. “Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an
objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent”
(Sharma & Jain, 2013, p.310). As defined by Robbins in Addis and Samuel (2020)
leadership is the capability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals. Similarly,
Hersey & Blanchard see leadership as the process of influencing the activities of an
individual or a group in efforts toward goal achievement in a given situation. “Leadership is
the process of influencing one or more people toward a goal” (Durham, Durham &
Durham, 2005, p.15).Thus, leadership can be perceived as influencing, motivating, and
enabling others to ensure success and efficiency of an organization. “Leadership is about
relationships” (Perry, 2010, p.201).
Leader is someone who assumes a leadership position. Robbins & Coultar in Addis &
Samuel (2020) describe leader as someone with managing authority who can influence
7
others. It is described that “A leader is the kind of person (with leadership qualities) who
has the appropriate knowledge and skill to lead a group to achieve its ends willingly”
(Thomas, 2004, p.120). He further elaborates that Leaders play a role of encouraging
others, recognizing individual contributions and celebrating team successes. DePree in
Perry (2010) indicates that leaders are accountable to establish organizational value system
and direct pattern of practices in the organization. Regarding the roles played by leaders,
Pandya and Shell (2005) points out that leadership is a matter of choice and determination
and leaders can discover and nurture their own leadership style. London (2002) also posits
that leaders need to help employees understand the implications of their performance for the
business, and how their actions affect everything else. This entails the need for different
leadership approaches depending on context.
2.2.1.1. Transformational leadership
According to Bass and Riggio (2006), Leadership can occur at all levels of management
and by any individual and thus leaders should develop leadership capabilities in their
followers, which is the essence of transformational leadership. “Transformational
leadership grows out of the assumption that people will follow a leader who inspires and
motivates them” (Kolzow, 2014, p.43). Addis and Samuel (2020) credits Bass that
transformational leadership style include four major ingredients to motivate employee and
get them involved into the work activities including idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation. Avolio and Bass in
Garg and Ramjee (2013) describes transformational leaders generate greater commitment in
their followers than do those who use other leadership styles. Thus, it can be perceived that
Transformational leadership approach renders itself to cause changes in individuals and
social systems. Transformational leadership style, generally promotes a sense of purpose
and a feeling of family, where Leaders and followers share mutual interests and a sense of
shared fates and interdependence. “Transformational leadership fosters capacity
development and brings higher levels of personal commitment amongst ‘followers’ to
organizational objectives” (Tadele, 2016, p.24).
8
2.2.1.2. Transactional leadership
The dictionary of Public Administration explains, according to Attribution theory of

leadership, leaders in organizations determine how best to motivate their staff members by
closely analysing what incentives motivate them to behave and act in a manner that best
leads to organizational goal attainment, and then will seek to manipulate those incentives.
Trottier et al., in Tadele (2016) show Transactional leadership is based more on
"exchanges" between the leader and follower, in which followers are rewarded for meeting
specific goals or performance criteria.
Kolzow (2014) states that transactional leadership, assumes that people are motivated
primarily by reward and punishment. Its core belief is, employees perform their best when
the chain of command is definite and clear, and that reward or punishment is contingent
upon performance. Thus, the focus of the transactional leader is on maintaining the status
quo, and the primary goal of the followers is to obey the instructions and commands of the
leader. According to kolzow (2014), the transactional leader is more a manager than a
leader, and is highly focused on getting tasks accomplished, providing very clear direction,
and overseeing productivity in detail. A perspective on transactional leadership is that
“Transactional leadership…focuses on the role of supervision, organisation, and group
performance; transactional leadership is a style of leadership in which the leader promotes
compliance of his followers through both rewards and punishments” (James & Ogobonna,
2013, p.358). These leaders are concerned with processes rather than forward-thinking
ideas and depend on contingent reward and contingent penalization to gain compliance
from their followers. “They are extrinsic motivators that bring minimal compliance from
followers” (ibid). Transactional leaders are those who rely on social exchange (Bass &
Riggio, 2006). They offer or deny rewards in response to levels of productivity. At the core
of transactional leadership is transaction or exchange that takes place between the leader
and followers. Bass in Addis and Samuel (2020) indicted that Transactional leadership is
combination of bureaucratic authority as well as legitimacy in the organization.
9
2.2.1.3. Laissez- faire leadership
The transformational and transactional leadership styles are characterized by active

involvement of the leader while the laissez faire leadership style is ascribed a passive
character. Bass and Riggio (2006) describe “laissez-faire leadership is the avoidance or
absence of leadership and is, by definition, most inactive, as well as most ineffective
according to almost all research on the style” (p.9), and this entails a non-transaction,
passive style avoiding responsibility and not taking actions when important issues appeal.
They further assert that, such a leadership style seems appropriate for certain cases when
the leader decides to avoid dealing with the conflict because it is a trivial matter, when the
descriptions or costs of the only solution outweigh the benefits, or when the two parties
may need to calm down before they can deal more rationally with their mutual conflict.
Imen (2014) also writes laissez faire leadership is a contrast to the active leadership styles
of transformational and transactional leadership. Judge and Piccolo (as cited in Imen, 2004)
explain that Leaders who score high on laissez-faire leadership avoid making decisions,
hesitate in taking action, and are absent when needed. It is stated that “The laissez faire
leader avoids decision-making, the provision of rewards and the provision of
positive/negative feedback to subordinates” (Ahmed, 2011, p.53). Northouse in Mesfin and
Kiflom (2018) also indicated that it is a hands-off approach to leadership and a laissez faire
leader delegates or provides minimal leadership to employees.
Laissez-faire leadership refers to indifference or lack of leadership towards both the

followers’ actions and organizational outcomes (Xirasagar, 2008, in Mabasa, 2018).With
this style, leaders believe that people excel when they are given the autonomy to respond to
their responsibilities and obligations. As described by Sarros and Santora in Mabasa (2018),
the laissez faire style is characterized by non-commitment, laziness, complacency,
avoidance and abdication of responsibilities.
2.2.2 The Concept of Employee’s Commitment
Employee commitment grasps the attention of research and leadership due to its significant
effect on organizational success. No organization can prove successful in the modern world
of competition without committed and responsible employees who unreservedly unleash
10
their potential. Realizing employee commitment could be a challenge in today’s turbulent
business environment which demands employees’ different resources to cop up with the
changes for which they unusually turn their face to the organization. This could challenge
the leader to tap into his/her leadership capabilities to maintain employees’ commitment
and loyalty.
According to Gilbert and Konya (2020), employee commitment reflects the extent to which
employees identify with an organization and are committed to its goal. Porter and et al. in
Ahmed (2011) define organizational commitment as the relative strength of the individual’s
identification with and involvement in a particular organization. It is the extent to which an
employee identifies with the organization and wants to continue actively participating in it.
Allen and Meyer in Mabasa (2018) describe employee commitment as a psychological state
characterizing a subordinate’s relationship with the organization, and in cases where this is
positive; it has the potential to lower the likelihood of rapid staff turnovers. Employee
commitment is a feeling of belongingness and desire to contribute effort and knowledge to
the organizations’ success sustainably. Ahmed (2018) expresses that employee commitment
relates to the strength of the connection between employees and the organization.
According to Bass and Riggio (2006) “Leaders in organizations can play an important part
in affecting organizational members’ levels of commitment by fostering followers’
commitment to the team, to the leader, and to the organization”(p.34), which shows the
need for an effective leader to align these facets of commitment to show how the goals and
values of the follower, the group, the leader, and the organization are in basic agreement.
Mesfin and Kiflom (2018) suggest using both transformational and transactional leadership
styles to increase employee commitment. Transformational leaders influence both
followers’ identification with and commitment to the leader and also positively influence
followers’ social identification with the group or organization (Bass and Riggio, 2006.
P.35). Individualized consideration by leaders at all levels also enhances commitment.
Allen and Mayer in Bass and Riggio (2006) distinguish affective commitment, the
employee’s emotional attachment to the organization, from continuance commitment,
which deals with the anticipated costs of leaving the organization, and normative
commitment, the employee’s sense of obligation to stay (with the latter somewhat related to
11
the notion of the implied psychological contract between employer and
employee).“Although it is clear that transformational leadership helps build strong follower
commitment, the process of building follower commitment and inspiring followers is quite
complex” (Bass and Riggio, 2006,p.38). Becker in Addis and Samuel (2020) illustrates
commitment is the reliable and sustainable predictors of the absence, turnover,
productivity, efficiency and job satisfaction of the staffs.
2.2.2.1 Affective Commitment
Affective commitment is usually perceived as employee’s emotional attachment to and

