THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL

CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR AND

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, JOB SATISFACTION

AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

- A MALAYSIAN PERSPECTIVE.

LEE HUEY YIING

FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTANCY

UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA

JULY 2008

The Association between Organizational Culture and Leadership Behaviour and

Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance

- A Malaysian Perspective.

Lee Huey Yiing

Submitted to the Graduate School of Business

Faculty of Business and Accountancy

University of Malaya, in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Business Administration

July 2008

Abstract

Purpose – This study seeks to investigate the association between different types of

organizational culture and leadership behaviours and organizational commitment, job

satisfaction and employee performance in the Malaysian setting.

Design/methodology/approach – Data was gathered from 238 Malaysian UM MBA

part-time students and the researcher’s working peers. Data on the respondents’

organizational culture and leadership behaviours, and how they affect organizational

commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance, were collected using the

OCI (Wallach, 1983), leadership behaviour questionnaire (Harris and Ogbonna,

2001), ACS (Allen and Meyer, 1990), single global rating for job satisfaction

(Robbins, 2005), and overall performance questionnaire (Motowidlo and Van Scotter,

1994), respectively. Descriptive statistics were reported, followed by factor analysis,

reliability analysis, Pearson correlation and hypotheses testing using hierarchical

multiple regression.

Findings – Generally and with a few exceptions, leadership behaviour was found to

be significantly related to organizational commitment, and organizational culture

played an important role in moderating this relationship. Organizational commitment

was found to be significantly associated with job satisfaction, but not with employee

performance. However, only supportive culture influenced the relationship between

commitment and satisfaction. Possible causes and implications for managers are

discussed.

Originality/value – This article contributes to the existing pool of knowledge on the

relationships between leadership behaviours, organizational culture, organizational

commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance. Different aspects of these

ii

variables were tested, so as to provide a wider and more comprehensive

understanding on the factors which affect organizations and employees.

Keywords – Leadership, Organizational Culture, Commitment, Satisfaction,

Performance, Malaysia.

Category – Research Paper

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Kamarul Zaman bin Ahmad for his guidance throughout this

project and for the valuable input in completing this dissertation.

I am also grateful for the concern and support from my family members and friends

during this time.

iv

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1

1.1. Background ...................................................................................................1

1.2. Purpose and significance of the study..........................................................2

1.3. Research Questions/Objectives of the study.................................................3

1.4. Scope of the study..........................................................................................3

1.5. Limitations of the study ................................................................................4

1.6. Organization of the study..............................................................................4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..............6

2.1. Antecedents and independent variables .......................................................6

2.1.1. Leadership behaviour ............................................................................6

2.1.2. Organizational culture.........................................................................11

2.2. Dependent variables....................................................................................16

2.2.1. Organizational commitment.................................................................16

2.2.2. Job satisfaction ....................................................................................19

2.2.3. Employee performance ........................................................................20

2.3. Relationship between variables ..................................................................20

2.4. Demographics..............................................................................................23

2.5. Theoretical framework................................................................................24

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .....................................................................26

3.1. Development of hypotheses.........................................................................26

3.2. Selection of instruments and measures......................................................27

3.2.1. Organizational culture.........................................................................27

3.2.2. Leadership behaviour ..........................................................................28

3.2.3. Organizational commitment.................................................................29

3.2.4. Job satisfaction ....................................................................................30

3.2.5. Employee performance ........................................................................31

3.2.6. Classification questions .......................................................................32

3.3. Sampling design and data collection..........................................................32

3.4. Data analysis techniques ............................................................................34

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................35

4.1. Summary statistics of respondents .............................................................35

4.2. Analyses of measures ..................................................................................37

v

4.2.1. Descriptive statistics ............................................................................37

4.2.2. Factor Analysis ....................................................................................38

4.2.3. Reliability Analysis ..............................................................................40

4.2.4. Correlation Analyses ...........................................................................40

4.3. Testing of hypotheses ..................................................................................43

4.3.1. Leadership behaviour, organizational culture and organizational

commitment ..........................................................................................................47

4.3.2. Organizational commitment, organizational culture, job satisfaction

and employee performance ..................................................................................49

4.4. Summary of research results ......................................................................51

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................53

5.1. Summary of findings...................................................................................53

5.2. Suggestions for future research .................................................................57

5.3. Implications.................................................................................................58

REFERENCES...........................................................................................................60

vi

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 : Theoretical Framework 25

List of Tables

Table 4.1 : Summary statistics of respondents 35

Table 4.2 : Descriptive Statistics 38

Table 4.3 : KMO and Bartlett’s Test 39

Table 4.4 : Reliability Analysis 40

Table 4.5 : Correlation 42

Table 4.6 : Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Organizational

Commitment on Leadership Behaviours in Bureaucratic Culture

44

Table 4.7 : Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Organizational

Commitment on Leadership Behaviours in Innovative Culture

44

Table 4.8 : Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Organizational

Commitment on Leadership Behaviours in Supportive Culture

45

Table 4.9 : Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Job Satisfaction and

Employee Performance on Organizational Commitment in Bureaucratic Culture

45

Table 4.10 : Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Job Satisfaction and

Employee Performance on Organizational Commitment in Innovative Culture

46

Table 4.11 : Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Job Satisfaction and

Employee Performance on Organizational Commitment in Supportive Culture

46

vii

List of Symbols and Abbreviations

ACS = Affective Commitment Scale

CEO = Chief Executive Officer

KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

LBDQ = Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire

MBA = Master in Business Administration

OCI = Organizational Culture Index

OCQ = Organizational Commitment Questionnaire

SPSS = Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

UK = United Kingdom

UM = University Malaya

viii

1

1. INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the background of this research project is presented, followed

by an elaboration of the purpose and significance of the study. The main research

question is stated, which is further clarified by defining the scope of the study. After

that, the limitations of the study are stated. Lastly, the organization of the rest of the

project will be described at the end of this chapter.

