1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR

AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT: A STUDY IN THE

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN

PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

NORAZLAN BIN HASBULLAH

FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTANCYUNIVERSITY OF MALAYA

JULY 2008

2

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR

AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT: A STUDY IN THE

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN

PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

NORAZLAN BIN HASBULLAH

Submitted to the Graduate School of BusinessFaculty of Business and Accountancy

University of Malaya, in partial fulfilmentof the requirements for the Degree ofMaster of Business Administration

JULY 2008

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This thesis has always been interesting, exciting often challenging experience especially

in exposing me to a new paradigm of questing for knowledge. I wish to take this

opportunity to thank individuals, of whom without, might not lead to the possibility of

this research to be realised.

First of all, I am deeply indebted to my supervisor Puan Sharmila Jayasingam for her

patient guidance, fruitful discussions, encouragement and excellent advice throughout

this study.

I am very grateful to the Government of Malaysia and The Co-operative College of

Malaysia for giving me countless support, opportunities, and encouragement for me to

escalate my career development by pursuing MBA in the University Malaya.

My heartfelt appreciation to Dr. Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ananda

Kumar Palaniappan for sharing their expertise and knowledge in the Research

Methodology course that really helps me through the writing of this research.

Special thanks are also dedicated to all the lecturers in UMGSB for their expertise in

providing me with continuous and persistent process of learning that greatly enriched my

knowledge.

I am also thankful to all the staff at UMGSB, colleagues, friends for their collaboration

and valuable assistance throughout my studies in UM and in this research.

4

I also appreciate the contributions of the co-operatives that allowed their employees to

spend their precious time and valuable efforts in filling the questionnaires.

Finally, I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude to my parents, my wife

and two sisters for their continuous love and encouragement, for always believing in me,

and for never failing to give full support.

This research is dedicated to Co-operative Societies in Malaysia.

5

PREFACE

Employees commitment are very crucial to support the overall growth of the

organizations, thus leaders should take close attention on the level of employees

commitment to ensure that continuous contributions can be sustained throughout the

career stage of employees in the organization.

This research aims to investigate the relationship that exists between leadership

behaviour and organizational commitment. In addition to that, the study tries to examine

various employees’ commitment level in the co-operatives and to understand further on

which type of commitment that the employees are currently engaging themselves with.

Thus leaders can create strategies to improve commitment that are found to be lacking in

their employees.

Chapter One will discuss on the background of co-operatives movement, the problem

statement, the turnover rate in co-operatives, the objectives of the research and the

limitations encountered during the investigation of this research.

Chapter Two describes about various reviews on past literatures and excellent work of

most prominent researcher that explained about leadership behaviour, commitment and

their relationship.

6

Chapter Three explains the research methodology, development of hypotheses, data

collections and types of data analysis that are going to be carried out.

Chapter Four are the computations of the findings on the analyses that have been carried

out. This chapter will also take a look on whether there are any significant differences

between various types of leader’s behaviour and the relationship with employee’s

commitment. Furthermore, investigations are carried out to see whether exist any style of

leaders that can best promote the commitment of employees. Examinations on tenure are

also carried out to see if there are any differences in the perception of leadership and the

commitment between new employees and experienced employees.

Chapter Five consists of the discussion on the findings in chapter four. Various issues of

leadership and commitment are going to be discussed and elaborated further in these

sections.

Chapter Six will wrap up with the conclusion and recommendations on this investigation.

The findings of the research are expected to give awareness and guidelines to co-

operative leaders and to consider various leadership approaches on how to improve the

commitment of the employees.

7

ABSTRACT

This research was carried out with the intention of examining the relationship between

leadership behaviour and organizational commitment in co-operative societies. Various

past literatures supported the relationship between leadership and commitment where

leader’s style do have influence on employee’s commitment. 360 samples were collected

from various co-operatives located in Peninsular Malaysia. Walk in was done in selective

co-operatives to have some guidelines and discussions with employees and leaders.

Apart from Autocratic and Participative Leader’s behaviour, this paper is also intended to

examine if nurturant task leadership developed by Sinha (1980) can be applied in co-

operative societies. The nurturant – task has been found suitable for Indian organizations

(Ansari, 1986, 1990; Sinha, 1980, 1994) and due to the similarities between Indian and

Malaysian organization, the nurturant task can be applied in Malaysia.

The dependent variables of employees commitment was examined using Meyer and

Allen’s (1997) Three Component Model of employee commitment (affective, normative

and continuance).

Factor analysis was carried out prior to the analysis to suit the Malaysia setting.

Respondents have similar understanding of Nurturant Task and Participative where these

two variables are later merged in the analysis part to become one. These variables were

name as Nurturant Task + Participative (NTP).

8

Regression analysis was analyzed that showed mixed results of leadership style. NTP has

inverse relation with Affective Commitment, while autocratic leaders showed no

significant relationship. However, NTP and Autocratic leaders both showed positive

significant results with normative and continuance commitment of employees.

Tenure was found to be high among new and experienced employees if the leaders

adopted high level of NTP behaviour. Experienced employees possessed more stable high

commitment regardless of leaders behaviour, however new employees commitment are

totally dependent on the leader’s NTP behaviour.

Overall findings from this study suggest, autocratic and NTP do play important roles in

determining the levels of employee’s commitment. Leaders should consider in matching

both leadership styles based on the situation of their subordinate. NTP was also found to

be significant in promoting new employees commitment. Since no similar research has

been done in co-operatives, this finding may contribute to the understanding and

improvement of employee’s commitment in co-operative societies in Malaysia.

9

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i

PREFACE iii

ABSTRACT v

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of Co-operative in Malaysia 1

1.2 Problem Statement 2

1.3 Research Questions 9

1.4 Objectives of the Research 10

1.5 Significance of the research 10

1.6 Limitations of This Research 11

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 13

2.1 Definition of Leadership 13

2.2 General Approaches in Leadership Research 16

2.2.1 Power Influence Approach 16

2.2.2 Behaviour Approach 18

2.2.3 Trait Approach 20

2.2.4 Situational Approach 21

2.3 The Importance of Leadership 25

2.4 Introduction to Organizational Commitment 28

2.4.1 Affective Commitment 29

2.4.2 Continuance Commitment 30

2.4.3 Normative commitment 31

2.5 The importance of Organizational Commitment 32

2.6 Leadership and Organizational Commitment 33

2.7 Effective Leadership Styles in Malaysia 36

10

2.8 Nurturant – Task (NT) Leadership in Malaysia 38

2.9 Comparison between leadership style in this study 41

and similar previous studies

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 44

3.1 Hypothesis 44

3.1.1 Affective Commitment 443.1.2 Continuance Commitment 45

3.1.3 Normative Commitment 46

3.1.4 Tenure As A Moderator On The Relationship Between 47

Leadership Behaviour and Organizational Commitment

3.2 Framework of leadership behaviour and organizational 51

commitment

3.3 Method 52

3.3.1 Sample and Data Collection 52

3.4 Measures 53

3.4.1 Independent Measures 53

3.4.2 Dependent Measures 54

3.5 Data Analysis 56

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS 57

4.1 Frequency Analysis 57

4.2 Factor Analysis 59

4.2.1 Factor Analysis on Leadership Behaviour 60

4.2.2 Factor Analysis on Organizational Commitment 62

4.3 Reliability Analysis Results 64

4.4 Descriptive Analysis 65

4.4.1 Descriptive Analysis of Leadership Behaviour 65

4.4.2 Descriptive Analysis of Organizational Commitment 65

11

4.5 Intercorrelations among variables 66

4.6 Regression Analysis 67

4.6.1 Regression Between Leadership Behaviour 68

and Affective Commitment

4.6.1.a Hypotheses Results of the Relationship between 69

Leadership Behaviour and Affective Commitment

4.6.2 Regression Between Leadership Behaviour 70

and Continuance Commitment

4.6.2.a Hypotheses Results of the Relationship Between 71

Leadership Behaviour and

Continuance Commitment

4.6.3 Regression Between Leadership Behaviour 72

and Normative Commitment

4.6.3.a Hypotheses Results of The Relationship 73

Between Leadership Behaviour and

Normative Commitment

4.7 Hierarchical regression Analysis With Tenure As Moderator 76

4.7.1 Moderating Effect of Tenure Between 79

Leaders Behaviour and Normative Commitment

4.7.2 Moderating Effect of Tenure Between

Leaders Behaviour and Continuance Commitment 79

4.8 Hypotheses Results in Summary 85

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSIONS 87

5.1 Leadership Behaviour and Organizational Commitment 87

5.2 The Effect Of Tenure Between The Relationship of 95

Leadership Behaviour and Organizational Commitment

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 99

12

6.1 Recommendations for Future Research 104

6.2 Implications 105

REFERENCES 106

LIST OF APPENDICES 124

13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 : Voluntarily Turnover by Co-operatives 3Employees from 1996 – 1999

Table 1.2 : Comparisons between Voluntary Turnover 4and Laid Off among Co-operativesEmployees from 1996 – 1999

Table 2.1 : French and Raven Power Taxonomy 17

Table 2.2 : Summary of Situational Leadership Models 23

Table 2.3 : Summary of major classifications of leadership style in previous 41Studies

Table 2.4 : Present investigation of Leadership Style 43

Table 3.1 : Hypotheses in Summary 49

Table 3.2 : Hypotheses in summary of the effect of Tenure 50Between The Relationship of LeadershipBehaviour and Organizational Commitment

Table 3.3 : Model of leadership behaviour and organizational commitment 51

Table 3.4 : Independent measurements 53

Table 3.5 : Dependent Measurements 55

Table 4.1 : Profile of respondents 58

Table 4.2 : Factor analysis results of Leadership Behaviour 61

Table 4.3 : Factor analysis results of Organizational Commitment 63

Table 4.4 : Reliability Coefficients for the major variables 65

Table 4.5 : Descriptive for the major variables 66

Table 4.6 : Intercorrelations among variables 67

Table 4.7 : Results of regression Analysis 75

Table 4.8 : Hierarchical Regression Results Using Tenure as a Moderator 81

14

in the Relationship between Leadership Behaviourand Normative Commitment

Table 4.9 : Regression Results Using Tenure as a Moderator 83in the Relationship between Leaders Behaviourand Continuance Commitment

Table 4.10 : Hypotheses Results in Summary 86

Table 4.11 : Hypotheses Results in summary of the effect 86of Tenure Between The Relationship of LeadershipBehaviour and Organizational Commitment

15

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 : Moderating Effect of Tenure on the 82

Relationship between Tenure on NTP and

Normative Commitment

Figure 4.2 : Moderating Effect of Tenure on the 84

Relationship between Tenure on NTP and

Continuance Commitment

16

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A : Demographic Profile 124

APPENDIX B : Factor Analysis 127

APPENDIX C : Reliability Analysis 129

APPENDIX D : Descriptive Analysis 132

APPENDIX E : Correlation Analysis 133

APPENDIX F : Regression Analysis 134

APPENDIX G : Moderating Effect of Tenure between 136Leadership Behaviour and Commitment

17

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to investigate and to gain better understanding of the

relationships between the perception of leadership behaviours and organizational

commitment among co-operative employees in Malaysia. At present, very little empirical

work on leadership behaviours has been devoted to the co-operative, especially in

exploring the perception of employees towards their leaders and whether this perception

will lead to strong influence on the employee’s commitment in their working

environment. This study is dedicated to fill in a new dimension of leaders-employee

relationship and it is specifically addressed to the co-operative sectors which are now

declared as the third sector of growth engine in Malaysia’s economy.

1.1 Background of Co-operative in Malaysia

Co-operative or co-op is an association voluntarily united by persons who seeks to meet

common goals, social economic uplifting, cultural needs and aspiration through a jointly

owned and democratically controlled organization (International Co-operative

Alliance's).Co-operative are build on principles and values such as self-help, self

responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. The major underlying reasons

why there is a need to form co-operatives was to set free the poor and indebted farmers

from the traditional money lenders who provided credit at very high interest rates. Co-

operative in Malaysia are governed by the Co-operative Act 1993 and the supervisory

18

body for the co-operative is the Department of Co-operative Development which is now

known as the Co-operative Commission of Malaysia. (effective of 1st January 2008)

Started in 1922 in Malaysia with a thrift and loan activities, co-operative has now

expanded into various sizes and forms of businesses such as banking, finance and credit,

construction, multipurpose, transportation, consume, industries, service, plantation and

housing. As at June 2007, there were 5,004 types of co-operative with 6.06 million

membership, 7.8 billion worth of shares and 42.5 billion in assets. 1,912 from this

amount were school co-operatives. (Department of Co-operative Development)

1.2 Problem Statement

Research done by Indar Kaur, Sushila, Rafiah and Rahimah (2005) on 204 co-operatives

has evidenced that for the period of 1996 to 1999, employees of the co-operative who

quit the job exceeded those who were laid off by the co-operatives resulting from the

economic crisis that happened in 1997. The highest turnover happened in 1998 where 284

employees quit their job while only 34 were laid off. Further on, it was also remarked that

co-operative are weak in term of planning workforce, training needs and employees

development. Table 1.1 and 1.2 below explains the voluntary turnover rate that happened

in co-operatives between 1996-1999.

19

Table 1.1

Voluntarily Turnover by Co-operatives Employees from 1996 – 1999

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999

% No. % No % No % No

Executive 7.3 16 6.8 19 6.0 17 7.7 15

Non Executive 21.5 47 14.3 40 32.4 92 12.8 25

Operations 71.2 156 78.9 221 61.6 175 79.5 155

Total 219 280 284 195

Total

Employees 2351 2416 2481 2485

% of

voluntarily

turnover

9.3 11.59 11.45 7.85

It was evidenced that turnover among operations staff was the highest which was in

between 61 percent to 80 percent. Non executive turnover was in the range of 12.8

percent to 32.4 percent while Executive level recorded voluntarily turnover of about 6

percent to 7.7 percent in 1996 to 1999.

20

Table 1.2

Comparisons between Voluntary Turnover and Laid Off among Co-operatives

Employees from 1996 – 1999

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999

Types of

Turnover

Volunteer Laid

Off

Volunteer Laid

Off

Volunteer Laid

Off

Volunteer Laid

Off

No. of

Employees

involved

219 9 280 14 284 34 195 21

Total

employees

involved

228 294 318 216

Total

employees

2351 2416 2481 2485

% of

turnover

9.7% 12.2% 12.8% 8.7%

Based on the table 1.2 above, it was clearly observed that the number of employees who

voluntarily quit their job exceeded those who were laid off.

Due to no research done on update figure of turnover, a brief discussion with random co-

operatives leader was done in the period of study to understand the scenario that

happened in their organizations. According to them, the situation of staff turnover still

21

occurred in the organizations and the figure still persistent until today. It is a normal

occurrence for co-operatives, where the leaders explained that, employees quit finding a

better job in other organizations. Some of them also mentioned that co-operative is a base

for employees to gain experience before moving on to other organizations. However no

exit interview was done to understand further the situation.

Reichheld (1996) argued that developing employees who are loyal to the organization

will pay off in more satisfied and loyal customers. Committed employees are believed to

dedicate more of their time, energy and talents to the organization than those who are not

committed. This reflects an individual’s willingness to work towards and accept

organizational goals (Reichers, 1985). In other words, committed employees are more

likely to be better service quality performers due to their willingness to engage in

discretionary effort beyond the normal call of duty.

As an entity that was built on democracy and members trust, leaders of the co-operatives

that comprises the board members and managers should play active roles to bring about

change in the organization by successful delivering activities that are beneficial to the

entire members based on the co-operative values and principles. The sustaining of the co-

operatives in the challenging environment really depends on the credibility of the leaders

to manage the co-ops and the employees well. If members are satisfied with the service,

this will increase their loyalty and eventually will continue to give their support and stay

committed with the co-operatives.

22

Managing employees are the most important elements as their skills, attitude and

knowledge should be developed since this group of people are the one who involved

directly with members of the co-operatives. Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry (1990),

contends that customers enter a service encounter with pre-established expectations. If

those expectations are not met, a poor service quality evaluation is likely to be happened.

Although it is the individual employee who either performs or fails to perform an

organizational task, it is within the organization’s power to influence how successfully

this will be done (Cummings & Schwab, 1973). The employee’s commitment to the

organization and its long-term goal of excellence in service delivery is, however, strongly

influenced by managerial action (Zeithaml et. al, (1990) ; Young, 1991).

An organization which is truly concerned on giving the best to the customers in term of

service excellence needs managers who rise above than only managing. They need a

leader who can shape the whole culture of the organization in term of vision and

cultivating the spirit of teamwork among employees to enhance their performance.

Leaders in co-operatives should possess the behaviour that could shape the motivation of

their workforce in achieving the desired results of the organization. The quality of

leadership provided by middle management will thus strongly influence the level of

service quality provided by employees at the lower organizational levels (Zethaml et. al

(1990).

23

Prakash (2001) argued that in orders for co-operative to be successful, the features of

management such as accountability, transparency, the ability to predict and being

supportive need to be introduced. Strong relationship among leaders and subordinates

will create committed workforce that will drive the organization towards success and will

reduce the cost of training resulted from frequent turnovers. According to him, co-

operatives should be led and managed by energetic, professional and dynamic persons.

Business should be conducted in accordance with modern management principles and at

the same time, within the framework of Co-operatives Principles and Values attached to

them. Co-operatives need to have dedicated and professionally competent business

managers and leaders. (Prakash, 2005)

According to Yaakob (2006), managers in co-operatives has less capacity to immerse

themselves in the surrounding group and culture completely, they are weak in the sense

of carrying out required tasks with a degree of persistence and precision. Managers in

less successful co-operatives are also found lacking the ability to act fast and to enact

situations, lack the challenge orientation style in delivering responsibilities and lack of

the priority on the task orientation and output generation.

Report released by the Department of Co-operative Development, as at 31st December

2006, explained that there were about 339 co-operatives who have been detected not to

be active which amounted to 6.89% of the total registered co-operatives. 174 co-

operatives from this amount was found to be dormant.

24

Shenoy & Mohamed (1994) stated that co-operative cannot operate well due to the

condition where there were no effectiveness in the management and administration of co-

operative, shallow of knowledge and experience in the aspect of finance and technical.

Pradit (1992) has identified several problems associated with human resource

management in the co-operative movement. To name a few :

1. Weakness and lack of skills in planning and management among board members

and co-operative employees.

2. Lack of qualified and dedicated co-operative leaders

3. Lack of education and training among co-operative members and low salary

package.

Based on this statement of problems, this research are carried out to investigate whether

there is a significant correlations between the behaviour leaders indulge in co-ops and the

commitment of employees towards their organization.

At present, not many research have attempted to investigate employee’s commitment in

the co-operative societies and whether leadership behaviour has any influence on co-

operative employee commitment. Prior to this research, an examination on manager’s

behaviour was done in co-operatives. However, managers are the one who rated their

own leadership style and were not based on employees perceptions on their leaders

behaviour. If the manager evaluated their own leadership style, the results might only be

25

an advantage to one side where there will be an occurrence of bias during the evaluation

process. The true leadership behaviours were not reflected in this case. In addition to this,

no evidenced on employees commitment was observed, thus the questions of whether

leadership behaviour as any relation with employees commitment were still not answered

This study is intended to explain how the employees perceived their leaders behaviour

and how it leads to employee’s commitment in co-operatives. The study tries to capture

actual feelings, experiences and perceptions of employees towards their leaders and to

identify which leadership behaviour are the most appropriate to suit the working

conditions of employees in co-operatives. The implications of this studies will perhaps

lead to new theoretical contributions to co-operative societies and the findings will be of

utmost useful for respective parties to take necessary actions to rectify the recurring

commitments in the organizations.

1.3. Research Questions

1. Is there any significant relationship between leader’s behaviour and organizational

commitment of co-operatives employee?

2. Which types of organizational commitment are most descriptive of the co-operative

employees? Affective, continuance or normative commitment?

3. Does tenure have any influence on the relationship between leaders behaviour and

employees commitment?

26

1.4 Objectives of the Research

The objectives of this research are to:

1. Determine the relationship of different leadership behaviour on employee’s

commitment.

2. To identify which type of commitments the employees of co-operatives are

currently engaged with.

3. To determine if the relationship between leader behaviour and organizational

commitment is moderated by tenure.