involvement in the organization’s affairs. “Affective commitment refers to the employee's
emotional attachment to the organization, its identification with the organization and
involvement in its operation, namely, the agreement of objectives of the organization and of
the individual”( Radosavljević ,Ćilerdžić & Dragić, 2017, p.20). Coetzee (2005) illustrates
that research findings show that affective commitment is characterized by sharing the
power of decision making and developing formal policies and procedures.
The causes of affective commitment narrow down to four categories: (1) personal
characteristics, (2) structural characteristics (organizational), (3) the characteristics related
to the type of work being performed, and (4) work experience (Mowday, 1982, in
Radosavljević, Ćilerdžić& Dragić 2017). Affective commitment is defined as an “attitude
or orientation toward an organization which links or attaches the identity of the person to
the organization”( Sheldon, 1971, in Mercurio1, 2015, p.398). Meyer and Herscovitch
(2001), based on an extensive review of the literature, theorized that affective commitment
is developed primarily by an individual’s involvement and identification with the
organization. Affective commitment may result from specific, freely chosen behaviors that,
over time, may lead individuals to then feel affectively attached to the organization.
Meyer and Allen (as cited in Nkhukhu-Orlando et al., 2019) show that affective
commitment is an employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with and involvement
in the organization. Affective commitment manifests as a psychological bond to the
organization as well as positive feelings for and social attachment to the organization
12
Affective commitment reflects commitment based on perceived obligation towards the
organization, it refers to employees’ emotional attachment, identification with, and
involvement in the organization. Employee with a strong affective commitment stay in the
organization because they want to which is rooted in the norms of reciprocity (Gilbert &
konya, 2020). According to Stephen et al. (2001), affective commitment refers to an
employee's emotional attachment to, involvement in, and identification with the
organization and its goals. Employees with a strong affective commitment continue
employment with the organization because they want to do so.
2.2.2.2Normative Commitment
Normative commitment is defined as the employee’s moral obligation to remain with the
organization (Allen & Meyer, 1996, in Mabasa 2018). Wiener in Radosavljević, Ćilerdžić
and Dragić ( 2017) points out that the sense of obligation to remain in the organization
can be realized from the internalization of normative pressures on the individual primarily
to approach the organization itself (family or cultural reasons) or from the organizational
orientation when influential individuals in the employee environment can exercise strong
pressure on the employee to feel a moral responsibility towards the organization. Mesfin
and Kiflom (2018) states that with normative commitment employees stay faithful to the
organization as they might suspect their organization is furnishing them with advantages
and addressing their requirements, so they ought to be faithful to their organization in any
capacity.. According to David in Tewodros (2019), normative commitment is interpreted as
the feeling that one ought to remain with organization. Because of personal norms and
values .it provides a sense of moral duty or obligation and is associated with
internationalization of the organizations norms, values, and acceptance of its goals and
mission. Normative commitment results in an environment where employees perceive the
organization to be on their side and the organization evokes a sense of mutual obligation in
which both the organization and the employee feel a sense of responsibility to each other
2.2.2 3 continuance commitment
13
Continuance commitment is the “…willingness of employees to remain in organization
because of fear of losing the benefits employee is acquiring from the job” ( Gilbert &Konya
,2020, p.80).Continuance commitment refers to employee’s assessment of whether the
costs of leaving there is greater than the costs of staying. Employees who perceive that the
cost of leaving the organization is greater than the cost of staying remain because they need
to. It reflects the awareness of the costs associated with leaving the organization which
could involve the threat of wasting time and effort spent on the acquisition of non-
communicable skills, loss of attractive benefits, waiver of privilege that brings long years of
service, and the collapse of family and personal partnerships. In addition to costs related to
leaving the organization, continual commitment will also develop in the absence of
alternative employment opportunities. It is regarded as an instrumental attachment to the
organization, where the individual's association with the organization is based on an
assessment of economic benefits gained. It is illustrated that “…workers with high
continuance commitment to the institution will work hard to ensure that the institution’s
goals and objectives are achieved” (Gilbet & konya , 2020, p.81).As it is based on apparent
advantages and disadvantages, continuance commitment is therefore considered to be
calculative. It considers the benefits of remaining and the losses of quitting working in the
institution (Ferreira et al, 2011, in Gilbet & konya 2020).Thus, it can be suggested that
employees should be made to be satisfied with their job so that the organizational turnover
rate and related costs kept minimal.
2.3. Empirical Review
Relationships are found to exist among leadership styles and employee commitment. Addis
and Samuel (2020) research found transformational leadership has the strongest impact on
affective commitment and significant positive effect on normative commitment but not on
14
continuance commitment. Transactional leadership affects affective commitment, has a
significant positive effect on both continuance and normative commitment while Laissez-
faire leadership has no any significant effect on all dimension of organizational
commitment. Considerable available research Suggests that transformational leadership is
positively associated with organizational commitment in a variety of organizational settings
and cultures, but there has been little empirical research focusing on the precise ways in
which style of leadership impacts employee organizational commitment (keskes, 2013).
A research on Parasternal companies in South Africa revealed a weak positive yet

significant relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment,
normative commitment and continuance commitment. Transactional leadership had a weak
but significant positive correlation with normative commitment, and Laissez-faire results
indicated a weak negative yet significant correlation to affective commitment and
normative commitment (Garg & Ramjee, 2013). Gilbert and konya, (2020) conclude
continuance commitment is a significant predictor of organizational performance of
manufacturing firms in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. A study on Bank of Abyssinia found out
Transformational leadership style has significant and positive correlation with affective,
continuance and normative employee commitments while transactional leadership style has
not significant and positive correlation with all the three types of commitment. A laissez-
faire leadership style is found to be not significantly correlated with affective & normative
commitment but significantly and positively correlated with continuance commitment
(Tewodros, 2019).
Nkhukhu-Orlando, et al. (2019) found out that Affective commitment remains an essential
factor in key outcomes such as work performance and productivity, and has been shown to
have the strongest positive relation with positive work behaviors when compared with
normative commitment and continuance commitment.
2.4. Summary of literature and Research Gaps
Generally, the leadership literature shows that the three leadership styles (transformational,
transactional and laissez faire) are effective under different contexts and thus success
depends on the leaders ability to scan situations and respond accordingly. Literature regards
15
transformational and transactional leadership approaches as more active and also effective
styles than laissez faire leadership style.
Even though, the existing body of literature and empirical studies show that a relationship
exists among the different leadership styles and the components of employee commitment
(affective, normative, and continuance) the findings remain inconsistent and findings vary
depending on the type of industry and research methods employed. Thus, it remains an area
of concern for further research in the study of organizational behavior.
2.5. Conceptual/Theoretical framework
The following conceptual framework is intended to create an understanding of the variables

in the study. The independent variables, transformational, transactional and laissez faire
leadership styles are assumed to have a relationship with the dependent variables, affective,
continuance and normative employee commitments with the direction and strength of
relationship intended to be examined under the study.
16
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of Leadership Styles and Employee’s Commitment
Source: Mesfin and Kiflom (2018) as Adopted from Bass (1996).
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research design and methodology. It covers the research
method, the sources of data, the study population, the sample size and sampling
17
technique, the instruments and procedures of data collection, the methods of data analysis
and the ethical considerations.
3.1 Research Approach
In order to the research objective, i.e, to see how leadership styles are related to
organizational commitment of employees of BoA in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, this study
employed quantitative research approch. As Creswell (2014) asserted that quantitative
research approach is used for testing objective theories by examining the relationship
between variables. Thus, using quantitative approch in this study helped to test pre-
determined hypotheses and produce general results about effect of customer relationship
management on market performance of banks in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
3.2 Research Design
Both descriptive and explanatory research design was used in this study to accomplish the
objectives of the research. Descriptive research design has helped to obtain data on how
respondents percieve leadership style and employee commitment in BoA Explanatory
research design adopted in the study was also useful to find out the relationship between
leadershipstyle and employee commitment in selected branches of BoA found in Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia. As Saunders et al (2009) asserted, explanatory research is the most
appropriate design to test whether one variable causes or determines the value of another.
3.3 Population Of the study
The population of the study is all non-management employees of BoA who are currently
working in different branches of located in Addis Ababa city. At BOA branches have their
own grade by the branch year of experience and by the number of customers it serves,
labeled from I to III the branch taken as grade three branches.
3.4 Method of Sampling
18
3.4.1 Sampling Techniques
The researcher is interested to explore the relationship between leadership styles and
organizational commitment at Bank of Abyssinia (BoA) in selected branches in Addis
Ababa city. However, it requires great deal of time and money to study the relationship
between leadership styles and organizational commitment at all branches of the bank
operating in Addis Ababa city. According to the information obtained from the bank BoA
branches have their own grade by the branch year of experience and by the number of
customers it serves, labeled from I to III. Therefore, in order systematically select sample
of respondents this study purposively selected Grade III branches which have relatively
higher year of experience. Therefore, the target population included the non-management
staffs of Grade III branches of the bank located at Addis Ababa city. As per the information
obtained from the banks corporate HRM, there are about 351 non-management staffs who
are currently working professional work, for which they are working at the capital in 10
Grade III branches of the bank as of 21st May, 2021.
Sample was drawn from these target population using simple random sampling technique
from each purposively selected banks in proportional basis as shown in table 3.2 below.
This sampling technique was chosen because it gives each member of population fair and
equal chance of being selected.
3.4.2 Sample Size Determination
To determine the sample size in this study, the famous Yamane (1967) formula was used.
The formula to calculate the sample size is:
n = N/1 + (N * e2)
Where, n= sample size, N= population size, e= Tolerance at desired level of confidence,
taking 0.05 at 95% confidence level.
Accordingly, the calculated sample size of the study is given as follows:
19
n = 225/1+(225*(0.05)2 ) = 187
Furthermore, in order to calculate the proportional sample size for each purposively
selected bank the following formula is employed:
ni = (n * Ni)/N
Where, ni= sample size for each branch, Ni= the total number of target population in each
selected branch, N = the total number of target population in all selected branches, n= the
total sample size
Table 3.1: proportionate sample distribution for BoA Grade III branches
n Ni N ni = ( n * Ni)/N
(Total
(total
Location
(Total sample number of

S.No List of Grade number of
size from all target (Sample size for
. III Branches target
selected population in each branch)
population in
Branches) all selected
each Branch)
Branches)
Africa Union
1 187 34 351 18
Branch
Legehar
Central Addis Ababa
2 187 37 351 20
Branch
Meskel
3 Square 187 38 351 20
Branch
Mexico
4 187 32 351 17
Branch
Balcha
5 187 33 351 18
Branch
Goro
East Addis Ababa
6 Adebabay 187 34 351 18

Branch
Megenagna
7 187 36 351 19
Branch
Kazachis
8 187 33 351 18
Total Branch
Haile
South Addis
9 Garment 187 35 351 19

