LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND AFFECTIVE

COMMITMENT AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON INNOVATIVE

WORK BEHAVIOUR ACROSS THE MANUFACTURING
SECTOR

PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

Ms. Ranjana Ambrose

(Register No: 2015782022034)

In partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the Degree

MASTER OF ARTS IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Under the Guidance of

Dr. Prabakaran. P, MBA, M.Sc(Psy), PGD PMIR, DCA, SET, Ph.D

PG DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

MADRAS SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK (AUTONOMOUS)

NO. 32, CASA MAJOR ROAD, EGMORE,

CHENNAI – 600 008

NOVEMBER 2021
 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project titled “LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND

AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON INNOVATIVE WORK
BEHAVIOUR ACROSS THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR” is a bonafide project work
done by Ms. Ranjana Ambrose (Reg. No. 2015782022034), a second year student of M.A.
HRM, Madras School of Social Work (Autonomous), Egmore, Chennai in partial fulfilment of
the requirement for the Award of the Degree of Master of Arts in Human Resource
Management and that the project has not been used previously for the award of any Degree,
Diploma, Scholarship, Fellowship or any other project title.

Signature of the HOD Signature of the Guide

Signature of the Principal

i
 DECLARATION

I, Ranjana Ambrose, final year student of MA HRM hereby declare that the thesis entitled
“hereby declare that the dissertation entitled, “LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND
AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON INNOVATIVE WORK
BEHAVIOUR ACROSS THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR” is the original work done
by me under the guidance and supervision of Dr. P. Prabakaran, in partial fulfilment of the
requirements of the award of the degree of Master of Arts in Human Resource Management,
Madras School of Social Work. I further declare that the research work has not been submitted
at any other University of Institution, for the award of any degree or diploma or fellowship.

Signature of the Guide Signature of the Student

PLACE:

DATE:

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, thanks and praises to God, the Almighty, for His blessings throughout the
completion of my research.

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. S. Raja Samuel, Principal, Madras School
of Social Work, for giving me this opportunity.

I am greatly thankful to Dr. P. Mohana, Head of the Department, PG Department of Human

Resource Management, for her invaluable support and for always conveying a spirit of
adventure in regard to the research.

I am deeply indebted to my Research Guide, Dr. P. Prabakaran, for his exemplary guidance,
constant encouragement and careful monitoring throughout.

Special thanks to my friend, Ms. M. Aparna for her ideas, suggestions and support.

Most importantly, I wish to thank my family, my parents and grandparents, who provide
unending love, support and inspiration.

My earnest thanks to all the respondents for their cooperation.

iii
 LIST OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO

NUMBER
Introduction
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Need and Scope of the Study 4
1 1.3 Significance of the Study 4
1.4 Statement of the Problem 5
1.5 Industry Profile 5
1.6 Chapterization 8
2 Literature Review 9
Research Methodology
3.1 Objectives of the study 24
3.2 Hypothesis of the Study 24
3.3 Definition of the Variables 24
3.4 Research Design 25
3 3.5 Sampling Method 25
3.6 Methods of Data Collection 26
3.7 Tools for Data Collection 27
3.8 Statistical Tools for Data Analysis 28
3.9 Reliability Test 29
3.10 Limitations of the Study 29
Data analysis and interpretation
4 4.1 Percentage Analysis 31
4.2 Statistical Analysis 63
Conclusion
5.1 Summary of findings 69
5 5.2 Suggestions and recommendations 71
5.3 Conclusion 73
Appendix Bibliography 74
Questionnaire 80

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE NO

NO
4.1 Distribution of respondents based on age 31
4.2 Distribution of respondents based on gender 32
4.3 Distribution of respondents based on marital status 32
4.4 Distribution of respondents based on organization 33
4.5 Distribution of respondents based on functional department 35
4.6 I know where I stand with my leader and I usually know how 36
satisfied my leader is with what I do
4.7 My leader understands my job problems and needs 37
4.8 My leader recognizes my potential 38
4.9 My leader would use his or her power to help me solve my
problems in my work regardless of the amount of formal authority 39
he or she has built into their position
4.10 My leader would “bail me out” at his/ her expense regardless of the 40
amount of formal authority he/ she has
4.11 I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and 41
justify his or her decision if he or she were not present to do so
4.12 Characterization of respondents’ working relationship with their 42
leader
4.13 I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with this 43
organization
4.14 I feel as if this organization’s problems are my own 44
4.15 I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization 45
4.16 I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization 46
4.17 I do not feel like part of the family at my organization 47
4.18 This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me 48
4.20 Looking for an opportunity to improve an existing process, 49
technology, product, service or work relationship
4.21 Recognizing opportunities to make a positive difference in your 50
work, department, organization or with customers
4.22 Paying attention to non-routine issues in your work, department, 51
organization or with customers
4.23 Generating ideas or solutions to address problems 52
4.24 Defining problems more broadly in order to gain greater insight 53
into them
4.25 Experimenting with new ideas and solutions 54
4.26 Testing out ideas or solutions to address unmet needs 55
4.27 Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of new ideas 56

v
4.27 Tring to persuade others of the importance of a new idea or solution 57
4.28 Pushing ideas forward so that they have a chance to become 58
implemented
4.29 Taking the risk to support new ideas 59
4.30 Implementing changes that seem to be beneficial 60
4.31 Working the bugs out of new approaches when applying them into 61
an existing process, technology, product or service
4.32 Incorporating new ideas for improving an existing process, 62
technology, product or service into daily routines
4.33 Relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Affective 63
Commitment
4.34 Relationship between Affective Commitment and Innovative Work 64
Behaviour
4.35 Relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Innovative 64
Work Behaviour
4.36 Influence of Leader-Member Exchange and Affective Commitment 65
on Innovative Work Behaviour
4.37 Mediating effect of Affective Commitment in the relationship 67
between Leader-Member Exchange and Innovative Work
Behaviour

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

TABLE TITLE PAGE NO

NO
4.1 Age wise classification 31
4.2 Gender wise classification 32
4.3 Marital status classification 32
4.4 Organization wise classification 33
4.5 Functional department wise classification 35
4.6 I know where I stand with my leader and I usually know how 36
satisfied my leader is with what I do
4.7 My leader understands my job problems and needs 37
4.8 My leader recognizes my potential 38
4.9 My leader would use his or her power to help me solve my
problems in my work regardless of the amount of formal authority 39
he or she has built into their position
4.10 My leader would “bail me out” at his/ her expense regardless of the 40
amount of formal authority he/ she has
4.11 I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and 41
justify his or her decision if he or she were not present to do so
4.12 Characterization of respondents’ working relationship with their 42
leader
4.13 I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with this 43
organization
4.14 I feel as if this organization’s problems are my own 44
4.15 I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization 45
4.16 I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization 46
4.17 I do not feel like part of the family at my organization 47
4.18 This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me 48
4.19 Looking for an opportunity to improve an existing process, 49
technology, product, service or work relationship
4.20 Recognizing opportunities to make a positive difference in your 50
work, department, organization or with customers
4.21 Paying attention to non-routine issues in your work, department, 51
organization or with customers
4.22 Generating ideas or solutions to address problems 52
4.23 Defining problems more broadly in order to gain greater insight 53
into them
4.24 Experimenting with new ideas and solutions 54
4.25 Testing out ideas or solutions to address unmet needs 55
4.26 Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of new ideas 56

vii
4.27 Trying to persuade others of the importance of a new idea or 57
solution
4.28 Pushing ideas forward so that they have a chance to become 58
implemented
4.29 Taking the risk to support new ideas 59
4.30 Implementing changes that seem to be beneficial 60
4.31 Working the bugs out of new approaches when applying them into 61
an existing process, technology, product or service
4.32 Incorporating new ideas for improving an existing process, 62
technology, product or service into daily routines
4.33 Mediating effect of Affective Commitment in the relationship 67
between Leader-Member Exchange and Innovative Work
Behaviour

viii
 CHAPTER -1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction:
Most individuals spend major portions of their days at work and in work related
activities (Landy and Conte, 2016). Considering the substantial amount of time and effort
individuals devote for work, it is of utmost importance to explore the influence that crucial
workplace elements, like workplace relationships have on the work outcomes at the individual
and organizational levels. As most individuals are required to be in constant contact with their
immediate supervisor at the workplace, leadership concepts and practices are cardinal in
understanding the exchanges that happen at work (Tziner et al., 2020). Through years of
research and testing, leader-member exchange theory has been efficacious in elucidating the
significant work outcomes at the individual and organizational levels (Sharif and Scandura,
2017).

1.1.1 Leader-Member Exchange:

According to Graen and Scandura (1987), leader-member exchange refers to the
exchanges or interactions that happen between a supervisor (leader) and their subordinates. The
Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) also known as the Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory
was developed by Dansereau, Graen and Haga in the 1970s to examine the nature of
relationship that evolves between leaders and their team members. One of the major precepts
of this theory is that a leader’s attitude is not the same towards all of their subordinates,
resulting in differences in the quality relationships. In other words, leaders tend to show
differences in the way they treat each of their team members (Dansereau et al., 1975).
Leader-Member Exchange Theory draws from the Social Exchange Theory developed
by Blau in 1964 that emphasizes that social relationships are formed through a process of cost
and benefit analysis. Gerstner and Day, 1997 have ascertained that Leader-Member Exchange
has a considerable degree of influence on organizational outcomes like organizational
performance, organizational citizenship behaviour, job satisfaction, turnover intention.
Revisiting the core tenet of the leader member exchange theory Scandura in 1999 has
stated that while the variations in the leader’s attitude towards the members of the team may
be beneficial to an individual employee, it still would breach the principles of equality and
fairness for the other members of the team. Liden, Erdogan, Wayne and Sparrowe, 2006 have
thus deduced that LMX is in fact an affair of differentiation and so only a few members are
able to establish high quality exchanges with their superiors while others are not. Dansereau,
et al., 1975; Liden and Maslyn, 1998 have stated that high quality exchange relationships are

1
marked by trust, respect and mutual affect. Low quality exchange relationships on the other
hand are characterized by a transactional relationship.

1.1.2 Affective Commitment:

Commitment in very simple terms can be understood as the stabilizing force that gives
the impetus to stay in a relationship and to work at it (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001).
Organizational commitment, on the other hand, as defined by Landry, Steers et al.,
refers to the state of mind that distinctively marks the exchange between employees and
employers.
There are essentially three types of organizational commitment – affective
commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. Continuance commitment
refers to the increasing sunk costs of continued organizational membership (Becker, 1960). In
simple terms, continuance commitment stems from the accrued benefits of organizational
membership in comparison to the perceived costs of leaving the organization (Somers, 1993).
Normative commitment stems from feeling obliged to the organization (Allen and Meyer,
1993). According to Meyer and Allen (1991), affective commitment refers to an employee’s
propensity to develop emotional attachment or involvement with the organization where they
work. Researches have shown that people with affective commitment tend to display higher
degrees of engagement in their respective organizations, they identify closely with their
company, they equate the company’s success to their own success and they tend to believe that
there is fair degree of alignment between their personal goals and their company’s vision.
Sometimes, they even feel that the organization is committed to them (Shore and Tetrick,
1991).
Over the years, several researches have been undertaken to understand the antecedents
of affective commitment. It was identified that the antecedents of affective commitment can be
classified into four categories: personal characteristics, structural characteristics, job related
characteristics and work experiences (Mowday et al., 1982). It has been revealed that various
other elements can also expedite the formation of an emotional attachment with an
organization. Job design, job autonomy (Currivan, 1999), job enrichment (Luna-Arocas and
Camps, 2008) are some of the factors that share a positive relationship with affective
commitment.

2
 The LMX theory posits that strong relationship between leaders and members has a
positive influence on members’ affective commitment to the organization among several other
positive work outcomes (Sin et al., 2009).
Stronger the commitment towards the organization, more dedicated and loyal, the
employees are, towards the organization (Rhoades et al.,2001). Studies have also shown that
such employees are always ready to go the extra mile for the achievement of the organization’s
vision. Subsequent studies also provide conclusive evidence to believe that such employees try
to come up with creative solutions to work-based problems which ultimately translates to the
employees exhibiting innovative workplace behaviour.

1.1.3 Innovative Work Behaviour:

It has been widely acknowledged that, in the current business first, technology driven
economy, for an organization to thrive and not merely survive, competitive advantage is one
important quality that has to be developed by every organization. Competitive advantage is that
factor which catches the immediate attention of one’s target audience. It is that factor which
one has, that cannot be adopted or replicated by their competitors. Wright and McMahan, 1992
have argued that organizations ought to leverage and foster, one of their strategic resources,
that is, their human resources to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. A plethora of
researches in this field have provided conclusive evidence to believe that human resource
management (HRM) has a significant control over the psychological and behavioural outcomes
of employees.
Over the last few decades, researches have transpired that innovative work behaviour
of employees is crucial in day to day activities for organizations to achieve sustainable
competitive advantage (Hermann and Felfe, 2013). Innovation is defined by different authors
in different ways. Some of the definitions are highlighted below:
“Innovation is all about turning a concept or thought into a solution which from a
customer’s lens adds value” (Nick Skillicorn)
“Innovation is the art of being able to adapt to the changing times” (Stephen Shapiro)

Though creativity and innovation have been used synonymously, it is important to

dissect the two words to understand the fundamental difference between the two. The primary
difference between the two words is the focus. While creativity is about unleashing the
potential of the mind to conceive new ideas, innovation is concerned with introducing changes
to relatively stable systems.

3
 The past few years have seen an increase in the attention for innovation as a scholarly
research topic. Innovation studies look at the management of innovation at various levels –
individuals, networks, work groups and organization levels (King and Anderson, 2002). In the
research at hand, the focus is on innovation at the individual level. This construct is known as
Innovative Work Behaviour (IWB). IWB is the process of fabricating creative solutions and
profitable ideas and the implementation of these solutions and ideas in the organization
(McLean, 2005). It also revolves around coming up with better ways of executing tasks at work
through an amalgamation of new processes, products, services and ideas that are one of a kind
and valuable to the organization (Madjar et al., 2002).

It has been highlighted by Subramaniam & Youndt (2005) that innovation, as a process,
requires support from the managers as well the organization. Scott and Bruce (1994) have
stressed that IWB requires propitious environment inclusive of apposite guidance from the
supervisors and good social relations at workplace. These statements are markedly consistent
with the postulates of the Social Exchange Theory which posits that supervisors’ ability to be
just and benevolent cultivates a culture of IWB.