1.5 Significance of the research

There has been tremendous discussion about leadership behaviours and the findings in

this research would generate new findings in terms of theoretical contributions to enrich

the existing literature on leadership. This research will enhance further understanding on

leadership behaviour and its relations towards organizational commitment pertaining to

the co-operative in Peninsular Malaysia. It will also help to answers questions of

leadership behaviour from the standpoint of the employees and how seriously are they

committed with their organizations. The significance of this research is intended to help

co-operative movement to establish system that can promote to a better employees

commitment in co-operative movement and to enable co-operative leaders to adopt style

that best promote the commitment of the employees. This research will also help the Co-

27

operative College of Malaysia to establish training courses in the field of leadership for

the co-operative leaders and also employees of the co-operative

1.6 Limitations of This Research

This research is carried out particularly in the areas of connecting leadership behaviours

and employees commitment. However more research can be done to determine other

factors that may significantly affect employee’s commitment in the co-operative

movement for example succession planning, promotion, training, salaries, volumes of job

responsibilities, other benefits received and such.

Due to the fact that the respondents were from different background, education level,

positions and they were scattered by different geographical area, few respondents were

not able to fill in the questionnaire without the existence of assistance and guidance.

The questionnaires were posted by mail with self envelope to the respondents all over

Peninsular Malaysia. This approach is costly and requires funding to reach to bigger size

of respondents. Respondents are also unaware of the urgency of the questionnaire to be

return back.

In addition to that, few co-operatives may require various level of approval before the

questionnaire is passed down to the employees to be filled in. This process will take

longer time than it is expected to be completed.

28

Co-operative movement are also unique in terms of their size, background, locations,

membership, and are classified in several business sectors such as banking, multipurpose,

retailing, agriculture, housing and such. More time is needed if research is to be carried

out rigorously in every sector.

29

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Definition of Leadership

Leadership issues has received various attentions and interests across decades,

boundaries, cultures, nations and has been studied extensively in various contexts and

theoretical foundation by most well known researchers. The reasons behind inspiring

leaders who build great empires, who have loyal followers that are willing to devote their

lives to their leaders, to the extend of conspiracy of murdering their own leaders have

intensify the investigations on what makes a leader, why people emerge to become a

leader and how these leaders become effective.

The term leadership is a relatively recent addition to the English language and it was used

only for about two hundred years ago, although the term leader, from which it was

derived, appeared as early as A.D 1300 (Stogdill, 1974).

Different people will interpret leadership differently based on the individual perspective.

According to Stogdill (1974), “there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there

are persons who have attempted to define the concept.”

30

Leadership has been defined in terms of individual traits, behaviour, influence over other

people, interaction patterns, role relationships, occupation of an administrative position,

and perception by others regarding legitimacy of influence. (Yukl, 2006).

Stogdill (1974, p.4) defines leadership behaviour as which leaders use to influence a

group of people towards the achievement of goals. Leadership is an interaction between

two or more members of a group that often involves a structuring or restructuring of the

situation and the perceptions and expectations of members (Bass, 1990, p. 19) and is

concerned with three things; leaders, followers and their interactions (Dansereau,

Yammarino & Markham, 1995). Some other definitions are as follows:

1. Leadership is “the behaviour of an individual when he is directing the activities

of a group toward a shared goal.” (Hemphill & Coons, 1957, p.7)

2. Leadership is “a particular type of power relationship characterized by a group

member’s perception that another group member has the right to prescribe

behaviour patterns for the former regarding his activity as a group member.”

(Janda, 1960, p. 358)

3. Leadership is “interpersonal influence, exercised in a situation, and directed

through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specific goal or

goals.” (Tannenbaum, Weschler & Massarik, 1961, p. 24)

4. Leadership is “an interaction between persons in which one presents information

of a sort and in such a manner that the other becomes convinced that his outcome

31

will be improved if he behaves in the manner suggested or desired” (Jacobs,

1970, p.232)

5. Leadership is “the initiation and maintenance of structure in expectation and

interaction” (Stogdill, 1974, p.411)

6. Leadership is “the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance

with the routine directives of the organization.” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p.528)

7. Leadership is “the process of influencing the activities of an organized group

toward goal achievement.” (Roach & Behling 1984, p.46)

8. Leadership is the “the process of influencing employees to work toward the

achievement of objectives”. (Lussier,1990)

9. Leadership is “the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals”

(Robbins,1993)

10. Leadership as an interpersonal process through which a leader directs the

activities of individuals or groups towards the purposeful pursuance of given

objectives within a particular situation by means of communication. (Gerber, Nel

and Van Dyk, 1996)

11. Leadership as the behaviour of an individual when that person is directing and

coordinating the activities of a group toward the accomplishment of a shared goal

(Rowden, 2000)

Difference concept between researchers in their field study of leadership will lead to

difference interpretation of the results and meaning. However, in particular, it has been

argued that follower perceptions are critical because only those who are perceived as

32

leaders are allowed the discretion and influence to lead effectively (Lord & Maher,

1993). Thus, leaders can only be effective only if followers are willing to be led.

2.2 General Approaches in Leadership Research

Depending on the researcher’s conceptions and preferences, most leadership studies has

been carried out in various ways. Nearly all leadership research can be classified into one

of the following approaches (Yukl, 1989)

1. Power Influence Approach

2. Behaviour Approach

3. Trait Approach

4. Situational Approach

2.2.1 Power Influence Approach

The researcher’s approach to explain leadership effectiveness in terms of the amount of

power possessed by a leader, type of power and how power is exercised to influence

subordinates, peers, superiors and people outside the organizations.

Most research on the consequences of using different types of power relies upon the

power taxonomy developed by French and Raven (1959). Podsakoff and Schriesheim

33

found that expert and referent power were relatively correlated with subordinate

satisfaction and performance in major studies. The legitimate, reward and coercive power

sometimes resulted in lower satisfaction and performance and other times did not affect

these criteria. The results suggest that effective leaders rely more on expert and referent

power to influence subordinates than ineffective leaders. Table 2.1 exhibit French and

Raven Power Taxonomy consisting major sources of power.

Table 2.1

French and Raven Power Taxonomy

French and Raven Power Taxonomy

Reward Power The target person complies in order to obtain rewards he or she

believes are controlled by the agent

Coercive power The target person complies in order to avoid punishments he or she

believes are controlled by the agent

Legitimate power The target person complies because he or she believes the agent has

the right to make the request and the target person has the obligation

to comply

Expert power The target person complies because he or she believes that the agent

has special knowledge about the best way to do something

Referent power The target person complies because he or she admires or identifies

with the agent and wants to gain the agent’s approval

A leader with substantial reward and punishment power is more likely to obtain

subordinate compliance with requests and orders, even when the leader makes no explicit

34

promises or threats (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn & Snoek, 1964). Warren (1968) found that

expert, referent and legitimate power were correlated positively with attitudinal

commitment by subordinates, where reward and coercive power were correlated with

behaviour compliance. In a study by Thambain and Gemmill (1974), the primary reason

given for compliance was the leader’s legitimate power and reward power was also

important reason for compliance, even though neither type of power was associated with

commitment.

Podsakoff, Todor, Grover and Huber (1984) concluded that positive reward behaviour

contingent upon subordinate performance leads to higher subordinate satisfaction and

performance. Some leader behaviour research also suggests that contingent punishment

can have a positive effect on subordinate performance when used in combination with

rewards (Arvey & Ivancevich, 1980; Podsakoff, Todor & Skov, 1982). A more likely

conclusion is that effective leaders use a mix of different types of power (Kotter, 1982).

2.2.2 Behaviour Approach

This research emphasizes on what leaders and managers actually do on the job, not how

they look to others (Halpin & Winer, 1957; Hemphill & Coons, 1957). Hundreds of

studies over the last three decades have examined the correlation between questionnaire

measures of leadership behaviour and measures of subordinate satisfaction and

performance.

35

Behaviour approach tries to examine leaders in the context of how they portray their

behaviour in the organization that in turn increase the effectiveness of the organization as

a whole. The most popular leadership study of Michigan and Ohio State leadership

studies took this approach by focusing on two main factors which are the consideration

and initiation of structure. The result of this was, leaders were not necessarily born but

effective leadership style can be taught. (Saal & Knight, 1988).

Blake, Shepard, and Mouton (1964) further developed theories on two-factor model of

leadership behaviour similar to that foundation at Ohio State and Michigan. The two

factors were named “concern for people” and “concern for output.” This studies exhibit

behaviours that fall into the two primary categories either task or people. The outcome of

this research was primarily descriptive and helped to classify leaders based on their

behaviour.

Research on leader behaviour have not been consistent and inconclusive due to inaccurate

measures, problems in determining causality in questionnaire studies, design weaknesses

in experimental studies and inattention to situational moderator variables (Yukl, 1989).

Some distortion is the tendency of some respondents to attribute desirable behaviour to a

leader who is perceived to be effective, even though the behaviour was not actually

observed. (Green & Mitchell, 1979; Lord, Binning, Rush & Thomas, 1978; Mitchell,

Larson & Green, 1977).

36

2.2.3 Trait Approach

Trait approach emphasized the personal attributes and internal qualities of which a person

is born (Bernard, 1926). Traits research has been review at various times by different

scholars (Bass, 1981; Lord, Devader & Alliger, 1986; Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948, 1974)

Thoughts of traits theory was if traits can be differentiated between leaders and followers,

thus successful leaders can be positioned. This research put solely on the idea that leaders

were born, not made. Hundred of trait studies were conducted but this research effort

failed to link any special traits that guarantee the success of leadership. One flaw of this

theory is the lacking of situational factors that can influence the level of leader’s

effectiveness.

Stogdill (1948, p. 64) concluded that a person does not become a leader by virtue of the

possession of some combinations of traits the pattern of personal characteristics of the

leaders must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities and goal of

the followers.

The early studies failed to support that a person must possess some particular set of traits

to become effective leaders and there were a weak correlation between leader intelligence

and leader effectiveness (Ghiselli, 1966; Stogdill, 1974). A leader with certain traits may

be effective in one situation but failed on the other. Thus traits cannot be accessed as a

single factor that guarantees the successful of leaders.

37

Stogdill (1974, p.72) noted that the view of leadership is entirely situational in origin and

that no personal characteristics are predictive of leadership. It is recognized that certain

traits increase the likelihood that a leader will be effective, but they do not guarantee

effectiveness, and the relative importance of different traits is dependent on the nature of

the leadership situation (Bass, 1981).

2.2.4 Situational Approach

Situational approach emphasized on the importance of situational factors such as the

leader’s authority and discretion, the nature of the work performed, subordinate ability

and motivation, the external environment and the role requirements imposed on a

manager by subordinates and outsiders.

The situational approach helps to deal with the issue on how leaders can mix the

interaction of leader’s traits, behaviours and situation which the leader issues. These

contingency theory opens the possibility that leadership could be different in every aspect

of situation (Saal & Knight, 1988).

The first and perhaps most popular, situational theory was the Contingency Theory of

Leadership Effectiveness' developed by Fred E. Fiedler" (Bedeian Arthur & Glueck, 1983

). This theory explains that group performance is a result of interaction of two factors.

These factors are known as leadership style and situational favorableness. . In Fiedler's

model, leadership effectiveness is the result of interaction between the style of the leader

and the characteristics of the environment in which the leader works" (Gray, Jerry &

38

Starke, 1988). Fiedler’s concept of situational combines between the leader and member

relations, task structure and position power. Fiedler came up with eight classifications of

situational favour based on the measure of either high or low. He then developed the

Least Preferred Co-worker questionnaires to measure leadership styles.

Another contingency model deals with the interaction between the goals of the follower

and the leaders (House & Mitchell, 1974) where leaders are responsible to help their

followers to develop behaviour that enable them to achieve their goals and the

organizational outcome.

Hersey and Blancard’s situational leadership theory explains the effectiveness of task and

relation behaviour is contingent on subordinate maturity depending on a subordinate’s

confidence and skill particular to a given task. (Yukl, 1989)

Leadership substitute’s theory identifies aspects of the situation that make leadership

behaviour by hierarchical leaders redundant or irrelevant. Various characteristics of the

subordinates, task and organization serve as substitutes for leadership and / or

neutralizers of its effects. (Yukl, 1989)

The Vroom-Yetton theory described what leaders should do given certain circumstances

with regard to the level of involvement of followers in making decisions. The Vroom-

Yetton model is a decision making tree that enables a leader to examine a situation and

determine which style or level of involvement to engage. This model identifies five styles

along a continuum ranging from autocratic to consultative to group-based.

39

Another theory that emerged out from this was the leader-member exchange theory

(Graen, 1976). This theory explains the nature of the relationship between leaders and

followers within two groups of in-group and the out-group and how leaders maintain

their position in the group.

The Cognitive resource theory examines the conditions under which cognitive resources

such as intelligence, experience and technical expertise are related to group performance.

Situational variables, such as interpersonal stress, group support and task complexity

determines whether leaders can enhance the group performance. Table 2.2 explained the

summary of various situational leadership model.

Table 2.2

Summary of Situational Leadership Models

Summary of Situational Leadership Models

Situational

Model

Leader Traits Leader

Behaviour

Situational

Variables

Intervening

Variables

Validation

Results

Path-goal

theory

None Instrumental,

supportive,

participative,

achievement

Many aspects Expectancies,

valences, role

ambiguity

Many studies,

partial support

Hersey &

Blanchard

situational

leadership

None Task and

relations

Subordinate

maturity

None Few studies,

inconclusive

Leadership None Instrumental, Many aspects None Few studies,

40

substitutes supportive inconclusive

Vroom-Yetton

model

None Decision

procedures

Many aspects Decision

quality and

acceptance

Few studies,

most

supportive

LPC

Contigency

model

LPC None Task structure,

L-M relations,

position power

None Many studies,

partial support

Cognitive

resource

theory

Intelligence,

experience

Directive Stress, group

support, task

complexity

None Few studies,

inconclusive

Behavioural scientists agree that not all situational leadership theories are useful. McCall

(1977) contends that the hectic, fragmented pace of managerial work and the relative lack

of control over it by managers makes it impossible to apply complex theories that specify

the optimal behaviour for every type of situation. Managers are so busy dealing with

problems that they don’t have time to stop and analyze the situation with a complicated

model. McCall also questions the common underlying assumption of a single “best way”

for the manager to act within a given situation. Leaders face an immense variety of

rapidly changing situations, and several different patterns of behaviour may be equally

effective in a given situation. In general, the research suffers from lack of accurate

measures and reliance on weak research designs that do not permit strong inferences

about direction of causality (Korman & Tanofsky, 1975); Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977)

41

2.3 The Importance of Leadership

History has proven that leaders play a major role in the success of an organization. It is

important for leaders to ensure collective efforts are energized towards the achievement

of the organizational mission and vision. From a heavy battle in war ground to the extend

of family institutions, leaders act as a captain who commands and navigate the direction

towards a certain point of accomplishing desired goals. Extensive research has been done

by past researchers on the importance of leader’s contribution towards moving the

organization, motivating the most important assets in the organization, the employees.

(Bass, 1990; Collins & Porras, 1996; Manz & Sims, 1991; Sarros & Woodman, 1993).

Bennis and Nanus (1985) argue that a business short on capital can borrow money, and

one with a poor location can move. But a business short on leadership has little chance

for survival.

Some writers argue that leadership is a major determinant of organizational effectiveness

(e.g. Chandler, 1962; Katz & Kahn, 1978, Peters & Waterman, 1982), whereas other

writers express doubts that leaders have any substantial influence on the performance of

their organization (e.g., Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985; Pfeffer, 1977).

Bass (1990) suggested that leadership is the single most critical factor in the success or

failure of an organization since managers are the one who may strengthen or weaken the

self determination and efficacy belief of the employees by providing them access to

resource, information, support and opportunity (Kanter,1977).

42

Leadership is a matter of concern to anyone who needs encouragement, motivation,

inspiration and such. Even there are no consensus on what makes a good leader (Russ–

Eft,1999) and previous broad work on leadership research suggested that there are many

appropriate ways to lead or styles of leadership, leaders should adapt the most suitable

styles to acquire the commitment and participation from the employees. That means,

understanding employee’s situation is very crucial to decide on which styles that can fit

the interactions between them without risking on the organizational goals. The abilities of

the leader to manage employees commitment can help further to reduce the complexity

and the constant changes in the business surroundings. One of the greatest changes in our

business world is the transformation of an industrial-based economy into an information-

based economy” (Wilson, George, & Wellins, 1994, p. 18). Gebert and Steinkamp (1991)

argue that there is a close relationship between the economic success of an organization

and leadership style used. McDonough and Barczak (1991) noted that leadership style

influences the speed of product development, not only in taking ideas to market, but also

in responding quickly to changes internally and externally, organizations are being forced

to move faster (Stalk & Hout, 1990). Therefore, capitalizing on the talents and intellectual

potential of employees is increasingly important for organizational success (Wriston,

1990).

Niehoff, Enz, and Grover (1990) strongly urged that the overall management culture and

management style driven by top management actions are strongly related to the degree of

employee commitment. Sullivan (1994) on the other hand suggests that a working

environment encouraging participation, mentoring and training has to be created for joint

43

decision making. Participative group management (Likert, 1961) is believed to achieve

higher productivity, greater involvement of employees and so, better relations in an

organization as manager’s focus on the needs and expectations of subordinates to

establish and maintain effective work groups. Participation in decision making is defined

as the degree to which an employee is able to influence decisions concerning his/her job

(Teas, Wacker, & Hughes, R.E 1979).

Tosi and Tosi (1970), Long (19780) and DeCotiis and Summers (1987) have shown that

employees who participate in decisions which involve them reported relatively higher

levels of organizational commitment.

Several thousand empirical studies have been conducted on leader traits, behaviour,

power and situational variables as predictors of leadership effectiveness, most likely there

were no accurate answer on what profile that makes a great leader. There were no

consistent definition on understanding what causes people to act certain ways in their

workplace and which leadership style is most effective in a given situation and most of

the results are contradictory and inconclusive suggesting that there are many appropriate

ways to lead or styles of leadership.. This helps to further clarify why leadership is one of

the most widely studied to understand that leadership can eventually be trained, improved

and perhaps great leaders can be created in the future

What is most important is that to be a successful leaders, the main necessity is to

facilitate, understand, having adequate knowledge on the uniqueness of each individual

44

that are being led, developing these individuals potentials and organizing positive

interactions that can stimulate the motivations between leaders and followers relationship

which the final result will leads to not only the individual goals but the desired outcomes

of the organizations entirely. Kur (1995) believes that effectiveness in leading is directly

related to the leader’s way of thinking about him, subordinates, organization and

environment.

2.4 Introduction to Organizational Commitment

Commitment is a construct that seeks to explain consistencies involving attitudes, beliefs

and behaviour and “involves behavioural choices and implies a rejection of feasible

alternative courses of action” (Hulin, 1991, p. 488). According to Werkmeister (1967),

commitment is a manifestation of the individual’s own self, and reflects value standards

that are basic to the individual’s existence as a person. Commitment reflects the relative

strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in that organisation

(Steers, 1997; Mowday, R.T, Steers, R.M, Porter, L.W (1979). According to this

definition, organizational commitment has three basic components

1) A strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values

(identification)

2) A willingness to exert a considerable effort on behalf of the organization

(involvement)

45

3) And a strong intent or desire to remain with the organization (loyalty).

Meyer & Allen (1991) suggested three different types of organizational commitment as

listed below:

2.4.1 Affective Commitment

Refers to employee’s emotional attachment, identification with, and involvement in the

organization. Employees with a strong affective commitment stay with the organization

because they want to.

The processes leading to the development of AC are taken from exchange principles

(Mottaz, 1988; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). An organization typically provides

rewards or punishments at its disposal in return for the contributions its employees make

or fail to make, and the employees commit themselves to the organization in return for

the rewards received or the punishments avoided.

According to Ko, Price and Mueller (1997) Researchers anticipate that met expectations,

work involvement, and positive affectivity will increase AC, whereas negative affectivity

will decrease it. In addition, the literature indicates that the environment in which

organizations operate influences the employees' orientations. Therefore, researchers

expect that external job opportunity will decrease AC, whereas social support from

spouse, parents, and friends outside work will increase it.