1.1. Background

In 1998, a survey of most admired companies conducted by Fortune indicated

CEO respondents’ belief that corporate culture was their most important lever in

enhancing their key capabilities. Given the importance of organizational culture and

its effects on organizational outcomes (such as organizational commitment, job

satisfaction and employee performance), it is currently one of the hottest business

topics in both academic research and the popular business press. Today's business

leaders are confronted with frequent unpredictable challenges, which require high

degree of flexibility on their part. Recent organizational crises have emphasized the

need for leadership and personal commitment from organizational decision makers

which, then, become more critical for organization success (Earle, 1996). Hence,

organizational culture and leadership behaviour, along with their effects on

organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance are some of

the crucial elements in determining the effectiveness, competitiveness and success of

organizations in facing today’s challenges. These have practical implications for

managers and consultants in management development, and ultimately could enhance

superior performance of the managers in the organization.

1.2. Purpose and significance of the study

Organizational culture is known to have a significant effect on how employees

view their organizational responsibilities and their commitment. The pioneering work

of Deal and Kennedy (1982) incited the interest of researchers and consultants to the

concept of corporate culture, and how these values and philosophy guide the

employees’ behaviour in the organization towards greater success. Leaders affect their

subordinates both directly through their interactions and also through the

organization's culture (Li, 2004). With increasing globalization, greater knowledge of

the interaction of these factors in non-western cultures can be beneficial for assessing

the effectiveness of current theories as well as benefiting practicing leaders and

decision makers.

The commitment of the people in the organization is also essential to ensure

the successful implementation of the organizational policies and plans. It is argued,

that while shaping the appropriate values or culture that is important to the

organization, ensuring the necessary level of commitment among employees or

managers are unequivocally important so as to ensure successful implementation of

the organizational strategies and plans of actions (Rashid et al., 2003). Job satisfaction

is an important component in the field of organizational behaviour, as it is related to

critical organizational outcomes such as absenteeism, turnover and performance.

A search in major and leading business journals through databases such

ProQuest and Emerald yielded much literature and findings from past research on

antecedents and outcomes of organizational culture, leadership behaviour,

organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance. Much of the

research are focused on independent relationships, such as culture performance, or

2

commitment and performance (Rashid et al., 2003). Only a handful looked into

identifying precise relationships between multiple areas of organization behaviour and

the application of such findings to the corporate firms.

It is noted that even with the literature found from various databases, there is

lesser amount that focuses on the Asian setting, and very few that are relevant or

specific to Malaysia. This study intends to contribute to the existing knowledge base,

in particular, from a Malaysian perspective.

1.3. Research Questions/Objectives of the study

The objective of the research is to examine the association between different

types of organizational culture and leadership behaviours and organizational

commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance in the Malaysian setting.

1.4. Scope of the study

It is known that there are a number of other antecedents, moderators,

mediators and/or consequents to the factors selected for this study. For example, work

ethics (Yousef, 2001), person-organization fit (Silverthorne, 2004), national culture

(Lok and Crawford, 2004), task structure and role ambiguity (Tan, 2005), and

turnover (Poh, 2002). Much of these are focused on independent relationships, such as

culture performance, or commitment and performance (Rashid et al., 2003). In fact,

only a handful of research looked into identifying precise relationships between

multiple areas of organization behaviour and the application of such findings to the

corporate firms.

3

For the purpose of this study, Li’s (2004) conceptualization of the

relationships between leadership behaviour, organizational culture, organizational

commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance is partially adapted. This is

because there is a sizable number of past researches which has demonstrated the

importance of these factors organization behaviour and performance, as reported by

Yousef (2000), Lok and Crawford (2000) and Rashid et al. (2003).

The scope of the study covers MBA students in Universiti Malaya as well as

some working peers and colleagues, which the author considers to be, although not

entirely, at least a representative of the Malaysian working population.

1.5. Limitations of the study

It is noted that the use of convenience sampling is a major limitation of this

study, as findings from the study sample cannot be confidently generalized to the

population. However, the benefits of time and cost-effectiveness, and the fact that

adequate information about the study population is not readily available for

probability sampling, are taken into account when deciding the sampling method for

this study.

1.6. Organization of the study

The remaining of this report will include a comprehensive literature review of

the independent and dependent variables that are considered in this study, which leads

to the development of hypotheses and a theoretical framework. This is followed by a

review on the research methodology, which encompasses the sub-sections of selection

of instruments and measures, sampling design and data collection, and data analysis

4

techniques. Next, the results and discussion are reported, which includes a summary

of the respondents’ statistics, analyses of measures, testing of hypotheses, and a

summary of research results. Lastly, the conclusion and recommendations based on

this study are presented, which includes a summary of findings, suggestions for future

research, and practical implications for managers.

5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In this chapter, a literature review on the antecedents and/or independent

variables will be presented first, followed by that of the dependent variables. In

addition, a review of past research findings on the relationships between these

variables, and a review of literature on the effects of demographics on the variables,

are also included. Finally, the theoretical framework for this study is presented at the

end of the chapter.

2.1. Antecedents and independent variables

2.1.1. Leadership behaviour

Daft (2005) defined leadership as an influence relationship among leaders and

followers who intend real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purposes.

Over the course of time, a number of dimensions or facets of leadership behaviour

have been developed and applied as researchers continue to discover what contributes

to leadership success and failures. These included, among others, autocratic versus

democratic, task-oriented versus people-oriented, and the contingency approaches.