1.2 Need and Scope for the Study:

It has become increasingly important for organizations to foster innovation among the
employees in the current business environment. The scope of this study is to find the roles of
leader-member exchange and affective commitment in employees’ innovative work behaviour.
The outcome of the study would highlight the relationship between the three variables and
would help organizations achieve sustainable competitive advantage.
Existing body of literature on the proposed topic is limited, hence these gaps in the
available literature enable the research at hand to further how leader-member exchange and
affective commitment affect innovative work behaviour of employees.

1.3 Significance of the Study:

• High quality leader-member exchanges may improve employees’ innovative work
behaviour.
• This study could be used to understand how simple social relationships at work and
not merely rewards and recognition influence employees’ attitude towards their
work and can result in them demonstrating positive work outcomes.

4
 • This study would add to the existing academic literature on leader-member
exchange and innovation which can be used for future researches to improve
organizational performance altogether.
• There is very little evidence as to how LMX and innovative behaviour play out in
the local context as most studies have been carried out in the western context.

1.4 Statement of the Problem:

Modern organizations in order to stay in the market should not just respond to the needs
of the business as and when they arise, but have to stay ahead, predict the future trends,
formulate novel ideas and implement the ideas for feasible solutions.
The COVID-19 pandemic has upended every aspect of like, from the personal, how
people live and work to the professional characteristics, how companies interact with their
customers, how customers choose and purchase products and services. Innovation has taken
the centre stage now.
In the current circumstances, business organizations are taking rigorous steps to boost
employee innovative behaviour by selecting employee who demonstrate creativity, who
engage in decision-making process, by providing constructive feedback while some have had
a positive influence, others have hindered employees innovative behaviour. It is believed that
leader-member exchange has a considerable degree of influence on employees’ innovative
work behaviour. But there is a significant lack of empirical research investigating the
relationship between LMX, affective commitment and innovative behaviour.

1.5 Industry Profile:

Manufacturing has emerged as one of the high growth sectors in India. Prime Minister
of India, Mr Narendra Modi, launched the ‘Make in India’ program to place India on the world
map as a manufacturing hub and give global recognition to the Indian economy. Government
aims to create 100 million new jobs in the sector by 2022.
The sector’s Gross Value Added (GVA) at current prices was estimated at US$ 348.53
billion as per the second advanced estimates of FY21. The IHS Markit India Manufacturing
Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) reached 55.5 in April 2021 from 55.4 in March 2021. The
manufacturing GVA accounts for 19% of the country's real gross value added.

As per the latest survey, capacity utilisation in India’s manufacturing sector stood at
66.6% in the third quarter of FY21.The manufacturing component of the IIP stood at 116.9

5
between April 2020 and March 2021. According to the Ministry of Statistics & Programme
Implementation, India’s industrial output measured by the Index of Industrial Production (IIP)
stood at 143.4 in March 2021.
Historically, manufacturing has been the backbone of all developed and
developing nations. It is where R&D starts, where new technologies are born, where
scientists and engineers and others are challenged to develop new and better processes,
products and technologies.
1.5.1 Government Initiatives:
The Government of India has taken several initiatives to promote a healthy environment
for the growth of manufacturing sector in the country. Some of the notable initiatives and
developments are:
• The government approved a PLI scheme for 16 plants for key starting materials
(KSMs)/drug intermediates and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). The
establishment of these 16 plants would result in a total investment of Rs. 348.70
crore (US$ 47.01 million) and generation of ~3,042 jobs. The commercial
development of these plants is expected to begin by April 2023.
• As part of efforts to expand its smartphone assembly industry and improve its
electronics supply chain, the government, in March 2021, announced funds worth
US$ 1 billion in cash to each semiconductor company that establishes
manufacturing units in the country.
• The Union Budget 2021-22 is expected to enhance India’s domestic growth in
manufacturing, trade and other sectors. Development of a robust infrastructure,
logistics and utility environment for the manufacturing sector is a primary focus
field.
Some of these initiatives are as follows:

• In May 2021, the government approved a PLI scheme worth Rs. 18,000 crore (US$
2.47 billion) for production of advanced chemical cell (ACC) batteries; this is expected
to attract investments worth Rs. 45,000 crore (US$ 6.18 billion) in the country, and
further boost capacity in core component technology and make India a clean energy
global hub.
• In India, the market for grain-oriented electrical steel sheet manufacturing is witnessing
high demand from power transformer producers, due to the rising demand for electric
power and increasing adoption of renewable energy in the country. In line with this, in

6
 May 2021, JFE Steel Corporation in collaboration with JSW Steel Limited (JSW)
signed a MoU to evaluate a study to establish a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet
manufacturing & sales joint-venture company in India.
• To facilitate manufacturing and investment in sectors such as ICT and telecom, in May
2021, TEMA (Telecom Equipment Manufacturers Association of India) signed a
collaboration deal with ICCC (Indo-Canada Chamber of Commerce) to promote ‘Make
in India’ and ‘Self-reliant India’ initiatives.
• India's display panel market is estimated to grow from ~US$ 7 billion in 2021 to US$
15 billion in 2025.
• The Mega Investment Textiles Parks (MITRA) scheme to build world-class
infrastructure will enable global industry champions to be created, benefiting from
economies of scale and agglomeration. Seven Textile Parks will be established over
three years.
• The government proposed to make significant investments in the construction of
modern fishing harbours and fish landing centres, covering five major fishing harbours
in Kochi, Chennai, Visakhapatnam, Paradip, and Petuaghat, along with a multipurpose
Seaweed Park in Tamil Nadu. These initiatives are expected to improve exports from
the textiles and marine sectors.
• The 'Operation Green' scheme of the Ministry of the Food Processing Industry, which
was limited to onions, potatoes and tomatoes, has been expanded to 22 perishable
products to encourage exports from the agricultural sector. This will facilitate
infrastructure projects for horticulture products.
• The Union Budget 2021-22 allocated funds of Rs. 1,000 crore (US$ 137.16 million) for
the welfare of tea workers, especially women and their children. About 10.75 lakh tea
workers will benefit from this, including 6.23 lakh women workers involved in the large
tea estates of Assam and West Bengal.

1.5.2 Road Ahead:

India is an attractive hub for foreign investments in the manufacturing sector. Several
mobile phone, luxury and automobile brands, among others, have set up or are looking to
establish their manufacturing bases in the country. The manufacturing sector of India has the
potential to reach US$ 1 trillion by 2025. The implementation of the Goods and Services Tax
(GST) will make India a common market with a GDP of US$ 2.5 trillion along with a
population of 1.32 billion people, which will be a big draw for investors. The Indian Cellular

7
and Electronics Association (ICEA) predicts that India has the potential to scale up its
cumulative laptop and tablet manufacturing capacity to US$ 100 billion by 2025 through policy
interventions. With impetus on developing industrial corridors and smart cities, the
Government aims to ensure holistic development of the nation. The corridors would further
assist in integrating, monitoring and developing a conducive environment for the industrial
development and will promote advance practices in manufacturing.

1.6 Chapterization:

Chapter I – Introduction:

The key reasons that were important for the development of the present study are discussed
here.

Chapter II – Review of Literature:

This chapter reviews the current body of literature that reveals what is and what is not known
about death, dying, attitudes towards death among elderly and the factors that influence their
attitude towards death.

Chapter III – Research Methodology:

This chapter highlights the methodology used for the present study.

Chapter IV – Data Analysis and Interpretations:

This chapter presents the results of the data analysis procedure in graphical and diagrammatic
representation.

Chapter V – Findings, Suggestions and Conclusion:

A summary of the findings of the present study would be presented in this chapter.

8
 CHAPTER -2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In this chapter, the researcher aims to discern, evaluate and survey books, journals, scholarly
articles, previous investigations and, several other sources relevant to the area of study for the
purpose of elucidating how knowledge has transcended in the chosen field of research, to
accentuate what has already been done, what is new and what the current state of thought is,
on the subject. This literature review aims to explore how perceived leader member exchange
and affective commitment influence employees’ innovative behaviour.

RESEARCH REVIEW

• Nazir et al., (2018) investigated the influence of social exchange relationships on

affective commitment and employee innovative behaviour on 325 nurses working in
public sector hospitals in China through a questionnaire survey. The study also
examined and verified the mediating role of perceived organizational support between
leader-member exchange, innovative organizational culture and employee innovative
behaviour. Results from structural equation modelling analysis revealed that leader-
member exchange, tie strength and perceive organizational support are significantly
correlated with affective commitment and employees’ innovative behaviour. The study
also emphasizes that though a significant influence of innovative organizational culture
is seen on perceived organizational culture and employees’ innovative behaviour, its
impact is negligible on affective commitment. It has been highlighted that there is a
significant relationship between leader-member exchange and affective commitment.

• Newman et al., (2017) in their study on how servant leadership influences

organizational citizenship behaviour investigate the mediating roles of LMX,
psychological empowerment and proactive personality. The survey data collected from
around 446 leader-member subordinate dyads in a Chinese state-owned enterprise
revealed that servant leadership is positively related to member organizational
citizenship behaviour through LMX. However, psychological empowerment has no
effect on the variance demonstrated by organizational citizenship behaviour. The study
also revealed that members’ proactive personality moderates the effect of servant
leadership on member OCB through LMX. The study proves how servant leadership
styles pushes members to go above and beyond their job role.

9
• Martin et al., (2016) in their meta-analytic review on the relationship between leader-
member exchange quality and a multidimensional model of work performance along
parameters like task, citizenship and counterproductive performance state that the
results of their study proves a positive relationship between LMX and task performance
and citizenship performance while noting a negative relationship between LMX and
counterproductive performance. It was also noted that the relationship between LMX
and performance was mediated by various factors like trust, motivation, empowerment
and job satisfaction with trust in leader having a significant impact.
• Volmer et al., (2012) in their attempt to study leader-member exchange, job autonomy
and creative work involvement with longitudinal field survey data collected from 144
employees working in a high technology work firm in Germany have discovered that
there is a positive association between leader-member exchange and creative work
environment. The study has also revealed job autonomy has a moderating effect on this
association between LMX and creative work environment.

• Wayne et al., (1997) studied perceived organizational support and leader-member

exchange from a social exchange perspective the findings of the study that was
conducted in a large corporation in the United States of America revealed that exchange
relationships evolve between the employee and the leader as well as the employee and
the organization. The study also focused on investigating the antecedents of POS and
LMX. It was revealed that the employees tend to weigh in factors like the way they
were treated by the in the past. When it came to high quality LMX variables like
interpersonal relationship and future expectations of the employee were found to serve
as antecedents. The study concluded that both POS and LMX were positively related
to citizenship behaviour, implying that employees tend to exhibit citizenship behaviour
in order to fulfil their obligations to leaders and the organization. Thus the study proved
that both POS and LMX were consistent with the social exchange theory because of
which the employees engage in positive behaviours to reciprocate the benefits they
receive from their leaders and the organization.

• Jing-zhou and Wen-xia (2011) attempted to study the impact of leader-member

exchange on affective commitment from the perspective of work exchange and social
exchange. The study was conducted on a sample of 423 employees in four different

10
 organizations in China. A model was created to study the mediating role of perceived
organizational support on LMX and employees’ affective commitment with the
organization and a structural equation model technology was used to verify it. The study
revealed that loyalty, affect and personal respect have a significant impact on the
employees’ affective commitment to the organization how the impact of contribution
to affective commitment was not significant. This proved that work exchange and social
exchange with respect to their impact on affective commitment. The study also proved
that POS played a mediating role between LMX and affective commitment and LMX
has a significant implication for affective commitment.

• Le Blanc and Gonsalvez-Roma (2012) attempted to investigate the relationship

between LMX differentiation, commitment and performance within teams. The study
was conducted among 38 teacher teams from a Dutch secondary school. The study
pointed out that there was significant positive relationship between LMX and affective
commitment and team performance.

• Shunglong and Weiming (2012) in their study attempted to find the relationships
between transformational leadership, LMX and employee innovative behaviour. They
found conclusive evidence that transformational leadership was significantly positively
related to LMX and employees’ innovative behaviour. It was also revealed that LMX
was significantly positively related employees’ innovative behaviour. The study also
proved that LMX played a mediating role between transformational leadership and
employees’ innovative behavior.

• Kim and Koo (2017) aimed to link LMX, engagement, innovative behavior and job
performance in hotel employees in South Korea and to understand the kind of effect,
quality of LMX has on innovative behavior and performance. The findings revealed
that LMX has a significant influence on job engagement and innovative behavior, but
no significant effect on organization engagement. On the flipside, organization
engagement had significant influence on job performance but no significant effect on
innovative behavior. Job performance, however, was significantly affected by
innovative behavior.

• Garg and Dhar (2017) attempted to study service innovation by analysing employee
innovative behavior. The study also focused on studying the roles of LMX, work
11
 engagement and job autonomy in contributing to the development of innovative
behavior in the Indian Banking Sector. The study revealed that LMX and employee
service innovative behavior share a positive relationship. This relationship was
mediated by work engagement. It was also noted that this relationship was moderated
by job autonomy.

• Sahin (2012) undertook a multilevel study to investigate the relationship between

Theory X and Y management styles and affective commitment, the mediating role of
LMX in this relationship was also studied. Data was collected from 56 leaders and 173
members from various yatch building companies in Turkey. The results revealed that
there was a positive relationship between Theory X and Y management styles and
affective commitment. It was also quoted that LMX partially mediated this relationship
between Theory X and Y management styles and affective commitment.

• Wang et al., (2015) in their study attempted to investigate the effects of weak ties
outside the group, strong ties within the group and leader-member exchange (three
types of social relationships) on the innovative behaviour of employees. The data for
the research was collected from around 135 employees working in an entrepreneurial
firm in southeast China. The findings revealed that LMX shared a significant positive
relationship with employee innovative behaviour but this was subject to lesser number
of within the group strong ties. It was also proved that LMX mediates the relationship
between week ties outside the group and employee innovative behaviour.

• Carnevale et al., (2017) conducted a meta-analytic review to provide a comprehensive

quantitative understanding of the relationships between LMX and work outcomes,
particularly, employee voice, creativity and innovative behaviour. The findings of the
study reveal that LMX shares a positive relationship between voice, creativity and
innovative behaviour, with LMX-creativity relationship being the strongest.

• Park and Jo (2018) in the present study explore how LMX, climate for innovation and
proactivity affect employees’ innovative behaviour among 1101government employees
from the Ministry of Education, Korea. It was evident from the results of the study that
LMX was positively related to proactivity and climate for innovation however, it did
not share a direct relationship with innovative behaviour.