46

2.4.2 Continuance Commitment

Refers to employee’s point of view of whether the costs of leaving the organization are

greater than of the costs of staying. Employees who perceive that the costs of leaving the

organization are greater than the costs of staying remain because they need to.

Anything that increases the cost associated with leaving the organization can lead to the

development of CC (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Self-investment is the amount of valuable

resources—such as effort, time, and energy—that an employee has spent in the

organization for its well-being (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Increased effort and energy by

employees will increase their CC, because leaving the organization will result in the loss

of the valuable resources spent for the organization. The lack of transferability of job

skills and knowledge will also increase the costs of leaving the organization, because it

makes it difficult for employees to find alternative jobs that fit (Becker, 1960).

If employees move to another organization, it may disrupt the social relationships they

have and increase the psychological ' 'cost of making new friends and learning to get

along with new working associates" (Becker, 1964). According to Becker (1960), the

lack of external job opportunities increases the costs associated with leaving the

organization. Therefore, the fewer available alternative jobs in the environment, the

greater will be the employees' CC to their current employer.

47

2.4.3 Normative commitment

Refers to employees feelings of obligation to the organization. Employees with high

levels of normative commitment stay with the organization because they feel they ought

to.

On the basis of the works of Wiener (1982) and Scholl (1981), Meyer and Allen (1991)

suggested that two mechanisms, socialization and exchange, play a key role in the

development of NC. According to Wiener (1982), NC develops as a result of normative

beliefs that are internalized through pre-entry (familial and cultural) and post entry

(organizational) socialization processes. Therefore, a commitment norm, which is

labelled as internalized normative beliefs by Wiener, is examined as a possible

determinant of NC.

The second mechanism that is operative in the development of NC is the principle of

exchange, or what is called a norm of reciprocity by Scholl (1981). According to this

principle, NC develops through the receipt of rewards from the organization that instil a

sense of moral obligation to reciprocate with commitment.

Organizational commitment depends on the perception of employees (Eisenberger

Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Steers (1997) shows that if the employee finds

the organization to be more supportive, a higher level of organizational commitment will

result and the direct effort to induce commitment can produce long-term benefits for the

organization (Liu, Chiu and Fellows, 2007).

48

2.5 The importance of Organizational Commitment

Most previous research has suggested that organizational commitment is more strongly

related to turnover, organizational citizenship behaviours and reduced absenteeism than is

job satisfaction (Koch & Steers, 1978; Parasuraman, 1982; Porter, Steers, Mowday, &

Boulian, 1974; Steers, 1977; Eby, Freeman, Rush, & Lance, 1999; Tett & Meyer, 1993;

Watson & Papamarcos, 2002), an as employees intention to quit is inversely related to the

organizational commitment (Angle & Perry,1981), this will result to lower levels of

turnover when there are higher level of organizational commitments and high

commitment facilitates loyalty so as stable workforce can be sustained despite external

environment changes. Liu, Chiu and Fellows (2007) claimed that individuals who are

motivated would be more committed to their tasks and, hence, perform better.

Wiener and Vardi (1980) also reported that there is a positive correlation between

commitment and job performance. Organizations benefit from a committed workforce

because committed employees tend to be absent less often, to make positive contributions

and to stay with the organization (DeCotiis & Summers, 1987; Beck & Wilson, 2000;

Bishop & Scott, 2000).

According to Meyer and Allen (1997), a committed employee is the one who stays with

the organisation through thick and thin, attends work regularly, puts in a full day (and

maybe more), protects company’s assets, shares company goals and others. Thus, having

a committed workforce would be an added advantage to an organisation.

49

Kanter (1968) believes commitment to an organization also relates to the profit from

participating, and the cost of leaving the organization, such as loss of prestige and

stability of a working environment. On the other hand, Marsh and Mannari (1977) focus

on the moral responsibility one attaches to the organization as a result of commitment.

Sarantinos (2007) alleges that commitment is directly tied to the psychological contract,

which, in essence, describes the implicit agreement between employees and the

organisation with regards to their reciprocal obligations and perceived expectations. The

most important factor in determining an individual’s motivation is the psychological

contract, defined as the set of expectations between an employee and some implicit

components of an organization, i.e. pay, dignity, opportunities. In return, the organization

demands loyalty and commitment (Schein, 1980)

2.6 Leadership and Organizational Commitment

Several studies found a positive relationship between leadership behaviour and

organizational commitment (Kraut, 1970; Newman, 1974; Alley & Gould, 1975; Porter,

Campon & Smith, 1976; Gilsson and Durick, 1988; Savery, 1994; Zeffane, 1994; Wilson,

1995; Agarwal, De Carlo, & Yyas, 1999 ; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990 ; Mc Neese – Smith

1999 ; Rai & Sinha 2000 ; Yousef 2000; Bycio, Hackett & Allen,1995).

50

Leaders should understand that the issue of employees commitment is a crucial element

to be addressed to (Tushman and O’Reilly; Nadler, 1997; Limerick, Cunnington &

Crowther, 1998). Organizational commitment is influenced by the job environment

created by the employee’s supervisor. This organizational environment, together with the

employee’s ability and motivation, will largely determine eventual performance

(Cummings and Schwabs, 1973). According to Stum (1999), employee commitment

reflects the quality of the leadership in the organization.

The study by Eisenberger et al. (1986) showed that employees’ organizational

commitment is strongly influenced by perceived (generalized) organizational support.

Employees are more likely to feel an obligation to return the supportive behaviour in

terms of affective commitment (Shore & Wayne, 1993). Further, Mottaz’s (1988) study

of 1,385 employees from various occupations found that employees who perceived a

friendly and supportive relationship with their co-workers and supervisors had a strong,

positive commitment to their respective organizations. Employees who believe their

superiors are considerate leaders will be more committed to their organizations than those

who do not perceive their managers as such (Johnston, Parasuraman, Futrell, &

Black,1990). Supervisory consideration refers to leader behaviours concerned with

promoting the comfort and wellbeing of subordinates (Schriesheim & Stogdill (1975)

Employees may interpret the support provided by their employer as a demonstration of

commitment towards them (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002;

Shore and Shore, 1995), which in turn tend to enhance their commitment to the

51

organization. Tharenou (1993) showed that support from one’s direct supervisor led to

less absence among subordinates. Pelz (1952) presented data suggesting that at least in

large groups, employees were more satisfied with superiors who identified closely with

higher management and assisted them in goal attainment.

Loui (1995) examined the relationship between the broad construct of organizational

commitment and the outcome measures of supervisory trust, job involvement, and job

satisfaction. In all three areas, Loui (1995) reported positive relationships with

organizational commitment. More specifically, perceived trust in the supervisor, an

ability to be involved with the job, and feelings of job satisfaction were major

determinants of organizational commitment.

Effective leaders are expected to generate higher levels of organizational commitment, as

Shamir, House and Arthur (1993) phrased, “Their art is to manufacture ethics to give life

through commitment to the spirit of the organization (p. 583)”.

In nine studies involving 2,734 persons, Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda (1994) examined

how participatory management and supervisory feedback influenced employee levels of

affective, continuance, and normative commitment. The researchers found that when

supervisors provided feedback about performance and allowed employees to participate

in decision-making, employee levels of affective commitment was stronger than both

continuance and normative. That is, employees indicated staying with the organization

was more related to wanting to, rather than needing to or feeling they ought to.

52

In another study involving 763 employees, Becker (1992) examined whether employees’

commitment to different constituencies or to the overall organization were better

predictors of job satisfaction, intention to quit, and prosocial behaviour. He discovered

that employees' commitment to top management, supervisors, and work groups

contributed significantly beyond commitment to the organization.

Kent and Chelladurai (2001) found that individualised consideration has positive

correlation with both affective commitment (r = 0.475, p < 0.001) and normative

commitment (r = .354, p < 0.001).

According to Yousef (2000), those who perceive their superior as adopting consultative

or participative leadership behaviour are more committed to their organization. Mathieu

and Zajac (1990, p. 180) suggested that a supervisor who provides more accurate and

timely types of communication enhances the work environment and thereby is likely to

increase employees’ commitment to the organization.

2.7 Effective Leadership Styles in Malaysia

There is no true answer on what type of leadership is regarded as effective in Malaysia.

Leaders have to suit their style based on situation and should be in line with the condition

of their employees. Managers in a high context culture like Malaysia have to spend time

in building personal relationship that may transcend the workplace (Abdullah, 1994)

where maintaining relationships is much more important than performing a task.

Abdullah (1996) further recommends that a paternal style of leadership would fit. The

53

values of mutual obligation require the leader to give their employees some form of

protection in exchange for their loyalty and commitment. McLaren and Rashid (2002)

and Ahmad (2001) appear to support the notion of paternalism in Malaysian context.

Lim (1998) reported that the Malays are slightly more hierarchy-oriented toward building

relationships with a sense of responsibility to help friends, relatives and neighbors

through network that are not necessarily business related.

Gill (1998) conducted comparison of leadership behaviour of managers in the UK, USA

and Southeast Asia. He concluded that Southeast Asia Managers were more directive,

less delegating, more transactional and more laissez fair in terms of leadership behaviour

than were the US and UK managers. However contrary to that, Saufi, Wafa and Hamzah

(2002) reported a significant relationship between uncertainty avoidance and participative

leadership style. However ethnic different was apparent: Malay and Indian managers

preferred to be led in the participative style whereas Chinese managers preferred the

delegative style. Govindan (2000) reports that preferred styles of Malaysian are

consultative and participative leadership. Kennedy and Mansor (2000) found that

Malaysian managers rated the dimensions of decisiveness, team integration, diplomacy,

modesty, humane orientation, and autonomy as being more important contributors to

effective leadership than managers in most other countries. Alip (2003) found that

commitment was higher with the use of expert, referent, connection and legitimate power

than reward, coercion and information power.

54

2.8 Nurturant – Task (NT) Leadership in Malaysia

With regards to no single style that has been found as effective, another style that is said

to be fit with the Malaysian context are the nurturant – task which was developed by

Sinha (1980). The nurturant – task was developed in India as a result of 25 years of

research (Ansari, 1990; Bhal & Ansari, 2000; Sinha, 1980, 1994). The nurturant – task

has been advocated as suitable for Indian organizations (Ansari, 1986, 1990; Sinha, 1980,

1994) and due to the similarities between Indian and Malaysian organization, the

nurturant task is regarded another style that can adopted well here in Malaysia. The

nurturant-task style—conceptualized as a task-and-efficiency-oriented leadership with a

blend of nurturance was developed as a contingency model to fit the Indian subordinates

(Ansari, Aafaqi & Jayasingam, 2000)

According to Ansari, Ahmad and Aafaqi (2004), the similarities between both

subordinates are both depend excessively on their superior, with whom they want to

cultivate a personalized rather than contractual work relationship. They readily accept the

authority of their superior and yield to his or her demands. The subordinates are willing

to work extra hard as a part of their efforts to maintain a personalized relationship with

the superior (Abdullah, 1996; Sinha 1994). Under these circumstances, an NT leader is

likely to be more effective than other leaders (Ansari, 1986, 1990, Sinha, 1980, 1994).

The NT style has received meaningful support from empirical studies conducted in India

(for details, see such reviews as those of Ansari, 1986, 1987, 1990; Ansari & Shukla,

55

1987; Bhal & Ansari, 2000; Sinha, 1980; 1983; 1994). Some of the major findings are

summarized as follows. (a) The NT style is perceived as distinctly different from other

styles, such as autocratic, bureaucratic, or participative. (b) It has a positive impact on

several indicators of effectiveness such as commitment, facets of job satisfaction, and

perceived effectiveness. (c) NT leaders earn more favorable ratings on the evaluation of

the leader and attributions of leadership than the autocratic one. Interestingly, on some

occasions, they receive even higher ratings than participative leaders.

NT model states that an effective leader is one who carries his or her subordinates toward

a shared goal. Leading means more than serving. Before leading the leader must cater to

the needs and expectations of the subordinates. Only then will the subordinates follow the

directives. However they must not stop at meeting the subordinates needs and keeping

them happy. They must lead them. Only then can they be called effective. (Sinha, 1994,

p.102). That means “leading: part of the role requires the leader to be task oriented. In the

same vein, the NT leader cares for his or her subordinates, shows affection, takes

personal interest in their well being and above all, is committed to their growth (Sinha,

1980, p. 55).

The leader, however, makes his or her nurturance contingent on the subordinate’s task

accomplishment. NT leaders are effective for those subordinates who want to maintain

dependency, a personalized relationship and a status differential. The leader helps his or

her subordinates grow up, mature and assume greater responsibility. Once the

subordinates reach a reasonable level of maturity, they generate pressure on the leader to

56

shift to the participative style, the NT style is considered to be a forerunner of the P style

in the reciprocal influence processes between a leader and his/her subordinates. The

uniqueness of the NT model is the priority attached to productivity over job satisfaction

(Ansari et. al, 2004). It assumes that meaningful and lasting job satisfaction has a

precondition, the productivity of the organization. (Porter & Lawler, 1968).

Nurturant task is associated with task-oriented (with a blend of nurturance), discipline

minded, tough leadership style with a personalized approach. The NT is believe to be

successful in leading Malaysian subordinates due to the similarities in the characteristics

with the Indian subordinates, who posses traditional values but have an international

outlook (Kennedy, 2002).

Task orientation get the work done but might cause resistance to build up. A blend of the

two is more likely to render a leader effective (Sinha, 1994, p. 103)

This study tries to examine whether exists significant relationship of the nurturant task,

participative and autocratic style of leadership with employees organizational

commitment in the co-operatives.

57

2.9 Comparison between leadership style in this study and similar previous

studies

This research intends to investigate three leadership behaviour which are the nurturant-

task, participative and autocratic. Table 2.3 below summarizes major classifications of

leadership style in previous studies to fit the purpose of this study while Table 2.4 is the

summary of leadership behaviour that are going to be investigated in this study.

Table 2.3

Summary of major classifications of leadership style in previous studies

Leadership Style Autocratic

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White,

R.K (1939)

Leader makes the decision and closely supervises

Likert (1967)This system utilizes an autocratic, top-downapproach to leadership. Employee evaluation isbased on punishment and occasionally on rewards.Downward communication is predominant andthere is little lateral interaction or teamwork. Bothcontrol and decision making reside at the top levelof the organization

Vroom and Yetton (1973) Manager makes decision

Bass and Valenzi (1974) Direction

Muna (1980) Own decision

Ali (1993) Own decision

58

Leadership Style Participative

Likert (1967) This system makes extensive use of

employer participation, involvement and

groups. The groups are highly involved in

setting goals, making decisions, improving

methods and appraising results.

Communication occurs both laterally and

vertically.

Vroom and Yetton (1973) Manager shares problem with group;

makes own decision

Bass and Valenzi (1974)Participation

Muna (1980) Delegation of decision to subordinates

Ali (1993) Participative

The present study tries to investigate further on leadership style based on the literature

that was developed by prior research. The leadership styles are similar to the one that has

been discussed thoroughly as below.

59

Table 2.4 Present investigation of Leadership Style

Leadership Style Present Investigation

Autocratic Leader’s make decision alone and closely supervise. Subordinate have

no direct influence on decisions

Participative Manager shares problem and decision making with group

Nurturant Task Nurturant task is associated with task-oriented ( with a blend of

nurturance), discipline minded, tough leadership style with a

personalized approach

60

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Hypothesis

The nurturant task style of task and efficiency leadership with nurturance was found

effective in the Indian setting (Ansari, 1990, Bhal & Ansari, 2000; Sinha, 1980, 1994).

Based on the literature review above (Abdullah, 1994; Hofstede, 1994), it indicates that

the Malaysian workforce carries very similar work values as those Indian setting.

However, Likert and Likert (1976) argue that the participative style is more productive in

any culture. Thus:

3.1.1 Affective Commitment

Affective Commitment can be associated with those work experiences that satisfy

employees need to be comfortable in their relationship with the organization and to feel

competent in their work role (Allen & Meyer, 1990, p.4). Employees whose experiences

within the organization are consistent with their expectations and satisfy their basic needs

tend to develop a stronger affective attachment to the organization than do those whose

experiences are less satisfying. Previous research on affective commitment suggests that

the experiences of the employee in the work environment, to some extend, organizational

and personal characteristics, are associated with affective commitment (Allen and

Meyer,1990 : Meyer & Allen, 1991 : Mathieu & Zajac, 1990) Thus :

61

H1a: There is a significant positive relationship between Nurturant Task

(NT) style and affective commitment

H1b: There is a significant positive relationship between Participative style

and affective commitment

H1c: There is a significant negative relationship between Autocratic style

and affective commitment

3.1.2 Continuance Commitment

Continuance commitment is recognized by the relevant investments made by the

employees of the organization and perceived employment alternatives (Allen & Meyer,

1990; Meyer & Allen, 1984, 1997). It is considered as the factor that the employee felt

they had invested themselves in for example in organization based skills, education and

pensions as well as perceptions of self investment, that employees might forfeit by

leaving the organization (Whitener & Walz, 1993). Continuance commitment also refers

to employees perception about the transferability of their skills (Allen & Meyer, 1990)

and education (Lee, Ashford, Walsh & Mowday, R, 1992), investment in the community

and the likelihood that the employee would have to move to another geographical area if

they were to leave the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Thus:

H2a: There is a significant positive relationship between Nurturant Task

(NT) style and continuance commitment

62

H2b: There is a significant positive relationship between Participative style

and continuance commitment

H2c: There is a significant negative relationship between Autocratic style

and continuance commitment

3.1.3 Normative Commitment

Normative commitment is the sense of obligation. Feelings arising from the

internalization of normative pressures exerted on an individual prior to entry (e.g.,

familial or cultural socialization) or following entry (e.g., organizational socialization).

normative commitment develops as the result of socialization experiences that emphasize

the appropriateness of remaining loyal to one's employer (Wiener, 1982) or through the

receipt of benefits (e.g., tuition payments or skills training) that create within the

employee a sense of obligation to reciprocate (Scholl,1981)Individuals that value loyalty

will show greater normative commitment to the work organizations. Previous research

has also focused on the extend to which an employee believes that the organization

expects loyalty (Meyer et al., 1990) and the employee’s general sense of obligation

towards others (Meyer et al. 1993). Therefore:

H3a: There is a significant positive relationship between Nurturant Task

(NT) style and normative commitment.

H3b: There is a significant positive relationship between Participative style

and normative commitment

63

H3c: There is a significant negative relationship between Autocratic style

and commitment

3.1.4 Tenure As A Moderator On The Relationship Between Leadership

Behaviour and Organizational Commitment

Tenure could function as predictors of commitment primarily because of their roles as

surrogate measures of investment in the organization. Tenure could be indicative of non-

transferable investments, such as close working relationships with co-workers, retirement

investments, career investments, and skills unique to that particular organization (Allen

and Meyer, 1990)

Mowday et. al (1982) contended not only the organizational commitment is a

development process containing three different stages, but also that the determinants of

organizational commitment vary according to the different stages. Employees in the late

career stage find it increasingly difficult to leave their organization voluntarily, owing to

the investments of time and energy which they have made.

Findings by Yousef (1998) supports that subordinates’ personal attributes such as age,

gender, education, experience, national culture, tenure in present organization and marital

status have a significant relationship with leadership style where 63 percents who prefer

consultative leadership style were more than 30 years of age and had up to ten years of

experience in their present organization.

64

In a study of Japanese industrial workers, Tao, Takagi, Ishida and Masuda (1998) found

that organisational tenure predicted internalisation. Consistent with other researchers,

Hawkins (1998) found a statistically significant positive correlation of r = 0.25 between

the organisational commitment and tenure of 202 high school principals. Colbert and

Kwon (2000) found a significant relationship (r = 0.11, p < 0.05) between tenure and

organisational commitment. They found that employees with a longer tenure had a higher

degree of organisational commitment than that of their counterparts.

Stevens, Beyer and Trice (1978) found that several worker characteristics predict

organizational commitment; the total number of years the worker had been in the

organization was positively related to commitment.

Overall, for various types of organizations, tenure have generally been reported to be

positively associated with commitment (Hall, Schneider & Nygren, 1970; Lee, 1971;

Sheldon, 1971; Hrebiniak, 1974)

H4a: The effect of NTP on affective commitment is greater among new employees

compared to experienced employees.