The first studies on leadership behaviours, conducted by Kurt Lewin and his

associates in the early 20th century, identified the autocratic and democratic

leadership styles. An autocratic leader is one who centralizes authority and derives

power from position, control of rewards, and coercion. A democratic leader, on the

other hand, delegates authority to others, encourages participation, relies on

subordinates’ knowledge for completion of tasks, and depends on subordinate respect

for influence (Daft, 2005).

6

Subsequently, a series of studies on leadership behaviour (e.g. by Ohio State

University, University of Michigan and University of Texas) were designed and

conducted in the 1950s. This resulted in the development of reliable questionnaires

(e.g. Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire, LBDQ) and models (e.g.

Leadership Grid by Blake and Mouton) that would, in time, dominate much of

leadership-related research and literature for years to come. Overall, the research into

the behaviour approach culminated in two major types of leadership behaviours –

people-oriented and task-oriented. People-oriented leadership, which is equivalent to

consideration (Ohio State University), employee-centered (University of Michigan)

and concern for people (University of Texas), focuses on the human needs of

subordinates, respects their ideas and feelings, and places importance on establishing

mutual trust. Task-oriented leadership, which is equivalent to initiating structure

(Ohio State University), job-centered (University of Michigan) and concern for

production (University of Texas), focuses on directing activities towards efficiency,

cost-cutting, and scheduling, with an emphasis on goal achievements and work

facilitation.

Theories of leadership then evolved to adopt a contingency approach when

researchers failed to find universal leader traits or behaviours that would determine

effective leadership. Following this school of thought, research focused on the

situation in which leadership occurred. Leadership styles can be contingent upon

situational variables, nature of the followers and the leader him- or herself. Many

theories have been put forward, including Fiedler’s contingency theory, Hersey and

Blanchard’s situational theory, the Vroom-Jago contingency model, Leader-Member

Exchange theory, and the Path-Goal theory.

7

Currently, the most influential contingency approach to leadership is the Path-

Goal theory (Robbins, 2005). This theory was developed by Robert House, and

extracts key elements from the Ohio State leadership research on initiating structure

and consideration, and the expectancy theory of motivation. The theory states that the

main goal of the leader is to help subordinates attain the subordinates' goals

effectively, and to provide them with the necessary direction and support to achieve

their own goals as well as those of the organization (Silverthorne, 2001).

In this theory, the leader increases follower motivation by either (1) clarifying

the follower’s path to the rewards that are available, or (2) increasing the rewards that

the follower values and desires. Path clarification means that the leader works with

subordinates to help them identify and learn the behaviours that will lead to successful

task accomplishment and organizational rewards. Increasing rewards means that the

leader talks with subordinates to learn which rewards are important to them, i.e.

whether they desired intrinsic rewards from the work itself, or extrinsic rewards such

as raises or promotions. The leader’s job is to increase personal payoffs to

subordinates for goal attainment and make the paths to the payoffs clear and easy to

travel.

The Path-Goal theory suggests a fourfold classification of leader behaviours :

directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented styles. It is assumed that

leaders are flexible, and that the same leader can display any or all of these behaviours

depending on the situation.

Directive leadership tells subordinates exactly what they are supposed to do.

Leader behaviour includes planning, making schedules, setting performance goals and

behaviour standards, and stressing adherence to rules and regulations. Mehta et al.

(2003) added that this leadership style provides specific direction to subordinate work

8

activity by organizing and defining the task environment, assigning the necessary

functions to be performed, specifying rules, regulations and procedures to be followed

in accomplishing tasks, clarifying expectations, scheduling work to be done,

establishing communication networks, and evaluating work group performance.

Directive leadership behaviour is similar to the initiating structure or task-oriented

leadership style described earlier.

Supportive leadership shows concern for subordinates’ well-being and

personal needs. Leadership behaviour is open, friendly, and approachable, and the

leader creates a team climate and treats subordinates as equals. Mehta et al. (2003)

further elaborated that a supportive leadership style is one in which the leader creates

a facilitative task environment of psychological support, mutual trust and respect,

helpfulness, and friendliness. Supportive leadership is similar to the consideration or

people-oriented leadership described earlier.

Participative leadership consults with subordinates about decisions. Leader

behaviour includes asking for opinions and suggestions, encouraging participation in

decision making, and meeting discussion and written suggestions, similar to the

selling style in the Hersey and Blanchard model mentioned previously. Various

studies in organizational behaviour have found that allowing subordinates to

participate in decision-making leads to increased motivation (Mehta et al., 2003).

Achievement-oriented leadership sets clear and challenging goals for

subordinates. Leader behaviour stresses high-quality performance and improvement

over current performance. Achievement-oriented leaders also show confidence in

subordinates and assist them in learning how to achieve high goals.

The two situational contingencies in the Path-Goal theory are (1) the personal

characteristics of group members, and (2) the work environment. Personal

9

characteristics can include subordinates’ locus of control, experience, perceived

ability, skills, needs and motivations. Work environment contingencies can include

the degree of task structure, the nature of the formal authority system, and the work

group itself. Task structure describes the extent to which tasks are defined and have

explicit job descriptions and work procedures. The formal authority system includes

the amount of legitimate power used by leaders and the extent to which policies and

rules constrain employees’ behaviour. Work group characteristics consist of the

educational level of subordinates and the quality of relationships among them. The

outcome of matching the right leadership behaviour with the right situation, while

taking into consideration the various subordinate and work environment

contingencies, will result in favorable outcomes such as increased effort, improved

satisfaction and performance (Daft, 2005).

The study of leadership behaviours as conceptualized under the Path-Goal

theory has been applied in many types of researches. For example, in the context of

international marketing channels (Mehta et al., 2003), small and middle-sized firms

(Li, 2004), company managers (Silverthorne, 2001), steel industry (Downey et al.