Ababa
Branch
10 Saris Branch 187 39 351 21
Target
Population 351 Sample Size 187
20
3.5 Data Source and Method of Data collection
To obtain quantitative information on leadership styles and employees’ organizational

commitment, two separate instruments, namely Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) and Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) adopted from Bass &
Avolio (1997) was used in this study. Questionnaires assist in gathering information for
analysis. Questionnaires having close- ended questions were administered. The
questionnaires were divided into three sections combining questions regarding personal
characteristics (demographics) as well as questions pertaining to the different variables
(leadership styles and organizational commitment). The demographic data questionnaire
was constructed by the researcher. It was designed to obtain information regarding gender,
job category, age, educational level, years of service and contractual status. The Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was formulated from the Full Range Leadership Model
consisting of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors with
nine sub-scales.
Participants were required to assess and testify as to how frequently the behaviors
described by each of the statements are exhibited by their leader. 36 items (4 items of
each leadership sub-scales) were used in this study. These items were rated using a 5
point Likert scale labeled as 0= Not at all, 1=Once in a while, 2=Sometimes, 3= Fairly
often and 4= Frequently, if not always. A high score shows high effectiveness of
leadership style perception whereas low score entails low effectiveness perception in the
scale. The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) is a model used to measure
employees’ organizational commitment adopted from (Allen & Meyer, 1990).
3.5 Method of Data Analysis
In this study, both descriptive and inferential analyses were used to analyze the survey data.
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 was used to analyze the data
collected. Tables were created from the data gathered. Representations like graphs and pie
charts were used to ensure easy and quick interpretation of data. The demographic
characteristics of sample respondents were summarized in the form of frequency and
21
percentage. In order to examine employees’ perception about leadership styles and
organizational commitment, mean and standard deviation were calculated. A two-tailed
Pearson correlation analysis was used to test for relationships between leadership styles
and the components of organizational commitment. A positive correlation coefficient
(r) indicates a positive and direct relationship while a negative correlation coefficient (r)
indicates a negative and indirect relationship or inverse relationship between the two
variables (leadership styles and organizational commitment). A zero correlation points out
that no correlation exists between the variables (Huck, 2012). Data from the completed
questionnaire were checked for consistency. The items in the questionnaires were grouped
based on the responses given by the respondents and coded for easy usage of the system.
3.6 Reliability and Validity of the MLQ and OCQ
The reliability tests of the MLQ and OCQ showed the following results. The rule of
thumb is that an alpha value of 0.60 is considered low, while alpha values in the range of
0.70–0.80 are considered optimal (Singh, 2007).
Table 3.2: Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficient for MLQ and OCQ
Dimension Cron.Alpha Evaluation

Transformational leadership
Idealized influence (Attributed) 0.80 Optimal
Idealized influence (Behavior) 0.51 Low
Inspirational motivation 0.86 High
Intellectual stimulation 0.75 Optimal
Individual consideration 0.64 Low
Transactional leadership
Contingent Reward 0.78 Optimal
Management-by-exception (Active) 0.68 Optimal
Management-by-exception (Passive) 0.67 Optimal
Laissez-Faire 0.75 Optimal
Overall leadership 0.85
22
Organizational commitment
Affective commitment 0.86 High
Normative commitment 0.79 Optimal
Continuance commitment 0.81 High
Overall Organizational commitment 0.87
23
Table 3.2 reveals that the values of Cronbach's alpha for transformational leadership subscales
equal 0.80 for idealized influence (attributed), 0.51 for idealized influence (behavior), 0.86 for
inspirational motivation, 0.75 for intellectual stimulation and 0.64 for individual
consideration. Cronbach’s alpha for transactional subscales equal 0.78 for contingent reward,
0.68 for management-by-exception (active), and0.67 for management-by-exception (passive).
Cronbach’s alpha for laissez faire equals 0.75. The overall reliability of paragraphs related to
leadership style equals 0.85, which is very close to 1.00, and thereby having high reliability
and considered as stable and consistent instrument. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for
organizational commitment subscales equal 0.86 for affective commitment, 0.81 for
continuance commitment and 0.79 for normative commitment. Coefficient factor for the
overall organizational commitment equals 0.87; which is very close to 1.00, and thereby
having high reliability and considered as stable and consistent instrument.
3.7 Ethical Considerations
In conducting the research, the researcher has taken in to account the following ethical
considerations:
 Any relevant data for the study was collected by issuing an official letter to the concerned
entity.
 Respondents was informed fully about the purpose, methods and intended possible uses
of the research, what their participation in the research entails and what risks, if any, are
involved.
 The confidentiality of information supply and the anonymity of respondents was
respected
24
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 Response Rate
Out of 187 questionnaires distributed to respondents, 18 questionnaires were not returned for
various reasons. In addition, 13 questionnaires were not appropriately completed by the
respondents. Therefore, 156 questionnaires were analyzed, which accounted for a response rate
of 84 %.
4.2 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
This section presents the background information about the respondents, including age, gender,
education levels, department and experience.
Table 4.1: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Variables Frequenc Percentage Variables Frequenc Percentage

Gender Level of
71 44.6 Bachelor's 106 66.6
Male
Degree
92 55.4 Master’s Degree 50 41.3
Female
Total 159 100.0 PHD Degree 3 2.5
Age Total 159 100.0

51 42.1 Experience
20 to 30
(years)
70 44.0 Less than 5 24 19.8
31 to 40
24 19.3 Between 6-10 97 61.0

41 to 55
14 11.6 Between 11-15 23 19.0

Above 55
Total 159 100.0 Between 16-20 11 9.0
> 20 years 4 3.3

Total 159 100.0
25
The descriptive statistics in table 4.1, above, indicate that regarding gender of respondents, 44.6
% of the respondents were male while 54.4 % were female. This implies that both genders were
adequately represented in the study. Concerning the age categories of respondents, the results in
table 4.1, above, indicate that 42.1% of the respondents were between 20 to 30 years old, 44 %
of the respondents were 31 to 40 years old, 19.3 % of the respondents were 41 to 55 years old,
and 11.6 % of the respondents were above 55 years old. This implies even though those
respondents were majorly younger population while age distribution of the respondents was
fairly represented.
The statistics on the education levels of respondents indicates that 41.3 % of the respondents
were Master’s degree holders, 66.6 % of the respondents were Bachelor’s degree holders, 2.5 %
of the respondents were PHD degree holders. This implied that respondents were from the
various educational levels, which helped to expand the pool of information collected, from the
least to the most qualified. The results on years of experience indicates that 19.8% of the
respondents has been in their positions for less than 5 years, 61.1 % of the respondents had been
in their positions for 6 to 10 years, and 19 % of the respondents had been in their positions for 11
to 15 years, 9 % of the respondents had been in their positions for 16 to 20 years, and 3.3 % of
the respondents had been in their positions for more than 20 years This implies that the majority
of the respondents were well experienced.
4.3 Descriptive Analysis of Leadership Scores
4.3.1 Descriptive Analysis of Transformational Leadership Scores
Descriptive analysis of the respondents’ responses on Transformational Leadership score is