12
• Song and Ju (2018) investigated the relationship between employees’ collectivism and
their innovative behaviour. The study also aimed at investigating the mediating role of
team identification and the moderating role of leader-member exchange. Data was
collected from 457 employees working in 30 different firms from various industries
like finance, manufacturing, high tech, agricultural processing and the like. The study
confirmed that employees’ ability to identify with their respective teams partially
mediates the relationship between their collectivism and innovative behaviour. The
study also provided conclusive evidence that the relationship between collectivism and
innovative behaviour was moderated by the presence of leader-member exchange
relationships.

• Javed et al., (2018) attempted to study from the LMX perspective, the relationship
between inclusive leadership and innovative work behaviour. The data was collected
from 150 leader-member dyads working in small capitalized textile firms in Pakistan.
The results of the study revealed that there existed a positive relationship between
inclusive leadership and innovative work behaviour. And this relationship to a certain
extent was mediated by leader-member exchange relationship.

• Casimir et al., (2014) in their study investigated the relationships between LMX, POS,
affective commitment and in-role performance from a social exchange perspective
among employees from various industries like high-tech, manufacturing, service and
education. From the study it was evident that LMX and POS, both, influence affective
commitment. It was also noted that affective commitment tended to meditate the
relationship between LMX and in-role performance.

• Camelo-Ordaz et al., (2011) in their study on the influence of HRM on knowledge

sharing and innovation among 87 R&D departments of Innovative Companies in Spain.
They also attempted to study the mediating role of affective commitment. The
researchers tested these relationships using the structural equation models. The study
revealed that there was no direct influence of HRM practices on knowledge sharing.
However, the researchers observed a positive relationship when it was mediated by
affective commitment. This means that HRM practices knowledge sharing and
innovation through affective commitment among employees who were willing to share
their knowledge.

13
• Lee (2008) conducted an empirical study to understand the effect of employee trust and
commitment on innovative behaviour. The data was collected from 736 employees
working at the central office in the city government in South Korea. The study revealed
that employee trust had an influence on their innovative behaviour directly. The factor
of trust also increased the employees’ level of commitment to their supervisor.
However, the employees’ commitment to supervisor was not linked to their innovative
behaviour in the individual level. The study thus showed that trust in the supervisory
had little or no influence on employees’ innovative behaviour. At the group and
organizational level, however, trust and commitment tended to have stronger influence
on innovative behaviour. It was also noted that trust played a more significant role in
kindling innovative behaviour rather than commitment at the individual level. The
researchers have suggested that it was upon the supervisors to create affective
circumstances which ultimately would encourage the employees to demonstrate
innovative behaviour.

• Schermuly et al., (2013) in the present study has aimed to investigate the process
cardinal to the relationship between LMX and employees’ innovative workplace
behaviour. The proposed hypothesis that psychological empowerment mediates the
relationship between LMX and innovative behaviour was tested by applying a
structural equation model. The study was done with a sample of 225 German employees
who were working under a superior. The study revealed that in addition to the fact that
LMX has a direct influence on employees’ innovative behaviour, LMX was also seen
to have an indirect influence on innovative behaviour through psychological
empowerment. This indirect effect was seen to be significant even when controlling for
temporal stability of innovative behaviour for a period of time.

• Yuan and Woodman (2010) in their study attempted to investigate the role of
performance outcomes and expected image risks and image gains on innovative
workplace behaviour. The study revealed that innovative workplace behaviour was
significantly influenced by all three outcomes. The study also revealed that these
outcomes were shaped by factors like perceived organizational support for innovation,
leader-member relationship quality, job requirement for employee innovative

14
 behaviour, employee reputation as being innovative and employee dissatisfaction with
the status quo.

• Sanders et al., (2010) conducted a survey among 272 employees working in four Dutch
and German technical organizations to study the relationship between LMX,
employees’ satisfaction with the existing HR practices (employee influence, flow,
rewards and work contents) and employees’ innovative behaviour. The findings of the
study reveal that LMX is positively related to employees’ innovative behaviour. It was
also noticed that satisfaction with HR practices, particularly satisfaction with influence
and work content were related positively to innovative behaviour. On the other hand,
primary rewards satisfaction was negatively related to innovative behaviour. It was also
found that satisfaction with HR practices tended to mediate the relationship between
LMX and innovative behaviour.

• Yukl et al., (2008) conducted a study among 248 employees working in different
industries, organizations and occupations to understand how leader behaviours
influence leader-member exchange. The findings show that relations-oriented
behaviours like supporting, supporting, consulting and delegating were significantly
related to leader-member exchange. Recognizing was not significantly related to LMX.
Task-oriented behaviours, on the other hand, including clarifying, planning and
monitoring were not strongly related to LMX. Change-oriented transformational
behaviours like leading by example and envisioning change showed mixed effects on
LMX. Relations-oriented aspects of transformational relationship tended to have a
more significant influence on LMX rather than change-oriented behaviours.

• Murphy and Ensher (1997) in their study explored how superior subordinate
characteristics contributed to the development of leader-member exchange
relationships. The data was collected from 56 leader-member dyads employed at a
West-Coast media company. The findings suggested that members who demonstrated
higher work efficiency tended to be liked more by their leaders, because the leaders saw
more of themselves in their members and hence led to development of high quality
LMX relationships. These members even received better ratings from their leaders. The
study also revealed that perceived similarity between the leader and member had more
influence on the quality of LMX than demographic similarities.

15
• Lee (2005) attempted to study the effects of leadership (behavioural and relational
perspectives) and leader-member exchange on employees’ commitment to the
organization. Data for the study was collected from engineers and scientists working
in the Research and Development department of manufacturing companies, R&D firms
and research institutes in Singapore. A hierarchical regression analysis of the data
revealed that transformational leadership was positively associated with LMX and
employees’ commitment to the organization. It was also revealed that LMX played a
mediating role between leadership and employees’ organizational commitment. It was
also noted that most R&D leaders tended to exhibit transformational style of leadership.

• Dulebohn et al., (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of 247 studies on LMX. These

studies on the whole contained 290 samples, 21 antecedents and 16 consequences of
the quality of leader-member exchange relationships. The results of the study revealed
that leader variables caused the most various in the quality of LMX though the
behaviours and perceptions of leaders, characteristics of the followers, characteristics
of the interpersonal relationship between the leaders and subordinates and contextual
variables formed the most important groups of LMX antecedents. When tested for
moderation, it was revealed that LMX scale, country of the respondents and their work
settings did not have any significant influence on the relationships. It was, however,
revealed that individualism and power distance moderated certain relationships. When
tested for mediation, it was revealed that LMX played a mediating role in antecedent-
consequence relationships.

• Green et al., (1996) studied the influence of demographic and organizational

characteristics on leader-member exchange and work attitudes among 208 employees
working in 31 public libraries. The results of the study revealed that out of the various
demographic factors tested for their influence on LMX quality, gender differences was
found to be only variable that had a significant influence on LMX quality. LMX quality
was found to be low in cases where the leader and member were of different genders.
Organizational characteristics, particularly size of the unit and the workload
experienced by the members negatively affected LMX. The researchers also noted a
positive relationship between availability of resources in the organization and LMX. In
the work attitude front, it was revealed that LMX had a positive effect on satisfaction.

16
 Contrary to the popular belief, the study revealed that as the workload increased, the
employees’ commitment to the organization also increased. This was believed to be a
reflection of meaningful work.

• Xerri and Brunetto (2013) studied the importance of employee commitment and
organizational citizenship behaviour in fostering innovative behaviour with a sample of
210 nurses working in one public and 2 private hospitals in Australia. A structural
equation model was used to analyse the relationship between the three variables. The
results of the analysis reveal that employees’ affective commitment is positively related
to their innovative behaviour. It was also revealed organizational citizenship behaviour
with an individual focus was positively correlated with employees’ innovative
behaviour.

• Janssen (2005) investigated the impact of perceived influence and supervisor

supportiveness on employee innovative behaviour. Data was collected from 170 non-
management employees working in a Dutch company in the energy sector. The results
of the study revealed that the relationship between employees’ perceived influence in
the workplace and their innovative behaviour was moderated by supervisor
supportiveness. The shows that when the employees’ feel the support of their supervisor
towards their innovation, they feel motivated to use their influence to be more
innovative at work.

• Scott and Bruce (1994) studied the determinants of individual innovative behaviour at
workplace. The data for the study was collected from engineers, scientists and
technicians working in a large R&D department of an industrial corporation in the US.
The ultimate aim of the study was to develop a path model of innovation at workplace.
The results of the study provide evidence to believe that leadership, support of the
leader for innovation, managerial expectations, stage in the career path, systematic
problem solving style are all significantly related to individual innovative behaviour.
The study also provides conclusive evidence that the quality of LMX relationships was
related to employees’ innovative behaviour. It was also revealed that employees’ tended
to generalize the LMX relationships to their organizations. That is, the employees’ who
stated to have had high quality relationship with their leaders, (relationship
characterized by high levels of trust, support, job autonomy) also stated that their

17
 organization was supportive of innovation and believed that the organization had a rich
supply of good. The study also investigated the effect of team-member exchange on
employees’ innovative behaviour. But the results stated that the team member exchange
relationships had no influence on innovative behaviour.

• Ilies et al., (2007) conducted a meta-analytic study on leader-member exchange and

citizenship behaviours. The findings of the study revealed that the relationship between
LMX and citizenship behaviour was moderately positive and strong. It was also noted
that targeted behaviours (individual and organizational) tended to moderate the
relationship between LMX and citizenship behaviours.

• Thompson and Heron (2006) developed a model to test the quality of employment
relationships of 429 employees working in 6 different R&D based science and
technology firms from three angles including psychological contract, affective
commitment and knowledge-sharing behaviour of the employees and their influence on
the organizations’ innovative performance. The findings of the study revealed that
affective commitment tended to play a significant role in mediating the influence
between psychological contract fulfilment on organizations’ innovative performance.
It was also revealed that the job design aspect of psychological contract was positively
associated with innovative performance. And pay for performance fulfilment aspect
showed negative association. It should also be noted that knowledge-sharing
completely mediated the positive relationship between affective commitment and
innovative performance.

• Tsui et al (1997) studied ten companies in five different industries including computer
manufacturing, electronics and semiconductors, telecom, food and grocery and apparel
industries to understand the different approaches to employee-organization
relationship. Analysis revealed that mutual investments resulted in higher levels of
citizenship behaviours. On the flipside, it was also noted that the employees
demonstrated higher levels of affective commitment and citizenship behaviours and
tended to perform the core tasks better when there was an overinvestment relationship
from the employers’ side.

• Atwater and Carmeli (2009) studied the relationship between LMX, feelings of energy
in the employees and their involvement in creative work. Data was collected from 193
18
 employees working in industrial and sector companies in Israel. The findings of the
study provided evidence that employees’ feelings of energy mediated the relationship
between their perceptions of LMX and creative work involvement.

• Carmeli and Spreitzer (2009) explored the relationship between trust, connectivity and
employees’ drive to thrive and their workplace innovative behaviours. The study was
conducted among 171 employees employed across various industries. Structural
equation modelling was used to test the hypotheses. The results prove that the
relationship between trust and drive to thrive is mediated by connectivity and the
relationship between connectivity and innovative behaviours is mediated by the drive
to thrive.

• Kabasheva et al., (2015) in their attempt to study employees innovative behaviour and
the factors that influence it noted that there is a need for the employer to provide
material and moral incentives to the employees to encourage them to demonstrate
innovative behaviours at work. The study also revealed that socio-economic personality
has the highest level of influence on innovative behaviours. The researchers of the study
have suggested that organizations that are keen on fostering innovative behaviour
among their employees should while recruiting, identify candidates with ‘active
reformer’ and ‘passive reformer’ personality types.

• De-Jong and Den-Hartog (2007) explored how leaders influence the innovative
behaviours of their employees. A purposive sample of 12 participants who were either
a manager or entrepreneur in small intensive knowledge firms were selected for data
collection purposes. Upon testing the proposed hypotheses, the researchers noted that
role modelling kindles idea generation and application. A large proportion of the
respondents also believed that their ability to diffuse information among their
employees, ability to provide vision, shared leadership, guaranteeing sufficient
autonomy to the subordinates, support for innovation, rewards and recognitions,
providing sufficient resources, assigning tasks influence the employees innovative
behaviour (both the phases - ability to generate ideas and apply to the generated ideas).

• Nasifoglu Elidemir et al., (2020) focused on studying the moderating and mediating
relationship between employees’ innovative behaviours and creativity and sustainable
competitive advantage. Data was collected with the help of questionnaires responded
19
 to by 323 employees working in front office, food and beverage, housekeeping, guest
relations, sales and marketing divisions in 4 and 5 star hotels. The results of the study
revealed that there was a direct effect of high performance work practices on
competitive advantage and this relationship was significantly moderated by employees’
creativity. It was also noted that HPWS also had a direct effect on employees’
innovative behaviour.
• Hakimian et al., (2016) analysed the responses from 219 employees working small and
medium enterprises in Malaysia. The researchers of the present study aimed at
understanding the association between the three types of employees’ commitment to
the organization (affective, normative and continuance) and their innovative
behaviours. The statistical tests revealed that affective commitment and normative
commitment are positively associated with employees’ innovative behaviours.

• Turek (2012) in his study aimed at identifying the various factors that predict innovative
workplace behaviour in employees. The data for the study was collected from
employees working in medium and large companies in Poland. Innovative workplace
behaviour was studied along two dimensions – recognizing problems and initiating
activities and generating ideas and implementing them. Psychological capital was
measured along ‘self-efficacy’, ‘hope’, ‘resilience’ and ‘optimism’. Further analysis
revealed that the self-efficacy aspect of psychological capital had the most significant
effect on innovative behaviour (both the dimensions). Hope and optimism, on the other
hand, were found to be linked with innovative activity but they were weakly linked with
innovative work behaviour.

• Basu and Green (1997) aimed at studying innovative behaviours among 225 supervisor-
subordinate dyads employed in Fortune 500 manufacturing companies. The findings of
the research revealed that transformational leadership had a strong negative influence
on employees’ innovative behaviour. However, the results did reveal that there was a
positive relationship between LMX and innovative behaviour. Further, it was proved
that there was no effect of job autonomy on innovative behaviour. It was also evident
from the research that supportive leaders and commitment to the organization
contributed to the demonstration of innovative work behaviour by the employees.