1975), automotive industry (Chang et al., 2003), and market orientation of UK firms

(Harris and Ogbonna, 2001). Researchers of marketing channels in the distribution

and logistics industry have attempted to show the path-goal theory's usefulness as a

strategy to secure the compliance of channel members and have conceptually and

empirically linked it to channel related phenomena such as manifest conflict, co-

operation, channel efficiency and effectiveness, role clarity, role conflict, role

ambiguity, and channel member satisfaction (Mehta et al., 1996)

Not everyone agrees that a particular style of leadership will result in the most

effective form of organizational behaviour. Different styles were needed for different

10

situations and each leader needs to know when to exhibit a particular approach. No

one leadership style is ideal for every situation, since a leader may have knowledge

and skills to act effectively in one situation but may not emerge as effectively in a

different situation (Rad and Yarmohammadian, 2006).

Past research on corporate leadership in Malaysia frequently focused on its

unique, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and collectivist society. No one, distinct

management style can be identified, and it is acknowledged that leadership in

Malaysia is deeply entrenched and connected to its diverse Asian culture, traditions

and values. Hence, commonly-accepted leadership theories from the west, and how it

is thought to affect other organizational behaviour factors, may not be directly

transferable to the Malaysian context.

Organizational success in obtaining its goals and objectives depends on

managers and their leadership style. By using appropriate leadership styles, managers

can affect employee job satisfaction, commitment and productivity.

2.1.2. Organizational culture

Organizational culture is generally seen as a set of key values, assumptions,

understandings, and norms that is shared by members of an organization and taught to

new members as correct (Daft, 2005). It is argued that organizational culture may be

the critical key that managers can use to direct the course of their firms (Smircich,

1993).

The organizational culture is likened to a double-edged sword. A culture

creates distinctions between one organization and others, conveys a sense of identity

for its members, facilitates commitment towards the organization’s goals, enhances

the stability of the social system, reduces ambiguity, and serves as a control

11

mechanism that guides and shapes the attitudes and behaviour of employees.

However, a culture can also become a liability when it becomes too strongly

entrenched within the norms, values and mindsets of the employees and resist changes

– a culture can become a barrier to change, diversity and other transformations

required for the organization to adapt in today’s dynamic, globalized business

environment.

The study on organizational culture can take on a multitude of aspects.

Robbins (2005) elaborated that there are seven primary characteristics that, in

aggregate, capture the essence of an organization’s culture : innovation and risk

taking, attention to detail, outcome orientation, people orientation, team orientation,

aggressiveness and stability. Each of these characteristics can exist on a continuum

from low to high. Robbins (2005) furthermore explained that the organizational

culture can be visualized as an intervening variable; employees form an overall

subjective perception of the organization based on these seven factors, and these

perceptions, favorable or otherwise, affects employee performance and satisfaction,

with the impact being greater for stronger cultures.

Daft (2005) discussed on the three levels of corporate culture, with each level

becoming less obvious, i.e. visible, expressed values and underlying assumptions and

deep beliefs. Culture can also be determined by its strength, which is the degree of

agreement among employees about the importance of specific values and ways of

doing things. A strong culture is one which core values are both intensely held and

widely shared, and hence have greater impact on employee behaviour. Research has

found that a strong culture is linked to high agreement among members, increases

12

behavioural consistency, builds cohesiveness, loyalty and organizational commitment,

and more importantly, reduces turnover (Robbins, 2005).

In addition, culture can be viewed as being adaptive or unadaptive. In adaptive

cultures, leaders are concerned with customers and those internal people, processes

and procedures that bring about useful change. Contrary to this, leaders in unadaptive

cultures are concerned with themselves or their own special projects, and their values

tend to discourage risk-taking and change. Thus, a strong culture is not enough; a

healthy, adaptive culture is also essential to encourage the organization to progress

towards the right direction (Daft, 2005).

It is widely accepted that within an organization, a dominant culture that

expresses the core values that are shared by a majority of the organization’s members

exist alongside with smaller subcultures which reflect common problems, situations,

or experiences that certain groups of members face.

Organizational cultures can be assessed along many dimensions, resulting in

conceptually different, but fundamentally similar, models and theories. Daft (2005), in

his review of a number of past research literature, presented one such model which

focuses on two specific dimensions : (1) the extent to which the competitive

environment requires flexibility or stability, and (2) the extent to which the

organization’s strategic focus and strength is internal or external. The four categories

of culture associated with these differences resulting from this type of assessment are

adaptability, achievement, clan and bureaucratic cultures. Each culture has a different

set of values – adaptability culture is characterized by values that support the

organization’s ability to interpret and translate signals from the environment into new

behaviour responses; achievement culture is characterized by a clear vision of the

organization’s goals and leaders’ focus on the achievement of specific targets; clan

13

culture has an internal focus on the involvement and participation of employees to

meet changing expectations from the external environment; and bureaucratic culture

has an internal focus and consistency orientation for a stable environment.

Several typologies for analyzing organizational culture have been proposed.

For example, the competing values model introduced by Quinn and Cameron (1983),

Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), and Cameron and Freeman (1991) which identified

four types of culture : clan, adhocracy, hierarchy and market cultures. Another

example was developed by Goffee and Jones (1998). Goffee and Jones (1998)

categorized organizational culture into four main types based on two dimensions:

sociability and solidarity. The four types of culture identified are communal culture,

fragmented culture, networked culture and mercenary culture.

According to Wallach (1983), an organization's culture can be a combination

of three categories – bureaucratic, innovative or supportive – to varying degrees.