presented in this section. Responses on five transformational leadership subscales Individualized
Consideration, Intellectual Stimulation, Idealized Influence (Behavior), Idealized Influence
(Attributed) and Inspirational Motivation are discussed as follows.
26
4.3.1.1 Perceptions on Idealized Influence (Attributes)
As indicated in table 4.2 bellow, the majority (53.2 %) of the respondents responded “fairly
often” and “frequently” to the statement that “Instills pride in me for being associated with my
leader”, with mean and SD scores of 2.67 and 0.65, respectively.
Table 4.2: Perceptions on Idealized Influence (Attributes)
frequently,
Not at Once in a Sometime fairly Mea
if not SD
all while s often n
Statement always
No
% No. % No. % No. % No. %
.
Instills pride in me
0.
for being associated 39 25.0 34 22 22 14 61 39.1 2.67 0.65
0
with him/her
Goes beyond self-
0.
interest for the good 37 23.7 43 28 18 12 58 37.2 2.62 0.63
0
of the group
Acts in ways that 0.
8 5.1 59 38 22 14 67 42.9 2.95 0.79
builds my respect 0
Displays a sense of
0.
power and 0.0 13 8 54 35 89 57.1 3.49 1.10
0
confidence
Grand Mean & SD 2.93 0.79
Source: Own survey
Similarly, majority (57.1%) the respondents responded “fairly often” and “frequently” to the
statement that their leaders “Acts in ways that builds my respect”, with mean and SD scores of
2.95 and 0.79, respectively. Moreover, great majority (91.7 %) of the respondents responded
“fairly often” and “frequently” to the statement that their leaders “Displays a sense of power and
confidence”, with the highest mean and SD scores of 3.49 and 1.10, respectively. Furthermore,
majority (51.3 %) the respondents responded “Once in a while” and “Sometimes” to the
statement that their leaders “Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group”, with the lowest
mean score of 2.62 and SD of 0.63.
4.3.1.2 Perceptions on Idealized Influence (Behavioral)
27
As shown in table 4.3 bellow, great majority (79.5 %) of the respondents responded “fairly
often” and “frequently” to the statement that their leaders “Emphasizes the importance of having
a collective sense of mission”, with the highest mean score of 2.08 and SD scores of 0.40.
Table 4.3: Perceptions on Idealized Influence (Behavioral)
frequentl
Not at Once in Sometime fairly
y, if not
all a while s often Mea
Statement always SD
n
No No No No
% % No. % % %
. . . .
Talks about their most
0. 36. 8. 0.9
important values and 57 58 37 13 28 17.9 2.96
0 5 3 3
beliefs
Specifies the importance
4. 23. 0.3
of having a strong sense of 7 37 56 36 23 15 33 21.2 2.24
5 7 9
purpose
Considers the moral and
0. 21. 0.4
ethical consequences of 33 50 32 29 19 44 28.2 2.54
0 2 8
decisions
Emphasizes the
0. 0.9
importance of having a 0.0 32 21 99 63 25 16.0 2.96
0 3
collective sense of mission
0.5
Grand Mean & SD 2.45
5
Source: Own survey
However, as indicated in table 4.3 above, the great majority (73.7 %) of the respondents
responded “Once in a while” and “Sometimes” to the statement that their leaders “Talks about
their most important values and beliefs”, with the lowest mean score of 2.08 and SD scores of
0.40. In the same fashion, majority (59.6 %) of the respondents responded “Once in a while” and
“Sometimes” to the statement that their leaders “Specifies the importance of having a strong
sense of purpose”, with mean score of 2.24 and SD scores of 0.39. Moreover, majority (53.2 %)
of the respondents responded “Once in a while” and “Sometimes” to the statement that their
leaders “Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions”, with mean score of 2.54
and SD of 0.48, respectively.
4.3.1.3 Perceptions on Inspirational Motivation
28
As shown in table 4.3 bellow, great majority (58.3%) of the respondents responded “fairly often”
and “frequently” to the statement that their leaders “Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be
accomplished”, with the highest mean score of 2.94 and SD scores of 0.74.
Table 4.4: Perceptions on Inspirational Motivation
frequently,
Once in a fairly
Not at all Sometimes if not
Statement while often Mean SD
always
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Talks optimistically
0.0 19 12.2 67 43 40 26 30 19.2 2.52 0.49
about the future
Talks enthusiastically
about what needs to be 0.0 8 5.1 57 37 28 18 63 40.4 2.94 0.74
accomplished
Articulates a compelling
0.0 7 4.5 63 40 77 49 9 5.8 2.56 0.76
vision of the future
Expresses confidence that
0.0 3 1.9 62 40 49 31 42 26.9 2.83 0.61
goals will be achieved
Source: Own survey
Moreover, majority (58.3%) of the respondents also responded “fairly often” and “frequently” to
the statement that their leaders “Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved”, with mean
score of 2.83 and SD scores of 0.61. Furthermore, majority (55.1%) of the respondents also
responded “fairly often” and “frequently” to the statement that their leaders “Articulates a
compelling vision of the future”, with mean score of 2.56 and SD scores of 0.76. However, the
findings showed that majority (55.1 %) of the respondents responded “Once in a while” and
“Sometimes” to the statement that their leaders “Talks optimistically about the future”, with
mean score of 2.52 and SD of 0.49.
4.3.1.4 Perceptions on Individualized Consideration
As shown in table 4.5 bellow, majority (57.1%) of the respondents responded “fairly often” and
“frequently” to the statement that their leaders “Treats them as an individual rather than just as a
member of a group”, with the highest mean score of 2.29 and SD scores of 0.74.
29
Table 4.5: Perceptions on Individualized Consideration
frequently,
Once in a fairly
Not at all Sometimes if not Mea
Statement while often SD
always n
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Spends time teaching
11 7.1 39 25.0 36 23 60 38 10 6.4 2.12 0.97
and coaching
Treats me as an
individual rather than
18 11.5 36 23.1 13 8 61 39 28 17.9 2.29 0.91
just as a member of a
group
Considers me as
having different needs,
13 8.3 46 29.5 14 9 62 40 21 13.5 2.21 1.01
abilities, and
aspirations from others
Helps me to develop
0.0 55 35.3 21 13 60 38 20 12.8 2.29 1.20
my strengths
Source: Own survey
Moreover, majority (53.2%) of the respondents also responded “fairly often” and “frequently” to
the statement that their leaders “Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations
from others”, with mean score of 2.21 and SD scores of 1.01. Furthermore, majority (51.3 %) of
the respondents also responded “fairly often” and “frequently” to the statement that “my leader
helps me to develop my strengths”, with mean score of 2.56 and SD scores of 0.76. However,
the findings showed that majority (48.1 %) of the respondents responded “Once in a while” and
“Sometimes” to the statement that their leaders “Spends time teaching and coaching”, while 7.1
% responded “not at all”, with the lowest mean score of 2.12 and SD of 0.97.
4.3.1.5 Perceptions on Intellectual Stimulation
30
As shown in table 4.6 bellow, majority (65.4 %) of the respondents responded “fairly often” and
“frequently” to the statement that their leaders “Seeks differing perspectives when solving
problems”, with the highest mean score of 2.72 and SD scores of 0.64.
Table 4.6: Perceptions on Intellectual Stimulation
frequently,
Once in a fairly
always
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Re-examines critical
assumptions to 14.
22 37 23.7 15 10 43 28 39 25.0 2.26 0.76
question whether they 1
are appropriate
Seeks differing
perspectives when 11 7.1 23 14.7 20 13 46 29 56 35.9 2.72 0.64
solving problems
Gets me to look at
problems from many 7 4.5 22 14.1 22 14 74 47 31 19.9 2.64 0.96
different angles
Suggests new ways of
looking at how to 0.0 45 28.8 29 19 29 19 53 34.0 2.58 0.67
complete assignments
Source: Own survey
Moreover, the findings also showed that majority (67.3 %) of the respondents responded “fairly
often” and “frequently” to the statement that their leaders “Gets them to look at problems from
many different angles”, with mean score of 2.64 and SD score of 0.96. Similarly, majority (52.6
%) of the respondents responded “fairly often” and “frequently” to the statement that their
leaders “Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments”, with mean score of
2.58 and SD scores of 0.67. Furthermore, the findings also showed that majority (52.6 %) of the
respondents responded “fairly often” and “frequently” to the statement that their leaders “Re-
examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate”, with the lowest mean
score of 2.26 and SD score of 0.76.
4.3.1.6 The Overall Transformational Leadership Scores
31
As shown on table 4.7 bellow, the mean values for each of the transformational leadership
subscales are all relatively close to 2.5 except Individualized Consideration. For the most
effective leadership, Bass and Avolio (1997) suggest mean scores of greater or equal to 3.0 for
Individualized Consideration, Intellectual Stimulation, Idealized Influence (Behavior), Idealized
Influence (Attributed) and Inspirational Motivation.
Table 4.7: The Overall Transformational Leadership Scores
Bass & Avolio

Standard (1997)
Dimension Code Mean Deviation Suggested
Range
Idealized influence (attributed) IA 2.93 0.79 3
Idealized influence (behaviour) IB 2.45 0.55 3
Inspirational motivation IM 2.71 0.65 3
Individualized consideration IC 2.23 1.02 3
Intellectual stimulation IS 2.55 0.76 3
Transformational Leadership TF 2.57 0.75 3
Source: Own survey
The overall scores of leadership subscales obtained in this study (2.93, 2.45, 2.71, 2.23 and 2.25,
respectively) are slightly less than what Bass and Avolio (1997) suggested. This implies that
managers of BoA at different levels of the selected grade III branches are not displaying the ideal
levels of transformational leadership.
4.3.2 Descriptive Analysis of Transactional Leadership Scores
Descriptive analysis of the respondents’ responses on Transactional Leadership score is

presented in this section. Responses on three transactional leadership subscales: Contingent
Reward, Management-by-exception (Active) and Management –by-exception (Passive) are
discussed as follows.
32
4.3.2.1 Perceptions on Contingent Rewards
As shown in table 4.8 bellow, majority (57.7 %) of the respondents responded “fairly often” and
“frequently” to the statement that their leaders “Makes clear what one can expect to receive
when performance goals are achieved”, with the highest mean score of 2.38 and SD scores of
0.92.
Table 4.8: Perceptions on Contingent Rewards
Once in a fairly frequently,