H4b: The effect of NTP on normative commitment is greater among new employees

compared to experienced employees

H4c: The effect of NTP on continuance commitment is greater among new

employees compared to experienced employees

65

H4d: The effect of Autocratic on affective commitment is greater among new

employees compared to experienced employees.

H4e: The effect of Autocratic on normative commitment is greater among new

employees compared to experienced employees

H4f: The effect of Autocratic on continuance commitment is greater among new

employees compared to experienced employees

The hypotheses in testing in present study can be summarized as table 3.1 below

Table 3.1

Hypotheses in Summary

Item Nurturant Task Participative Autocratic

Affective

Commitment

H1a

Significant (+)

H1b

Significant (+)

H1c

Significant (-)

Continuance

Commitment

H2a

Significant (+)

H2b

Significant (+)

H2c

Significant (-)

Normative

Commitment

H3a

Significant (+)

H3b

Significant (+)

H3c

Significant (-)

66

Table 3.2

Hypotheses in summary of the effect of Tenure Between

The Relationship of Leadership Behaviour and

Organizational Commitment

Item AC NC CC

NTP

Autocratic

H4a

Significant

H4d

H4b

Significant

H4e

H4c

Significant

H4f

Significant Significant Significant

3.2 Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this research can be summarized as table 3.2 below

Table 3.3

Framework of leadership behaviour and organizational commitment

N(

P

A

C

Leaders Behaviour

urturant Task (NT)10 items)

articipative (10 items)

utocratic (10 items) N

ModeratingVariable

Tenure

OrganizationalCommitment

Affective (6 items)

ontinuance (6 items)

67

ormative (6 items)

68

3.3. Method

3.3.1 Sample and Data Collection

The sample for this study is the employees in co-operatives throughout Peninsular

Malaysia excluding school co-operatives. To obtain representativeness and

generalizability of the findings, co-operatives were selected by using simple random

sampling technique to participate in this study. Database of all registered co-operatives in

Peninsular Malaysia were obtained from the Department of Co-operative Development.

With the assistance of the Co-operative College of Malaysia, databases are later sorted

out to find active co-operatives and who employed at least one employee. 600

questionnaires were posted with self address envelope to co-operative employees in every

state of Peninsular Malaysia. Walk in to co-operatives were also done especially in Klang

Valley to increase the respondent size. The completion of these questionnaires was

entirely voluntary and responses were anonymous. Cover letter was attached with the

questionnaire explaining the objective of the study and encouraged them to participate in

the study. 382 questionnaires were collected and 20 questionnaires were excluded due to

missing and incomplete answers. Total returned and usable questionnaires analyzed were

362 which resulted in 60.3% response rate.

69

3.4 Measures

3.4.1 Independent Measures

Questionnaire developed by (Ansari, 1990; Bhal & Ansari, 2000; Sinha, 1994) were

adopted to measure the leadership behaviours of the co-operative leaders. The scale

consisted of three dimensions of behaviour – nurturant-task (10 items), participative (10

items) and autocratic (10 items). The respondents were asked to indicate their opinion on

a 5-point scale (1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3= neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly

agree). Table 3.3 is the summary of the independent measurements.

Table 3.4

Independent measurements

Independent Measures

Instruments Variables Scales

Single Statement Items

(Ansari, 1990; Bhal &

Ansari, 2000; Sinha, 1994)

Leadership Behaviour

Nurturant-Task

Participative

Autocratic

70

3.4.2 Dependent Measures

3.4.2.1 Meyer & Allen’s (1997) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ)

To study the employees commitment in this research, the framework that was designed

by Meyer & Allen (1991) to measure three different types of organizational commitment

will be used as listed below:

a. Affective Commitment

Refers to employee’s emotional attachment, identification with, and involvement in the

organization. Employees with a strong affective commitment stay with the organization

because they want to.

b. Continuance Commitment

Refers to employee’s point of view of whether the costs of leaving the organization are

greater than of the costs of staying. Employees who perceive that the costs of leaving the

organization are greater than the costs of staying remain because they need to.

71

c. Normative commitment

Refers to employees feelings of obligation to the organization. Employees with high

levels of normative commitment stay with the organization because they feel they ought

to.

The scale consisted of three dimensions of commitment – affective (6 items), continuance

(6 items) and normative (6 items).The respondents were asked to indicate their opinion

on a 5-point scale (1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3= neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly

agree). Table 3.4 exhibit the summary of dependent measurements.

Table 3.5

Dependent Measurements

Dependent Measures

Instruments Variables Scales

OCQ

Meyer & Allen’s (1997)

Organizational

Commitment

1. Affective Commitment

2. Continuance Commitment

3. Normative Commitment

72

3.5 Data Analysis

All statistical analyses will be carried out using the SPSS statistical computer package,

Version 15. The analysis that are going to be examined in the study will include:

1. Factor analysis – To measure whether the questionnaire contributes significantly

to the factor which they measure and to group item accordingly to the factor they

measure.

2. Cronbach Alpha – To view the reliability of the measurement.

3. Frequency analysis – To analyze the pattern of respondent’s background.

4. Descriptive analysis – To analyze what are the perceptions of employees towards

their leaders behaviour and what type of commitment are they currently involved

with.

5. Correlation – To see whether exists relationship between leaders behaviour and

organizational commitment.

6. Regression – To analyze how much of leaders behaviour will explain employees

commitment in the co-operatives

73

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1 Frequency Analysis

Respondents for the present study were 362 individuals working in different co-

operatives throughout Peninsular Malaysia. From this individuals 234 respondents were

female, while the rest comprised of male respondents. Of the subjects, only 3 percent

were represented by the age of less than 20 years, while 53.3 percent came from 21-30

years of age. On the other hand, 27.9 percent were from 31 to 40 years of age. Majority

of the respondents were Malay amounted about 97 percent. There were proportionate

amount between single and married respondents. About 51.7 percent of the respondents

completed their education up to form five and completed their Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia as

compared to a smaller number of respondents who pursued higher educations. 258 of the

employees being surveyed were employed as administrative and clerical positions,

followed by 64 respondents working as executives, 13 respondents as assistant manager

and only 10 respondents were working as manager. About 40.9 percent had less than 3

years of experience in their present occupation, while 27.6 percent have been working

with the present organization for more than ten years. 78.7 percent of the respondents

were employed by co-operatives that had been in establishment for more than 16 years,

while only 11.6 percent were employed by co-operatives which have been in operations

below than 10 years. Table 4.1 displays the main characteristics of the sample.

74

Table 4.1

Profile of respondents

Frequency Percent

Gender

Male 128 35.4

Female 234 64.6

Age

Less than 20 years 11 3.0

21 – 30 years 193 53.3

31-40 years 101 27.9

41 – 50 years 47 13.0

More than 51 10 2.8

Race

Malay 351 97.0

Chinese 3 0.8

Indian 8 2.2

Marital Status

Single 168 46.4

Married 194 53.6

Education Level

Primary school 2 0.6

LCE/SRP/PMR 6 1.7

MCE/SPM/SPMV 187 51.7

HSC/STPM 26 7.2

Diploma 78 21.5

Degree 43 11.9

Post graduate 15 4.1

Others5 1.4

75

Current Job Position

Administrative/clerical 258 71.3

Technician 3 0.8

Executive/Senior executive 64 17.7

Assistant manager 13 3.6

Manager/Senior manager 10 2.8

Others 14 3.9

Tenure

Less than 3 years 148 40.9

4 - 6 years 75 20.7

7 – 10 years 39 10.8

More than 10 years 100 27.6

Co-op Establishment

Less than 10 years 42 11.6

11-15 years 35 9.7

More than 16 years 285 78.7

4.2 Factor Analysis

Variable that were use to examine leaders behaviour and organizational commitment

comprised several items in the questionnaire. In order to determine whether the questions

put forth in the questionnaire contribute significantly to the factor which they measure,

factor analysis was conducted. Furthermore, this analysis was utilized to reduce the data

to the required scales. Varimax rotation were included to reduced the effect of cross

loadings in initial component matrix.

76

The generally accepted criteria for factor analysis is eigenvalues of greater than 1.0 and

item loading of greater than 0.30 (Coakes & Steeds, 2007). The variable items (questions)

that failed to exceed 0.30 were suppressed from consideration..

4.2.1 Factor Analysis on Leadership Behaviour

For the first factor loading on leaders behaviour, KMO measures sampling adequacy of

.894 which is far greater than .6 and Barthlett’ Test of Sphericity showed Chi square of

1738.704 with a significant indication. Originally the scale of leadership was classified as

Nurturant Task, Participative and Autocratic. However it was later deduced to two factor

whereby Nurturant Task and Participative variable has merged to load into factor one to

become Nurturant Task + Participative (NTP). This is due to the fact of the similarity of

the nature of these two variables. Besides that, autocratic variables were loaded into

factor two with six items out of originally ten. Table 4.2 illustrates the factor analysis

results of leadership behaviour

77

Rotated Component Matrix

.721

.672

.685

.743

.639

.501

.782

.645

.684

.511

.795

.784

.749

.469

.656

P1

N1

p2

n2

f2

f3

p4

f4

p5

f5

p6

n6

p7

f8

f9

1 2

Component

Table 4.2

Factor analysis results of Leadership Behaviour

P = Participative

N = Nurturant Task

F = Autocratic

78

4.2.2 Factor Analysis on Organizational Commitment

Factor loading was next carried out on the Organizational Commitment scale. KMO was

amounted about .835 which is again higher than .6 and Barthlett’ Test of Sphericity

showed Chi square of 1800.418 with a significant indication.

Originally, the variables were categorized as Affective Commitment, Continuance

Commitment and Normative Commitment with six items each. After factor loading was

carried out, the three variables remain accordingly in it category. The variable items

(questions) that failed to exceed 0.30 were suppressed from consideration. Normative

Commitment was categorized in factor one with 5 items, Affective Commitment in

Factor 2 with only 3 items, while Normative Commitment in Factor 3 with 4 items. Table

4.3 below illustrates the results of the factor analysis.

79

Rotated Component Matrix

.855

.887

.856

.435 .676

.736

.668

.700

.738

.778

.774

.860

.718

AC3

AC4

AC5

CC3

CC4

CC5

CC6

NC2

NC3

NC4

NC5

NC6

1 2 3

Component

Table 4.3

Factor analysis results of Organizational Commitment

AC = Affective Commitment

CC = Continuance Commitment

NC = Normative Commitment

80

4.3 Reliability Analysis Results

To measure the consistency of the scale, Cronbach’s alpha was used as a measure of

reliability. Allen and Meyer (1990) reported the reliability of the affective commitment

scale as 0.87, continuance commitment scale as 0.75 and the normative commitment

scale as 0.79. Dunham, Grube and Castaneda (1994) found alpha ranges of 0.74 to 0.87

for affective, 0.73 to 0.81 for continuance and 0.67 to 0.78 for normative commitment.

Cohen (1996) discovered alphas of 0.79 for affective, 0.69 for continuance and 0.65 for

normative commitment.

After factor loading was carried out, most of the variables showed an acceptable range of

reliability. Basically, reliability coefficients of 0.7 or more are considered adequate

(Cronbach, 1951; Nunnally, 1978). Nevertheless, it is important to mention that this may

decrease to 0.6 in exploratory research (Hair, Black, Babin, Rolph, Anderson & Tatham ,

2006; Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991), which fits in the specific study. The

scales exhibiting reliability values of greater than 0.7 can be accepted straightaway. The

cronbach alpha for all three commitment scales was consistent with previous studies

(Meyer & Allen, 1984; Meyer et. al, 1989). It can therefore be concluded that the

constructs are reliable for exploratory research purposes as illustrated by Table 4.4.

81

Table 4.4

Reliability Coefficients for the major variables

Variable Number of items Cronbach Alpha

Nurturant Task + Participative (NTP) 9 .89

Autocratic 6 .60

Affective Commitment (AC) 3 .84

Continuance Commitment (CC) 4 .73

Normative Commitment (NC) 5 .86

4.4 Descriptive Analysis

4.4.1. Descriptive Analysis of Leadership Behaviour

It was observed that between two leadership behaviours that are being investigated, the

respondents viewed their superior to behave more on nurturing task and participative as

compared to autocratic. However both behaviour are considered high and acceptable by

the employees.

4.4.2 Descriptive Analysis of Organizational Commitment

However with regards to this perceptions of leader’s behaviour, employees felt that their

identification and emotionally attached with the organization which was represented by

affective commitment was relatively low. This indicates that, there were an inverse

relations between nurturing task and participative with their identification and attachment

with the organizations. Normative commitment was perceived to be indulged the most

by the respondents followed by continuance commitment. Normative component refers to

employees’ feelings of obligation to remain with the organization or being loyal to the

82

organizations. Standard deviations were noticed to be small which represents that the data

are well dispersed and closely distributed to the mean. Table 4.5 illustrates the findings.

Table 4.5

Descriptive for the major variables

Variable Mean Standard Deviation

Nurturant Task + Participative (NT+P) 3.5884 .66382

Autocratic 3.4590 .52479

Affective Commitment (AC) 2.4742 .86702

Continuance Commitment (CC) 3.3108 .71884

Normative Commitment (NC) 3.5149 .71815

4.5 Intercorrelations among variables

It has been evidenced that, there is a significant (p<0.01) positive correlation between

NTP with NC and CC, however it was noticed that the relationship between NTP and AC

was significantly negative correlated (p= 0.13). The correlation with autocratic style of

leadership is also significant (p<0.01) between the relationship with NC and CC,

however there is no significant relationship (p=0.158) between autocratic and AC. Table

4.6 present the intercorrelations among variables being investigated.

83

Table 4.6

Intercorrelations among variables

NTP Autocratic NC AC CC

NTP 1

Autocratic .053 1

NC .361** .257** 1

AC -.130* .074 -.091 1

CC .197** .217** .547** .020 1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

4.6 Regression Analysis

Leadership Behaviour variables were computed based on two separate independent

variables of Nurturant Task + Participative (NTP) and autocratic variables to see each

effect on commitment.

On the dependent variables side, each organizational commitment were included and

tested separately based on the factor loadings that has been performed earlier. In addition

to that, all three variables were computed together to create an organizational

commitment variable to see the entire interactions and to support the hypotheses that has

been developed earlier.

Overall, both independent variable of Leadership Behaviour were significant on

organizational commitment with p<0.01 and together explained 10.4 % on Organizational

84

Commitment. Other factors remain unexplained. The findings of hypotheses are as

follows :

4.6.1 Regression between Leadership Behaviour and Affective Commitment

Leadership behaviour of NTP showed negative significant relationship on Affective

commitment with p <0.05, however Autocratic leadership showed no significant

interaction (p>0.05). Leadership behaviour only explained R2 change of 2.4 % (p<0.05)

on Affective Commitment which is very low. Relatively, even though this amount is

significant, however it is observed that other factor contributes more than leader

behaviour in explaining the low affective commitment in the co-operatives. In this

scenario, it showed that affective commitment is low when NTP is high, which may be

explained perhaps by the literature that affective commitment depends on the attitude of

the employees whether their personal goal are congruent with the organizational goals.

In this case, employees who achieve affective commitment are most probably

independent individuals who are confident enough to determine their future. Overbearing

and supportive leadership style will negatively affect them. Autocratic on the other hand,

does not give any interactions with the needs of feeling affectionate in the co-operatives.

Thus this findings explored that leadership behaviour has minimum interactions on

affective commitment of employees.

85

4.6.1.a Hypotheses Results of the Relationship between Leadership Behaviour and

Affective Commitment

H1a: There is a positive significant relationship between Nurturant Task (NT) style and

affective commitment

Nurturant task is said to promote affective commitment where it can escalate the

affectionate and involvement of employees in co-operatives. However results has

shown that leadership of Nurturant Task style is inconsistent with their emotional

attachment. Thus :

Findings = H1a is rejected (p < 0.05)

H1b: There is a significant positive relationship between Participative style and

affective commitment

Participative style was hypothesized to be positive related with affective

commitment. However, results have shown that there is a mismatch between their

emotional attachments with this types of leadership. Thus:

Findings = H1b is rejected (p<0.05)

86

H1c: There is a significant negative relationship between Autocratic style and affective

commitment

Autocratic was presumed to be hypothesized as providing negative directions to

affective commitment. However in this study, it was shown that autocratic does

not portray any relationship with affective commitment. Thus

Findings = H1c is rejected (p >0.05)

4.6.2 Regression between Leadership Behaviour and Continuance Commitment

NTP and Autocratic showed significant explanation on Continuance Commitment with

R2 change of 8.2 % (p<0.01). Employees perceived that both style are relevant to

promote to their continuance commitment behaviour in co-operatives which lead to the

rejection of negative autocratic behaviour on the early assumptions. The findings of this

regression showed that there are other 91.8% unexplained factors that contribute to

continuance commitment.

87

4.6.2.a Hypotheses Results of the Relationship Between Leadership Behaviour and

Continuance Commitment

H2a: There is a significant positive relationship between Nurturant Task (NT) style and

continuance commitment

Nurturant Task of leadership style is another element where employees believe it

can support their continuity with the co-operative. Thus :

Findings = H2a is accepted (p<0.01)

H2b: There is a significant positive relationship between Participative style and

continuance commitment

Participative style of leadership was found to be positive significant with

continuance commitment. The findings showed that employees believed

participative style can contribute to their continuance in the co-operatives. Thus

Findings = H2b is accepted (p<0.01)

88

H2c: There is a significant negative relationship between Autocratic style and

continuance commitment

Autocratic leaders who have direct control was earlier presumed to be negative

relationship on continuance. However, the results showed otherwise. Employees

believe that the existence of autocratic is important for their continuity. Thus:

Findings = H2c is rejected (p<0.01)

4.6.3 Regression between Leadership Behaviour and Normative Commitment

Both NTP and Autocratic showed significant explanation on Normative Continuance

with R2 change of 18.7 % (p<0.01). This shows that employees perceived the needs of

having both NTP and Autocratic style of leadership to be loyal in the co-operatives.

However there are other 82.3% unexplained factors that contribute to normative

commitment.

89

4.6.3.a Hypotheses Results of The Relationship Between Leadership Behaviour and

Normative Commitment

H3a: There is a significant positive relationship between Nurturant Task (NT) style and

normative commitment.

Leaders who nurture their employees and at the same time ensuring task to be

completed was found to be stimulating the interests of employees to stay with the

organizations. The results showed the same direction. Thus :

Findings = H3a is accepted (p<0.01)

H3b: There is a significant positive relationship between Participative style and

normative commitment

Participative style of leadership was found to be contributing to employee’s

loyalty towards their organizations. Thus:

Findings = H3b is accepted (p<0.01)

90

H3c: There is no significant negative relationship between Autocratic style and

normative commitment

Autocratic leaders was said to reduce the commitment of employees. However in

this finding, it showed inverse relations where employees perceived that there is a

need of autocratic style for them to be loyal. Thus:

Findings = H3c is rejected (p<0.01)

Based on the analysis of regressions, it was observed that mixed results of behaviour

resembles significant association with organizational commitment. This means that in

every level of commitment, employee perceive the needs of having the existence both

leadership behaviour to perform their duties in the organizations. Thus the early

assumptions that autocratic was hypothesized to be negative correlated was rejected then

to this acceptance of employees on this leadership style. However, it is noticed that there

were negative relationship between NTP and AC which remarked that the higher the

leader’s portrayed nurturing task and participative, the lower the affective commitment

that are going to be displayed by the employees.

The other observation was that even though AC was not affected by Autocratic

behaviour, on the other hand the overall Organizational Commitment were explained by

higher autocratic type of behaviour as compared to NTP. This relates to autocratic

explained more on employee’s commitment. This scenario was also noted in accordance

91

with the high level of mean on NTP and low mean on affective commitment as discussed

earlier. Table 4.7 exhibit the results of regression analysis.

Table 4.7

Results of regression Analysis

AC NC CC OC

Beta

NTP

Autocratic

-1.75*

1.34

.377**

.326**

.201**

.284**

.134**

.248**

F Value

R2

Adjusted R2

4.320*

.024

.018

41.319**

.187

.183

15.978**

.082

.077

20.876**

.104

.099

* p<0.05, ** p < 0.01

NT+P = Nurturant Task + Participative

AC = Affective Commitment

NC = Normative Commitment

CC = Continuance Commitment

OC = Organizational Commitment

92

4.7 Hierarchical regression Analysis With Tenure As Moderator

The findings of the hierarchical regression are as follows:

H4a: The effect of NTP on affective commitment is greater among new employees

compared to experienced employees.