20
• Bhal et al., (2009) attempted to study the various factors that moderated the relationship
between LMX and employees’ work outcomes. Data for the study was collected from
306 software professionals in India. A confirmatory factor analysis of the data revealed
that LMX contribution and LMX affect show a positive relationship with job
satisfaction of the members. It was also revealed that LMX contribution showed a
significant positive relationship with members’ commitment to the organization.
Further, regression analysis of the data revealed that the relationship between LMX
contribution and the loyalty dimension of OCB was mediated by commitment.
Similarly, the relationship between LMX affect and commitment was mediated by job
satisfaction. It was also evident that the relationship between LMX contribution and job
satisfaction was mediated by commitment.

• Varma et al., (2005) collected two sets of data from two manufacturing organizations,
one from the US and another from India to understand how leader-member exchange
relationships work in the two countries. The study unveiled the significant differences
in the way LMX worked in the aforementioned countries. More importantly, the study
revealed that the correlation between the superior and subordinate ratings of LMX in
the Indian samples was much higher than that of the samples from the US. The study
also revealed that there was a significant correlation between subordinates’ ratings of
LMX and their evaluation of their superior. Another interesting find was that
subordinates’ ratings of the relationship they shared with their superiors is significantly
lower when compared to the evaluation of the same by the superiors.

• Clegg et al., (2002) attempted to study the implications that two aspects of trust – ‘trust
that heard’ and ‘trust that benefit’ have on the process of innovation. The study revealed
that systematic thinking style and self-efficacy predict idea suggestion. I was also
revealed that the style of leadership and leader’s support for innovation predict
implementation of ideas. It was noted that only ‘trust that benefit’ predicted idea
suggestion while it was only ‘trust that heard’ that predicted idea implementation.

• Zuberi and Khattak (2021) attempted to study the implications of proactive personality
and leader-member exchange relationships on innovative work behaviour. The authors
also tried to understand the influence of job design on the whole process. The data for
the study was collected from 292 employees working in 3 multinational telecom

21
 companies operating in Islamabad. The findings of the study reveal that proactive
personality and leader-member exchange shared a positive relationship with innovative
work behaviour. It was also revealed that task significance and task feedback tended to
moderate the above stated relationships. That is, the relationship between LMX and
proactive personality led to an increase in innovative work behaviour at high levels of
task feedback and significance.

• Miller and Miller (2020) aimed at studying the impact that quality of relationship
between leaders and members has on the members’ innovative work behaviour. Data
was collected from employees working in grocery store through semi structured face to
face interviews and focussed group discussion. The organization’s documentation was
also tapped for relevant data. The results of the study provided evidence to believe that
high quality relationships between subordinates and their supervisors had a positive
influence on the subordinates’ commitment to the job and their capacity to generate and
implement innovative ideas. It was also found that innovative work behaviour was at
its peak only under the synergistic effects of high quality supervisor-subordinate
relationship, high levels of engagement among the subordinates and the organization
kindles risk taking behaviour among the employees that facilitates them to generate
new ideas. The study also revealed that millennials preferred transformational leaders
to transactional leaders while Gen X and baby boomers sought more autonomy and
ample resources to generate and implement their ideas.

• Muchiri et al., (2020) attempted to map the antecedents of innovative workplace

behaviour by careful analysis of the existing literature. The findings of the study reveal
that both transformational leadership and LMX share a direct relationship with
innovative workplace behaviour. It was also revealed that LMX mediates the
relationship between leadership and innovative workplace behaviour while perceptions
of fairness moderated the aforementioned relationship.

• Han and Bai (2020) in the present study have attempted to explore if the relationship
between employees’ creative self-efficacy and their creativity is moderated by leaders’
dialectical thinking and LMX. The data for the study was collected from 222 employees
working in high tech companies in China. The findings of the study reveal a positive
association between employees’ creative self-efficacy and their creativity. It was also

22
 evident that this relationship was moderated by leaders’ ability to think dialectically.
However, there was no conclusive evidence to prove the moderating effect of LMX in
the relationship specified above.

• Vandavasi et al., (2020) attempted to study the influence of knowledge among

teammates on the evolution of shared leadership and innovative behaviour. Data for the
study was collected from 64 management teams and 427 employees working in 26
hotels in Taiwan. The results proved that knowledge sharing and employees’ innovative
workplace behaviour shared a positive relationship. It was also revealed that shared
leadership played a mediating role in the relationship stated above.

• Bak (2020) studied the relationship between supervisor feedback and employees’
innovative work behaviour. The researcher also aimed at studying the moderating role
played by trust in supervisor and affective in the relationship mentioned above. Data
was collected from public servants employed in the local governments in South Korea.
The findings of the study revealed that there was a positive relationship between
supervisor feedback and employees’ innovative work behaviour. It was also noted that
the employees who received regular personal/ performance development feedback from
their leaders tended to show a higher degree of trust in their leaders which subsequently
led to the demonstration of innovative work behaviour. There was also conducive
evidence to prove the hypothesis that the relationship between feedback from superior
and innovative work behaviour was mediated by the employees’ trust in their
supervisors.

23
 CHAPTER -3
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
3.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

3.1.1 Primary Objective:

• To study leader-member exchange and affective commitment and their influence on

innovative work behaviour among employees working in the manufacturing sector.

3.1.2 Secondary Objective:

• To study the relationship between leader-member exchange, affective commitment and

employees’ innovative work behaviour.
• To study the mediating effect of affective commitment in the relationship between
leader-member exchange and innovative work behaviour.
• To give recommendations to improve employees’ innovative work behaviour.

3.2 HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY:

H1: There exists a significant relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Affective
Commitment.

H2: There exists a significant relationship between Affective Commitment and Innovative
Work Behaviour.

H3: There exists a significant relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Innovative
Work Behaviour.

H4: There exists a significant influence of Leader-Member Exchange and Affective

Commitment on Innovative Work Behaviour.

H5: Affective Commitment mediates the relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and
Innovative Work Behaviour.

3.3 DEFINITION OF THE VARIABLES:

3.3.1 Leader-Member Exchange:

According to Graen and Scandura (1987), leader-member exchange refers to the
exchanges or interactions that happen between a supervisor (leader) and their subordinates. The

24
Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) also known as the Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory
was developed by Dansereau, Graen and Haga in the 1970s to examine the nature of
relationship that evolves between leaders and their team members. One of the major precepts
of this theory is that a leader’s attitude is not the same towards all of their subordinates,
resulting in differences in the quality relationships. In other words, leaders tend to show
differences in the way they treat each of their team members (Dansereau et al., 1975).

3.3.2 Affective Commitment:

According to Meyer and Allen (1991), affective commitment refers to an employee’s
propensity to develop emotional attachment or involvement with the organization where they
work.

3.3.3 Innovative Work Behaviour:

IWB is the process of fabricating creative solutions and profitable ideas and the
implementation of these solutions and ideas in the organization (McLean, 2005). It also
revolves around coming up with better ways of executing tasks at work through an
amalgamation of new processes, products, services and ideas that are one of a kind and valuable
to the organization (Madjar et al., 2002).

3.4 RESEARCH DESIGN:

Research design in a nutshell is the blueprint of the research that facilitates and ensures
the smooth sailing of the research in hand. It is the conceptual framework within which the
research is conducted. It helps decide the sources and types of information relevant to the
research in hand, the strategies that can be deployed to collect and analyze the data and the
time and budget within which the research has to be carried out. The researcher adopted
descriptive research design for the research in hand. Descriptive research design helps
understand the current state of affairs. Surveys and fact-finding enquiries of different kinds
are used for the same purpose.

3.5 SAMPLING METHOD:

The researched adopter Non-Probability Convenience Sampling method for the research
in hand. Convenience sampling is a type of non-probability sampling technique wherein the
samples are selected based on the convenience and ease of access to the researcher. The target
25
population for the study in hand were accessible employees from manufacturing companies
selected by the researcher.

3.5.1 Study Population/ Universe:

All the items in any field of inquiry constitute the universe or sample population. The
population for the research in hand is the employees of different age groups, genders and
different functional departments working in manufacturing companies in India.

3.5.2 Sample Size:

It is the sample size that acts as a representative population of the sample population or the
universe. Therefore, it is safe to say that the validity of the study rests on the size of the sample.
The sample size of the present study is 80 respondents.

3.6 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION:

Data includes any information gathered, stored, processed and analysed to produce and
validate the original results of the results. Data typically can be used to prove or disprove a
theory, test the hypotheses set by the researcher or to simply gain in-depth understanding of
the research topic or problem. Data can take numerous forms particularly, numerical
(quantitative) facts and non-numerical (qualitative) information. Ideally a researcher collects
both primary and secondary data.

3.6.1 Primary Data:

Primary data is the kind of data that is collected originally from the data source first-hand
either through observation or through communication with the respondents in one form or
another through personal interviews. The tools that are typically used are questionnaires or
interview schedules. In other words, it is the data that has not been previously published and is
derived from a new or original research study and collected at the source as in marketing. It
consists of numerical collection of raw information to be analysed and evaluated. Such data
are collected with specific set of objectives to assess the focus area under study.

3.6.2 Secondary Data:

Secondary data is research data that has previously been gathered and can be accessed
by researchers. Secondary data is readily available from the other sources and as such, there

26
are no specific collection methods. This includes data from journals, magazines, newspapers
and internet.

3.7 TOOLS FOR DATA COLLECTION:

The researcher resorted to a data collection tool known as ‘Questionnaire’ for collecting
primary data. A questionnaire proves to be less expensive yet elaborative as compared to the
other methods of data collection. A questionnaire consists of a set of well-formulated questions
to probe and obtain responses from the respondents. Questionnaire is an effective data
collection mechanism when the researcher knows exactly what is required and how to measure
the variables of interest. An outline of the questionnaires used by the researcher for the present
study is given below:

a) For the first part of the questionnaire, a 6-item questionnaire was prepared by the
investigator to gather socio-demographic details of the respondents.

b) The second part of the questionnaire deals with the self-evaluation of the respondents
with respect to their relationship with their leader. The researcher used 7- item LMX-7
Scale. The respondents were required to indicate the degree to which they think the item
is true for them along a 5-point scale.
c) The third part of the questionnaire deals with the self-evaluation of the respondents with
respect to Affective Commitment. The researcher used the 6-item questionnaire
developed by Allen and Meyer (1990) to study the feelings that individuals may have
about the company or organization they work for. The respondents were required to
indicate the degree of their agreement or disagreement with each statement in the
questionnaire on a seven-point scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.
“Strongly Disagree” = 1; “Disagree” = 2; “Slightly Disagree” = 3; “Undecided” = 4;
“Slightly Agree” = 5; “Agree” = 6; “Strongly Agree” =7. The scale consists of 3 reverse
keyed items, the scores of these items will be recoded as “Strongly Agree” = 1; “Agree”
= 2; “Slightly Agree” = 3; “Undecided” = 4; “Slightly Disagree” = 5; “Disagree” = 6;
“Strongly Disagree” =7.
d) The fourth part of the questionnaire deals with the self-evaluation of the respondents with
respect to Innovative Work Behaviour. The researcher used the standardized
questionnaire of Kleysen and Street (2001). It is a 14 – item questionnaire that contains
a number of statements related to individual innovative behaviour. The respondents were
required to indicate often the respondents practice the same in their current jobs on a six-

27
 point scale ranging from ‘Never’ to ‘Always’. “Never” = 1; “Almost Never” = 2;
“Sometimes” = 3; “Fairly Often” = 4; “Very Often” = 5; “Always” = 6. The questionnaire
is divided into five constructs namely Opportunity Exploration, Generativity, Formative
Investigation, Championing and Application.

3.8 STATISTICAL TOOLS FOR DATA ANALYSIS:

3.8.1 Percentage Analysis:

Percentage analysis is one of the simplest methods of analysing data. It is one of the
conventional/ traditional statistical tools. With the help of percentage analysis, the data gets
reduced in the standard form with base equal to 100 that facilitates relative comparison. In the
research study in hand, percentage analysis has been used for data interpretation. The formula
used:

Number of Respondents

Percentage of the respondents = ------------------------------------ X 100

Total Number of Respondents

3.8.2 Multiple Regression:

Multiple Regression is used to test the cause and effect relationship among
several independent and dependent variables. To apply multiple regression, few requirements
needed to be verified. One such requirement is multicollinearity among the independent
variables. Multicollinearity has been checked through the tolerance and the Variance Inflation
Factor (VIF). The ideal value of tolerance is 1, which means that there is no multicollinearity.
Most commonly, a value of 0.10 is recommended as the minimum level of tolerance and a
value of 10 has been recommended as the maximum level of VIF.

3.8.3 Mediation Analysis:

Mediation analysis is used to investigate the mechanisms that underlie an observed
relationship between an exposure variable and an outcome variable and examines how they
relate to a third intermediate variable, the mediator. Mediation is said to occur when a causal

28
effect of some variable X (independent variable) on an outcome Y (dependent variable) is
explained by some intervening variable M. This research is proposed to test mediator analysis
using PROCESS macro by Hayes (2013), to estimate the direct and indirect effects in mediator
models using ordinary least squares or logistic regression based path analysis.

3.9 RELIABILITY TEST:

Reliability test is used to measure the extent to which a test measures without error or
inconsistency. The reliability coefficient also known as Cronbach’s alpha represented as ‘r’ is
an absolute number that can range from 0.00 to 1.00. A value of 1.00 reflects perfect
consistency while a value of 0.00 indicates an absolute lack of consistency. In simple terms, it
is used to measure the internal consistency of the items in the questionnaire. The commonly
used benchmark for acceptable reliability is 0.70. If there are less than 5 items, it is 0.50. The
overall reliability value for this research is 0.914.

Reliability Score
S.No. Constructs Items
(Alpha Value)

1 Leader Member Exchange 7 0.818

2 Affective Commitment 6 0.766

3 Innovative Work Behaviour 14 0.954

4 Overall 27 0.914

3.10 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

• The time frame of the study was only one month.

• Data collection through questionnaire was limited to 80 respondents only.
• Difficulty was experienced in identifying employees from manufacturing companies
who were willing to talk about their superiors and the company they were working for.
• Due to the pandemic situation and the COVID-19 restrictions in companies, the
researcher couldn’t effectively reach out to the target group.

29
• Another possible limitation was the employees self-reported data because the
employees who contributed to the current research were mainly male; because the
workforce of manufacturing firms is largely composed of male employees.
• The data in this study was collected from manufacturing firms in Tamil Nadu only,
hence one may argue that the findings are culturally bound and hence cannot be
generalized to the other states or countries across the globe.

30
 CHAPTER -4
DATA ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION
4.1 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS:

Each question from the primary source of data which is the questionnaire is converted to
tables. Each table illustrates the classification of the data collected, the percentage of data and
other relevant statistical information.

DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS:

Table 4.1 Distribution of respondents based on age

Age Frequency Percentage

20 - 30 15 18.8
31 - 40 25 31.1
41 - 50 24 30
51 and above 16 20
Total 80 100

Figure 4.1 Age wise classification

AGE

20.0% 18.8%

30.0% 31.1%

20 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 and above

Inference:
From the table it can be inferred that 18.8% of the respondents belong in the age group of 20 –
30 years, 31.1% of the respondents belong to the age group of 31 – 40 years, 30% of the
respondents belong to the age group of 41 – 50 years and 20% of the respondents belong to the
age group of 51 years and above.

31
 Table 4.2 Distribution of respondents based on gender

Gender Frequency Percentage

Males 63 78.8
Females 17 21.3
Total 80 100

Figure 4.2 Age wise classification

GENDER

21.30%

78.80%

Males Females

Inference:

The above table shows that 78.8% of the respondents are males and the remaining 21.3% of
the respondents are females. Therefore, a majority of the respondents are males.

Table 4.3 Distribution of respondents based on marital status

Marital Status Frequency Percentage

Married 66 1
Unmarried 14 17.5
Total 80 100

32
 Figure 4.3 Marital Status of the respondents

MARITAL STATUS

17.50%

82.50%

Married Unmarried

Inference:

From the above table it can be inferred that 82.5% of the respondents are married and the
remaining 17.50% of the respondents are unmarried.

Table 4.4 Distribution of respondents based on the organization

Organization Frequency Percentage

JSW Steels Ltd. 9 11.3
Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. 16 20
Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 4 5
Dalmia Cement Ltd. 2 2.5
Yamaha Music India 4 5
Asian Paints Pvt. Ltd. 5 6.3
Syrma Technology 4 5
Ultratech Cement Ltd. 4 5
Wheels Indian Ltd. 8 10
Steel Authority of India Ltd. 6 7.5
Bosch Ltd. 3 3.8
Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 6 7.6
Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. 6 7.5
YOHT Pvt. Ltd. 3 3.8
Total 80 100

33
 Figure 4.4 Organization wise distribution

ORGANIZATION

3.8%
7.5% 11.3%

1.3% 6.3%

3.8% 20%

7.5%

10% 5%

5% 5% 2.5%
5% 6.3%

JSW Steels Ltd. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Dalmia Cement Ltd. Yamaha Music India Asian Paints Pvt. Ltd.

Syrma Technology Ultratech Cement Ltd. Wheels Indian Ltd.

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Bosch Ltd. National Polyplast India Pvt. Ltd.

Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. YOHT Pvt. Ltd.

Inference:

From the above table it can be inferred that 11.3% of the respondents are working in JSW Steel
Ltd., 20% of the respondents are working in Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., 5% of the respondents
are working in Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2.5 % of the respondents are working in
Dalmia Cements Ltd., 5% of the respondents are working in Yamaha Music India Pvt. Ltd.,
6.3% of the respondents are working in Asian Paints Pvt. Ltd., 5% of the respondents are
working in Syrma Technology, 5% of the respondents are working in Ultratech Cement Ltd,
10% of the respondents are working in Wheels India Ltd., 7.5% of the respondents are working
in Steel Authority of India Ltd, 3.8% of the respondents are working in Bosch Ltd., 7.6% of
the respondents are working in Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., 7.5% of the respondents are working in
Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd and the remaining 3.8% of the respondents are working in YOHT
Pvt. Ltd.

34
 Table 4.5 Distribution of respondents based on the functional department

Functional Department Frequency Percentage

Human Resources 11 13.8
Research and Development 17 21.3
Marketing 4 5.0
Sales 11 13.8
Production 12 15.0
Finance 9 11.3
Operations 15 18.8
Engineering 1 1.3
Total 80 100

Figure 4.5 Functional department wise distribution

FUNCTIONAL DEPARTMENT
1.3

13.8
18.8

11.3 21.3

15 5
13.8

Human Resources Research and Development Marketing

Sales Production Finance
Operations Engineering

Inference:

The above table shows that 13.8% of the respondents are working in the Human Resource
department., 21.3% of the respondents are working in Research and Development, 5% of the
respondents are working in Marketing, 13.8% of the respondents are working in Sales, 15% of
the respondents are working in Production, 11.3% of the respondents are working in Finance,
18.8% of the respondents are working in Operations and 1.3% of the respondents are working
in Engineering.

35
 Table 4.6 I know where I stand with my leader and I usually know how satisfied my
leader is with what I do

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Rarely 2 2.5
Occasionally 1 1.3
Sometimes 14 17.5
Fairly Often 35 43.8
Very Often 28 35
Total 80 100

Figure 4.6 I know where I stand with my leader and I usually know how satisfied my
leader is with what I do

50
43.8
45
40
35 35
35
30 28

25
20 17.5
14
15
10
5 2 2.5 1 1.3
0
Rarely Occasionally Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often

Frequency Percentage

Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the individuals’ belief that they know where they
stand with their leaders and that they usually know how satisfied their leader is with what they
do. It can be inferred from the table that 2.5% of the respondents’ have stated that they rarely
know where they stand with their leaders and how satisfied their leaders are with what they do.
1.3% of the respondents have stated that they occasionally know where they stand with their
leaders and how satisfied their leaders are with what they do. 17.5% of the respondents have
stated that they sometimes know where they stand with their leaders and how satisfied their
leaders are with what they do. 43.8% of the respondents have stated fairly often and the
remaining 35% of the respondents have stated that they very often know where they stand with
their leaders and how satisfied their leaders are with what they do.

36
 Table 4.7 My leader understands my job problems and needs

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Not a bit 8 10
A little 6 7.5
A fair amount 8 10
Quite a bit 36 45
A great deal 22 27.5
Total 80 100

Figure 4.7 My leader understands my job problems and needs

50
45
45

40
36
35

30 27.5

25 22
20

15
10 10
10 8 7.5 8
6
5

0
Not a bit A little A fair amount Quite a bit A great deal

Frequency Percentage

Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the individuals’ belief that their leaders understand
their job problems and needs. It can be inferred from the table that 10% of the respondents’
have stated that their leader understands not a bit about their job problems and needs, 7.5% of
the respondents have stated that their leader has a little understanding about their job problems
and needs, 10% of the respondents have stated that their leader has a fair amount of
understanding about their job problems and needs, 45% of the respondents have stated that
their leader understands quite a bit about their job problems and needs and the remaining 27.5%
of the respondents have stated that their leader has a great deal of understanding about their job
problem and needs.

37
 Table 4.8 My leader recognizes my potential

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Not a bit 3 3.8
A little 9 11.3
A fair amount 13 16.3
Quite a bit 20 25
A great deal 35 43.8
Total 80 100

Figure 4.8 My leader recognizes my potential

50
43.8
45
40
35
35
30
25
25
20
20 16.3
15 13
11.3
9
10
3 3.8
5
0
Not a bit A little A fair amount Quite a bit A great deal

Frequency Percentage

Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the individuals’ belief that their leader recognizes
their potential. It can be inferred from the table that 3.8% of the respondents’ have stated not a
bit for the same, 11.3% of the respondents have stated that their leader recognizes a potential a
bit, 16.3% of the respondents have stated that their leader recognizes their potential a fair
amount, 25% of the respondents have stated that their leader recognizes their potential quite a
bit and the remaining 43.8% of the respondents have stated that their leader recognizes their
potential a great deal.

38
 Table 4.9 My leader would use his or her power to help me solve my problems in my
work regardless of the amount of formal authority he/she has built into their position

Particulars Frequency Percentage

None 6 7.5
Small 6 7.5
Moderate 24 30
High 28 35
Very High 16 20
Total 80 100

Figure 4.9 My leader would use his or her power to help me solve my problems in my
work regardless of the amount of formal authority he/she has built into their position

40
35
35
30
30 28

24
25
20
20
16
15

10 7.5 7.5
6 6
5

0
None Small Moderate High Very High

Frequency Percentage

Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the individuals’ belief that their leader would use his
or her power to help them solve their problems in their work regardless of the amount of formal
authority he/she has built into their position. It can be inferred from the table that 7.5% of the
respondents’ have stated that the chances for the same is none, 7.5% of the respondents have
stated that the chances are small, 30% of the respondents have stated that such chances are
moderate, 35% of the respondents have stated that the chances are high and the remaining 20%
of the respondents have stated that the chances are very high.

39
Table 4.10 My leader would “bail me out” at his/ her expense regardless of the amount
of formal authority he/she has

Particulars Frequency Percentage

None 12 15
Small 6 7.5
Moderate 24 30
High 27 33.8
Very High 11 13.8
Total 80 100

Figure 4.10 My leader would “bail me out” at his/ her expense regardless of the amount
of formal authority he/she has

40

35 33.8
30
30 27
24
25

20
15
15 13.8
12
11
10 7.5
6
5

0
None Small Moderate High Very High

Frequency Percentage

Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the individuals’ belief that their leader would “bail
them out” at his/her expense regardless of the amount of formal authority he/she has. It can be
inferred from the table that 15% of the respondents’ have stated that the chances for the same
is none, 30% of the respondents have stated that the chances are small, 30% of the respondents
have stated that such chances are moderate, 33.8% of the respondents have stated that the
chances are high and the remaining 13.8% of the respondents have stated that the chances are
very high.

40
Table 4.11 I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his or
her decision if he or she were not present to do so.

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Strongly Disagree 8 10
Disagree 11 13.8
Neutral 19 23.8
Agree 23 28.8
Strongly Agree 19 23.8
Total 80 100

Figure 4.11 I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his or
her decision if he or she were not present to do so.

35

30 28.8

25 23.8 23.8
23

20 19 19

15 13.8
11
10
10 8

0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Frequency Percentage

Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the individuals’ confidence in their leader that they
would defend and justify their decision if he or she were not present to do so. It can be inferred
from the table that 10% of the respondents strongly disagree, 13.8% of the respondents
disagree, 23.8% of the respondents are neutral, 28.8% of the respondents agree and the
remaining 23.8% of the respondents strongly agree.

41
 Table 4.12 Characterization of respondents’ working relationship with their leader

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Extremely Ineffective 3 3.8
Worse than average 0 0
Average 13 16.3
Better than average 39 48.8
Extremely Effective 25 31.3
Total 80 100

Figure 4.12 Characterization of respondents’ working relationship with their leader

60

48.8
50

39
40
31.3
30
25

20 16.3
13

10
3 3.8

0
Extremely Ineffective Average Better than average Extremely Effective

Frequency Percentage

Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the individuals’ characterization of their working
relationship with their leader. It can be inferred from the table that 3.8% of the respondents
characterize this relationship to be extremely ineffective, 16.3% of the respondents characterize
this relationship to be average, 48.8% of the respondents have stated that this relationship is
better than average and the remaining 31.3% of the respondents characterize this relationship
to be extremely effective.

42
 Table 4.13 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Strongly Disagree 6 7.5
Disagree 4 5
Slightly Disagree 4 5
Undecided 12 15
Slightly Agree 10 12.5
Agree 30 37.5
Strongly Agree 14 17.5
Total 80 100

Figure 4.13 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization

40
37.5

35

30
30

25

20
17.5
15
15 14
12 12.5
10
10
7.5
6
5 5
5 4 4

0
Strongly Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree

Frequency Percentage

Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on whether they would be
happy to spend the rest of their career with their current organization. It can be inferred from
the table that 7.5% of the respondents strongly disagree, 5% of the respondents disagree, 5%

43
of the respondents slightly disagree, 15% of the respondents are undecided, 12.5% of the
respondents slightly agree, 37.5% of the respondents agree and the remaining 17.5% of the
respondents strongly agree.

Table 4.14 I feel as if their organization’s problems are my own

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Strongly Disagree 9 11.3
Disagree 5 6.3
Slightly Disagree 0 0
Undecided 4 5
Slightly Agree 14 17.5
Agree 36 45
Strongly Agree 12 15
Total 80 100

Figure 4.14 I feel as if their organization’s problems are my own

50
45
45

40
36
35

30

25

20 17.5
15
14
15 12
11.3
9
10
6.3
5 5
4
5

0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

Frequency Percentage

44
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on whether they feel as if
their organizations problems are their own. It can be inferred from the table that 11.3% of the
respondents strongly disagree, 6.3% of the respondents disagree, 5% of the respondents are
undecided, 17.5% of the respondents slightly agree, 45% of the respondents agree and the
remaining 15% of the respondents strongly agree.

Table 4.15 I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my organization

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Strongly Disagree 16 20
Disagree 26 32.5
Slightly Disagree 11 13.8
Undecided 9 11.3
Slightly Agree 6 7.5
Agree 3 3.8
Strongly Agree 9 11.3
Total 80 100

Figure 4.15 I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my organization

35
32.5

30
26
25

20
20
16
15 13.8
11 11.3 11.3
10 9 9
7.5
6
5 3.8
3

0
Strongly Disagree Slightly Undecided Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree Disagree

Frequency Percentage

45
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on whether they do not feel
a sense of belonging to their organization. It can be inferred from the table that 20% of the
respondents strongly disagree, 32.5% of the respondents disagree, 13.8% of the respondents
slightly disagree, 11.3% of the respondents are undecided, 7.5% of the respondents slightly
agree, 3.8% of the respondents agree and the remaining 11.3% of the respondents strongly
agree.

Table 4.16 I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Strongly Disagree 10 12.5
Disagree 26 32.5
Slightly Disagree 12 15
Undecided 9 11.3
Slightly Agree 5 6.3
Agree 9 11.3
Strongly Agree 9 11.3
Total 80 100

Figure 4.16 I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization

35 32.5

30
26
25

20
15
15 12.5 12 11.3 11.3 11.3
10
10 9 9 9
6.3
5
5

0
Strongly Disagree Slightly Undecided Slightly Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree

Frequency Percentage

46
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on whether they do not feel
emotionally attached to their organization. It can be inferred from the table that 12.5% of the
respondents strongly disagree, 32.5% of the respondents disagree, 15% of the respondents
slightly disagree, 11.3% of the respondents are undecided, 6.3% of the respondents slightly
agree, 11.3% of the respondents agree and the remaining 11.3% of the respondents strongly
agree.