Not at all Sometimes
while often if not Mea
Statement SD
No always n
% No. % No. % No. % No. %
.
Provides me with
assistance in 3 0.7
20 12.8 32 20.5 24 15 49 31 19.9 2.25
exchange for my 1 3
efforts
Discusses in specific
terms who is
3 0.6
responsible for 21 13.5 42 26.9 13 8 60 20 12.8 2.10
8 8
achieving
performance targets
Makes clear what one
can expect to receive 4 0.9
11 7.1 34 21.8 21 13 65 25 16.0 2.38
when performance 2 2
goals are achieved
Expresses satisfaction
3 0.4
when I meet 9 5.8 32 20.5 33 21 59 23 14.7 2.35
8 8
expectations
0.7
0
Source: Own survey
In the same fashion, majority (52.6%) of the respondents responded “fairly often” and
“frequently” to the statement that their leaders “Expresses satisfaction when they meet
expectations”, with the mean and SD scores of 2.35 and 0.48, respectively. Moreover, majority
(51.3%) of the respondents responded “fairly often” and “frequently” to the statement that their
leaders “Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts”, with the mean and SD scores
of 2.25 and 0.73, respectively. Furthermore, majority (51.3%) of the respondents responded
“fairly often” and “frequently” to the statement that their leaders “Discusses in specific terms
33
who is responsible for achieving performance targets”, with the lowest mean score of 2.10 and
SD scores of 0.68.
4.3.2.2 Perceptions on Management –by-exception (Active)
As shown on table 4.9 below, the findings showed that majority (58.3 %) of the respondents
responded “Once in a while” and “Sometimes” to the statement that their leaders “Focuses
attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards”, with mean and
SD scores of 2.31 and 0.71.
Table 4.9: Perceptions on Management –by-exception (Active)
frequently,
Once in a fairly
while often
Statement always Mean SD
No
% No. % No. % No. % No. %
.
Focuses attention on
irregularities,
mistakes, exceptions, 0.0 63 40.4 28 18 18 12 47 30.1 2.31 0.71
and deviations from
standards
Concentrates his/her
full attention on
8.
dealing with mistakes, 0.0 75 48.1 48 31 13 20 12.8 1.86 0.63
3
complaints, and
failures
Keeps track of all 7.
16 10.3 75 48.1 12 8 11 42 26.9 1.92 0.62
mistakes 1
Directs my attention
toward failures to 0.0 49 31.4 47 30 14 9 46 29.5 2.37 0.93
meet standards
Source: Own survey
The finding also showed that majority (78.8 %) of the respondents responded “Once in a while”
and “Sometimes” to the statement that their leaders “Concentrates his/her full attention on
dealing with mistakes, complaints, and failures”, with the lowest mean score of 1.86 and SD
score of 0.63. Moreover, majority (58.8 %) of the respondents responded “Once in a while” and
“Sometimes” to the statement that their leaders “Keeps track of all mistakes”, with mean and SD
34
scores of 1.92 and 0.62, respectively. Furthermore, majority (61.5 %) of the respondents also
responded “Once in a while” and “Sometimes” to the statement that their leaders “Directs my
attention toward failures to meet standards”, with the highest mean score of 2.37 and SD of 0.93.
4.3.2.3 Perceptions on Management –by-exception (Passive)
As shown on table 4.10 bellow, the findings showed that majority (60.9 %) of the respondents
responded “Once in a while” and “Sometimes” to the statement that their leaders “Fails to
interfere until problems become serious”, with mean and SD scores of 1.06 and 0.86.
Table 4.10: Perceptions on Management –by-exception (Passive)
Once in a frequently,
Not at all Sometimes fairly often
Statement while if not Mean SD
No. % No. % No. % No. % always
No. %
Fails to interfere
30. 41.
until problems 48 64 31 20 13 8.3 0.0 1.06 0.86
8 0
become serious
Waits for things to
26. 36.
go wrong before 42 57 27 17 29 19 1 0.6 1.29 0.64
9 5
taking action
Shows that he/she
is a firm believer 20. 33.
32 52 34 22 35 22 3 1.9 1.52 0.92
in 'if it doesn't 5 3
break, don't fix it:
Demonstrates that
problems must
25. 26.
become chronic 39 42 42 27 19 12 14 9.0 1.53 0.99
0 9
before taking
action
Source: Own survey
The finding also showed that majority (53.8 %) of the respondents responded “Once in a while”
and “Sometimes” to the statement that their leaders “Waits for things to go wrong before taking
action”, with mean score of 1.29 and SD score of 0.64. Moreover, majority (55.1 %) of the
respondents responded “Once in a while” and “Sometimes” to the statement that their leaders
35
“Shows that he/she is a firm believer in 'if it doesn't break, don't fix it”, with mean and SD scores
of 1.52 and 0.92, respectively. Furthermore, majority (53.8 %) of the respondents also responded
“Once in a while” and “Sometimes” to the statement that their leaders “Demonstrates that
problems must become chronic before taking action”, with the highest mean score of 1.53 and
SD of 0.99.
4.3.2.4 The Overall Transactional Leadership Scores
As shown on table 4.11 bellow, the overall scores of Transactional leadership subscales obtained
in this study are 2.27 for Contingent rewards; 2.12 for Management-by-exception-active
and .1.35 for Management-by-exception-passive
Table 4.11: The Overall Transactional Leadership Scores
Bass &
Standard Avolio
Dimension Code Mean Deviation (1997)
Suggested
Range
Contingent rewards CR 2.27 0.70 2
Management-by-exception-active MBEA 2.12 0.72 1-2
Management-by-exception-passive MBEP 1.35 0.85 1
Transactional Leadership TA 1.91 0.76 1-2
Source: Own survey
Bass and Avolio (1997) suggested a mean score of 2 for contingent reward, which is lower-than
the current study’s mean score of 2.27. The suggested range for management-by-exception
(active) was 1.0 to 2.0 and the mean score obtained for the current study was 2.12, which is
slightly outside the range. Suggested score for management-by-exception (passive) is 1.0;
however, mean score for the current study was 1.35. This indicated a greater level of
transactional behaviours exhibited by managers of BoA at working at the selected grade III
branches.
4.3.3 Descriptive Analysis of Laissez-faire leadership Scores
36
Descriptive analysis of the respondents’ responses on Laissez-faire leadership scores is presented
in this section. As shown on table below, 4.12 the findings showed that majority (60.7 %) of the
respondents responded “Not at all” and “Once in a while” to the statement that their leaders
“Avoid getting involved when important issues arise”, with mean and SD scores of 1.07 and
0.98, respectively. Similarly, the findings also showed that majority (65.4 %) of the respondents
responded “Not at all” and “Once in a while” to the statement that their leaders “Is absent when
needed”, with mean and SD scores of 0.97 and 0.76, respectively.
Table 4.12: Perceptions on Laissez-faire leadership
Once in a fairly frequently,

always
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Avoid getting
involved when
68 43.6 36 23.1 25 16 27 17 0.0 1.07 0.98
important issues
arise
Is absent when
82 52.6 20 12.8 31 20 23 15 0.0 0.97 0.76
needed
Avoids making
66 42.3 43 27.6 22 14 25 16 0.0 1.04 0.88
decisions
Delays
responding to 47 30.1 67 42.9 14 9 23 15 5 3.2 1.18 1.01
urgent questions
Source: Own survey
Moreover, the findings also showed that majority (69.9%) of the respondents responded “Not at
all” and “Once in a while” to the statement that their leaders “Avoids making decisions”, with
mean and SD scores of 1.04 and 0.88, respectively. Furthermore, the findings also showed that
majority (73.1 %) of the respondents responded “Not at all” and “Once in a while” to the
statement that their leaders “Delays responding to urgent questions”, with mean and SD scores of
1.18 and 1.01, respectively
Therefore, as table 4.12 (above) shows the overall mean score for Laissez-faire leadership in this
study is 1.06, while Bass and Avolio (1997) suggest mean scores of 0.0 for Laissez-faire
leadership. This indicated a greater level of Laissez-faire behaviors exhibited by managers of
BoA at working at the selected grade III branches.
37
4.4 Descriptive Analysis of Organizational Commitment
4.4.1 Responses on Affective Commitment
As shown in table 4.13 bellow, the descriptive analysis of the respondents’ responses on
questions related to Affective Commitment revealed that majority (57.05 %) of the respondents
responded “Fairly often” and “Frequently” to the statement that “I feel emotionally attached to
this organization”, with the highest mean and SD scores of 2.56 and 0.85, respectively. However,
the findings also showed that majority (53.3%) of the respondents responded “Not at all” and
“Once in a while” to the statement that “I feel like part of the family at this organization”, with
mean and SD scores of 2.01 and 0.88, respectively.
Table 4.13: Perceptions on Affective Commitment
frequently,
Once in fairly
Not at Sometimes if not
a while often Mea
Statement all always SD
n
No No No
. % . % No. % . % No. %
I feel like part of the
0. 53. 22.
family at this 84 12 8 35 25 16.0 2.01 0.71
0 8 4
organization
This organization has
a great deal of 0. 51. 20.
81 22 14 32 21 13.5 1.96 0.86
personal meaning for 0 9 5
me
I feel a strong sense of
0. 53. 17.
belonging to this 84 19 12 27 26 16.7 1.97 0.88
0 8 3
organization
I feel emotionally
0. 16.
attached to this 26 41 26 64 41 25 16.0 2.56 0.85
0 7
organization
Source: Own survey
Similarly, the findings also showed that majority (51.9%) of the respondents responded “Not at
all” and “Once in a while” to the statement that “This organization has a great deal of personal
meaning for me”, with the lowest mean score of 1.96 and SD scores of 0.86. Moreover, the
findings also showed that majority (53.8 %) of the respondents responded “Not at all” and “Once
38
in a while” to the statement that “I feel a strong sense of belonging to this organization”, with
mean and SD scores of 1.97and 0.88, respectively.
4.4.2 Responses on Continuance Commitment
questions related to Continuance Commitment revealed that majority (53.2 %) of the respondents
responded “Not at all” and “Once in a while” to the statement that “Too much of my life would
be disrupted if I decided that I wanted to leave this organization now”, with mean score of 2.04
and SD score of 0.72. Similarly, majority (50.6 %) of the respondents responded “Not at all” and
“Once in a while” to the statement that “I would not leave this organization right now because of
what I would stand to lose”, with mean score of 2.04 and SD score of 0.78.
Table 4.14: Perceptions on Continuance Commitment
frequently,
Once in a fairly
while often Mea
Statement always SD
n
No No No
. % . % No. % . % No. %
Too much of my
life would be
disrupted if I 53. 20. 0.7
0.0 83 12 8 32 29 18.6 2.04
decided that I 2 5 2
wanted to leave this
organization now
I would not leave
this organization
44. 20. 0.7
right now because 10 6.4 69 13 8 32 32 20.5 2.04
2 5 8
of what I would
stand to lose
It would be very
costly for me to
48. 28. 0.7
leave this 8 5.1 75 0 44 29 18.6 2.07
1 2 9
organization right
now
For me personally,
the cost of leaving
19. 37. 23. 0.8
this organization 30 59 1 1 36 30 19.2 1.85
2 8 1 9
would be far greater
than the benefit
39
0.8
0
Source: Own survey
Moreover, majority (53.2%) of the respondents responded “Not at all” and “Once in a while” to
the statement that “It would be very costly for me to leave this organization right now”, with
mean score of 2.07 and SD score of 0.79. Furthermore, majority (57.1%) of the respondents
responded “Not at all” and “Once in a while” to the statement that “For me personally, the cost
of leaving this organization would be far greater than the benefit”, with the lowest mean score of
1.85 and SD score of 0.89.
4.4.3 Responses on Normative Commitment
questions related to Normative Commitment revealed that majority (57.7 %) of the respondents
responded “Not at all” and “Once in a while” to the statement that “Even if it were to my
advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now”, with the lowest mean
score of 1.43 and SD score of 0.87.
Table 4.15: Perceptions on Normative Commitment
frequently,
Once in a fairly
while often
Statement always Mean SD
No No
. % . % No. % No. % No. %
Even if it were to my
advantage, I do not
feel it would be right 42 26.9 48 30.8 23 15 43 27.6 0.0 1.43 0.87
to leave my
organization now
I would violate a
trust if I quit my job
43 27.6 49 31.4 17 11 47 30.1 0.0 1.44 0.47
with this
organization now
I would not leave 39 25.0 52 33.3 21 13 35 22.4 9 5.8 1.51 0.98
40
this organization
right now because I
have a sense of
obligation people in
it
I would feel guilty if
I left my 35 22.4 66 42.3 13 8 35 22.4 7 4.5 1.44 0.77
organization now
Source: Own survey
It is also revealed that majority (59 %) of the respondents responded “Not at all” and “Once in a
while” to the statement that “I would violate a trust if I quit my job with this organization now”,
with mean score of 1.44 and SD score of 0.47. Moreover, majority (58.3 %) of the respondents
also responded “Not at all” and “Once in a while” to the statement that “I would not leave this
organization right now because I have a sense of obligation people in it”, with mean score of
1.51 and SD score of 0.98. Furthermore, the findings also revealed that majority (64.7 %) of the
respondents also responded “Not at all” and “Once in a while” to the statement that “I would feel
guilty if I left my organization now”, with mean score of 1.44 and SD score of 0.77.
4.5 Relationship Between Leadership Style and Organizational Commitment
In this section, correlation analysis conducted in the light of each research hypothesis is
discussed. The relationship between leadership styles and organizational commitment was
investigated using two-tailed Pearson correlation analysis. This provided correlation coefficients
which indicated the strength and direction of relationship. The p-value also indicated the
probability of the relationship’s significance. Devore and Peck (1993) provided a guideline for
assessing resultant correlation coefficients as follows: coefficients less than 0.5 represent a weak
relationship, coefficients greater than 0.5 but less than 0.8 represent a moderate relationship and
coefficients greater than 0.8 represent a strong relationship.
4.5.1 Correlation between Transformational Leadership Style and Affective