NTP style on affective commitment can instil greater commitment among new

employees. However the results of the findings showed that there is no significant

effect of this relationship. Thus

Findings = H4a is rejected (p>0.05)

H4b: The effect of NTP on normative commitment is greater among new employees

compared to experienced employees

This study has showed that NTP has greater effect among new employees as

compared to experienced employees. Employees will increase their commitment,

if the leaders possess high NTP and visa versa. Thus:

Findings= H4b is accepted (p<0.05*)

93

H4c: The effect of NTP on continuance commitment is greater among new employees

compared to experienced employees

New employees find it there is a necessity to stay with the organizations, if the

leaders posses high NTP on them. Thus:

Findings= H4c is accepted (p<0.01**)

H4d: The effect of Autocratic on affective commitment is greater among new

employees compared to experienced employees.

Autocratic style of leadership has found not to be significant to ensure the

affective commitment among new employees. Thus:

Findings= H4d is rejected (p>0.05)

H4e: The effect of Autocratic on normative commitment is greater among new

employees compared to experienced employees

Findings lead to autocratic style of leadership has no significant effect on

normative commitment among new employees. Thus:

Findings= H4e is rejected (p>0.05)

94

H4f: The effect of Autocratic on continuance commitment is greater among new

employees compared to experienced employees

Autocratic style does not contribute to the continuance commitment among new

employees. Thus:

Findings= H4f is rejected (p>0.05)

95

4.7.1 Moderating Effect of Tenure between Leaders Behaviour and Normative

Commitment

There is a significant moderating effect of tenure (p < 0.05) in the relationship between

leader’s behaviour and normative commitment. Based on Table 4.8 and Figure 4.1, it is

clear that NTP has greater effect among new employees compared to experienced ones.

This is especially obvious in situation where the leader has low NTP. When a leader

displays low NTP, normative commitment among new employee is much lower than

experienced employees. As the leader increases the NTP, the commitment level of new

employees increase as well.

4.7.2 Moderating Effect of Tenure Between Leaders Behaviour and Continuance

Commitment

The moderating effect of tenure is also significant (<0.01) in the relationship between

leaders and continuance commitment. Based on Table 4.9 and Figure 4.2, it can be

simplify that NTP has greater effect among new employees as compared to experienced

employees. Again, the situation is obvious in situation where the leader exhibit low NTP.

When leaders displays low NTP, continuance commitment among new employees will is

much lower than experienced workers. As the leader increases the NTP level, the

commitment level of new employees increase dramatically.

96

On the other hand, it was evidenced that autocratic style of leadership does not contribute

to any of the commitment of employees. Thus it can be concluded that for employees to

be loyal to the organization and continue servicing their effort, NTP style of leadership

are more dominant than autocratic. Employees perceived that leaders who have high NTP

style will reflect more conducive environment by supporting the employees to progress

their career stage.

97

Coefficientsa

1.034 .286 3.614 .000

.377 .052 .349 7.319 .000

.326 .065 .238 4.997 .000

1.120 .291 3.842 .000

.377 .051 .349 7.326 .000

.320 .065 .234 4.904 .000

-.104 .070 -.071 -1.483 .139

1.731 .451 3.835 .000

.235 .083 .217 2.821 .005

.291 .100 .213 2.924 .004

-1.098 .582 -.745 -1.886 .060

.228 .106 .579 2.159 .031

.050 .131 .120 .382 .702

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

dummytenure

NTPdummytenure

autocraticdummytenure

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

dummytenure

NTPdummytenure

autocraticdummytenure

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

dummytenure

NTPdummytenure

autocraticdummytenure

Model

1

2

3

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: NCa.

Table 4.8

Hierarchical Regression Results Using Tenure as a Moderator in the Relationship

between Leadership Behaviour and Normative Commitment

*p <0.05, **p<0.01

98

Nurturant Task + Participative

HighModerateLow

No

rma

tiv

eC

on

tin

ua

nc

e

3.80

3.60

3.40

3.20

3.00

2.80

Experienced

Newly Employed

Tenure

Figure 4.1

Moderating Effect of Tenure on the Relationship between Tenure on NTP and

Normative Commitment

99

Table 4.9

Regression Results Using Tenure as a Moderator in the Relationship between

Leaders Behaviour and Continuance Commitment

Coefficientsa

1.605 .304 5.273 .000

.201 .055 .186 3.671 .000

.284 .069 .208 4.099 .000

1.636 .311 5.265 .000

.201 .055 .186 3.665 .000

.282 .070 .206 4.055 .000

-.038 .075 -.026 -.513 .608

2.547 .475 5.360 .000

-.062 .088 -.057 -.706 .481

.292 .105 .213 2.788 .006

-1.498 .613 -1.015 -2.443 .015

.423 .111 1.073 3.804 .000

-.017 .138 -.042 -.126 .900

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

dummytenure

NTPdummytenure

autocraticdummytenure

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

dummytenure

NTPdummytenure

autocraticdummytenure

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

dummytenure

NTPdummytenure

autocraticdummytenure

Model

1

2

3

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: CCa.

*p <0.05, **p<0.01

100

Nurturant Task + Participative

HighModerateLow

Co

nti

nu

an

ce

Co

mm

itm

en

t

3.60

3.40

3.20

3.00

Experienced

Newly Employed

Tenure

Figure 4.2

Moderating Effect of Tenure on the Relationship between Tenure on NTP and

Continuance Commitment

101

4.8 Hypotheses Results in Summary

Hypothesis testing is summarized based on the above findings. Table 4.10 exhibit the

hypotheses results in summary of the correlations. Prior to the results, the early

assumptions of autocratic were to have negative relationship on most of commitment.

However it was observed that the findings have remarked autocratic as part of leadership

behaviour and it has been accepted by the employees as another style apart from NTP

that can contribute to their commitment. Thus most of autocratic hypotheses has been

rejected due to this acceptance.

Table 4.11 exhibits the summary of tenure as moderating factor on the relationship

between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment. It was found out to be that

new employees will chart up their continuance and normative commitment if they found

their leaders to possess high level of NTP and otherwise if the NTP is low. Autocratic

leaders have found not to be significant with employees commitment. On the other hand,

leader’s style of NTP does not contribute to employee’s affective commitment. Thus

NTP style does not promote to any involvement and identification with co-operatives.

102

Table 4.10Hypotheses Results in Summary

Variables NurturantTask

Participative Autocratic

AffectiveCommitment

H1aReject

(p<0.05)

H1bReject

(p<0.05)

H1cReject

(p>0.05)

ContinuanceCommitment

H2aAccept

(p<0.01)

H2bAccept

(p<0.01)

H2cReject

(p<0.01)

NormativeCommitment

H3aAccept

(p<0.01)

H3bAccept

(p<0.01)

H3cReject

(p<0.01)

Table 4.11Hypotheses Results in summary of the effect of Tenure Between The Relationship of

Leadership Behaviour and Organizational Commitment

Item AC NC CC

NTP

Autocratic

H4a

Reject

(p>0.05)

H4d

H4b

Significant

(p<0.05)

H4e

H4c

Significant

(p<0.01)

H4f

Reject Reject Reject

(p>0.05) (p>0.05) (p>0.05)

103

CHAPTER 5: Discussions

5.1 Leadership Behaviour and Organizational Commitment

The findings have suggested that there is a significant relationship between leadership

behaviour and organizational commitment. Thus the present study also supported the

findings made in previous similar research (Kraut, 1970; Newman, 1974; Alley & Gould,

1975; Porter, Campon & Smith, 1976; Gilsson & Durick, 1988; Savery, 1994; Zeffane,

1994; Wilson, 1995; Agarwal, De Carlo, & Yyas, 1999 ; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990 ; Mc

Neese – Smith 1999 ; Rai & Sinha 2000 ; Yousef 2002; Bycio, Hackett & Allen,1995;

Tosi & Tosi 1970; Decotiis & Summer, 1977).

It was evidenced that the Affective Commitment scored the lowest mean among all

commitment and the relationship with leaders’ behaviour was significant but only

explained 2.4 % on this commitment. Thus the effect of leaders behaviour on affective

commitment tends to be very weak which explained that there are other 97.6% factors

that contributed to affective commitment were still remain unexplained. Low conditions

on Affective Commitment would suggest that the work experiences do not satisfy the

employees need to be comfortable with the organization and the employees felt that their

experiences in the organizations are not consistent with their expectations (Allen &

Meyer, 1990, p.4; Beck & Wilson, 1995). When employees are dissatisfied at work, they

are less committed and will look for other opportunities to quit. If opportunities are

104

unavailable, they may emotionally or mentally “withdraw” from the organization. (Lok &

Crawford, 2003, Bullis & Bach, 1989; Cheney & Tompkins, 1987).

On the same note, it was evidenced that NTP has significant negative relationship with

affective commitment (p<0.05). Thus, it can be concluded that, when employees

increases their emotional attachment with co-operatives, they prefer leaders to maintain

low NTP style. This situation is rather unique and needs leaders’ careful attention on why

this situation happened. According to Bass (1985), leaders who accompanied their task

with clarification and encouragement might contribute to employees’ perceptions about

their supervisors relations oriented leadership behaviours and their commitment to the

organizations. However, if employees perceived that leaders who accompanied their task

style based on disapproval or reprimand, it might detract from employee’s perception

about their supervisor’s relations oriented leadership behaviours or detract from

organizational commitment. The recognition of their work and status within the

organization helps meet the employees’ socio-emotional needs, that is, their needs for

esteem, approval and affiliation (Shore & Shore, 1995; Eisenberger, Huntingdon,

Hutchinson & Sowa, 1986 ; Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994).

Thus, at times when leaders nurture their employees, it is important to take into

consideration on the value of the relationship that is developed on that point of time

especially when employees perform their tasks. Leaders may be able to improve their

task oriented leadership behaviour by using language that is both clarifying and

encouraging.

105

This may also seems to suggest that Raudsepp (1977) argues the employee’s attitude

towards their job is self-directing and they are normally quite happy when given limited

supervision. They know they are part of a team, but they still prefer the company to have

confidence in their capabilities so that they can earn greater independence.

Given the absence of significant relationship of autocratic on affective commitment

(p>0.05), it was not possible to conclude whether this leadership behaviour was perceived

as either contributing or detracting from employees perceptions about their supervisors

on organizational commitment.

Mowday et al. (1982) described affective commitment as ‘‘a mind-set in which

individuals consider the extent to which their own values and goals are congruent with

those of the organization’’ (p. 26). In this model, a person can become committed without

making an overt pledge; if a person develops sufficient set of strong and positive attitudes

or sense of goal congruence, then at some point that person is committed. Employees

will posses high affective commitment to their organizations as an exchange for the

rewards they received or the punishments avoided (Mottaz, 1988; Mowday et al., 1982).

Employee’s feelings and evaluations in social interactions flow from their assessments of

the fairness of their outcomes when dealing with others such as their leaders. (Adam

1965; Walster, Walster & Berscheid, 1978). If organizational outcomes are positive it is

inferred that everything is going well, including the management and supervision

(Greenberg, 2004). However, concerns about leadership qualities become more salient

106

when organizational outcomes are perceived and experienced as unfavorable or more

negative. Organizations can shape how favorable personal outcomes are and one such

outcome important to employees is how fair or unfair the outcomes (e.g. Salary,

promotion, etc.) that they received, referred to distributive justice (Deutsch, 1985)

Under such circumstances in which outcomes are perceived as unfair, employees will be

motivated to attend more closely to how their direct supervisor or leader acts toward

them. In this process, employees will be focused on evaluating whether their leader is

motivated to promote their well-being and interest, their sense of attachment to the

organization, and to treat them in a respectful and just way (Brockner & Wiesenfeld,

1996; Tyler 1999).

To explain further on this relationship, Fuller, Barnett, Hester and Relyea (2003) refer to

Tyler’s (1999) social identity theory, according to which individuals feel recognized

within an organization when their employer values their contributions to the functioning

of the organization. Filling these needs contributes to building the employees’ social

identity, which in turn is likely to enhance their sense of belonging to and pride in the

organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Managers in particular can exert a crucial influence

on the individual’s willingness to work towards and accept organizational goals, and to

engage in discretionary effort (Bemowski, 1990).

This scenario can be further explained by Vroom’s Model of expectancy theory. Vroom's

(1964, 1995) recognizes the forces within individuals in the environment which affect an

107

individual's behaviour. It assumes that the employee can decide how much effort he puts

in, depending on his motivation, which equals the product of valence (attractiveness of a

reward), expectancy (how much a person believes that their effort will result in success)

and instrumentality (belief that success will lead to reward). Schein (1980) believes the

most important factor in determining an individual's motivation is the psychological

contract, defined as the set of expectations between an employee and some implicit

components of an organization, i.e. pay, dignity, opportunities. In return, the organization

demands loyalty and commitment.

Continuance commitment resumed to be high (p<0.01) due to the consideration that the

employees felt that they had invested considerable amount effort, time, and energy that

employees might forfeit by leaving the organization (Whitener & Walz, 1993 ; Allen &

Meyer, 1990; Lee 1992; Meyer, Bobocel & Allen, 1991) and they find it is better to stay

if there is lack of job transferability, skills and knowledge that the cost will be higher if

they leave the organizations (Becker, 1960) and it may disrupt the social relationship that

has been built with present organizations and it will increase new cost of making new

friends with new working associates (Becker, 1964). In this study, it was found that

experienced employees possessed high continuance commitment reflected by the high

level of mean as compared to new employees. However, new employees will increase

their continuance commitment if they found that leaders possess high NTP.

The highest commitment portrayed by the respondents are normative commitment

(p<0.01) where there is a need to exhibit high loyalty to their employers (Wiener, 1982)

108

due to the conditions of the receipts of benefits that they have obtained while remaining

in the current organizations (Scholl, 1981). This can be suggested that the employees of

co-operatives are loyal to their organizations. Experienced employees showed that they

are more loyal in these study due to the reflection of mean, however to inculcate these

commitment on new employees, leaders should possess high NTP.

The present study tries to propose if NTP leadership style is more dominant than any

other style. The findings of this research however lead to a mix style of leaders on

organizational commitment. It was observed that employees perceived their leaders as

possessing NTP type of leadership behaviour, and at the same time, autocratic leaders

was also significant in promoting the commitment of employees especially on the

continuance (p<0.01) and normative (p<0.01) type of commitment. This seems to

suggest that both the NTP and autocratic style of leadership are well accepted and

expected by the employees and it finally leads to their commitment in the organizations.

The underlying reasons of why employees in co-operatives accepted both styles of

leaderships were perhaps due to the uniqueness of Malaysian culture as compared to the

Western countries. Here in Malaysia, for example as according to Asma (2002), observes

that “Malaysia has often been described as a mine field of cultural sensitivities due to its

diverse racial and ethnic composition. In explaining about culture, Hofstede’s (1980)

classic model found four dimensions of culture, namely power distance, individualism-

collectivism, masculinity-femininity and uncertainty avoidance.

109

Hofstede (1991) describes Malaysian culture as relatively high in power distance, high in

uncertainty avoidance and high in collectivism. Power distance is defined by Hofstede as

“the extent to which the members of a society accept that power in institutions and

organizations is distributed unequally” (1985, p. 348). The construct tends to be

identified in particular with the willingness of the less powerful members of a society to

accept their lower status and authority roles vis-à-vis the more power powerful members

(Adler, 1991). Specific to the organization context, members of high power distance

cultures are more likely to be accepting of, and comfortable with, structured authority

relationships than are members of low power distance cultures (Hofstede,1991).

Study by Hofstede (1991) also suggested that Malaysia is also high in terms of

uncertainty avoidance index. Uncertainty avoidance is referred to as “the society’s

tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity. It try to reduce the possibility of such situations

by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures. According to him, Malaysia’s

combination of high scores on power distance and uncertainty avoidance will thus create

societies that are highly oriented with laws, rules, regulations and control in order to

minimize the amount of uncertainty. When this two dimension are combined, it creates a

condition where leaders have virtually ultimate power and authority and the rules, laws

and regulations developed by those in power, reinforce their own leadership and control.

This explanations suggested to the findings on why autocratic were also accepted by

employees in the co-operatives

Collectivism, according to Hofstede, “stands for a preference for a tightly knit social

framework in which individuals can expect their in-group to look after them, in exchange

110

for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede, 1980). This statement also is closely connected to

this research findings that normative commitment scores very high as compared to other

type of commitment. Normative commitment is referred to the conditions whereby

employees remain obligated with the organizations and it is also strongly connected to as

loyalty of the employees towards their employers. Abdullah (1992a, 1992b, 1996) noted

that Malaysian workers are group oriented, respect elders and hierarchy, emphasize

loyalty and consensus, conform to the wishes of a paternalistic leader and are concerned

with harmony in relationships. Malay or Bumiputra culture’s respect for the elders,

seniority, the values of a hierarchical society and, in part, the Muslim faith (Asma, 1996;

Hofstede, 1980; Renwick & Witham, 1997). According to the Malay adat (customs), age

and leadership is valued; the older person is respected; one respects one’s parents

(Norazit, 1998). Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand (1995) refer to this combination

of collectivism and high power distance as vertical collectivism. They describe it as a

culture within which one perceives themselves as part of a group while being accepting

of power/status inequalities within the group.

Based on the previous explanations, it is clear that co-operatives employees viewed their

leaders to behave in a mix leadership styles and it was accepted as this style was

significant to explain the normative and continuance commitment in the organizations.

111

5.2 The Effect Of Tenure Between The Relationship of Leadership Behaviour

and Organizational Commitment

There appears to be some evidence that tenure and years of experience are positively

associated with commitment. Previous studies have indicated that position tenure

(Gregersen & Black, 1992; Mottaz, 1988) and organizational tenure (Mathieu & Hamel,

1989; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990) have positive effects on commitment.

It was evidenced that the moderating variables of tenure are significant on the normative

and continuance commitment to explain the relationship between leader’s behaviour and

organizational commitment. NTP leaders have earned favourable ratings on the

moderating evaluation rather than the autocratic one. This has supported the findings by

Ansari (1986, 1987, 1990), Ansari & Shukla (1987), Bhal & Ansari (2000) and Sinha

(1980, 1983, 1994).

It can be observed that NTP has greater effect among new employees as compared to

experienced employees on continuance commitment of (p<0.01) and normative

commitment of (p<0.05). It leads to the understanding that new employees will increase

their commitment, if their superior increased their NTP style from low to high.

Comparatively, experienced employees portrayed more stable condition on both the

continuance and normative commitment. Even if they perceived the leaders to be

possessing low NTP, both commitments, remain to be high. This means that, new

employees, due to the conditions of new working environment and having less of

112

experienced and low readiness, really appreciate leaders who could provide more

guidelines and be more supportive as compared to their older counterparts.

However it is also noticed that, both employees, new and experienced will prefer to

remain their commitment at the highest level, if they feel that the leaders were adopting

high NTP styles which seems to suggest that supportive management behaviours affect

organizational commitment (Porter et al., 1974; Mowday et al., 1982; Beck & Wilson,

1997; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).

Experienced workers are thought to be more satisfied and committed, partially as a result

of their having better positions and also having cognitively justified their remaining in an

organization (Meyer & Allen, 1974). The length of service in an organization is

positively related to the level of internalization of organizational values, which results in

greater commitment from the individual (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Hellriegel, Slocum &

Woodman, 1995; O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991). Becker's (1960) argued that

over a period of time, certain costs accrue that make it more difficult for the person to

disengage from a consistent line of activity, namely, maintaining membership in the

organization. Working in the organization increases an individual's investments; hence,

the costs of leaving can lead to higher levels of OC. Super (1957) suggested that People

in the midcareer stage are more interested in developing stable work and personal lives

and in making strong commitments to work, family, and the community. People in the

late stage of their career are in a stage of relative tranquility. They are more oriented to

"settling down" and are less willing to relocate or leave the organization for purposes of

113

promotion. Thus, this may seems to suggest why experienced employees are more

committed (Alutto, Hrebiniak, & Alonso, 1973; Meyer & Allen, 1984; Sheldon, 1971).