Wallach’s (1983) framework is adapted for the purpose of this study. Wallach (1983)

states that the Organizational Culture Index (OCI) profiles culture on the three

stereotypical dimensions, and the "flavor" of an organization can be derived from the

combination of these three dimensions.

A bureaucratic culture is hierarchical and compartmentalized. There are clear

lines of responsibility and authority. Work is organized and systematic, and this

culture is usually based on control and power. Such organizations are stable, cautious,

usually mature, power-oriented, established, solid, regulated, ordered, structured,

procedural and hierarchical.

14

An innovative culture refers to a creative, results-oriented, challenging work

environment. It is characterized as being entrepreneurial, ambitious, stimulating,

driven and risk-taking.

A supportive culture exhibits teamwork and a people-oriented, encouraging,

trusting work environment. These places are warm, “fuzzy” places to work in, and

people are generally friendly, fair and helpful to each other. Supportive cultures are

characterized as open, harmonious, trusting, safe, equitable, sociable, relationships-

oriented, humanistic, collaborative, and likened to an extended family.

Wallach (1983) further elaborated that an employee can be more effective in

his or her current job, and realize his or her best potentials, when there is a match

between the individual’s motivation and the organizational culture. For instance, by

using McClelland’s three social motivators : a person with a high need of

achievement will thrive in an innovative culture, an affiliative person will fare well in

a supportive culture, and a power-oriented person will perform best in a bureaucratic

culture. This has significant implications in recruitment, management, motivation,

development and retention of employees.

A comprehensive background review on each of the three dimensions of

organizational culture as described by Wallach (1983) can be found in Shadur et al.

(1999).

Few published studies exist that describe the corporate culture of Malaysian

companies, which are generally are more or less similar to other fast-growing,

competitive, developing Asian countries. Government offices are generally

considered to be bureaucratic, while public-listed and private companies are more

entrepreneurial in nature. This is exemplified in a study done by Rashid et al. (2003),

15

where companies listed in the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange were found to be

predominantly competitive, and value risk-taking, demanding goals, and market

superiority. Another study by Rashid et al. (2004) showed that among manufacturers

in the country, many had mercenary culture, which emphasized on strategy and

winning in the marketplace. To balance this, there exists to a lesser degree consensual,

network and supportive cultures within Malaysian companies, consistent to the

cultural values of Malaysian managers. Tradition, loyalty, teamwork and personal

commitment are among some of the values prevalent in Malaysian companies.

2.2. Dependent variables

2.2.1. Organizational commitment

The topic of organizational commitment has received a great deal of interest in

the past decade and numerous studies have been directed at determining its causal

antecedents, as cited by Lok and Crawford (2001). The issue of commitment is

particularly important for managers in organizations. With the increasing speed and

scale of change in organizations, managers are constantly seeking ways to generate

employees' commitment and competitive advantage. Organizational commitment has

received substantial attention in past research due to its significant impact on work

attitudes such as job satisfaction, performance, absenteeism, and turnover intentions.

(Lok and Crawford, 2001; Yousef, 2000).

Organizational commitment has been defined differently by different scholars

depending on their backgrounds. Organizational commitment refers to an employee’s

belief in the organization’s goals and values, desire to remain a member of the

organization and loyalty to the organization (Mowday et al., 1982). Such goals and

16

value identification serves as another focus of attachment to the organization. This

identification can be enhanced by a clear specification of the rationales of

organization goals and values, sharing the rewards of organization goal attainment

and involvement in goals processes.

Robbins (2005) too, defined organizational commitment similarly, i.e. a state

in which an employee identifies with a particular organization and its goals, and

wishes to maintain membership in the organization. Research has shown that there is

a modest positive relationship between organizational commitment and job

productivity, and evidence demonstrates negative relationships between

organizational commitment and both absenteeism and turnover.

People who are committed to their organization are highly involved in their

organization and identify at its goals and values. Such employees feel a readiness to

exert considerable effect on behalf of the organization, and have a strong desire to

remain an organization member. (Hackett et al., 2001). According to Cole (2000), a

committed worker is one who is a team player, who is willing to make personal

sacrifices for the goal of the company, who believes in the company’s product, who

will recommend the company as among the best places to work, and who is prepared

to stay at the company for at least the next several years, even if offered a modest pay

increase elsewhere.

Allen and Meyer (1990) conceptualized a model of organizational

commitment and identified three components : affective, continuance, and

normative commitment.

As defined by these Allen and Meyer (1990), the affective component of

organizational commitment refers to the employee’s emotional attachment to,

17

identification with, and involvement in, the organization. Much of the research

undertaken in the area of organizational commitment focuses on affective

commitment. For example, the Brunetto and Farr-Wharton (2003) has reviewed a

sizable literature and found that influence of affective commitment has been

investigated in areas such as job satisfaction, communication, turnover, intent to leave

and stress, perceived fairness and supportiveness of managers, perceived ability to be

promoted and job performance. Studies have also been conducted under various

contexts, such as in nursing, citizen behaviours and commitment to a particular

community.

The continuance component refers to commitment based on the costs that the

employee associates with leaving the organization. In a study by Mayer and Schoorm

(1992), they defined continuance commitment as the desire to remain a member of the

organization. An individual who is high in continuance commitment is motivated to

participate. Continuance commitment and the Side-Bet Theory of Commitment were

popularized by Becker (1960). According to this theory, employees make certain

investments or side-bets in their organization, for example, tenure towards pensions,

promotions and work relationships. These investments are such costs which reduce

the attractiveness of other employment opportunities. Commitment is, therefore, an

outcome of inducements or exchanges between an individual and an organization.

The normative component refers to the employee’s feeling of obligation to

remain with the organization. Normative involvement has received less research

attention.