Table 4.17 I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Strongly Disagree 14 17.5
Disagree 36 45
Slightly Disagree 6 7.5
Undecided 6 7.5
Slightly Agree 1 1.3
Agree 6 7.5
Strongly Agree 11 13.8
Total 80 100

Figure 4.17 I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization

50
45
45

40
36
35

30

25

20 17.5
14 13.8
15
11
10 7.5 7.5 7.5
6 6 6
5
1 1.3
0
Strongly Disagree Slightly Undecided Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree Disagree

Frequency Percentage

47
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on whether they do not feel
like they are a part of the family at their organization. It can be inferred from the table that
17.5% of the respondents strongly disagree, 45% of the respondents disagree, 7.5% of the
respondents slightly disagree, 7.5% of the respondents are undecided, 1.3% of the respondents
slightly agree, 7.5% of the respondents agree and the remaining 13.8% of the respondents
strongly agree.

Table 4.18 This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Strongly Disagree 5 6.3
Disagree 0 0
Slightly Disagree 7 8.8
Undecided 8 10
Slightly Agree 15 18.8
Agree 35 43.8
Strongly Agree 10 12.5
Total 80 100

Figure 4.18 This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me

50
43.8
45

40
35
35

30

25
18.8
20
15
15 12.5
8.8 10 10
10 7 8
6.3
5
5

0
Strongly Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree

Frequency Percentage

48
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on whether they feel as if
their organization has a great deal of personal meaning for them. It can be inferred from the
table that 6.3% of the respondents strongly disagree, 8.8% of the respondents slightly disagree,
10% of the respondents are undecided, 18.8% of the respondents slightly agree, 43.8% of the
respondents agree and the remaining 12.5% of the respondents strongly agree.

Table 4.19 Looking for opportunities to improve an existing process, technology,

product, service or work relationship

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Never 2 2.5
Almost Never 3 3.8
Sometimes 6 7.5
Fairly Often 17 21.3
Very Often 25 31.3
Always 27 33.8
Total 80 100

Figure 4.19 Looking for opportunities to improve an existing process, technology,

product, service or work relationship
40

35 33.8
31.3
30
27
25
25
21.3
20
17

15

10 7.5
6
5 3 3.8
2 2.5

0
Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often Always

Frequency Percentage

49
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on how often they look for
an opportunity to improve an existing process, technology, product, service or work
relationship. It can be inferred from the table that 2.5% of the respondents have stated that they
never look for an opportunity to improve an existing process, technology, product, service or
work relationship, 3.8% of the respondents have stated that they never look for such
opportunities, 7.5% of the respondents have stated that they sometimes look for such
opportunities, 21.3% of the respondents have stated that they look for such opportunities fairly
often, 31.3% of the respondents have stated that they look for such opportunities very often
and the remaining 33.8% of the respondents have stated that they always look for such
opportunities in their current job.

Table 4.20 Recognition of opportunities to make a positive difference in their work,

department, organization or with customers

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Never 2 2.5
Almost Never 2 2.5
Sometimes 5 6.3
Fairly Often 26 32.5
Very Often 17 21.3
Always 28 35
Total 80 100

Figure 4.20 Recognition of opportunities to make a positive difference in their work,

department, organization or with customers

40
35
35 32.5
30 28
26
25 21.3
20 17
15
10
5 6.3
5 2 2.5 2 2.5
0
Never Almost Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often Always
Never

Frequency Percentage

50
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on how often they recognize
opportunities to make a positive difference in their work, department, organization or with
customers in their current job. It can be inferred from the table that 2.5% of the respondents
have stated that they never recognize opportunities to make a positive difference in their work,
department, organization or with customers, 2.5% of the respondents have stated that they
almost never recognize such opportunities, 6.3% of the respondents have stated that they
recognize such opportunities sometimes, 32.5% of the respondents have stated that they
recognize such opportunities fairly often, 21.3% of the respondents have stated that they
recognize such opportunities very often and the remaining 35% of the respondents have stated
that they always look for such opportunities in their current job.

Table 4.21 Paying attention to non-routine issues in their work, department,

organization or with customers

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Never 3 3.8
Almost Never 4 5
Sometimes 16 20
Fairly Often 19 23.8
Very Often 25 31.3
Always 13 16.3
Total 80 100

Figure 4.21 Paying attention to non-routine issues in their work, department,

organization or with customers

35 31.3
30
23.8 25
25
20 19
20 16 16.3
15 13

10
3 3.8 4 5
5
0
Never Almost Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often Always
Never

Frequency Percentage

51
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on how often they pay
attention to non-routine issues in their work, department, organization or with customers in
their current job. It can be inferred from the table that 3.8% of the respondents have stated that
they never pay attention to non-routine issues in their work, department, organization or with
customers, 5% of the respondents have stated that they almost never pay attention to such
issues, 20% of the respondents have stated that they sometimes pay attention to such issues,
23.8% of the respondents have stated that they pay attention to such issues fairly often, 31.3%
of the respondents have stated that they pay attention to such issues very often and the
remaining 16.3% of the respondents have stated that they always pay attention to such issues
in their current job.

Table 4.22 Generating ideas or solutions to address problems

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Never 7 8.8
Almost Never 2 2.5
Sometimes 9 11.3
Fairly Often 9 11.3
Very Often 26 32.5
Always 27 33.8
Total 80 100

Figure 4.22 Generating ideas or solutions to address problems

40
33.8
35 32.5

30 27
26
25
20
15 11.3 11.3
8.8 9 9
10 7
5 2 2.5
0
Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often Always

Frequency Percentage

52
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on how often they generate
ideas or solutions to address problems in their current job. It can be inferred from the table that
8.8% of the respondents have stated that they never generate ideas or solutions to address
problems, 2.5% of the respondents have stated that they almost never generate ideas or
solutions to address problems, 11.3% of the respondents have stated that they sometimes
generate ideas or solutions to address problems, 11.3% of the respondents have stated that they
generate ideas or solutions to address problems fairly often, 32.5% of the respondents have
stated that they generate ideas or solutions to address problems very often and the remaining
33.8% of the respondents have stated that they always generate ideas or solutions to address
problems.

Table 4.23 Defining problems more broadly to gain greater insight into them

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Never 3 3.8
Almost Never 5 6.3
Sometimes 10 12.5
Fairly Often 12 15
Very Often 26 32.5
Always 24 30
Total 80 100

Figure 4.23 Defining problems more broadly to gain greater insight into them

35 32.5
30
30
26
24
25

20
15
15 12.5 12
10
10
6.3
5
5 3 3.8

0
Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often Always

Frequency Percentage

53
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on how often they define
problems more broadly to gain greater insight into them in their current job. It can be inferred
from the table that 3.8% of the respondents have stated that they never define problems more
broadly to gain greater insight into them, 6.3% of the respondents have stated that they almost
never define problems more broadly to gain greater insight into them, 12.5% of the respondents
have stated that they sometimes define problems more broadly, 15% of the respondents have
stated that they define problems more broadly fairly often, 32.5% of the respondents have
stated that they very often define problems more broadly and the remaining 30% of the
respondents have stated that they always define problems more broadly to gain greater insights
into them.

Table 4.24 Experimenting with new ideas and solutions

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Never 4 5
Almost Never 1 1.3
Sometimes 16 20
Fairly Often 15 18.8
Very Often 21 26.3
Always 23 28.8
Total 80 100

Figure 4.24 Experimenting with new ideas and solutions

35

30 28.8
26.3
25 23
20 21
20 18.8
16 15
15

10
4 5
5
1 1.3
0
Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often Always

Frequency Percentage

54
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on how often they
experiment with new ideas and solutions. It can be inferred from the table that 5% of the
respondents have stated that they never experiment with new ideas and solutions, 1.3% of the
respondents have stated that they almost never experiment with new ideas and solutions, 20%
of the respondents have stated that they sometimes experiment with new ideas and solutions,
18.8% of the respondents have stated that they experiment with new ideas and solutions fairly
often, 26.3% of the respondents have stated that they experiment with new ideas and solutions
very often and the remaining 28.8% of the respondents have stated that they always experiment
with new ideas and solutions.

Table 4.25 Testing out ideas and solutions to address unmet needs

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Never 5 6.3
Almost Never 2 2.5
Sometimes 16 20
Fairly Often 20 25
Very Often 21 26.3
Always 16 20
Total 80 100

Figure 4.25 Testing out ideas and solutions to address unmet needs
30
26.3
25
25
21
20 20 20
20
16 16
15

10
6.3
5
5
2 2.5

0
Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often Always

Frequency Percentage

55
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on how often they test out
ideas and solutions to address unmet needs. It can be inferred from the table that 6.3% of the
respondents have stated that they never test out ideas and solutions to address unmet needs,
2.5% of the respondents have stated that they almost never test out ideas and solutions, 20% of
the respondents have stated that they sometimes test out ideas and solutions, 25% of the
respondents have stated that they test out ideas and solutions fairly often, 26.3% of the
respondents have stated that they test out ideas and solutions very often and the remaining 20%
of the respondents have stated that they always test out ideas and solutions.

Table 4.26 Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of new ideas

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Never 4 5
Almost Never 3 3.8
Sometimes 11 13.8
Fairly Often 22 27.5
Very Often 15 18.8
Always 25 31.3
Total 80 100

Figure 4.26 Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of new ideas

35
31.3
30 27.5
25
25 22

20 18.8
15
15 13.8
11
10
4 5
5 3 3.8

0
Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often Always

Frequency Percentage

56
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on how often they evaluate
the strengths and weaknesses of new ideas. It can be inferred from the table that 5% of the
respondents have stated that they never evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of new ideas,
3.8% of the respondents have stated that they almost never evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of new ideas, 13.8% of the respondents have stated that they sometimes evaluate
the strengths and weaknesses , 27.5% of the respondents have stated that they evaluate the
strengths and weaknesses of new ideas fairly often, 18.8% of the respondents have stated that
they evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of new ideas very often and the remaining 31.3%
of the respondents have stated that they always evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of new
ideas.

Table 4.27 Trying to persuade others of the importance of a new idea or solution

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Never 4 5
Almost Never 3 3.8
Sometimes 16 20
Fairly Often 21 26.3
Very Often 27 33.8
Always 9 11.3
Total 80 100

Figure 4.27 Trying to persuade others of the importance of a new idea or solution
40
33.8
35

30 27
26.3
25
20 21
20
16
15
11.3
9
10
4 5
5 3 3.8

0
Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often Always

Frequency Percentage

57
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on how often they try to
persuade others of the importance of a new idea or solution. It can be inferred from the table
that 5% of the respondents have stated that they never try to persuade others of the importance
of a new idea or solution, 3.8% of the respondents have stated that they almost never try to
persuade others of the importance of a new idea or solution, 20% of the respondents have stated
that they sometimes persuade others of the importance of a new idea or solution , 26.3% of the
respondents have stated that they try to persuade others of the importance of a new idea or
solution fairly often, 33.8% of the respondents have stated that they try to persuade others of
the importance of a new idea or solution very often and the remaining 11.3% of the respondents
have stated that they always try to persuade others of the importance of a new idea or solution.

Table 4.28 Pushing ideas forward so that they have a chance to become implemented

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Never 4 5
Almost Never 4 5
Sometimes 10 12.5
Fairly Often 12 15
Very Often 34 42.5
Always 16 20
Total 80 100

Figure 4.28 Pushing ideas forward so that they have a chance to become implemented

45 42.5
40
34
35
30
25
20
20 16
15
15 12.5 12
10
10
4 5 4 5
5
0
Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often Always

Frequency Percentage

58
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on how often push ideas
forward so that they have a chance to become implemented. It can be inferred from the table
that 5% of the respondents have stated that they never try to push ideas forward, 5% of the
respondents have stated that they almost never try to push ideas forward, 12.5% of the
respondents have stated that they sometimes push their ideas forward, 15% of the respondents
have stated that they try to push their ideas forward fairly often, 42.5% of the respondents have
stated that they try to push their ideas forward very often and the remaining 20% of the
respondents have stated that they always try to push their ideas forward so that they have a
chance to become implemented.

Table 4.29 Taking the risk to support new ideas

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Never 4 5
Almost Never 3 3.8
Sometimes 19 23.8
Fairly Often 8 10
Very Often 29 36.3
Always 17 21.3
Total 80 100

Figure 4.29 Taking the risk to support new ideas

40
36.3
35

29
30

25 23.8
21.3
19
20
17

15
10
10 8
5
4 3.8
5 3

0
Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often Always

Frequency Percentage

59
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on how often they take the
risk to support new ideas. It can be inferred from the table that 5% of the respondents have
stated that they never take the risk to support new ideas, 3.8% of the respondents have stated
that they almost never take the risk to support new ideas, 23.8% of the respondents have stated
that they sometimes take the risk to support new ideas, 10% of the respondents have stated that
they take the risk to support new ideas fairly often, 36.3% of the respondents have stated that
they take the risk to support new ideas very often and the remaining 21.3% of the respondents
have stated that they always take the risk to support new ideas.

Table 4.30 Implementing ideas that seem to be beneficial

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Never 4 5
Almost Never 1 1.3
Sometimes 13 16.3
Fairly Often 15 18.8
Very Often 26 32.5
Always 21 26.3
Total 80 100

Figure 4.30 Implementing ideas that seem to be beneficial

35 32.5

30
26 26.3
25
21
20 18.8
16.3
15
15 13

10

5
5 4
1 1.3
0
Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often Always

Frequency Percentage

60
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on how often they
implement ideas that seem to be beneficial. It can be inferred from the table that 5% of the
respondents have stated that they never implement ideas that seem to be beneficial, 1.3% of
the respondents have stated that they almost never implement ideas that seem to be beneficial,
16.3% of the respondents have stated that they sometimes implement ideas that seem to be
beneficial, 18.8% of the respondents have stated that they implement ideas that seem to be
beneficial fairly often, 32.5% of the respondents have stated that they implement ideas that
seem to be beneficial very often and the remaining 26.3% of the respondents have stated that
they always implement ideas that seem to be beneficial.

Table 4.31 Working the bugs out of new approaches when applying them into an
existing process, technology, product or service

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Never 3 3.8
Almost Never 1 1.3
Sometimes 17 21.3
Fairly Often 20 25
Very Often 31 38.8
Always 8 10
Total 80 100

Figure 4.31 Working the bugs out of new approaches when applying them into an
existing process, technology, product or service

45
38.8
40
35 31
30 25
25 21.3 20
20 17
15 10
10 8
5 3 3.8
1 1.3
0
Never Almost Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often Always
Never

Frequency Percentage

61
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on how often they work the
bugs out of new approaches when applying them into an existing process, technology, product
or service. It can be inferred from the table that 3.8% of the respondents have stated that they
never work the bugs out of new approaches when applying them into an existing process,
technology, product or service, 1.3% of the respondents have stated that they almost never
work the bug out of new approaches, 21.3% of the respondents have stated that they sometimes
work the bugs out of new approaches, 25% of the respondents have stated that they work the
bugs out of new approaches fairly often, 38.8% of the respondents have stated that they work
the bugs out of new approaches very often and the remaining 10% of the respondents have
stated that they always work the bugs out of new approaches when applying them into an
existing process, technology, product or service.