Few factors may help to explain why new employees require high level of NTP styles

from their superior. According to Hersey and Johnson (1996), at the lower levels of

readiness, the leader needs to provide direction but with higher levels of readiness,

followers become responsible for task direction. There is no one best way to influence

people and leaders need to assess the readiness level and then use the appropriate

leadership style. Thus, it is the follower who dictates the most appropriate leader

behaviour.

On the other hand, Hersey and Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory (SLT),

suggested that leaders should adopt their style based on the maturity of the employees

and employees with different work characteristics will be more effective and productive

with different leadership styles (Tulgan, 1996)..

The basic assumption of Situational Leadership Theory is that leader task and

relationship behaviours are moderated by the level of follower readiness (Blank, Weitzel

& Green, 1990, p. 580). The appropriate amount of leader task and relationship behaviour

is determined by the level of follower readiness. As the level of follower readiness

changes the amount of leader task and relationship behaviour should change to match the

level of follower readiness.

114

Whyte (1988) on the other hand, suggested that the choice of leadership style depends on

the nature of the task, the power available to the leader, the experience of the employees,

the culture of the organization, the preferred style of the leader, the style preferred by

employees and time available for task completion

Blank et al. (1990) explained that as leader task and relationship behaviours match

follower readiness the “effectiveness” of this behaviour will be manifested in follower

performance and satisfaction with the leader (p. 584). A greater understanding of matches

would validate the theory and contribute to the understanding of situational leadership

behaviour.

Effective SL managers provide individual followers with differing amounts of direction

and support on different tasks and goals, depending on the follower’s developmental

level (Blanchard, Zigarmi & Nelson, 1993). For example, on a task new to a given

employee, the manager is advised to begin with more directives. A manager should start

with a (normally subjective) assessment of the follower’s developmental level on a

particular activity (Blanchard & Nelson, 1997). Leaders should be directing more the

effort of the individuals in this situation.

115

CHAPTER 6: Conclusion and Recommendations

Mixed results have been attained in this study in the attempt to explain which type of

leadership style is suitable with their employees. According to the past research and

literature review, no one method has been found to be very effective in all situations.

Based on the current investigations, both leadership styles are significant in promoting

employees commitment in the organizations, which means that leaders should be

sensitive towards the condition and readiness of the employees before applying any style

and understand that different leadership style is applicable to different types of

employees.

This finding has also lead to the understanding that, as a whole, high NTP styles can

encourage the participations of employees in terms of normative and continuance. This

has suggested that employees who perceived their leaders to be adopting high NTP styles,

would exhibit high loyalty and interest to remain with the organizations. This is of

course, an important issues to be addressed to. This suggests that newly employed staff

would step up their commitment if leaders have NTP, while on the other hand, the effect

is quite moderate on experienced workers. Thus leaders should understand this situation

deeply especially in encouraging new and talented people to be part of the co-operatives

family.

It was noticed that in co-operatives, while other commitment remains to be high, the

affective commitment recorded a remarkably low mean. In such a case, there is a

116

mismatch between the organizational values and employee’s values that employees in the

organizations felt that if other factors remain constant, the intention to stay will be

questionable. Thus, leaders should articulate strategies in order to stimulate the interest of

employees to be emotionally attached with the organizations.

Today’s working environment is very competitive and sustaining the organizational with

the support of employees who are attached with the organization, who feel happy to be

the part of the organizations family, who supports the overall goals and strategic

directions are very important. As an agent of the organizations, leaders have to look into

this matter seriously since having an employee who is not committed, will strand the

organizational phase of development in the future.

The Malaysian culture has created people who are very loyal to their superior and this

factor sounds good and promising. However taking this factor down to the organizational

extend, no organization will afford to bear the cost of having an employees who are loyal

to the organizations but on the order hand, the motives of loyalty is because they are

entrap to move to other places due to the high cost of leaving. Thus to stay put in the

organization without doing anything to promote to the best interest of the organizations is

considered disastrous. In the end, nothing good will result out of this kind of behaviour.

Keeping loyal employees but unproductive ones will harm the business in the long run.

Of course, these loyal employees will still be bombarded due to not be doing their jobs

well done.

117

The success of business is not only having a good and clear vision, but are based on the

overall commitment and positive work attitude of the employees who feel involved,

accepting and expecting that the overall organizational problem are also part of their own

problem. So, keeping loyal employees who gets their pay at the end of the moment is not

enough. This situation is very alarming and something must be done to rectify this

problem.

Three elements of organizational commitment that were discussed in the research paper

are very important since it described a unique characteristic that each commitment holds.

Combining these three elements will not only create employees that are responsible

towards their organization but eventually help the organizations to grow. Organization

should not only depend on individuals who “needs” and “ought” to stay but specifically it

is very important to have employees who feel that they emotionally want to stay in the

organization without any factors influencing the decisions. Thus leaders should play

important roles to create the scenario that people want and feel comfortable to work

within the organizations. Some of the recommendations that leaders can play are:

1. Understanding the needs of each individual in the organizations

If each individual needs has been satisfied, this will lead them to be committed in the

organization. It is unlikely that employees will be committed for any reason where

leaders are not attuned to their needs. Employees might also feel they are thankful and

owe to their superior’s for having fulfilling some of the employees needs.

118

2. Leaders should not rely solely on a single leadership style

This research also suggested that, both NTP and autocratic style was accepted by the

employees and was found to be significant. However, leaders should not only base their

styles to only one style that they prefer. There is a necessity to adopt different leadership

style depending on several other situational factors that comes into hand, for example, the

readiness of the employees in terms of a given task, the skills and knowledge of the

employees, the familiarity of the task, the burden of work loads to the extend of social

interactions among leaders and their employees. Of course, if the employees find the

superior to be considerate in certain situations, they might feel delighted to be committed.

3. Consider effective HRM practices

Employees will feel satisfied if their effort is being recognized by the employees.

Satisfied employees will in turn be committed to work harder in the organizations,

realizing to the fact that they will receive something in return for the effort and hard work

given. Rewards do not necessarily mean financial investments, however a small thanks or

smile can also bring a lot of meaning to other people

119

4. Improvement on Leadership skills

Leaders should also consider on improving their leadership skills in order to create better

working relationship with employees and conducive non tension environment in

particular to the employee’s perceptions.

5. Transition from a more traditional, hierarchical structure to a more team-

based structure

The nature of work is changing, every thing should be done in an effective manner,

decisions have to be made precisely and speed is necessary to keep pace with any

changes. This context requires more innovations and creativity and individual thought.

To enhance the motivation and commitment, every individual should have the

opportunity to express their idea and leaders should try to develop the skills, potential and

abilities of every employee.

6. More attention to early employment experiences

From this study, it was observed that new employees would increase their commitment to

be loyal and continue to work in the organizations if they perceive their leaders to be

supportive as compared to more stable pattern of commitment among experienced

employees. Thus, manager should pay close attention to this early employment to help

them increase their experiences and generate their commitment in co-operatives.

120

6.1 Recommendations for Future Research

Future research should attempt to investigate other factors that can increase co-operatives

employees’ organizational commitment, for example, organizational climate, salaries

empowerment and such.

Research is also needed to investigate further on why affective commitment was

considered low in co-operatives societies. To date, no research has been tested on

explaining the commitment of co-operatives employees.

Research is also welcome in the areas of different industries as a comparison with co-

operatives to measure the level of differences whether the level of commitments have any

similarities with co-operatives.

Research is also recommended on the area of examination of the relationship of

distributive justice and employees’ organizational commitment. This is to see whether

employees commitment especially the affective commitment in the organization has

positive relationship with the outcome that they received.

One limitation of most OC research is that it has measured commitment at a single point

in time during employment. Therefore, to measure the consistency of commitment in co-

operatives, new way of looking at OC should be introduced for example, conducting

surveys after respondents has reached certain ages. Thus comparisons can be done at

121

times when the employees join the organization and when they reach certain experience

level in the organizations. Longitudinal studies can capture OC over time.

6.2 Implications

This research will benefit the co-operative societies in understanding the current practice

of the employees towards the organizations. Following this, perhaps co-operatives can

develop strategic roles in maintaining commitment of their employees in the future to

help the employees to grow along with the organizations. Various proactive roles can be

done to ensure the commitment of employees as discuss above especially in terms of

revising, updating and/or making necessary changes to the current HRM practices in the

organizations.

This study is also beneficial to co-operatives leaders in understanding the different types

of leadership styles and the necessity of adopting suitable style based on the employee’s

readiness.

Finally, this study is also dedicated to co-operatives training institutions to further

develop courses that are relevant to enhance the leadership skills in managing employees

and encouraging employees to progress their careers in co-operatives societies.

122

REFERENCES

Abdullah, A. (Ed.) (1992a), Understanding the Malaysian Workforce: Guidelines forManagers, Malaysian Institute of Management, Kuala Lumpur.

Abdullah, A. (1992b), “The influence of ethnic values on managerial practices inMalaysia”, Malaysian Management Review, Vol. 27, pp. 3-18.

Abdullah, A. (1994), “Leading and motivating the Malaysian workforce”. MalaysianManagement Review, 29, 24-41.

Abdullah, A. (1996), Going Glocal: Cultural Dimensions in Malaysian Management.Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Malaysian Institute of Management.

Adams, J.S. (1965), "Inequity in social exchange", in Berkowitz, L. (Eds),Advancesin Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, Vol. Vol. 2pp.267-99.

Adler, N.J. (1991), International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour, 2nd ed.,PWS Kent, Boston, MA

Agarwal, S., De Carlo, T.E. and Yyas, S.B. (1999), “ Leadership behaviour andorganizational commitment : A comparative study of American and Indiansalespersons”, Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 4, 727-744.

Ahmad, K. (2001), “Corporate leadership and workplace motivation in Malaysia”.International Journal of Commerce and Management, 11, 82-101.

Ali, A.J. (1993), “Decision-making style, individualism, and attitudes toward risk ofArab executives”, International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 23 No.3, pp. 53-73.

Alip, R. S. (2003), Supervisory Bases of Power and Subordinates' Compliance,Identification, and Internalization. Unpublished MBA thesis. Penang: UniversityScience Malaysia.

Allen, N.J and Meyer, J.P (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective,continuance and normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of OccupationalPsychology, Vol. 63, pp 1-18.

Alley, W. and Gould, R.B (1975), Feasibility of Estimating Personnel Turnover fromSurvey Data: A Longitudinal Study, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, BrookeAir Force Base, TX..

123

Alluto, J. A., Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alonso, R. C. (1973). “On operationalizingthe concept of commitment”. Social Forces, 51, 448-454.

Angle, H.L. and Perry, J.L. (1981), “An empirical assessment of organizationalcommitment and organizational effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 26, 1981, pp. 1 – 13.

Ansari, M. A. (1986), “Need for nurturant-task leaders in India: Some empiricalevidence”. Management and Labor Studies, 11, 26-36.

Ansari, M. A. (1987), “Effects of leader persistence and leader behaviour onleadership perceptions”. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 2, 1-10.

Ansari, M. A. (1990), Managing People at Work: Leadership Styles and InfluenceStrategies. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Ansari, M.A, Aafaqi, R. and Jayasingam, S (2000), “Entrepreneurial Success,Gender,and Leadership Behavior”, Journal of International Business and Entrepreneurship.

Ansari, M.A, Ahmad, Z.A and Aafaqi Rehana (2004), Organizational Leadership inthe Malaysian Context, Leading In High Growth Asia, Chapter 5.

Ansari, M. A. and Shukla, R. (1987), “Effects of group performance and leaderbehavior on leadership perceptions”. Psychological Studies, 32, 111-118.

Arvey, R.D. and Ivancevich, J.M. (1980), “Punishment in organizations : A review,propositions and research suggestions”, Academy of Management Review, 5, 123-132.

Asma, A. (1996), Going Glocal, Malaysian Institute of Management, Kuala Lumpur.

Asma Abdullah (2002), Understanding the Malaysian workforce: Guide lines formanagers (revised edition). Kuala Lumpur: MIM.

Bass, B. and Valenzi, E. (1974), Contingent aspects of effective management style, inHunt, J. and Larson, L. (Eds), Contingency Approaches to Leadership, SouthernIllinois University Press, Carbondale, IL

Bass, B.M, (1981), Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. NewYork : Free Press

Bass, B. (1990), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership, Free Press, New York,NY.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY :Harper.

124

Beck, K. and Wilson, C. (1995), The Development of Organisational Commitmentacross the Career Span of Police, Report Series No. 122, National Police ResearchUnit, Adelaide, Australia.

Beck, K. and Wilson, C. (1997), "Police officers views on cultivating organisationalcommitment: implications for police managers", Policing: An International Journal ofPolice Strategies and Management, Vol. 20 No.1, pp.175-95.

Beck, K. and Wilson, C. (2000), “Development of affective organizationalcommitment: a cross-sequential examination of change with tenure”, Journal ofVocational Behavior, Vol. 56, pp. 114-36.

Becker, H. S. (1960), “Note on the concept of commitment”. American Journal ofSociology, 66, 32—42.

Becker, H. S. (1964), “Personal change in adult life”. Sociometry 27, 40-53.

Becker, T. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: “Are they decisions worthmaking?” Academyof Management Journal, 35, 232-244.

Bedeian, Arthur G., and William F. Gleuck (1983), Management: Third Edition.Chicago: Dreyden Press, 1983.

Bemowski, K. (1990), “The human side of quality: closing the gap”, Quality Progess,Vol. 23 No. 11, November, 1990, pp. 17-20

Bennis, W.G. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leader: The Strategies for Taking Charge,Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Bernard, L. L. (1926), An introduction to social psychology. New York: Holt.

Bhal, K. T. (2000), Managing dyadic interactions in organizational leadership. NewDelhi: Sage Publications.

Bishop, J.W. and Scott, K.D. (2000), “An examination of organizational and teamcommitment in a self-directed team environment”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 85, pp. 439-50.

Bitner, M.J. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1987), Fundamentals in services marketing, inSurprenant, C.(Ed.), Add Value to Your Service: the Key to Success, AmericanMarketing Association, Proceedings Series, 711 Chicago, IL, 1987.

Blake, R. R., Shepard, H. A., and Mouton, J. S. (1964), Managing intergroup conflictin industry.Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co

125

Blanchard, K.H, Zigarmi, D. and Nelson, R.B (1993), "Situational leadership after 25years: a retrospective", Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 1 No.1, pp.22-36.

Blank, W., Weitzel, J.R. and Green, S.G. (1990), "A test of the situational leadershiptheory", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 43 No.3, pp.579-97.

Blanchard, K.H, and Nelson, R (1997), Executive Excellence, Vol. 14 No.4, pp.15

Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B.M. (1996), “An integrative framework for explainingreactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures”. PsychologicalBulletin, Vol. 120 pp. 189-208.

Bullis, C. and Bach, B.W. (1989), “Are mentor relationships helping organizations?An exploration of developing mentee-mentor identifications using turning pointanalysis”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 373, pp. 199-214.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R., and Allen, J. (1995), ”Further assessment’s of Bass’s (1985)conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership”. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 80, 468-478

Chandler, A.D. (1962), Strategy and structure. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press

Cheney, G. (1983), On the various and changing meanings of organizationalmembership: a field study of organizational identification, CommunicationMonographs, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 342-62.

Coakes, S.J and Steed, L. (2007), SPSS Version 14.0 for Windows. Analysis WithouthAnguish, Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd..

Cohen, A. (1996). “On the discriminant validity of the Meyer and Allen measure oforganisational commitment: How does it fit with the work commitment construct?”,Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56:494-503.

Colbert, A.E. and Kwon, I.G. (2000). “Factors Related to the OrganizationalCommitment of College and University Auditors,” Journal of Managerial Issues,11(4):484-502.

Collins, J. and Porras, J. (1996), Built to Last, Random House, London.

Congram, C.A. and Friedman, M.L. (Eds), The quality-leadership connection inservice businesses, The AMA Handbook of Marketing for the Services Industries,Vol. 5, 1991.

Cummings, L.L. and Schwab, D.P. (1973), Performance in Organizations:Determinants and Appraisal, Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL, 1973.

126

Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F.J. and Markham, S.E. (1995), "Leadership: themultiple-level approaches", Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No.2, pp.97-109.

DeCotiis, T.A. and Summers, T.P. (1987), “A path analysis of a model of theantecedents and consequences of organizational commitment”, Human Relations,Vol. 40, pp. 445-70.

Deutsch, M. (1985), Distributive Justice: A Social Psychological Perspective, YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, CT.

Dunham, R., Grube, J., & Castaneda, M. (1994). “Organizational commitment: Theutility of an integrative definition”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370-380.

Eby, L.T., Freeman, D.M., Rush, M.C. and Lance, C.E. (1999), “The motivationalbases of Affective organizational commitment”, Journal of Occupational &Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 463-83.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceivedorganizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-7.

French, J. and Raven, B.H. (1959), The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.),Studies of social power. Ann Arbor, MI : Institute for Social Research.

Fuller, J., Barnett, T., Hester, K. and Relyea, C. (2003), “A social identity perspectiveon the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizationalcommitment”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 143 No. 6, pp. 789-91.

Gebert, D. and Steinkamp, T. (1991), “Leadership style and economic success inNigeria and Taiwan”, Management International Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 161-71

Gerber, P. D., Nel, P. S. and Van Dyk, P. S. 1996. Human Resource Management, 3rd

Edition. Johannesburg: International Thompson Publishing.

Ghiselli, E.E, (1966), The validity of occupational aptitude tests. New York : Wiley.

Gibson, J. L., and Klein, S. M. (1970), ”Employee attitudes as a function of age andlength of service”. Academy of Management Journal, 13, 411–425.

Gill, R. (1998), “Cross-cultural comparison of the leadership styles and behavior ofmanagers in the UK, USA and Southeast Asia.” Asian Academy of ManagementJournal, 3, 19-32.

Gilsson, C. and Durick, M. (1988), "Predictors of job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment in human service organizations", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.33 No.1, pp.61-81.

127

Govindan, J. T. (2000), The Influence of Social Value Orientations and DemographicFactors on Leadership Preference among Malaysians. Unpublished MBA thesis.Penang: University Science Malaysia.

Department of Co-operative Development Website.

Graen, G. (1976), Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D.Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago:Rand McNally.

Gray, Jerry L. and Frederick A. Starke (1988), Organizational Behavior: Conceptsand Applications. Columbus, Ohio: Merril, 1988. By Patrick Antoine

Green, S.G., and Mitchell, T.R. (1979), “Attributional processes of leaders in leadermember exchanges”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 429-458.

Gregersen, H. and Black, S. (1992), “Antecedents of commitment to the parentcompany and commitment to the local operation for American personnel oninternational assignment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No.1, pp.1-26.

Greenberg, J. (2004), “Promote procedural justice to enhance acceptance of workoutcomes”, in Locke, E.A. (Eds),Handbook of Principles of OrganizationalBehaviour, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp.181-96.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B., Rolph, J., Anderson, E. and Tatham R. L. (2006),Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson EducationInc.

Hall, Douglas T., Benjamin Schneider, and Harold T. Nygren (1970), “Personalfactors in organizational identification”, Administrative Science Quarterly. 15:176-190

Halpin, A. W. and Winer, B. J. (1957), A factorial study of the leader behaviordescription. In R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Itsdescription and measurement. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, OhioState University

Hawkins, W. D. 1998. Predictors of affective organizational commitment among highschool principals. PhD Dissertation [On Line]. Available:http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-32298- 1310/unrestricted/DISSERTATION.PDF

Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J. and Woodman, R. (1995), Organisational Behavior, WestPublishing, St Paul, MN, .

Hemphill, J.K. and Coons, A.E. (1957), Development of the leader behaviordescription questionnaire. In R.M. Stogdill and A.E. Coons (Eds), Leader behavior;

128

Its description and measurement. Columbus, OH : Bureau of Business Research,Ohio State University

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1969), “Life cycle theory of leadership: is there abest style of leadership?”, Training and Development Journal, Vol. 33 No.6, pp.26-34.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. and Johnson, D.E. (1996), Management of OrganizationalBehavior: Utilizing Human Resources, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, .

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hofstede, G. (1985), “The interaction between national and organizational valuesystems”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 22,pp. 347-57.