Many studies have revealed that the level of organizational and managerial

support an employee feels, their involvement in decision making (Porter et al., 1974;

Mowday et al., 1982) the amount of feedback received about job performance and job

18

role (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), leadership behaviours and organizational culture

influence whether a person has high or low organizational commitment.

2.2.2. Job satisfaction

Robbins (2005) defined job satisfaction as a collection of feelings that an

individual holds towards his or her job. Numerous factors influence employee job

satisfaction, including: salaries, fringe benefits, achievement, autonomy, recognition,

communication, working conditions, job importance, co workers, degree of

professionalism, organizational climate, interpersonal relationships, working for a

reputable agency, supervisory support, positive affectivity, job security, workplace

flexibility, working within a team environment and genetic factors. Sources of low

satisfaction are associated with working with unskilled or inappropriately trained

staff, laborious tasks such as documentation, repetition of duties, tensions within role

expectations, role ambiguity, role conflict, job/patient care, feeling overloaded, the

increasing need to be available for overtime, relations with co-workers, personal

factors and organizational factors (Rad and Yarmohammadian, 2006).

In a review of past literature, Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) justified the

need to investigate job satisfaction is exemplified in the seemingly observed

relationship between the levels of job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, grievance

expression, tardiness, low morale and high turnover. Job satisfaction is an immediate

antecedent of intention to leave the workplace and turnover. Unsatisfied workers will

leave their jobs more than their satisfied colleagues. Furthermore, more satisfied

employees have more innovative activities in continuous quality improvement and

more participation in decision-making in organizations.

19

2.2.3. Employee performance

Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) proposed two dimensions of employee

performance. Task performance (or technical job performance) is the behaviour

associated with maintaining and servicing an organization's technical core. Contextual

performance (or interpersonal job performance) is a function of one's interpersonal

skill knowledge that supports the broader social environment in which the technical

core must function.

2.3. Relationship between variables

Although a considerable number of researchers have argued that there is a

constant interplay between organizational culture and leadership, there are limited

empirical studies examining the relation between leadership and culture as well as

their joint effect on important organizational outcomes (Hickman and Silva, 1984;

Peters and Waterman, 1982; Schein, 1985; Sergiovanni and Corbally, 1984; Smith

and Peterson, 1988; Tichy and Cohen, 1997; Trice and Beyer, 1993). More

importantly, research has found that the harmonious combination of appropriate

leadership behaviours with certain types of organizational cultures can positively

influence employees’ performance (Harris and Ogbonna, 2000; Hickman and Silva,

1984; Lim, 1995).

According to Appelbaum et al. (2004) and Yousef (2000), the relationship

between leadership behaviour and job satisfaction has received a great deal of

attention in past research, however, findings have been mixed (Pool, 1997; Savery,

1994; Yousef, 2000). Research therefore does not directly link employee satisfaction

to a specific leadership style. Instead, many suggest that leadership style needs to

adapt to the culture or situation as it attempts to reduce employee dissatisfaction.

20

According to a comprehensive literature review by Yousef (2000), several

researchers have also looked into the relationship between leadership behaviour and

job performance. Findings were inconsistent as well. A couple of studies in the steel

industry and electronic meeting systems reported higher satisfaction and performance

levels under directive leadership style when given a highly structured task, while

supportive leadership style is preferred for unstructured problems (Downey et al.,

1975; Kahai et al., 1997).

Results from investigations of antecedents of commitment have not been

entirely consistent (Yousef, 2000). Blau (1985) and Williams and Hazer (1986)

reported that consideration leadership style had greater influence on commitment than

a structured or task-oriented one, while Kim (2002) identified a positive relationship

between participative management style and employees' job satisfaction and

commitment.

Organizational culture too, plays an important role in generating commitment

and enhancing performance (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Lok and Crawford, 2001;

Peters and Waterman, 1982). In particular, studies in various industries and countries

showed that innovative and supportive cultures had strong positive effects on

commitment and job satisfaction, while bureaucratic cultures had a negative impact

(Brewer, 1993; Brewer, 1994; Brewer and Clippard, 2002; Kratrina, 1990; Krausz et

al., 1995; Lok and Crawford, 2000; London and Larsen, 1999; Rashid et al., 2003;

Silverthorne, 2004; Trice and Beyer, 1993; Wallach, 1983).

Yousef (2000) investigated the role of organizational commitment as a

mediator of the relationships between leadership behaviour with job satisfaction and

performance, specifically in a multicultural, non-western country. Results from

various organizations in the United Arab Emirates suggest (in support of many

21

western studies) that those who perceive their superiors as adopting consultative or

participative leadership behaviour are more committed to their organizations, more

satisfied with their jobs, and their performance is high.

When employees are dissatisfied at work, they are less committed and will

look for other opportunities to quit. If opportunities are unavailable, they may

emotionally or mentally “withdraw” from the organization. Thus, organizational

commitment and job satisfaction are important attitudes in assessing employees’

intention to quit and the overall contribution of the employee to the organization.

Many studies across different industries and geographical regions revealed strong

correlations between organizational commitment with job satisfaction (Benkhoff,

1997; Caykoylu et al., 2007; Chen, 2007; Iverson and Roy, 1994; Jernigan et al.,

2002; Leong et al., 1996; Lok and Crawford, 2001; Mathieu and Hamel, 1989;

Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Michaels, 1994; Price and Mueller, 1981; Samad, 2005;

Taunton et al., 1989; Williams and Hazer, 1986; Yousef, 2001), and organizational

commitment with job performance (Baugh and Roberts, 1994; Brett et al., 1995;

Kalleberg and Marsden, 1995; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 1989; Mowday

et al., 1974; Putti et al., 1990; Ward and Davis, 1995; Yousef, 2000). However,

Leong et al. (1994) found a weak correlation between the two variables, Lee and

Mowday (1989) found negligible relationship, and Wright (1997) reported a negative

relationship between the two.