Commitment
41
H01: There is no significant relationship between transformational leadership and affective
The hypotheses of the study were concerned with establishing a relationship between leadership
style and employee commitment. The relationship between Transformational Leadership style
and Affective Commitment was investigated using a two-tailed Pearson Correlation analysis.
This provided correlation coefficients which indicated the strength and direction of linear
relationship. The p-value indicated the probability of this relationship’s significance. The results
of the correlation analysis are presented below (Table 4.16). Accordingly, as indicated in Table
4.16 bellow transformational leadership has moderate relationship and significant, positive
correlation with affective commitment (r = 0.601, p < 0.01) which are statistically significant at
99% confidence level. Hence, the study rejects the null hypothesis (H01) and concludes that
there is sufficient evidence, at the 99% level of significance, that there is significant and positive
relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment.
Table 4.16: Correlation between transformational leadership and affective commitment
Correlations
Transformational Affective
Leadership commitment
Transformational Leadership Pearson Correlation 1 .601**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 156 156
Affective commitment Pearson Correlation .601 **
1
N 156 156
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Source: Own survey Using SPSS (2022)
This finding of the study is in line with the findings of Hayward et al., (2004), who found that
transformational leadership has moderate positive correlation with affective commitment. Even
though the strength of the correlation is different the finding of the current study is also in line
with Temesgen (2011) and Nyengane (2007) who found relatively weak, but significant, positive
relationship between transformation leadership and affective commitment.
42
4.5.2 Correlation Between Transformational Leadership Style and Continuance
Commitment
H02: There is no significant relationship between transformational leadership and continuance

and Continuance Commitment was investigated using a two-tailed Pearson Correlation analysis.
This provided correlation coefficients which indicated the strength and direction of linear
relationship. The p-value indicated the probability of this relationship’s significance. The results
of the correlation analysis are presented below (Table 4.17). Accordingly, as indicated in Table
4.17 bellow transformational leadership has weak relationship and significant, positive
correlation with continuance commitment (r = 0.439, p < 0.01) which are statistically significant
at 99% confidence level. Hence, the study rejects the null hypothesis (H02) and concludes that
there is sufficient evidence, at the 99% level of significance, that there is significant and positive
relationship between transformational leadership and continuance commitment.
Table 4.17: Correlation between transformational leadership and continuance commitment
Correlations
Transformational Continuance
Leadership Commitment
Transformational Leadership Pearson Correlation 1 .439**
N 156 156
Continuance Commitment Pearson Correlation .439 **
1
N 156 156
43
The above finding is in line with other author’s findings such as Temesgen (2011) who found very
weak, but significant, positive relationship, and Nyengane (2007) who found relatively weak but
significant, positive relationship between transformational leadership and continuance
commitment.
4.5.3 Correlation between Transformational Leadership Style and Normative

Commitment
H03: There is no significant relationship between transformational leadership and normative

and Normative Commitment was investigated using a two-tailed Pearson Correlation analysis.
Table 4.18: Correlation between Transformational leadership and Normative commitment
Correlations
Transformational
Leadership Normative Commitment
Transformational Pearson Correlation 1 .416**
Leadership Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 156 156
Normative Commitment Pearson Correlation .416** 1

N 156 156

According to the results of the correlation analysis are presented above (Table 4.18).
Transformational leadership has weak relationship and significant, positive correlation with
normative commitment (r = 0.416, p < 0.01) which are statistically significant at 99% confidence
level. Hence, the study rejects the null hypothesis (H03) and concludes that there is sufficient
44
evidence, at the 99% level of significance, that there is significant and positive relationship
between transformational leadership and normative commitment.
This finding is in line with Nyengane (2007) who found relatively weak but significant, positive
relationship. Studies by Bučiūnienė and Škudienė (2008) also found positive relationship.
However, Temesgen (2011) has found no significant relationship among transformational
leadership style and employees’ normative commitment.
4.5.4 Correlation between Transactional Leadership Style and Affective

Commitment

style and employee commitment. The relationship between transactional leadership and
normative commitment was investigated using a two-tailed Pearson Correlation analysis.
Table 4.19: Correlation between transactional leadership and normative commitment
Correlations
Transactional Affective
leadership commitment
Transactional leadership Pearson Correlation 1 .687**
N 156 156
Affective commitment Pearson Correlation .687 **

1
N 156 156

According to the results of the correlation analysis are presented above (Table 4.19),
transactional leadership has moderate relationship and significant, positive correlation with
affective commitment (r = 0. 687, p < 0.01) which are statistically significant at 99% confidence
45
level. Hence, the study rejects the null hypothesis (H04) and concludes that there is sufficient
evidence, at the 99% level of significance, that there is significant and positive relationship
between transactional leadership and affective commitment.
This finding is in line with Temesgen (2011) and Nyengane (2007) who has found weak but
significant, positive relationship between transaction leadership and affective commitment.
4.5.5 Correlation Between Transactional Leadership Style and Continuance

Commitment
H05: There is no significant relationship between transactional leadership and continuance

continuance commitment was investigated using a two-tailed Pearson Correlation analysis.
Table 4.20: Correlation between transactional leadership and continuance commitment
Correlations
Transactional Continuance
leadership Commitment
N 156 156
Continuance Commitment Pearson Correlation .507** 1

N 156 156

continuance commitment (r = 0. 507, p < 0.01) which are statistically significant at 99%
46
confidence level. Hence, the study rejects the null hypothesis (H05) and concludes that there is
sufficient evidence, at the 99% level of significance, that there is significant and positive
relationship between transactional leadership and continuance commitment.
4.5.6 Correlation Between Transactional Leadership Style and Normative

Commitment

Table 4.21: Correlation between transactional leadership and normative commitment
Correlations
Transactional Normative
N 156 156
Normative commitment Pearson Correlation .573** 1

N 156 156

normative commitment (r = 0. 573, p < 0.01) which are statistically significant at 99%
confidence level. Hence, the study rejects the null hypothesis (H06) and concludes that there is
47
sufficient evidence, at the 99% level of significance, that there is significant and positive
relationship between transactional leadership and normative commitment.
4.5.7 Correlation Between Laissez-faire leadership Style and Affective Commitment
H07: There is no significant relationship between Laissez-faire leadership and affective

style and employee commitment. The relationship between laissez-faire leadership and affective
commitment was investigated using a two-tailed Pearson Correlation analysis.
Table 4.22: Correlation between laissez-faire leadership and affective commitment
Correlations
laissez-faire Affective
laissez-faire leadership Pearson Correlation 1 -.263**
N 156 156
Affective commitment Pearson Correlation -.263** 1

N 156 156

According to the results of the correlation analysis are presented above (Table 4.22), laissez-faire
leadership has weak but significant, negative correlation with affective commitment (r = -0. 263,
p < 0.01) which are statistically significant at 99% confidence level. Hence, the study rejects the
null hypothesis (H07) and concludes that there is sufficient evidence, at the 99% level of
significance, that there is significant and negative relationship between laissez-faire leadership
and affective commitment. This finding is in line with Bučiūnienė & Škudienė (2008) and Saqer
(2009) who have found negative but significant correlations between laissez-faire leadership and
affective commitment.
48
4.5.8 Correlation Between Laissez-faire leadership Style and Continuance
Commitment
H08: There is no significant relationship between Laissez-faire leadership and continuance

commitment to the organisation.
style and employee commitment. The relationship between laissez-faire leadership and
continuance commitment was investigated using a two-tailed Pearson Correlation analysis.
Table 4.23: Correlation between laissez-faire leadership and continuance commitment
Correlations
laissez-faire Continuance
N 156 156
Continuance commitment Pearson Correlation -.353** 1

N 156 156

leadership has weak but significant, negative correlation with continuance commitment (r = -0.
353, p < 0.01) which are statistically significant at 99% confidence level. Hence, the study rejects
the null hypothesis (H08) and concludes that there is sufficient evidence, at the 99% level of
and continuance commitment. This finding is in line with Bučiūnienė & Škudienė (2008) and
49
Saqer (2009) who have found negative but significant correlations between laissez-faire
leadership and continuance commitment.
4.5.9 Correlation Between Laissez-faire leadership Style and Normative

Commitment
H09: There is no significant relationship between Laissez-faire leadership and normative

style and employee commitment. The relationship between laissez-faire leadership and
Table 4.24: Correlation between laissez-faire leadership and normative commitment
Correlations
laissez-faire Normative
N 156 156
Normative commitment Pearson Correlation -.287 **