Hofstede, G. (1991), “Management in a multicultural society”, MalaysianManagement Review, Vol. 26, pp. 3-12.

House, R. J., and Mitchell, R. R. (1974), “Path-goal theory of leadership”. Journal ofContemporary Business, 3(4), pp. 81-98.

Hrebiniak, Lawrence G. (1974), “Effects of job level and participation on employeeattitudes and perception of influence “Academy of Management Journal, 17: 649-662.

Hulin, C. (1991), Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations, inDunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology, Vol. 2, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Indar Kaur., Sushila Devi, Rafiah Omar, and Rahimah Abdul Samad (2005), KajianKedudukan Tenaga Kerja dan Kepuasan Kerja Dalam Kalangan KakitanganGerakan Koperasi di Malaysia, Maktab Kerjasama Malaysia, vol. 1 pp. 13 – 32.

International Co-operative Alliance Website.

Jacobs, T.O. (1970), Leadership and exchange in formal organizations. Alexandria,VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Janda, K.F. (1960), “Towards the explication of the concept of leadership in terms ofthe concept of power”, Human Relations, 13, 345-363.

Johnston, M.W., Parasuraman, A., Futrell, C.M. and Black, B.C.(1990), “Alongitudinal assessment of the impact of selected organizational influences onsalespeople’s organizational commitment during early employment”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, August 1990, pp. 333-44.

129

Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., and Snoek, J.D. (1964), Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York : Wiley

Kanter, R.M. (1968), “Commitment and social organisation: a study of commitmentmechanisms in utopian communities”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 33 No. 4,pp. 499-517.

Kanter, R.M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York,NY.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The social psychology of organizations. (2nd ed.)New York: John Wiley.

Kennedy, J. C., and Mansor, N. (2000), “Malaysian culture and the leadership oforganizations: A global study”. Malaysian Management Review, 35, 44-53.

Kennedy, J. C. (2002), “Leadership in Malaysia: Traditional values, internationaloutlook”. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 15-26.

Kent, A. and Chelladurai, P. (2001). “Perceived transformational leadership,organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviour: a case study in intercollegiateathletics”, Journal of Sport Management, 15:135-159.

Ko, J.W, Price, J.L, and Mueller, C.W (1979), “Assesment of Meyer and Allen’sThree Component Model of Organizational Commitment in South Korea. Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 6, 961 – 973.

Koch, J.D., and Steers, R.M. (1978), “Job Attachment, Satisfaction, and Turnoveramong Public Sector Employees”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12, 119-128.

Korman, A.K. and Tanofsky, R. (1975), “Statistical problems of contingency modelin organizational behavior”. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 393-397.

Kotter, J.P. (1982), The general managers. New York : Free Press

Kraut, A.I (1970), The Prediction of Employee Turnover by Employee Attitudes. IBMWorld Trade Corporation, New York, NY, .

Kur, E. (1995), “Developing leadership in organizations: a continuum of choices”,Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 4 No. 2, June, pp. 198-206

Lee, T.W., Ashford, S., Walsh, J. and Mowday, R (1992), “Commitment propensity,organizational commitment and voluntary turnover : a longitudinal study oforganizational entry processes”, Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 15-32.

130

Lee, Sang M. (1971), “An empirical analysis of organizational identification.”Academy of Management Journal, 14 : 213-226

Lee, K. (1992). A study of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to theorganization, Unpublished master's thesis, Sung Kyun Kwan University, Seoul,Korea.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R.K. (1939), “Patterns of aggressive behavior inexperimentally created social climates”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 10, pp.271-301.

Likert, R. (1967), The Human Organization: Its Management and Value, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Likert, R.and Likert J.G. (1976), New Ways of Managing Conflict, McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.

Lim, L. (1998), “Cultural attributes of Malays and Malaysian Chinese: Implicationsfor research and practice”. Malaysian Management Review, 33, 81-88.

Limerick, D., Cunnington, B. and Crowther, F. (1998), Managing the NewOrganization, Business and Professional Publishing, Sydney.

Liu, Anita MM., Chiu MM and Fellows, R. (2007), “Enhancing CommitmentThrough Work Empowerment. Engineering”, Construction and ArchitecturalManagement, vol. 14 no 6, 2007.

Lok, P and Crawford, J (2003), “The effect of organizational culture and leadershipstyle on job satisfaction and organizational commitment – A Cross NationalComparison”, Journal of Management Development, Vol 23, No. 4 2004.

Long, R.J. (1978), “The relative effects of share ownership vs control on job attitudesin an employee-owned company”, Human Relations, Vol. 31 No. 9, 1978, pp. 753-63.

Lord, R.G., Binning, J.F., Rush, M.C. and Thomas, J.C. (1978), “The effect ofperformance cues and leader behavior on questionnaire ratings of leader behavior”.Organizational Behavior and Human performance, 21, 27-39.

Lord, R.G., Devader, C.L. and Alliger, G.M. (1986), “A meta analysis of the relationbetween personality traits and leadership: An application of validity generalizationprocedures”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.

Lord, R.G. and Maher, K.J. (1993), Leadership and Information Processing: LinkingPerceptions and Performance, Unwin Hyman, Boston, MA.

131

Loui, K. (1995). Understanding employee commitment in the public organization: Astudy of the juvenile detention center. International Journal of Public Administration.18(8), 1269-1295.

Lussier, R.N. (1990), Human Relations in Organizations, Dow Jones Irwin,Homewood, IL.

Mann, R.D. (1959), “A review of the relationship between personality andperformance in small groups”. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.

Manz, C. Sims, (H). (1991), “Superleadership : beyond the myth of heroicleadership”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 2, pp. 18-35.

Marsh, R.M. and Mannari, H. (1977), "Organisational commitment and turnover: apredictive study", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22 No.1, pp.57-75.

Mathieu, J. and Zajac, D., (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,correlates and consequences of organizational commitment”. Psychological Bulletin.108. 2, 171-194.

Mathieu, J. and Hamel, D. (1989), "A cause model of the antecedents oforganisational commitment among professionals and non-professionals", Journal ofVocational Behavior, Vol. 34 pp.299-317.

Mathieu, J. and Zajac, D. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,correlates and outcomes of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.108, pp. 171-194.

McCall, M.W., Jr. (1977), Leaders and leadership : Of susbstance and shadow. In J.Hackman, E.E. Lawler Jr., L.W. Porter (Eds.), Perspectives on behavior inorganizations, New York : McGraw-Hill.

McDonough, E.F. III and Barczak, G. (1991), “Speeding up new productdevelopment: the effects of leadership style and source of technology”, Journal ofProduct Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, September, pp. 203-11.

McLaren, M. C. and Rashid, M. Z. A. (2002), Issues and Cases in Cross-culturalManagement. Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: Prentice Hall.

McNeese – Smith, D. (1999), “The relationship between managerial motivation,leadership, nurse outcomes and patient satisfaction”. Journal of OrganizationalBehaviour, 20, 2, 243-259.

Meindl, J.R., Ehrlich, S.B., and Dukerich, J.M. (1985), “The romance of leadership”.Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102.

132

Meyer, J. and Allen N. (1984), “Testing the ‘side-bet theory’ of organizationalcommitment : some methodological considerations “ Journal of AppliedPsychologgy, Vol. 69, pp. 372-8.

Meyer, J., Allen, N. and Gellatlym I. (1990), “Affective and continuance commitmentto the organization : evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and timelagged relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 710-20.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three component of conceptualization oforganizational commitment”. Human Resource Management Review, Vol.1 : 61-89.

Meyer J. P., Allen, N.J and Smith, C.A (1993), “Commitment to organizations andoccupations : extension and test of a three component conceptualization”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 78 pp. 538-51.

Meyer, J., and Allen, N. (1997), Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA :SAGE Publications.

Meyer, J., Bobocel, D., & Allen, N. (1991). Development of organizationalcommitment during the first year of employment: A longitudinal study of pre- andpost-entry influences.Journal of Management, 17, 717-733.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J.(1984), “Testing the side-bet theory of organizationalcommitment: some methodological considerations”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 69, 1984, pp. 372-8.

Mitchell, T.R., Larson, J.R. Jr., and Green, S.G. (1977), “Leader behavior, situationalmoderators and group performance: An attributional analysis”. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 18, 254-268.

Mottaz, C.J. (1988), “Determinant of commitment”, Human Relations, Vol. 41 No. 6,pp. 467-82.

Mowday, R.T, Steers, R.M and Porter, L.W (1979), "The measurement oforganizational commitment", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14 No.2, pp.224-47.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., and Steers, R. M. (1982), Employee organizationallinkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York:Academic Press.

Muna, F. (1980), The Arab Executive, St Martin’s Press, New York, NY.

Nadler, D. (1997), Champions of Change, Josseu – Bass, New York, NY.

133

Newman, J.E (1974), "Predicting absenteeism and turnover: a field comparison ofFishbein’s model and traditional job attitude measures", Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 59 pp.610-15.

Niehoff, B. P., Enz, C. A., and Grover, R. A. (1990), “The impact of top-managementactions on employee attitudes and perceptions”. Group & Organization Studies, 1990,15(3), 337-352.

Norazit, S. (1998), Malay political leadership: going back to the roots, in Lim, H. andSingh, R.(Eds), Values and Development: A Multidisciplinary Approach with SomeComparative Studies, pp. 115-20.

O'Reilly, C., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), "People and organisationalculture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organisation fit",Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 pp.487-516.

Parasuraman, S. (1982), “Predicting Turnover Intentions and Turnover Behavior : AMultivariate Analysis”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 111-121.

Pelz, D. Influence (1952), “A key to effective leadership in development ofsatisfaction in work and retirement”. The first line supervisor. Personnel, 1952, 29,209- cago: Rand McNally, 1969.

Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H., Jr. (1982), In search of excellence: Lessons fromAmerica’s best run companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Pfeffer, J (1977), The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2,104-112.

Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D. and Skov, R. (1982), “Effects of leader contingent andnoncontingent reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance andsatisfaction”. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 810-821.

Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A., and Huber, V.L. (1984), “Situationalmoderators of leader reward and punishment behavior : Fact or fiction ?”,Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 21-63.

Podsakoff, P.M., and Schriesheim, C.A. (1985), “Field studies of French and Raven’sbases of power: Critique, reanalysis and suggestions for future research”,Psychological Bulletin, 97, 387-411.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., and Boulian, P.V. (1974), “OrganizationalCommitment, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Among Psychiatric Technicians”.Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603 – 609.

134

Porter, L. W., and Lawler, E. E. (1968), Managerial Attitudes and Performance.Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Porter, L.W, Campon, W. J. and Smith, F.J. (1976), "Organizational commitment andmanagerial turnover: a longitudinal study", Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, Vol. 15 pp.87-9.

Pradit Machima (2002), Cooperatives for Development of the Rural Poor, ICA.

Prakash, D. (2001), “Governance in co-operatives”. Paper presented in Seminar ofCorporate Governance in Co-operatives, New Delhi.

Prakash, D. (2005), Lessons Relevant for the agricultural co-operatives in developingcounties of Asia-Pacific Region - Derived from the Experiences of JapaneseAgricultural Co-operatives, Wawasan Bulletin, 1/2005, p 35-42.

Rai, S. and Sinha, A.K. (2000), ”Transformational leadership, organizationalcommitment and facilitating climate”. Psychological Studies. 45, 1-2,33-42.

Raja Maimon, Sushila Devi, Jamilah Din. Nurizah Noordin and Noraesyah Saari(2002), Ciri-ciri keusahawanan dan amalan pengurusan di kalangan pengurus-pengurus koperasi di Malaysia : Suatu perbandingan di antara koperasi berjayadengan koperasi yang kurang berjaya., Monograf penyelidikan Maktab KerjasamaMalaysia.

Raudsepp, E. (1977). Motivating the Engineer: The direct approach is best. MachineDesign, November, 59-61.

Redding, G. (1990), The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism, Walter de Gruyter, New York,NY.

Reichers, A.E. (1985), “A review and re-conceptualization of organizationalcommitment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, 1985, pp. 465-76.

Reichheld, F.F. (1996), The loyalty effect. Boston : Harvard Business School Press.

Renwick, G. and Witham, W.J. (1997), Managing in Malaysia: Cultural Insights andGuidelines for Americans, Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, ME.

Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a reviewof the literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714

Roach, C.F. and Behling, O. (1984), Functionalism : Basis for an alternate approachto the study of leadership. In J.G. Hunt, D.M. Hosking, C.A. Schriesheim, & R.Stewart (Eds.), Leaders and managers : International perspectives on managerialbehavior and leadership. Elmsford, NY : Pergamon Press.

135

Robbins, S.P. (1993), Organizational Behavior, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S. (1991), Criteria for scale selectionand evaluation, in Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S. (Eds),Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, Academic Press, SanDiego, CA.

Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, M.S. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), “Changing obligations andthe psychological contract: a longitudinal study”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 37, pp. 137-52.

Rowden, R. W. (2000). “The relationship between charismatic leadership behavioursand organizational commitment”, The Leadership and Organizational DevelopmentJournal, 21(1):30–35

Russ –Eft, D. (1999), Everyone a leader : a north American and Europeancomparison, AchieveGlobal, Inc., USA, paper presented at the European Conferenceon Educational Research, Lahti, 22-25 September. Available atwww.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000001159.htm.

Saal, F. E., and Knight, P. A. (1988), Industrial/organizational psychology: Scienceand practice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Sarantinos, V.S.T. and Co, J.S.C. (2007), “Flexibility in the workplace: what happensto commitment?”, Journal of Business and Public Affairs, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp 10.

Sarros, J. and Woodman, D. (1993), “Leadership in Australia and its organizationaloutcomes”, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp.3-9.

Saufi, R. A., Wafa, S. A., and Hamzah, Y. Z. (2002), “Leadership style preference ofMalaysian managers”. Malaysian Management Review, 37, 1-10.

Savery, L.K (1994), "Attitudes to work: the influence of perceived style of leadershipon a group of workers", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 15No.4, pp.12-18.

Schein, E.H. (1980), Organizational Psychology, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,NJ.

Scholl, R. W (1981), “Differentiating commitment from expectancy as a motivatingforce”. Academy of Management Review, 6, 589-599.

136

Schriesheim, C.A. and Stogdill, R.M. (1975), “Differences in factor structure acrossthree versions of the Ohio state leadership scales”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28 No.2, 1975, pp. 189-206.

Schriesheim, C.A., and Kerr, S. (1977), Theories and measures of leadership; Acritical appraisal. In J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge.Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1993), “The motivational effects ofcharismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 4,pp. 1-17.

Shenoy, G.V and Mohammad Sulaiman, (1994), Survey of Management Practices ofCo-operatives in Malaysia, Science University of Malaysia.

Sheldon, Mary E.(1971) “Investments and involvements as mechanisms producingcommitment to the organization”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 16:142-150.

Shore, L.M. and Shore, T.H. (1995), Perceived organizational support andorganizational justice, in Cropanzano, R.S. and Kacmar, K.M. (Eds), OrganizationalPolitics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of the Workplace,Quorum, Westport, CT, pp. 149-64.

Shore, L.M. and Wayne, S.J. (1993), “Commitment and employee behavior:comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceivedsupport”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 774-80.

Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D.S. and Gelfand, M. (1995), “Horizontaland vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: a theoretical andmeasurement refinement”, Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 29, pp. 240-75.

Sinha, J. B. P. (1980), The Nurturant-task Leader: A Model of the Effective Executive.New Delhi: Concept.

Sinha, J. B. P. (1983), “Further testing of a model of leadership effectiveness.” IndianJournal of Industrial Relations, 19, 143-160.

Sinha, J. B. P. (1994), The Cultural Context of Leadership and Power. New Delhi:Sage Publications.

Stalk, G., Jr., and Hout, T. M. (1990), Competing against time. New York: FreePress.

Steers, R.M. (1977), “Antecedents and outcomes and organizational commitment”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 46-56.

137

Steven, John M., Janice M. Beyer, and Harrison M. Trice (1978), “Assessing personalrole and organizational predictors of managerial commitment”, Academy ofManagement Journal, 21 : 380-396.

Stogdill, R.M (1948), “Personal factors associated with leadership. A survey of theliterature”. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Stogdill, R.M (1974), Handbook of Leadership : A Survey of Theory and Research,Free Press, New York, N.Y.

Stogdill, R.M (1974), Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of The Literature,New York: Free Press.

Stum, D. L. (1999). “Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitmentpyramid”, Strategy and Leadership, 29(4):4-9.

Sullivan, K.D. (1994), Empowerment and Control: A New Management Paradigm,Educational Leadership, Seattle University, Seattle, WA.

Super, D. (1957), The psychology of careers. New York: Harper.

Tannenbaum, R., Weschler, I.R., & Massarik, F. (1961), Leadership andorganization. New York : McGraw-Hill.

Tao, M., Takagi, H. Ishida, M. and Masuda, K. 1998. “A study of variables associatedwith organizational commitment”, Japanese Psychological Research, 40(4):198-205.

Teas, R.K., Wacker, J.G. and Hughes, R.E.(1979), “A path analysis of causes andconsequences of salespeople’s perceptions of role clarity”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 6 No. 3, August 1979, pp. 355-81.

Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. (1993), “Job satisfaction, organizational commitment,turnover intention, and turnover: path analysis based on meta-analytic findings”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 259-93.

Thambain, H.J., and Gemmill, G.R. (1974), “Influence styles of project managers:Some project performance correlates”. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 216-224.

Tharenou, P. (1993), “A test of reciprocal causality for absenteeism”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol.14, pp. 269-90.

Tosi, H. and Tosi, D. (1970), “Some correlates of role conflict and role ambiguityamong public school teachers”, Journal of Human Relations, Vol. 18 No. 3, 1970, pp.1068-75.

138

Tulgan, B. (1996), Managing Generation X: How to Bring out the Best in YoungTalent, Capstone Publishing, Oxford.

Tushman, M. and O’Reilly, C. (1997), Winning Through Innovations – A PracticalGuide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal, Harvard Business SchoolPress, Boston, MA.

Tyler, T.R. (1999), Why people cooperate with organizations: an identity-basedperspective, in Sutton, R.I. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in OrganizationalBehavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 201-47.

Vroom, V. and Yetton, P. (1973), Leadership and Decision Making, University ofPittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

Vroom, V.H. (1964), Motivation – a point-of-view, in Porter, L.W., Bigley, G.A.(Eds), Work and Motivation, Human Relations, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp.8-23.

Vroom, V.H. (1995), Work and Motivation, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco,CA.

Walster, E., Walster, G.W., Berscheid, E. (1978), Equity: Theory and Research,Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, .

Warren, D.I (1968), “Power, visibility and conformity in formal organizations”,American Sociological Review, 6, 951 – 970.

Watson, G.W. and Papamarcos, S.D. (2002), “Social capital and organizationalcommitment”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 537-52.

Wekmeister, W. (1967), Man and His Values, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln,IL.

Whitener, E.M and Walz, P.M. (1993), “Exchange theory determinants of affectiveand continuance commitment and turnover”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol 42.,pp 265-81.

Whyte, I. (1988), "Factors influencing the choice of leadership style",Banking World, Vol. 6 No.8, pp.57-8.

Wiener, Y. and Vardi, Y. (1980), “Relationships between job, organization,and careercommitments and work outcomes : an integrative approach”. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 26, 81-96.

139

Wiener, Y (1982), Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy ofManagement Review, 7, 418-428.

Wilson, J. M., George, J., and Wellins, R. S. (1994), Leadership trapeze: Strategiesfor leadership in team-based organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Wilson, P.A (1995), "The effects of politics and power on the organizationalcommitment of federal executives", Journal of Management, 101-18, Vol. 21 No.1.

Wriston, W. B. (1990), The state of American management. Harvard BusinessReview, 68(1), 78-83.

Yaakob, Y. (2006), ‘Management Styles of Co-operative Managers in Malaysia’.Malaysian Journal of Co-operative Management. Vol 2, pp. 41- 51.

Young, M. (1991), “Middle managers must be the drivers of service quality”,Marketing News, Vol. 25 No. 1, 1991 April, p. 16.

Yousef, D.A. (2000), “Organizational commitment : A mediator of the relationshipsof leadership behaviour with job satisfaction and performance in a non-westerncountry”. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 15,1-2, 6-28.