Very few relevant studies in the Malaysian context have been published to

date. Samad (2005) studied 584 managerial-level of employees in Telekom Malaysia,

and reported that job satisfaction did play a positive moderating role in the

relationship between organizational commitment and job performance. Rashid et al.

(2003) surveyed over 200 companies listed in the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange.

22

Different types of corporate cultures were found to influence affective commitment,

but overall, corporate culture was found to significantly affect the financial

performance of these companies (return on assets, return on investment). Combining

these findings with studies from other countries, both western and non-western, it is

reasonable to expect that different types of leadership behaviour does affect

organizational commitment, which in turn, influences both job satisfaction and

employee performance. It is anticipated that these relationships are dependent on the

type of organizational culture exhibited by the companies.

In summary, there have been a number of researches devoted to the

relationship between leadership behaviour, organizational culture, organizational

commitment, job performance and/or job satisfaction. The findings are, however, not

entirely consistent. A Taiwanese study by Li (2004) confirmed that the effect of

leadership behaviours on organizational commitment is differed by organizational

culture. In addition, it was found that organizational commitment might mediate the

relationship between leadership behaviours and job satisfaction and performance;

however the presence of this mediating effect was contingent upon the type of

leadership and organizational culture.

2.4. Demographics

Demographics have been found to exert influence on organizational behaviour

constructs. For example, age (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Michaels, 1994; Williams

and Hazer, 1986), cultural background (Al-Meer, 1989), organizational tenure

(Mathieu and Hamel, 1989; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), job position (McCaul et al.,

1995) and position tenure (Gregersen and Black, 1992; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990)

have been found to be positively associated with organizational commitment.

23

Kirchmeyer (1995) and Madsen et al. (2005) determined that organizational

commitment was slightly related to gender (being female) and age. However, Goulet

and Singh (2002) concluded that organizational commitment was not related to age

but was instead related to gender.

Educational level has been reported to be negatively correlated with

organizational commitment (DeCotiis and Summers, 1987; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990;

Mottaz, 1988; Mowday et al., 1982). It has been argued that this inverse relationship

is attributable to the fact that more highly educated individuals have higher

expectations. They are therefore more likely to feel that their employers are not

rewarding them adequately, and so the level of organizational commitment is

diminished (DeCotiis and Summers, 1987).

Russ and McNeilly (1995) looked into the relationship between organizational

commitment and job satisfaction using experience, gender and performance as

moderators. They discovered that experience and performance moderate the

relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction.

2.5. Theoretical framework

Based on the literature review, the theoretical framework is proposed as shown

in Figure 2.1. This framework is similar to that of Li’s (2004), except that the

directive, participative and supportive leadership behaviours are studied, instead of

transformational and transactional leadership styles. Organizational commitment is

considered as a dependent and independent variable, rather than a mediating factor.

24

Leadership behaviour• Directive • Participative • Supportive

Figure 2.1

Theoretical Framework

H2

H1

Organizational Culture

• Bureaucratic • Innovative • Supportive

Organizational commitment

Job satisfaction Job performance

H3

H4

Organizational commitment

25

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the development of hypotheses is described, followed by

selection of instruments and measures. The sampling design, data collection

procedure and data analysis techniques that are applied in this study are then

presented.

3.1. Development of hypotheses

As mixed findings are observed in prior studies as described in the literature

review, null hypotheses are proposed to test the relationships between the variables, as

shown in Figure 2.1.

H1 : Leader’s directive, participative and supportive behaviours have no significant

relationship with organizational commitment.

H2 : Organizational culture (bureaucratic, innovative and supportive) has no

significant association on the relationship between leadership behaviour and

organizational commitment.

H3 : Organizational commitment has no significant relationship with job satisfaction

and job performance.

H4 : Organizational culture (bureaucratic, innovative and supportive) has no

significant association on the relationship between organizational commitment and

job satisfaction and job performance.

26

3.2. Selection of instruments and measures

The selection of instruments differed partly from Li’s (2004) study due to

consideration for the ease and time limitation for respondents to answer the questions,

and space constraints in the questionnaire. Moreover, some of the instruments

measured different dimensions of the variables to add originality value to this

research.

3.2.1. Organizational culture

Although a number of typologies, categorizations and instruments for

measuring organizational culture exist, there is little agreement on which ones are

more appropriate or superior to the other. Hence, the popular 24-item OCI by Wallach

(1983) has been used for the purpose of this study, the reason being that it was also

used in Li’s (2004) research. Wallach (1983) classified organizational culture profiles

as bureaucratic, innovative and supportive, and each of the three profiles is assigned 8

items in the OCI. The OCI has also been used by other researchers (Koberg and

Chusmir, 1987, cited in Lok and Crawford, 2004; Lok and Crawford, 2004).

Respondents were asked about how they perceive their organization’s culture.

A four-point Likert scale was used, ranging from “does not describe my organization”

valued as a “1” to “describes my organization most of the time” valued as a “4”. The

scores were added up for every profile, and an observation was assigned to the profile

with the highest mean score.

27

3.2.2. Leadership behaviour

In this study, the 13-item measure of leadership behaviour has been adapted

from Harris and Ogbonna (2001), which was based on previous research by House

(1971), House and Dessler (1974), Fleishman (1957) and Stogdill (1963). This

measure of leadership has been widely used in the marketing and strategy literatures

and has been generally accepted as a good measure of subordinate's perceptions of

leadership style and behaviour (Harris and Ogbonna, 2001). It has been used to

identify the leadership behaviour as participative (5 items), supportive (4 items) and

directive (4 items).