1
N 156 156

leadership has weak but significant, negative correlation with normative commitment (r = -0.
287, p < 0.01) which are statistically significant at 99% confidence level. Hence, the study rejects
the null hypothesis (H09) and concludes that there is sufficient evidence, at the 99% level of
and normative commitment. This finding is in line with Bučiūnienė & Škudienė (2008) and
Saqer (2009) who have found negative but significant correlations between laissez-faire
leadership and normative commitment. However, Temesgen (2011) and Nyengane (2007) were
50
found that no statistically significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership style and
normative commitment.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter deals with the summary of the major findings of the study, conclusions reached and
recommendations forwarded on the basis of the conclusions
5.1 Summary of Findings
The first specific objective of the study was to assess the dominant leadership styles, as
perceived by the employees, of in selected branches of BoA in Addis Ababa. As the mean scores
of leadership style shown on table 4 above, the prevailing leadership style, as perceived by
employees of BoA, is slightly more transformational (Mean = 2.57) than transactional (Mean =
1.91) and laissez-faire (Mean = 1.06). The dominant leadership style in BoA is thus
transformational leadership. This leadership behavior includes developing and coaching each
follower, instilling pride and building trust, emphasizing collective sense of mission, talking
about values and beliefs; stimulating followers to view the world from new perspectives;
encouraging problem solving, critical thinking, creativity, expressing enthusiasm, optimism, and
confidence. Within the elements of transformational leadership, Idealized influence (attributed)
51
was the most dominant one. Thus, leaders in this study were perceived to be more inclined to
exhibit Instills pride in employees for being associated with them; goes beyond self-interest for
the good of the group; acts in ways that builds employees’ respect; displays a sense of power and
confidence. Although transformational leadership was found to be the dominant one, mean
scores for its sub-scales (ranging from 2.23 to 2.93) were below the suggested score (Bass and
Avolio, 1997) of greater or equal to 3.0; indicating that leaders of BoA were not demonstrating
the ideal levels of transformational leadership behaviors mentioned above.
With regard to transactional leadership, the results show that leaders exhibit contingent reward
behaviors which are much higher (2.27) than the suggested value of 2.0 indicating that leaders
displayed the ideal level of contingent reward behavior, i.e., clarifying what needs to be done and
exchanging psychological and material rewards for services rendered. However, management by
exception passive behaviors are exhibited to a degree which is much higher (1.35) than the
suggested value (1.0) implying that some staff members perceived that their supervisors take no
action unless a problem arises, avoid unnecessary change, place energy on maintaining status
quo.
The mean for the laissez-faire leadership (1.06) was weaker than all the elements of
transformational (2.57) and transactional (1.91) leadership styles. This signifies that based on
employees’ perception, the possibility for laissez- faire leadership to be practiced in BoA is at a
lower level, indicating that leaders do not show the following behaviors, i.e., avoiding making
decisions, abdicating responsibilities, not using authority and not showing interest in what is
going on. In terms of the suggested score for laissez-faire (0.0), the actual score shows a much
higher value (1.06) suggesting that leaders tended not to take corrective action nor take decisions
as soon as problems occur, show passive indifference about the task and subordinates, i.e.,
ignoring problems and subordinate needs. Thus, a greater level of laissez-faire behaviors was
exhibited by leaders.
The second specific objective of the study was to examine the dominant dimension of
organizational commitment prevailing among employees of BoA at in selected branches of in
Addis Ababa. With regard to organizational commitment, affective commitment had the highest
mean of 2.12 whereas normative commitment had the lowest mean of 1.45 putting continuance
commitment in the middle (2.0). Since affective commitment has the highest score, the result is
52
consistent with the required pattern by Allen and Meyer (1990). The results reveal that affective
commitment is dominant among staff members in BoA, i.e., BoA staff are thus believed to have
developed emotional attachment to the bank and are willing to assist the bank in achieving its
goals. This indicates that BoA’s employees’ feeling of “desire” was stronger than the feelings of
“need” and “obligation” to continue work in the bank.
The Third specific objective of the study was to identify whether there exists a relationship
between leadership styles and employees’ organizational commitment at selected branches of
BoA in Addis Ababa. Accordingly, the correlation analysis of the study revealed that there is a
moderate positive relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment (r
= 0.601, p < 0.01) in BoA. Transformational leadership behaviours include developing followers
through inspiration and intrinsic motivation, going beyond self-interest for the sake of the
organization, inspiring a shared vision, encouraging creativity, building trust, etc. Thus, these
behaviors are positively related to how employees feel about wanting to stay within BoA. The
findings also revealed a weak relationship between transformational leadership and continuance
commitment (r = 0.439, p < 0.01) was found at BoA. This suggests that the above leadership
behaviors are related to how employees feel about the need to stay within BoA. It was found that
there is weak but positive relationship between transformational leadership and normative
commitment (r = 0.416, p < 0.01) at BoA.
The findings also showed that there is moderate and positive relationship between transactional
leadership and affective commitment (r = 0. 687, p < 0.01) as well as with normative
commitment (r = 0. 573, p < 0.01) at BoA, suggesting that behaviors involving providing staff
with assistance in exchange of their efforts, explaining the responsibility of achieving
performance targets, and designing a clear rewarding scheme or dealing with complaints and
failure and directing staff attention toward failures to meet standards are moderately related to
how employees feel about the desire to stay and the obligation to stay with BoA. The results
also show that there is a positive and moderate correlation between transactional leadership
style and continuance commitment (r = 0. 507, p < 0.01) suggesting that leadership behaviors
involving rewards, highlighting problems, and positive reinforcement are moderately related
to how employees feel about the need to stay with BoA.
53
The findings also showed that Laissez-faire leadership style was found to have a negative and
weak relationship with affective commitment (r = -0. 263); with continuance commitment (r = -0.
353) and normative commitment (r = -0. 287). These results suggest that leadership behaviors
involving ignoring problems, avoiding making decisions, displaying indifference, delaying
response to urgent matters and overlooking achievements have a very weak relationship with how
employees feel about their desire to stay with BoA. The negative correlation suggests that laissez-
faire leadership has a negative influence on both affective, continuance and normative
commitment, suggesting that the above-mentioned behaviors are negatively related to how
employees feel about the need to stay and having to stay with the BoA.
5.2. Conclusions
The objectives of this study were to assess the dominant leadership style and dimension of
organizational commitment prevailing at BoA selected branches in Addis Ababa and to identify
the relationship between leadership styles and organizational commitment BoA selected
branches in Addis Ababa. In light of the major findings of the study, the following conclusions
were drawn. Although transformational leadership was found to be the dominant one, leaders at
BoA were not exhibiting the ideal levels of transformational leadership behaviors. Thus,
transformational leadership is not being practiced effectively which points to the fact that there
is need for improvement. Moreover, the findings revealed that the most dominant dimension of
organizational commitment in BoA is affective commitment. Thus, BoA’s employees’ feeling of
“desire” was stronger than the feelings of “need” and “obligation” to continue work in the bank.
The findings have indicated that transformational leadership is effective in positively affecting,
although not strongly, employees’ affective, continuance and normative commitment in BoA
while transactional leadership is effective in positively affecting, to a weak extent, employees’
affective, continuance and normative commitment in BoA. Compared to transformational and
transactional leadership, laissez-faire leadership has a relatively weaker and negative correlation
with affective, continuance and normative organizational commitment. Hence, it can be
concluded that transformational and transactional leadership behaviors play a more important
role in developing and improving affective, continuance and normative commitment than the
laissez-faire leadership style at BoA.
54
5.3. Recommendations
Based on the conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are made:
 Since there is evidence that transformational leadership can be taught, BoA needs to
envisage enhancing transformational leadership behaviors through different leadership
development initiatives such as training, coaching, symposia and workshops.
 BoA needs to gear its efforts towards the advancement of leaders’ ability so as to enable
them to reach the ideal levels of transformational leadership behaviors; i.e., developing
and coaching each follower, instilling pride and building trust, emphasizing collective
sense of mission, talking about values and beliefs, encouraging problem solving, creative
thinking; expressing enthusiasm, optimism and self-confidence.
 In order to increase the emotional and/or psychological attachment of employees, BoA
needs to design policies which continuously sustain or increase employees’ affective
commitment behaviors by treating employees with respect, making them feel part of the
family, encouraging them and involving them in decision making, providing a secure,
supportive and healthy work environment.
 In order to boost the continuance commitment of staff, there is need to implement

strategies of promotion opportunities and work incentives so as to retain and ensure
continual growth of staff who will thus be able to face new challenges and new
environment. There is also need for a mechanism of all round compensation for high
performing employees so as to motivate staff and increase their prospects of career
development.
 In terms of the relationships between leadership styles and organizational commitment at

BoA, since the study revealed that transformational and transactional leadership
behaviors play a more important role in developing and improving affective,
55
continuance and normative commitment than the laissez-faire leadership style, BoA
needs to strive to maintain these transformational and transactional leadership styles as
the bank can easily and effectively achieve its organizational goals through committed
employees.
References
Addis Alemayehuand SamuelBatisa (2020). The Effect of Leadership Style on Employee’s

Organizational Commitment: The Case of Wolaita and Dawro Zone Transport Private Limited
Companies. International Journal of Research in Business Studies and Management, 7 (1),12-21
Ahmed Yusuf Abdule (2011). Leadership Styles and Employe3e commitment of Somali Institute
of Management and Administration Development.: Unpublished Thesis: Kampala International
University Kampala, Uganda
Armstrong, M. (2006). Performance management key strategies and practical Guidelines (3rd
Ed.).London, Kogan Page.
Armstrong, M. (2006). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice (10th Ed.)
London, Kogan Page
56
Bass, B., M., Riggio, R., E. (2006).Transformational Leadership (2 nd Ed,). Mahwah, NJ,,
Lawrence Erlbaum.
DePree, M.(2010). What Is Leadership? In Perry, J.L.(Ed), Non profit and public Leadership( 1st
ed., pp.5- 10 ). San Francisco,, CA, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Durhan, M .O, Durham, R.A. & Durham, R. (2005, 2006). Leadership and Success in
Relationships and Communication. USA, Fidlar Doubleday.
Garg, A., K., &Ramjee,, D .(2013). The Relationship between Leadership Styles and Employee
Commitment At A Parastatal Company In South Africa. International Business & Economics
Research Journal, 12,(11) ,1411-1436
Gilbert, E., S., & Konya, K.,T. (2020). Continuance Commitment and Organisational
Performance of Manufacturing Firms in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, International Journal of
Innovative Social Sciences & Humanities Research 8(1),80-91.
Goethals, G., R., Sorenson, G., J., & Burns, J., M. (2004). (Eds.).Encyclopedia of Leadership
(Vol. I, pp. 1-1927).Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.
Imen, K.(2014). Relationship between leadership styles and dimensions of employee
organizational commitment: A critical review and discussion of future directions. Intangible
Capital, 10 (1), 26-51.
JAMES A, O., Ogbonna, I., G. (2013). Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership Theories:
Evidence in Literature. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(2), 355-
361.
Keskes, I. (2013). Relationship between leadership styles and dimensions of employee
organizational commitment: A critical review and discussion of future directions. IC, 2014 –
10(1): 26-51 http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.476
London, M. (2002). Leadership development: paths to self-insight and professional growth. M a