Yousef, D.A (1998), “Correlates of perceived leadership style in a culturally mixedenvironment”, Leadership and organizational development journal”.19,5 pp 275-284.

Yukl, G.A. (1989), Leadership in Organizations. Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G.A. (2006), Leadership in Organizations. Prentice Hall.

Zeffane, R. (1994), "Patterns of organizational commitment and perceivedmanagement style: a comparison of public and private sector employees", HumanRelations, Vol. 47 No.8, pp.977-1010.

Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L.(1990), Delivering Service Quality:Balancing Perceptions and Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY, 1990.

140

APPENDIX A : DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Gender

128 35.4

234 64.6

362 100.0

male

female

Total

Frequency Percent

Age

11 3.0 3.0 3.0

193 53.3 53.3 56.4

101 27.9 27.9 84.3

47 13.0 13.0 97.2

10 2.8 2.8 100.0

362 100.0 100.0

less than 20 years

21 - 30 years

31-40 years

41 - 50 years

more than 51

Total

Valid

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Race

351 97.0 97.0 97.0

3 .8 .8 97.8

8 2.2 2.2 100.0

362 100.0 100.0

malay

chinese

indian

Total

Valid

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Marital status

168 46.4 46.4 46.4

194 53.6 53.6 100.0

362 100.0 100.0

single

married

Total

Valid

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

141

Education level

2 .6 .6 .6

6 1.7 1.7 2.2

187 51.7 51.7 53.9

26 7.2 7.2 61.0

78 21.5 21.5 82.6

43 11.9 11.9 94.5

15 4.1 4.1 98.6

5 1.4 1.4 100.0

362 100.0 100.0

primary school

srp/pmr

mce/spm/spmv

hsc/stpm

diploma

degree

post graduate

others

Total

Valid

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Current job position

258 71.3 71.3 71.3

3 .8 .8 72.1

64 17.7 17.7 89.8

13 3.6 3.6 93.4

10 2.8 2.8 96.1

14 3.9 3.9 100.0

362 100.0 100.0

administrative/clerical

technician

executive/senior executive

assistant manager

manager/senior manager

others

Total

Valid

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Tenure

148 40.9 40.9 40.9

75 20.7 20.7 61.6

39 10.8 10.8 72.4

100 27.6 27.6 100.0

362 100.0 100.0

less than 3 years

4 - 6 years

7 - 10 years

more than 10 years

Total

Valid

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

142

Co-op establishment

42 11.6 11.6 11.6

35 9.7 9.7 21.3

285 78.7 78.7 100.0

362 100.0 100.0

less than 10 years

11-15 years

16 years

Total

Valid

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

143

APPENDIX B : FACTOR ANALYSIS

Factor Analysis For Leadership Behaviour

KMO and Bartlett's Test

.894

1738.704

105

.000

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of SamplingAdequacy.

Approx. Chi-Square

df

Sig.

Bartlett's Test ofSphericity

Rotated Component Matrixa

.721

.672

.685

.743

.639

.501

.782

.645

.684

.511

.795

.784

.749

.469

.656

P1

N1

p2

n2

f2

f3

p4

f4

p5

f5

p6

n6

p7

f8

f9

1 2

Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Rotation converged in 3 iterations.a.

144

Factor Analysis For Organizational Commitment

KMO and Bartlett's Test

.835

1800.418

66

.000

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of SamplingAdequacy.

Approx. Chi-Square

df

Sig.

Bartlett's Test ofSphericity

Rotated Component Matrixa

.855

.887

.856

.435 .676

.736

.668

.700

.738

.778

.774

.860

.718

AC3

AC4

AC5

CC3

CC4

CC5

CC6

NC2

NC3

NC4

NC5

NC6

1 2 3

Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Rotation converged in 5 iterations.a.

145

APPENDIX C : RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

Reliability Analysis Of Leadership Behaviour

Reliability Statistics

.894 9

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

28.59 29.102 .643 .884

28.94 28.723 .588 .888

28.62 29.814 .595 .887

28.63 28.704 .669 .882

28.75 27.187 .704 .879

28.72 29.168 .599 .887

28.91 27.315 .720 .877

28.60 28.208 .710 .878

28.61 28.953 .672 .882

P1

N1

p2

n2

p4

p5

p6

n6

p7

Scale Mean ifItem Deleted

ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted

CorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation

Cronbach'sAlpha if Item

Deleted

Reliability Statistics

.592 6

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

17.30 7.099 .390 .519

17.49 7.375 .289 .565

17.33 7.291 .371 .528

17.13 7.794 .290 .562

17.47 7.496 .257 .580

17.05 7.629 .387 .527

f2

f3

f4

f5

f8

f9

Scale Mean ifItem Deleted

ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted

CorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation

Cronbach'sAlpha if Item

Deleted

146

Reliability Analysis For Organizational Commitment

Reliability Statistics

.861 5

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

14.14 8.683 .685 .830

14.28 7.929 .724 .820

13.99 9.039 .618 .847

14.07 8.106 .761 .810

13.81 8.938 .610 .849

NC2

NC3

NC4

NC5

NC6

Scale Mean ifItem Deleted

ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted

CorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation

Cronbach'sAlpha if Item

Deleted

Reliability Statistics

.840 3

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

4.98 3.180 .700 .780

4.87 3.271 .732 .750

5.00 3.294 .678 .801

AC3

AC4

AC5

Scale Mean ifItem Deleted

ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted

CorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation

Cronbach'sAlpha if Item

Deleted

Reliability Statistics

.725 4

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

147

Item-Total Statistics

9.95 4.474 .605 .607

9.86 4.831 .604 .611

9.93 5.862 .359 .747

9.99 5.138 .502 .671

CC3

CC4

CC5

CC6

Scale Mean ifItem Deleted

ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted

CorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation

Cronbach'sAlpha if Item

Deleted

148

APPENDIX D : DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Descriptive Statistics

362 3.5884 .66382

362 3.4590 .52479

362 3.5149 .71815

362 2.4742 .86702

362 3.3108 .71884

NTP

autocratic

NC

AC

CC

N Mean Std. Deviation

149

APPENDIX E : CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIABLES

Correlations

1 .053 .361** -.130* .197**

.315 .000 .013 .000

362 362 362 362 362

.053 1 .257** .074 .217**

.315 .000 .158 .000

362 362 362 362 362

.361** .257** 1 -.091 .547**

.000 .000 .083 .000

362 362 362 362 362

-.130* .074 -.091 1 .020

.013 .158 .083 .706

362 362 362 362 362

.197** .217** .547** .020 1

.000 .000 .000 .706

362 362 362 362 362

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

NTP

autocratic

NC

AC

CC

NTP autocratic NC AC CC

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*.

150

APPENDIX F : REGRESSION ANALYSIS BETWEEN VARIABLES

Model Summary

.153a .024 .018 .85915

Model1

R R SquareAdjustedR Square

Std. Error ofthe Estimate

Predictors: (Constant), autocratic, NTPa.

Coefficientsa

2.639 .379 6.970 .000

-.175 .068 -.134 -2.571 .011

.134 .086 .081 1.558 .120

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: ACa.

Model Summary

.286a .082 .077 .69075

Model1

R R SquareAdjustedR Square

Std. Error ofthe Estimate

Predictors: (Constant), autocratic, NTPa.

Coefficientsa

1.605 .304 5.273 .000

.201 .055 .186 3.671 .000

.284 .069 .208 4.099 .000

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: CCa.

151

Model Summary

.433a .187 .183 .64928

Model1

R R SquareAdjustedR Square

Std. Error ofthe Estimate

Predictors: (Constant), autocratic, NTPa.

Coefficientsa

1.034 .286 3.614 .000

.377 .052 .349 7.319 .000

.326 .065 .238 4.997 .000

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: NCa.

Model Summary

.323a .104 .099 .47557

Model1

R R SquareAdjustedR Square

Std. Error ofthe Estimate

Predictors: (Constant), autocratic, NTPa.

Coefficientsa

1.759 .210 8.395 .000

.134 .038 .178 3.560 .000

.248 .048 .260 5.197 .000

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: OCa.

152

APPENDIX G : Moderating Effect of Tenure between Leaders Behaviour and

Organizational Commitment

Moderating Effect of Tenure between Leaders Behaviour and ContinuanceCommitment

Coefficientsa

1.605 .304 5.273 .000

.201 .055 .186 3.671 .000

.284 .069 .208 4.099 .000

1.636 .311 5.265 .000

.201 .055 .186 3.665 .000

.282 .070 .206 4.055 .000

-.038 .075 -.026 -.513 .608

2.547 .475 5.360 .000

-.062 .088 -.057 -.706 .481

.292 .105 .213 2.788 .006

-1.498 .613 -1.015 -2.443 .015

.423 .111 1.073 3.804 .000

-.017 .138 -.042 -.126 .900

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

dummytenure

NTPdummytenure

autocraticdummytenure

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

dummytenure

NTPdummytenure

autocraticdummytenure

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

dummytenure

NTPdummytenure

autocraticdummytenure

Model

1

2

3

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: CCa.

153

Nurturant Task + Participative

HighModerateLow

Co

nti

nu

an

ce

Co

mm

itm

en

t

3.60

3.40

3.20

3.00

Experienced

Newly Employed

Tenure

154

Moderating Effect of Tenure between Leaders Behaviour and NormativeCommitment

Coefficientsa

1.034 .286 3.614 .000

.377 .052 .349 7.319 .000

.326 .065 .238 4.997 .000

1.120 .291 3.842 .000

.377 .051 .349 7.326 .000

.320 .065 .234 4.904 .000

-.104 .070 -.071 -1.483 .139

1.731 .451 3.835 .000

.235 .083 .217 2.821 .005

.291 .100 .213 2.924 .004

-1.098 .582 -.745 -1.886 .060

.228 .106 .579 2.1590.

03*

.050 .131 .120 .382 .702

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

dummytenure

NTPdummytenure

autocraticdummytenure

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

dummytenure

NTPdummytenure

autocraticdummytenure

(Constant)

NTP

autocratic

dummytenure

NTPdummytenure

autocraticdummytenure

Model

1

2

3

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: NCa.

155

Nurturant Task + Participative

HighModerateLow

No

rma

tiv

eC

on

tin

ua

nc

e

3.80

3.60

3.40

3.20

3.00

2.80

Experienced

Newly Employed

Tenure

156

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESSFACULTY OF BUSINESS

AND ACCOUNTANCYUNIVERSITY OF MALAYA

MAKTAB KERJASAMA MALAYSIA(KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN

USAHAWAN DAN KOPERASI)

JANUARY 1st , 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

SURVEY ON CO-OPERATIVES

I am a training officer of the Business and Entrepreneurship Department at the Co-operative College of Malaysia. Currently, I am conducting the above mentioned researchas part of the fulfillment of the Master of Business Administration degree at the GraduateSchool of Business, University of Malaya. I would greatly appreciate your kind co-operation and assistance in filling up the attached survey form which may take less than10 minutes.

The aim of this research intends to investigate leadership and its contribution in co-operatives. The information that you give in this survey will be used only for academicpurposes and will be kept strictly confidential. Anonymity of individuals that respond tothis questionnaire is safely assured.

Thank you so much for your time and cooperation.

If you would like any further information on this research, feel free to contact me usingthe e-mail address or telephone number provided below.

Yours sincerely,

Norazlan HasbullahCGA 060004MBA StudentGraduate School of BusinessUniversity of Malaya

TRAINING OFFICERBusiness and Entrepreneurship Dept.Co-operative College of MalaysiaMobile Phone: 012-6356516E-mail: azlanpmc@yahoo.com

Supervised by :

Pn. Sharmila JayasingamLECTURERFaculty of Business And AccountancyUniversity of Malaya, Kuala LumpurE-mail: sharmila@um.edu.my

157

SURVEY FORM / BORANG SOAL-SELIDIK

BAHAGIAN B

Use the scale below to indicate your answers. Please tick ( √ ) in ONE box only for eachquestion.

(Sila gunakan skala berikut untuk menandakan jawapan anda. Sila tandakah ( √ ) hanyapada SATU kotak yang sesuai bagi setiap soalan.

Tandakan ( √ ) padajawapan yang paling

tepatNo. Your Opinion About Your Supervisor

Pandangan Anda Tentang Ketua Yang Menyelia Anda1 2 3 4 5

1 Often consults his/her workersSelalu berbincang dengan kakitangannya

2 Takes personal interest in the promotion of those workers who work hardSentiasa memberikan sokongan peribadi bagi kenaikan pangkat kakitanganyang kuat bekerja.

3 Keeps important information to himself/herselfMerahsiakan maklumat yang penting

4 Lets his/her workers solve problems jointlyMembenarkan kakitangannya menyelesaikan masalah bersama

5 Gladly guides and directs those workers who work hardSuka membimbing dan memberi tunjuk ajar kepada kakitangan yang kuatbekerja

6 Behaves as if power and prestige are necessary for getting compliance fromhis/her workersBertindak menggunakan kuasa dan prestij kerana merasakan ia adalah perluuntuk mendapatkan kepatuhan dari kakitangan

7 Mixes freely with his/her workersBergaul bebas dengan kakitangannya

8 Encourages his/her workers to assume greater responsibility on the jobMenggalakkan kakitangannya untuk memikul tanggungjawab kerja yanglebih besar

9 Thinks that not all workers are capable of being an executiveBerfikiran bahawa bukan semua pekerja berkemampuan menjadi eksekutif

1 2 3 4 5StronglyDisagree

Disagree Neutral Agree StronglyAgree

1 2 3 4 5Sangattidaksetuju

Neutral Setuju SangatSetuju

Tidak setuju

158

10 Treats his/her workers as equalsMemberi layanan sama rata kepada semua kakitangannya

Tandakan ( √ ) padajawapan yang palingtepat

No. Your Opinion About Your SupervisorPandangan Anda Tentang Ketua Yang Menyelia Anda

1 2 3 4 511 Is kind only to those workers who work sincerely

Hanya baik terhadap kakitangan yang bekerja dengan ikhlas12 Is always confident of being right in making decisions

Selalu berkeyakinan bahawa keputusan yang beliau ambil adalah betul13 Goes by the joint decisions of his/her group

Menerima keputusan yang dibuat secara bersama14 Openly favors those who work hard

Secara terbuka menggemari mereka yang kuat bekerja15 Feels concerned about the feelings of his/her workers

Mengambil berat tentang perasaan kakitangannya16 Appreciates those workers who want to perform better

Menghargai kakitangan yang ingin memperbaiki prestasi kerja17 Makes it clear to his/her workers that personal loyalty is an important virtue

Menjelaskan kepada kakitangan bahawa kesetiaan adalah nilai yang penting18 Allows free and frank discussions whenever a situation arises

Membenarkan perbincangan secara terbuka dan jujur apabila masalahtimbul

19 Is very affectionate to hardworking workersMenyukai pekerja yang rajin

20 Does not tolerate any interference from his/her workersTidak membenarkan sebarang campur tangan daripada kakitangannya

21 Often takes tea/coffee with his/her workersSelalu menikmati minuman bersama kakitangannya

22 Goes out of his/her way to help those workers who maintain a high standardof performanceBertindak lebih dari biasa untuk membantu kakitangan yang mengekalkanprestasi kerja yang tinggi.

23 Believes that if he/she is not always alert there are many people who maypull him/her downMempercayai bahawa sekiranya beliau tidak peka, ramai orang akanmenjatuhkan beliau

24 Makes his/her workers feel free to even disagree with him/herMembenarkan kakitangan bebas menyuarakan pandangan yang bercanggahdengan beliau

25 Openly praises those workers who are punctualMemuji secara terbuka kakitangan yang menepati masa

26 Demands his/her workers to do what he/she wants them to doMengkehendaki kakitangan untuk melaksanakan seperti mana yang beliauinginkan

27 Is informal with his/her workersBersikap tidak formal dengan kakitangannya

28 Feels good when he/she finds his/her workers eager to learn

159

Merasa seronok apabila mengetahui kakitangan ingin belajar sesuatu.

29 Has strong likes and dislikes for his/ her workersMempunyai perasaan yang kuat samaada menyukai atau tidak menyukaiseseorang kakitangan

30 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.Saya merasa amat gembira untuk bekerja selamanya di dalam organisasi ini.

31 I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my ownSaya merasakan masalah organisasi ini adalah masalah saya juga.

Tandakan ( √ ) padajawapan yang paling

tepatNo. Your Opinion About Your Supervisor

Pandangan Anda Tentang Ketua Yang Menyelia Anda1 2 3 4 5

32 I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my organization.Saya tidak merasakan diri saya sebahagian daripada organisasi saya

33 I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organizationSaya tidak merasakan pertalian emosi terhadap organisasi ini

34 I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization.Saya tidak merasakan diri saya sebagai sebahagian daripada keluarga didalam organisasi saya

35 This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for meOrganisasi ini memberikan banyak makna peribadi terhadap diri saya

36 Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much asdesireBuat masa ini, terus kekal di dalam organisasi ini adalah merupakankehendak dan keperluan bagi saya

37 It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now , even if Iwanted to.Saya rasa sukar untuk meninggalkan organisasi saya walaupun saya mahu

38 I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization.Saya merasakan saya mempunyai pilihan yang terhad untuk pertimbangkanmeninggalkan organisasi ini.

39 If I had not already put so much of myself into this organization, I mightconsider working elsewhere.Sekiranya saya tidak meletakkan sepenuh usaha dan tenaga di dalamorganisasi ini, mungkin saya akan pertimbangkan untuk bekerja ditempatlain.

40 One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would bethe scarcity of available alternatives.Salah satu kemungkinan buruk meninggalkan organisasi ini ialahkekurangan alternatif yang ada.

41 I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employerSaya tidak merasakan sebarang tanggungjawab untuk kekal dengan majikansaya

42 Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave myorganization nowWalaupun saya akan menerima manfaat, saya merasakan saya tidak patutmeninggalkan organisasi saya sekarang.

43 I would feel guilty if I left my organization nowSaya akan merasa bersalah sekiranya saya meninggalkan organisasi sayasekarang.

160

44 This organization deserves my loyalty.Organisasi ini layak mendapatkan kesetiaan saya

45 I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense ofobligation to the people in it.Saya tidak akan meninggalkan organisasi saya kerana saya merasabertanggungjawab terhadap pekerja di dalamnya

46 I owe a great deal to my organizationSaya terhutang budi terhadap organisasi saya

BAHAGIAN B

Respondent Background (Latar Belakang Responden)

Instruction : Please tick ( √ ) where appropriate.

Arahan: Sila tandakan ( √ ) dalam hanya SATU kotak yang sesuai atau isikan jawapan anda ditempat kosong yang disediakan.

1. Gender / Jantina:Male / Lelaki Female / Perempuan

2. Age / Umur:< 20 years 31 – 40 years21 – 30 years 41 – 50 years

> 51 years3. Race / Bangsa:

Malay (Melayu)Chinese(Cina)

Indian (India) Others (Lain-lain)

4. Marital status / Status Perkahwinan:Single (Bujang) Married (Berkahwin)

5. Education level / Tahap Pendidikan:Primary School(Sekolahrendah)

SRP/PMR MCE/SPM/SPMV HSC/STPM

DiplomaDegree (SarjanaMuda)

Post Graduate(Sarjana)

Other – please specify _____(Lain-lain-sila nyatakan)

6. Current job position / Status Jawatan Terkini:Administrative/Clerical(pentadbiran/perkeranian)

Assistant Manager(Penolong Pengurus)

Technician(juruteknik)

Manager/Senior Manager(Pengurus / Pengurus Kanan)

Executive/Senior Exec(Eksekutif / Eksekutif kanan)

Other – please specify __________(Lain-lain sila nyatakan)

7. How many years have you worked for your current employer?Tempoh (Lama) berkhidmat dengan majikan sekarang

< 3 years 4 – 6 years7 – 10 years >10 years

161

8. How long has your organization (co-operative) been established?Tempoh penubuhan organisasi (koperasi) ini (dalam tahun)

< 10 years 11 – 15 years > 16 years

9. Number of employees in your organization (koperasi) ?Bil pekerja yang berkhidmat di dalam organisasi (koperasi) ini

< 100 101 – 300301 – 500 > 501

- Thank You For Your Support And Co-operation –- Terima Kasih Atas Sokongan Dan Kerjasama Dari Anda -