Table 4.32 Incorporating new ideas for improving an existing process, technology,
product or service into daily routines

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Never 3 3.8
Almost Never 0 0
Sometimes 14 17.5
Fairly Often 21 26.3
Very Often 26 32.5
Always 16 20
Total 80 100

Figure 4.32 Incorporating new ideas for improving an existing process, technology,
product or service into daily routines

35 32.5
30 26.3 26
25 21 20
20 17.5 16
14
15
10
5 3 3.8

0
Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often Always

Frequency Percentage

62
Inference:

The data is interpreted over the aspect of the employees’ responses on how often they
incorporate new ideas for improving an existing process, technology, product or service into
daily routines. It can be inferred from the table that 3.8% of the respondents have stated that
they never incorporate new ideas for improving an existing process, technology, product or
service into daily routines, 17.5% of the respondents have stated that they sometimes do so,
26.3% of the respondents have stated that they sometimes work the bugs out of new
approaches, 32.5% of the respondents have stated that they do so fairly often and the remaining
20% of the respondents have stated that they always incorporate new ideas for improving an
existing process, technology, product or service into daily routines.

4.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

PEARSON’S CORRELATION TEST:

Hypothesis 1:

H1: There exists a significant relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Affective
Commitment.

Table 4.33 Relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Affective Commitment

Leader-Member Affective
Exchange Commitment
Leader-Member 0.612**
1
Exchange .000
0.612**
Affective Commitment 1
.000

Inference:

From the above table it can be inferred that the probability value of correlation is 0.000 which
is less than 0.05 level of significance. Thus, we reject null hypothesis. It can be concluded that
there is a relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Affective Commitment. Further,
the correlation value is 0.612, this indicates that there is positive and high correlation between
the two variables.

63
Hypothesis 2:

H1: There exists a significant relationship between Affective Commitment and Innovative
Work Behaviour.

Table 4.34 Relationship between Affective Commitment and Innovative Work

Behaviour

Innovative Work
Affective Commitment
Behaviour
0.649**
Affective Commitment 1
.000
Innovative Work 0.649**
1
Behaviour .000

Inference:

From the above table it can be inferred that the probability value of correlation is 0.000 which
is less than 0.05 level of significance. Thus, we reject null hypothesis. It can be concluded that
there is a relationship between Affective Commitment and Innovative Work Behaviour.
Further, the correlation value is 0.649, this indicates that there is positive and high correlation
between the two variables.

Hypothesis 3:

H1: There exists a significant relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Innovative
Work Behaviour.

Table 4.35 Relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Innovative Work

Behaviour

Leader-Member Innovative Work

Exchange Behaviour
Leader-Member 0.635**
1
Exchange .000
Innovative Work 0.635**
1
Behaviour .000

64
 Inference:

From the above table it can be inferred that the probability value of correlation is 0.000 which
is less than 0.05 level of significance. Thus, we reject null hypothesis. It can be concluded that
there is a relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Innovative Work Behaviour.
Further, the correlation value is 0.635, this indicates that there is positive and high correlation
between the two variables.

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS:

Hypothesis 4:

H1: There exists a significant influence of Leader-Member Exchange and Affective

Commitment on Innovative Work Behaviour.

Table 4.36 Influence of Leader-Member Exchange and Affective Commitment on

Innovative Work Behaviour

Leader-Member Innovative Work Behaviour (Dependent Variable)

Exchange and
Affective
SNo. Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
Commitment
(Independent Coefficients Coefficients t- Statistics
Sig.
Variables) Beta Std. value Tolera
β VIF
Value Error nce
Constant 0.935 0.414 - 2.260 0.027 -
Leader-Member
1 0.509 0.135 0.38 3.775 0.000 0.625 1.599
Exchange
Affective
2 0.328 0.08 0.416 4.125 0.000 0.625 1.599
Commitment
R Value 0.715a
R Square Value 0.511
F Value 40.243

The multiple correlation coefficient is 0.715 measures the degree of relationship between the
actual values and the predicted values of Innovative Work Behaviour. Because the predicted
values are obtained as a linear combination of Leader-Member Exchange (X1) and Affective
Commitment (X2), the coefficient value of 0.715 indicates that the relationship between
Innovative Work Behaviour and the two independent variables is quite strong and positive.

65
The Coefficient of Determination R-square measures the goodness of fit of the estimated
Sample Regression Plane (SRP) in terms of the proportion of the variation in the dependent
variables explained by the fitted sample regression equation. Thus, the value of R square, 0.511
simply means that about 51.1% of the variations in Innovative Work Behaviour is explained
by the estimated SRP that uses Leader-Member Exchange and Affective Commitment as the
independent variables and the R square value is significant at 1% level. Thus the null
hypothesis is rejected, indicating that there exists significant influence of the Leader-Member
Exchange and Affective Commitment (Independent variables) on Innovative Work Behaviour
(Dependent variable).

The multiple regression equation is

Y = 0.935 + 0.509 X1 + 0.328 X2

Here, the coefficient of X1 is 0.509 represents the partial effect of Leader-Member Exchange
on Innovative Work Behaviour, holding the other variables as constant. The estimated positive
sign implies that such effect is positive and Innovative Work Behaviour would increase by
0.509 for every unit increase in HPWS and this coefficient value is significant at 1% level.
The coefficient X2 IS 0.328 represents the partial effect of Affective Commitment on
Innovative Work Behaviour, holding the other variables as constant. The estimated positive
sign implies that such effect is positive and Innovative Work Behaviour would increase by
0.328 for every unit increase in Affective Commitment and this coefficient value is significant
at 1% level.

Based on the standardized coefficient, Affective Commitment (0. 416) is the most important
variable that impacts Innovative Work Behaviour followed by Leader-Member Exchange
(0.380).

Also since the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is less than 4 and the tolerance values are more
than 0.1, it is evident that the data met the assumption of collinearity indicating that
multicollinearity is not a concern.

66
 MEDIATION ANALYSIS:
Hypothesis 1:

H1: Affective Commitment mediates the relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and
Innovative Work Behaviour.

Figure 4.33 Mediating effect of Affective Commitment in the relationship between

Leader-Member Exchange and Innovative Work Behaviour

Affective Commitment
(Mediator)
b = 0.3282
a = 1.0370

Leader-Member Innovative Work

Exchange Behaviour
(Independent Variable) (Dependent Variable)
c’ = 0.5087

Table 4.37 Mediating Effect of Affective Commitment on the relationship between

Leader-Member Exchange and Innovative Work Behaviour

Bootstrap Results for Indirect Effect

Variables Unstandardized Beta BC 95% CI (5000 Bootstraps)

Effect of M on Direct Effect of X

Independent Dependent Effect of X on M Total Effect of Indirect
Mediator (M) Y controlling X on Y controlling M SE LL UL
Variable (X) Variable (Y) (a path) X on Y (c path) Effect
(b path) (c' path)
Leader-Member Affective Inovative Work
1.037 0.3282 0.8491 0.5087 0.3404 0.1308 0.0775 0.5865
Exchange Commitment Behaviour

Validating Affective Commitment as a mediator between Leader-Member Exchange and

Innovative Work Behaviour based on Baron & Kenny’s criteria, it can be inferred from the
above table that Leader-Member Exchange has a significant effect on the mediator, Affective
Commitment (β = 1.037, p < 0.01). Affective Commitment has a significant effect on

67
Innovative Work Behaviour while controlling Leader-Member Exchange (β = 0.3282, p <
0.01).

When Affective Commitment is controlled, the effect of Leader-Member Exchange becomes

significantly smaller for Innovative Work Behaviour (β = 0.5087, p < 0.01).

The indirect effect of Leader-Member Exchange on Innovative Work Behaviour (β = 0.3404,

p < 0.01) is significant, as can be by confidence intervals in the upper and lower limits in the
table, that excludes zero. The indirect effect of Leader-Member Exchange on Innovative Work
Behaviour through Affective Commitment is positive, which implies that Leader-Member
Exchange would lead to increase in the Affective Commitment which in turn would increase
Innovative Work Behaviour. The null hypothesis can be rejected. Hence it can be stated that
Affective commitment partially mediates the relationship between Leader-Member Exchange
and Innovative Work Behaviour.

68
 CHAPTER - 5
FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS
AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:

The findings of the study are summarized in this section after collected data was analysed.

5.1.1 Demographic Variables:

• Close to one third of the respondents (31.1%) belong to the age group of 31 – 40 years.
• More than half of the respondents (78.8%) are males.
• More than half of the respondents (82.5) are married.
• One fifth of the respondents (20%) are working in Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd.
• More than one fifth of the respondents (21.3%) are working in Research and
Development department.
• (Designation)

5.1.2 Leader-Member Exchange:

• 43.8% of the respondents have stated that they fairly often know where they stand with
their leaders and how satisfied their leaders are with what they do.
• 45% of the respondents have stated that their leader understands quite a bit about their
job problems and needs
• 43.8% of the respondents have stated that their leader recognizes their potential a great
deal.
• 35% of the respondents have stated that there are high chances that their leader would
use his or her power to help them solve their problems in their work regardless of the
amount of formal authority he/she has built into their position.

• 33.8% of the respondents have stated that there are high chances that their leader would
“bail them out” at his/her expense regardless of the amount of formal authority he/she
has.
• 28.8% of the respondents agree that they have confidence in their leader that they would
defend and justify their decision if he or she were not present to do so.
• 48.8% of the respondents have characterized that their working relationship with their
leader is better than average.

69
5.1.3 Affective Commitment:

• 37.5% of the respondents agree that they would be happy to spend the rest of their
career with their current organization.
• 45% of the respondents agree that they feel as if their organizations problems are their
own.
• 32.5% of the respondents disagree to the statement that they do not feel a sense of
belonging to their organization.
• 32.5% of the respondents disagree to the statement that they do not feel emotionally
attached to their organization.
• 45% of the respondents disagree to the statement that they do not feel like they are a
part of the family at their organization.
• 43.8% of the respondents agree that they feel as if their organization has a great deal of
personal meaning for them.

5.1.4 Innovative Work Behaviour:

• 33.8% of the respondents have stated that they always look for an opportunity to
improve an existing process, technology, product, service or work relationship.
• 32.5% of the respondents have stated that they recognize opportunities to make a
positive difference in their work, department, organization or with customers in their
current job fairly often.
• 31.3% of the respondents have stated that they very often pay attention to non-routine
issues in their work, department, organization or with customers in their current job.
• 33.8% of the respondents have stated that they always generate ideas or solutions to
address problems.
• 32.5% of the respondents have stated that they very often define problems more broadly
to gain greater insight into them in their current job.
• 28.8% of the respondents have stated that they always experiment with new ideas and
solutions.

• 26.3% of the respondents have stated that they very often test out ideas and solutions
to address unmet needs.
• 27.5% of the respondents have stated that they evaluate the strengths and weaknesses
of new ideas fairly often.

70
 • 33.8% of the respondents have stated that they try to persuade others of the importance
of a new idea or solution very often.
• 42.5% of the respondents have stated that they very often try to push their ideas forward
so that they have chance to become implemented.
• 36.3% of the respondents have stated that they take the risk to support new ideas very
often.
• 32.5% of the respondents have stated that they implement ideas that seem to be
beneficial very often.
• 38.8% of the respondents have stated that they work the bugs out of new approaches
when applying them into an existing process, technology, product or service very often.
• 32.5% of the respondents have stated that they incorporate new ideas for improving an
existing process, technology, product or service into daily routines fairly often.

5.1.5 Findings from Statistical Analysis:

Collectively analysing the responses from the respondents using statistical methods,
it was found that,
• There is a significant relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Affective
Commitment.
• There is a significant relationship between Affective Commitment and Innovative Work
Behaviour.
• There is a significant relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Innovative
Work Behaviour.
• There is a significant influence of Leader-Member Exchange and Affective
Commitment on Innovative Work Behaviour.
• Affective Commitment mediates the relationship between Leader-Member Exchange
and Innovative Work Behaviour.

5.2 SUGGESTIONS:
• Since the research in hand clearly establishes a positive relationship between Leader-
Member Exchange, Affective Commitment and Innovative Work Behaviour, it is
imperative to state that the leaders should create good quality LMX relationships with

71
 their subordinates. As it would result in a boost in the subordinates’ Innovative Work
Behaviour.
• When the subordinates realize that their leaders are supportive and would take care of
them, they are more likely to be committed to their organization. The positive
relationship between Affective commitment and Innovative Work Behaviour indicates
that efforts to improve an employees’ commitment to the organization would foster
innovative behaviour. Therefore, organizations, particularly HR managers need to
consider approaches in which the employee’s affective commitment towards their
organization can be improved considering that it seems to be the main factor of the
employees’ innovative behaviour.
• From a practical standpoint, it is important for organizations to establish an atmosphere
where employees feel free to enter their leader/ superior’s office to have open
conversations about private and work life, this would help foster stronger, high quality
exchange relationships between superiors and subordinates. From employees’
perspective, discussions about their goals and performance with their managers can
help identify opportunities for improvement and would help tailor a development plan
suited to the employee. This would invariably enhance employees’ commitment to the
organization and foster innovative behaviour as it indicates that the leaders are
genuinely interested in the growth and wellbeing of their subordinates.
• Futures researches could be done along different perspectives based on the
modifications and additions suggested below:
1. This study covers only manufacturing firms operating in Tamil Nadu, India.
Therefore, for future research, other national and international regions ought
to be selected endeavouring to produce a greater sample size.
2. Future research should also attempt to include other variables that may have a
key influence on employees’ tendency to be innovative, such as, leadership
style, knowledge sharing, organizational performance, job autonomy and
employees’ voice behaviour.

72
5.3 CONCLUSION:
In the present age, organizations rely on employees’ innovative behavior to enhance
efficiency and productivity, which in turn ensures continuous organizational growth,
competitive advantage, success and survival. Innovative work behavior also results in the
generation of a new idea, effective multitasking procedures, and increases job-related
managerial motivation Thus, organizations are seen to invest a significant amount of time
and money to enhance employees’ innovative behavior. This innovative work behavior that
employees are expected to display are, however, dependent to a certain extent on the
relationship that employees share with their leaders. Previous studies have also indicated that
members who have high quality relationships with their leaders have higher morale, and are
more productive than those who don’t.
The results of the present study help to address the following question: How can firms
strengthen innovative potential of highly committed employees? It is suggested that firms
should encourage frequent leader-member interactions. In doing so, organizations would
indeed facilitate the emergence of shared experiences of the work context which would play
a more important role than individual experiences in transmitting the socially accepted belief
that innovation is a valued and supported endeavor that can further the achievement of
organizational goals.