h w a h ,, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
Mabasa, T., R. (2018)). Relationship Between Leaderrship Styles and Employee commitment
and Business performance: A study of Black Top Managers in State Owned Enterprises.
Unpublished Thesis: University of Pretoria.
Mercurio, Z., A. (2015). Affective Commitment as a Core Essence of Organizational
Commitment: An Integrative Literature Review. Human Resource Development Review,, (26).
DOI: 10.1177/1534484315603612
Mesfin Lemma & Kiflom G/Michael (2018). Effects of Leadership Styles on Employee’s
Commitment: The Case of St. Mary’s University. Journal of Business and Administrative
Studies, 11 (2).64-72.
57
Nkhukhu-Orlando,E., Brown, B., Wilson, D., R., Forcheh, N., Linn, J., G.,& Fako1, T., T.
(2019). The affective commitment of academics in a university in Botswana. International
Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 11(2) ((66631F160619)12-19. DOI:
10.5897/IJEAPS2019.0595
Radosavljević,, Z., Ćilerdžić, V., &Dragić, M. (2017). Employee Organizational Commitment,
International Review, 1 (3).
Sharma, M. K., &Jain. S. (2013).. Leadership Management: Principles, Models and
Theories .Global Journal of Management and Business Studies,3 (3), 309-318
Tadele Solomon (2016). The Relationship between Leadership styles and Employee
Commitment at the Save the Children Ethiopia Unpublished Thesis. St. Mary’s University.
Tewodros Alemu (2019). Relationship between Leadership Style and Employee Commitment in
Bank of Abyssinia. Unpublished Thesis: Addis Ababa University.
Thomas, N. (2004) (Ed,). The John Adair Handbook of Management and Leadership (1st ed.),
London United Kingdom. John Adair, Neil Thomas and Thorogood
QUESTIONNAIRE
GAGE UNIVERSITYCOLLEGE
SCHOOL OF GRAGUATE STUDY
MASTERS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM
Dear Respondent,
I am conducting research on “RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP STYLE AND

EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT: THE CASE OF ABYSSINIA BANK”. The research is
conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the MBA. The study intended to identify
58
the Relationship Between Leadership Style and Employee Commitment in BoA. It will be a
great contribution if you may complete all the items covered in the questionnaire since your
opinion is of utmost importance. The information you are going to give here is very important
for the study and any information you fill in this questionnaire will be kept confidential and used
only for this study. I thank you in advance for sharing your valuable experience and time in
completing the questionnaire.
Instructions;
 T h e r e is no need of writing your name.
 I n all items where answer options are available, please tick (√) in the appropriate box.
Thank you for your co-operation!
SECTION I; PARTICIPANT INFORMATION
1. Sex;
Male Female
2. Age;
20-30 31-40 41-55 above 55
3. For how many years you have worked for the Bank;
1-5 6-10 11 -15 16-20
21-25 Above 25
4. Educational Qualification;
College Diploma BA/BSc Degree
Master’s Degree PhD Other
59
Section 2: Leadership Styles
This part of the questionnaire is to describe the leadership style of your supervisor as you
perceive it. Please answer all items on the answer sheet by ticking a number from 0 to 4
which best reflects your views from the rating scale shown hereunder. Judge how frequently
each statement fits the person you are rating. If an item is irrelevant, or if you are unsure or
do not know the answer, leave the answer blank. Thank you in advance for your cooperation
2.1 Transformational Leadership

Idealized Influence (Attributes)
Once frequently,
Not at fairly
in a Sometimes if not
The Person I am rating… all often
while always
0 1 2 3 4
60
Instills pride in me for being
associated with him/her
Goes beyond self-interest for the good
of the group
Acts in ways that builds my respect
Displays a sense of power and

confidence
Idealized Influence (Behavioral)

Not at Once in a frequently,
Sometimes fairly often
The Person I am rating… all while if not
always
Talks about their most
important values and beliefs
Specifies the importance of
having a strong sense of
purpose
Considers the moral and
ethical consequences of
decisions
Emphasizes the importance
of having a collective sense
of mission
Inspirational Motivation
always
Talks optimistically about
the future
Talks enthusiastically about
what needs to be
accomplished
Articulates a compelling
vision of the future
Expresses confidence that
goals will be achieved
61
Intellectual Stimulation
always
Re-examines critical
assumptions to question
whether they are appropriate
Seeks differing perspectives
when solving problems
Gets me to look at problems
from many different angles
Suggests new ways of
looking at how to complete
assignments
Individual Consideration
always
Spends time teaching and
coaching
Treats me as an individual
rather than just as a member
of a group
Considers me as having
different needs, abilities, and
aspirations from others
Helps me to develop my
strengths
2.2 Transactional Leadership

Contingent rewards Reward
always
Provides me with assistance
in exchange for my efforts
Discusses in specific terms
who is responsible for
achieving performance
targets
62
Makes clear what one can
expect to receive when
performance goals are
achieved
Expresses satisfaction when I
meet expectations
Management –by-exception (Active)

always
Focuses attention on
irregularities, mistakes,
exceptions, and deviations
from standards
Concentrates his/her full
attention on dealing with
mistakes, complaints, and
failures
Keeps track of all mistakes
Directs my attention toward
failures to meet standards
Management –by-exception (Passive)

always
Fails to interfere until
problems become serious
Waits for things to go wrong
before taking action
Shows that he/she is a firm
believer in 'if it doesn't break,
don't fix it:
Demonstrates that problems
must become chronic before
taking action
2.3 Laissez-faire leadership
63
always
Avoid getting involved when
important issues arise
Is absent when needed
Avoids making decisions
Delays responding to urgent
questions
Section 3: Organizational Commitment

Listed below is a series of statements that represent feelings that individuals might have about
the organization for which they work. Please answer all items on the answer sheet by ticking a
number from 0 to 4 which best reflects your views from the rating scale shown hereunder.
3.1 Affective Commitment
Once frequently,
Not at fairly
Statement all often
while always
0 1 2 3 4
I feel like part of the family at this
organization
This organization has a great deal of
personal meaning for me
I feel a strong sense of belonging to
this organization
I feel emotionally attached to this
organization
3.2 Continuance Commitment
Once frequently,
Not at fairly
Statement all often
while always
0 1 2 3 4
64
Too much of my life would be
disrupted if I decided that I wanted to
leave this organization now
I would not leave this organization
right now because of what I would
stand to lose
It would be very costly for me to
leave this organization right now
For me personally, the cost of leaving
this organization would be far greater
than the benefit
3.3 Normative Continuance Commitment
Once frequently,
Not at fairly
Statement all often
while always
0 1 2 3 4
Even if it were to my advantage, I do
not feel it would be right to leave my
organization now
I would violate a trust if I quit my job
with this organization now
I would not leave this organization
right now because I have a sense of
obligation people in it
I would feel guilty if I left my
organization now
65

Fikadu Thesis Final

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

Fikadu Thesis Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP STYLE AND EMPLOYEE

COMMITMENT: THE CASE OF ABYSSINIA BANK

FEKADU ADUGNA A/KADIR

Advisor,Abera Legese (phd)

THESIS SUBMITTED TO GAGE UNIVERSIY COLLEGE, SCHOOL OF

Signed by the Examining Committee:

Name: _______________ ___________

Advisor Signature Date

Name: _____________________ _______________ ___________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

Name: _____________________ _______________ ___________

External Examiner Signature Date

Name: _____________________ _______________ ___________

Dean, SGS Signature Date

commitment in BoA. Compared to transformational and transactional leadership, laissez-faire leadership

organizational commitment. Hence, it can be concluded that transformational and transactional

1.1Background of the study

Organizations are continuously in a consistent struggle to remain competitive in the ever-

Predominantly, transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles have been

1.2Statement of the problem

1.3Objectives of the study

1.3.1 General Objective

styles and employee’s commitment of Bank of Abyssinia (BoA) in selected branches in

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The specific objectives of this study are

1. To assess the dominant leadership styles, as perceived by the employees, of in

1.4Hypothesis of the study

H01: There is no significant relationship between transformational leadership and affective

1.5Significance of the study

1.6Scope of the study

1.7Limitation of the study

2.2. Theoretical review

2.2.1 The Concept of Leadership and Types of Leadership Style

Leadership concept roots from different assumptions and philosophical foundations

2.2.1.1. Transformational leadership

The dictionary of Public Administration explains, according to Attribution theory of

The transformational and transactional leadership styles are characterized by active

Laissez-faire leadership refers to indifference or lack of leadership towards both the

2.2.2 The Concept of Employee’s Commitment

2.2.2.1 Affective Commitment

Affective commitment is usually perceived as employee’s emotional attachment to and

2.2.2 3 continuance commitment

2.3. Empirical Review

A research on Parasternal companies in South Africa revealed a weak positive yet

2.4. Summary of literature and Research Gaps

2.5. Conceptual/Theoretical framework

The following conceptual framework is intended to create an understanding of the variables

Source: Mesfin and Kiflom (2018) as Adopted from Bass (1996).

3.1 Research Approach

3.2 Research Design

3.3 Population Of the study

3.4 Method of Sampling

3.4.2 Sample Size Determination

Accordingly, the calculated sample size of the study is given as follows:

(Total sample number of

6 Adebabay 187 34 351 18

9 Garment 187 35 351 19

10 Saris Branch 187 39 351 21

To obtain quantitative information on leadership styles and employees’ organizational

3.5 Method of Data Analysis

3.6 Reliability and Validity of the MLQ and OCQ

Dimension Cron.Alpha Evaluation

Laissez-Faire 0.75 Optimal

Name: _____ _

Name: _____________ _ _____

Name: _____________ _ _____

Name: _____________ _ _____