73
APPENDIX
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Nazir S, Qun W, Hui L, Shafi A. Influence of Social Exchange Relationships on

Affective Commitment and Innovative Behavior: Role of Perceived Organizational
Support. Sustainability. 2018; 10(12):4418. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124418
2. Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B. et al. How Servant Leadership Influences
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Roles of LMX, Empowerment, and
Proactive Personality. J Bus Ethics 145, 49 – 62 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6
3. Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–
member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta‐analytic review. Personnel
Psychology, 69(1), 67–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12100
4. Volmer, J., Spurk, D., & Niessen, C. (2012). Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), Job
Autonomy, and Creativity Work Involvement. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 456-
465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.10.005
5. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived Organizational Support
and Leader-Member Exchange: A Social Exchange Perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 40(1), 82-11. https://doi.org/10.5465/257021
6. Jing-zhou, P. & Wen-xia, Z., (2011), Under Dual Perspective of Work Exchange and
Social Exchange: The Study of Impact of LMX on Affective Commitment”, Nankai
Business Review International, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 402 – 417.
https://doi.org/10.1108/20408741111178825
7. Le Blanc P. M., Gonsalvez-Roma V., (2012), A Team Level Investigation of the
Relationship between Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Differentiation, and
Commitment and Performance, The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 534 – 545.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.006
8. Xie Shunglong, Zhang Weiming, (2012), The Relationships between Transformational
Leadership, LMX and Employee Innovative Behavior, Journal of Applied Business and
Economics, 13(5), 87 – 96.
9. Kim, M.-S. & Koo, D.-W. (2017), Linking LMX, Engagement, Innovative Behavior,
and Job Performance in Hotel Employees, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospital Management, 29(12), 3044 – 3062. https://doi.org/10.1018/IJCHM-06-2016-
3019

74
10. Garg, S. and Dhar, R. (2017), Employee Service Innovative Behavior: The Roles of
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), Work Engagement, and Job
Autonomy, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 242-
258. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2015-0060
11. Sahin, F. (2012). The Mediating Effect of Leader-Member Exchange on the
Relationship between Theory X and Y Management Styles and Affective Commitment:
A Multilevel Analysis. Journal of Management & Organization, 18(2), 159 – 174.
https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2012.18.2.159
12. Wang, X., Qureshi, I., and Janssen, O. (2015), Understanding Employee Innovative
Behavior: Integrating the Social Network and Leader-Member Exchange Perspectives.
Journal of Organizational Behavior., 36, 403 – 420. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1994.
13. Carnevale, J.B., Huang, L., Crede, M., Harms, P. and Uhl-Bien, M. (2017), Leading to
Stimulate Employees' Ideas: A Quantitative Review of Leader–Member Exchange,
Employee Voice, Creativity, and Innovative Behavior. Applied Psychology, 66: 517-
552. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12102.
14. Park, S. and Jo, S.J. (2018), The Impact of Proactivity, Leader-Member Exchange, and
Climate for Innovation on Innovative Behavior in the Korean Government
Sector", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 130-149.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-09-2016-0216
15. Song, D, Liu, H, Gu, J, He, C. Collectivism and Employees' Innovative Behavior: The
Mediating Role of Team Identification and the Moderating Role of Leader-Member
Exchange. Creative Innovation Management. 2018; 27: 221– 231.
https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12253
16. Javed, B., Khan, A. K., & Quratulain, S. Inclusive Leadership and Innovative Work
Behaviour: Examination of LMX Perspective in Small Capitalized Textile Firms. The
Journal of Psychology. 2018; 152(8), 594-612.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1489767
17. Casimir, G., Ngee Keith Ng, Y., Yuan Wang, K. and Ooi, G. (2014). The Relationships
amongst Leader-Member Exchange, Perceived Organizational Support, Affective
Commitment, and In-Role Performance: A Social-Exchange Perspective. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, Vol. 35(5), 366-
385. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2012-0054

75
18. Camelo-Ordaz, C., García-Cruz, J., Sousa-Ginel, E & Valle-Cabrera, R., (2011). The
Influence of Human Resource Management on Knowledge Sharing and Innovation in
Spain: The Mediating Role of Affective Commitment, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 22(7), 1442-1463,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.561960

19. Lee, S.-H. (2008). The Effect of Employee Trust and Commitment on Innovative
Behavior in the Public Sector: An Empirical Study. International Review of Public
Administration, 13(1), 27-46, http://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2008.10805110
20. Schermuly, C. C., Meyer, B., & Dämmer, L. (2013). Leader-Member Exchange and
Innovative Behavior. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(3), 132–142,
https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000093
21. Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative Behavior in the Workplace: The Role
of Performance and Image Outcome Expectations. Academy of Management Journal,
53(2), 323–342. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.49388995
22. Sanders, K., Moorkamp, M., Torka, N., Groeneveld, S., Groeneveld, C., How to
Support Innovative Behaviour? The Role of LMX and Satisfaction with HR
Practices, Technology and Investment, 1(1), 2010, p 59-68.
doi: 10.4236/ti.2010.11007.
23. Yukl, G., O’Donnell, M., & Taber, T. (2009). Influence of leader behaviors on the
leader‐member exchange relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(4), 289–
299. doi:10.1108/02683940910952697
24. Murphy, S.E. and Ensher, E.A. (1999), The Effects of Leader and Subordinate
Characteristics in the Development of Leader–Member Exchange Quality1. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 29: 1371-1394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.1999.tb00144.x
25. Lee, J. (2005), Effects of Leadership and Leader‐Member Exchange on
Commitment", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8). 655-
672. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730510633728
26. Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). A
Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences of Leader-Member Exchange.
Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759. doi:10.1177/0149206311415280
27. Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic and
Organizational Influences on Leader–Member Exchange and Related Work Attitudes.

76
 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(2), 203–
214. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0049
28. Xerri, M. J., & Brunetto, Y. (2013). Fostering innovative behaviour: the importance of
employee commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(16), 3163–
3177. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.775033
29. Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor
supportiveness on employee innovative behaviour. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 573–579. doi:10.1348/096317905x25823
30. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path
Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace. Academy of Management Journal,
37(3), 580–607. doi:10.5465/256701
31. Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-Member Exchange and
Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269–
277. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269
32. Thompson, M., & Heron, P. (2006). Relational quality and innovative performance in
R&D based science and technology firms. Human Resource Management Journal,
16(1), 28–47. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2006.00003.x
33. Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative
Approaches to the Employee–Organization Relationship: Does Investment in
Employees Pay Off? Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1089–
1121. https://doi.org/10.2307/256928
34. Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader–member exchange, feelings of energy, and
involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 264–
275. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.07.009
35. Carmeli, a., & spreitzer, g. M. (2009). Trust, connectivity, and thriving: implications
for innovative behaviors at work. The journal of creative behavior, 43(3), 169–
191. Doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01313.x
36. Kabasheva, I. A., Rudaleva, I. A., Bulnina, I. S., & Askhatova, L. I.
(2015). Organizational Factors Affecting Employee Innovative Behavior.
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. doi:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n1s3p435
37. De Jong, J. P. J., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How Leaders Influence Employees’
Innovative Behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41–
64. doi:10.1108/14601060710720546

77
38. Nasifoglu Elidemir, S., Ozturen, A., & Bayighomog, S. W. (2020). Innovative
Behaviors, Employee Creativity, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage: A
Moderated Mediation. Sustainability, 12(8), 3295. doi:10.3390/su12083295
39. Hakimian, F., Farid, H., Ismail, M. N., & Nair, P. K. (2016). Importance of commitment
in encouraging employees’ innovative behaviour. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Administration, 8(1), 70–83. doi:10.1108/apjba-06-2015-0054
40. Turek, A. W. (2012). Innovative Work Behavior and Psychological Capital - Analysis
of Relationships.
41. Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-Member Exchange and Transformational
Leadership: An Empirical Examination of Innovative Behaviors in Leader-Member
Dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(6), 477–499. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.1997.tb00643.x
42. Bhal, K.T., Gulati, N. and Ansari, M.A. (2009), "Leader‐member exchange and
subordinate outcomes: test of a mediation model", Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 106-125. doi:10.1108/01437730910935729
43. Varma, A., Srinivas, E.S. and Stroh, L.K. (2005), "A comparative study of the impact
of leader‐member exchange in US and Indian samples", Cross Cultural Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 84-95. doi:10.1108/13527600510797971
44. Clegg, C., Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O., & Parker, G. (2002). Implicating Trust in the
Innovation Process. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4),
409–422. doi:10.1348/096317902321119574
45. Zuberi, M.A. and Khattak, A. (2021), Impact of Proactive Personality and Leader
Member Exchange on Innovative Work Behavior: A Job Design
Perspective, International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. ahead-of-print No.
ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-11-2020-0251
46. Miller, L. and Miller, A.F. (2020), "Innovative work behavior through high-quality
leadership", International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 219-
236. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-04-2019-0042
47. Muchiri, M. K., McMurray, A. J., Nikhoma, M., and Pham, H. C., (2020). Mapping
Antecedents of Innovative Work Behaviour: A Conceptual Review. The Journal of
Developing Areas 54(4). doi: 10.1353/jda.2020.0047
48. Han, G. H., & Bai, Y. (2020). Leaders can facilitate creativity: the moderating roles of
leader dialectical thinking and LMX on employee creative self-efficacy and creativity.

78
 Journal of Managerial Psychology, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). doi:10.1108/jmp-
02-2019-0106
49. Vandavasi, R.K.K., McConville, D.C., Uen, J.-F. and Yepuru, P. (2020), "Knowledge
sharing, shared leadership and innovative behaviour: a cross-level
analysis", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1221-
1233. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2019-0180
50. Bak, H. (2020). Supervisor Feedback and Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating
Roles of Trust in Supervisor and Affective Commitment. Frontiers in Psychology,
11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.559160

79
 QUESTIONNAIRE

LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT AND THEIR

INFLUENCE ON INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR ACROSS THE
MANUFACTURING SECTOR

Dear Respondent,
I am Ranjana Ambrose, a student of second year MA HRM at the Madras School of Social
Work. I am conducting this survey to understand the relationship between Leader- Member
Exchange and Affective Commitment and how they contribute to Innovative Work Behaviour.
Your participation will last approximately 5 – 8 minutes. Please read each and every statement
carefully before responding.
This survey is purely for academic purpose and all the information provided by you will be
handled with caution. The responses will be kept confidential

Demographic Details

1. Age of the Respondent: (a) 20 - 30 (b) 31 - 40 (c) 41 – 50 (d) 51 and above

2. Sex: (a) Male (b) Female (c) Transgender

3. Marital Status: (a) Married (b) Unmarried (c) Separated (d) Widowed
(e) Divorced (f) Others
4. Company:

5. Department: (a) Human Resources (b) Research & Development (c) Marketing

(d) Sales (e) Production (f) Finance (g) Operations

Innovative Work Behaviour – Kleysen and Street (2001)

This questionnaire contains a number of statements related to individual innovative behaviour.
Read each statement carefully, and then decide the extent to which you feel aligned with the
statements in your current job. Each item is prefaced by “In your current job, how often do
you?’. For example, an item might read: “Experiment with new ideas and solutions.” Indicate
often you practice the same in your current job by ticking against one of the following:
N = never; AN= almost never; S= sometimes; FO= fairly often;
VO= very often; A= always.

80
 Note that the scales run from never to always.
It is important that you work through the statements and answer each one. Many of the
statements will seem alike, but all are necessary to show slight differences in individual
innovative behaviour.

In your current job, how often do you…

Response
SNo. Statement
N AN S FO VO A
Look for an opportunity to improve an
1 existing process, technology, product, service
or work relationship?
Recognize opportunities to make a positive
2 difference in your work, department,
organization or with customers?
Pay attention to non-routine issues in your
3 work, department, organization or with
customers?
Generate ideas or solutions to address
4
problems

Define problems more broadly in order to

5
gain greater insight into them?

6 Experiment with new ideas and solutions?

Test out ideas or solutions to address unmet

7
needs?

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of new

8
ideas?

Try to persuade others of the importance of a

9
new idea or solution?

Push ideas forward so that they have a chance

10
to become implemented?

11 Take the risk to support new ideas?

Implement changes that seem to be

12
beneficial?

81
 Work the bugs out of new approaches when
13 applying them into an existing process,
technology, product or service?
Incorporate new ideas for improving an
14 existing process, technology, product or
service into daily routines?

Affective Commitment Scale – Meyer and Allen (2001)

Listed below is a series of statements that represent feelings that individuals might have about
the company or organization for which they work. With respect to your own feelings about
the particular organization for which you are now working, please indicate the degree of your
agreement or disagreement with each statement by circling a number from 1 to 7 using the
scale below:
1= Strongly Disagree; 2= Disagree; 3= Slightly Disagree; 4= Undecided; 5= Slightly Agree;
6= Agree; 7= Strongly Disagree

SNo. Statement Response

I would be very happy to spend the rest

1
of my career with this organization.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I feel as if this organization’s problems
2
are my own.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I do not feel a strong sense of
3
“belonging” to my organization. (R)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I do not feel “emotionally attached” to
4
this organization. (R)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I do not feel like “part of the family” at
5
my organization. (R)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This organization has a great deal of
6
personal meaning for me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

82
 LMX – 7
This questionnaire contains items that ask you to describe your relationship with your leader.
For each of the items, indicate the degree to which you think the item is true for you by
circling one of your responses that appear below the item.

1. Do you know where you stand with your leader and do you usually know how satisfied
your leader is with what you do?

Rarely Occasionally Sometimes Fairly Often Very often

2. How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs?

Not a bit A little A fair amount Quite a bit A great deal

3. How well does your leader recognize your potential?

Not a bit A little A fair amount Quite a bit A great deal

4. Regardless of how much formal authority your leader has built into his or her position,
what are the chances that your leader would use his or her power to help you solve your
problems in your work?

None Small Moderate High Very High

5. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, what are the
chances that he or she would “bail you out” at his or her expense?

None Small Moderate High Very High

6. I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his or her
decision if he or she were not present to do so.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

7. How would you characterise your working relationship with your leader?

Extremely Worse than Average Better than Extremely

Ineffective Average Average Effective

83