Churchill (1991) argued that to determine the form of response to individual

questions is a crucial aspect of empirical data collection. Consequently, it was decided

to adopt the commonly used seven-point Likert-type scoring for all items. Past uses of

measures of perceived leadership behaviours had previously utilized five-point scales.

However, Barnes et al. (1994) argued that a switch to the seven-point scale has no

effect on principal components analysis but often improves the reliability of answers.

Thus, a seven-point scale was used for reasons of reliability and validity (Churchill

and Peter, 1984), as well as for the ease of response and administration (Malhorta,

1993). This is similar to what was done in Harris and Ogbonna’s study (2001).

Respondents were asked to describe the leadership behaviour of their

immediate supervisor. The seven-point Likert scale was used, ranging from “strongly

agree/very true” valued as a “1” to “strongly disagree/very unlikely” valued as a “7”.

The mean scores for each leadership style were obtained.

28

3.2.3. Organizational commitment

According to Mathieu and Zajac (1990) and Liu (2007), currently the most

widely used measure of organizational commitment is the Organizational

Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) (Mowday et al., 1979). However, for the purpose

of this study, the 11-item Affective Commitment Scale (ACS) (Allen and Meyer,

1990) has been used to assess the affective orientation of employees towards the

organization. It is shorter than the OCQ, and Dunham et al. (1994) and Randall et al.

(1990) found that the OCQ converged with the ACS. The ACS also has the advantage

that its items were written to assess only affective orientation towards the organization

and not employees' behaviour or behavioural intentions (e.g. intention to exert effort

or leave the organization).

Continuance and normative components of commitment were not assessed

because : (1) employees' behaviour or behavioural intentions (e.g. intention to exert

effort or leave the organization) are either beyond the scope of the research (e.g.

turnover), or already measured as other variables (e.g. performance), and (2) there is

still a lack of confidence and validity in the Normative Commitment Scale (Allen and

Meyer, 1990; Ko et al., 1997).

Furthermore, according to Liu (2007), it is more appropriate to use affective

commitment as a measure of impressions and attitudes of new employees, because

there is little chance to develop a meaningful continuance or normative commitment

to the organization in the early employment stage. This happened to be suitable for

this study’s sample population, which was predominantly employees with less than 3

years tenure in their organizations.

Most investigations of organizational commitment have been conducted using

self-report measures, however, the veracity of self-reports is often questioned. Goffin

29

and Gellatly (2001) assessed affective commitment among public-sector

administrative staff, by using different sources of raters to test the explanations of the

factors influencing self-report measures. They found that self-report commitment

measures are affected mainly by observations or experiences of the self-reporter

rather than by systematic bias related to defensive responding. This increases

confidence that scores from self-report measures of affective commitment are

veridical.

In this study, respondents were asked to describe their affective commitment

towards their organizations. The seven-point Likert scale was used, ranging from

“strongly agree/very true” valued as a “1” to “strongly disagree/very unlikely” valued

as a “7”. A higher mean score indicated a higher level of commitment. Negative items

were reverse-coded prior to data analysis.

3.2.4. Job satisfaction

According to Robbins (2005), job satisfaction can be measured using a single

global rating by asking the question : “All things considered, how satisfied are you

with your job?”.

According to Yousef (2000), a number of researchers supported the usefulness

of a single-item measure of global job satisfaction (Scarpello and Campbell, 1983;

Begley and Czajka, 1993; Bhuian and Islam, 1996). Wanous et al. (1997) supported

the use of a single-item measure unless a study’s inquiries or circumstances direct

toward selecting a well-constructed scale. They also argued that the single-item

measure can be used if space on a questionnaire is limited.

30

Respondents were asked to describe their job satisfaction. The five-point

Likert scale was used, ranging from “not satisfied” valued as a “1” to “very satisfied”

valued as a “5”. A higher mean score indicated a higher level of job satisfaction.

3.2.5. Employee performance

To measure employee performance, the self-rating 3-item overall performance

definition developed by Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) has been used, as

described by Li (2004). Researchers have criticized that self-ratings tend to be

inflated, suffering from leniency and social desirability bias. In fact, it is argued that a

non-self-report or multi-rater approach would be more accurate (i.e. ratings from

supervisors, peers, etc.). This downside of self-rating is due to self-serving bias,

where people tend to ascribe their own successes to internal personal factors, and their

failures to external situational causes.

However, a self-appraisal approach for rating performance has been used for

other types of performance measurements, as done previously by Al-Gattan (1983),

Stevens et al. (1978) and Yousef (2000) with acceptable outcomes. Young and

Dulewicz (2007), in a wider study into effective performance in the British Royal

Navy, demonstrated that self-evaluation of own performance was significantly

correlated with appraised (actual) performance using different psychometric

questionnaires.

Respondents have been asked to determine: (1) their standard of job

performance as measured by self that ranged from “does not meet standard” valued as

a “1” to “exceeds standard” valued as a “5”, (2) performance as compared with others

of the same rank that ranged from “low level” valued as a “1” to “high level” valued

as a “5”, and (3) job contribution to the organization as compared to other members of

31

the work unit that ranged from “less contribution” valued as a “1” to “more

contribution” valued as a “5”. A higher mean score represented a higher level of

performance.

3.2.6. Classification questions

Classification questions have been included at the end of the questionnaires.

These were used for profiling the companies, for example, type of business, years of

establishment, number of employees, and also for profiling the respondents, for

example, age, gender, job position, education, number of years in present

organization/position.

3.3. Sampling design and data collection

Data was collected using self-administered questionnaires to examine the

preceding issues because: (i) responses could be easily quantified and summarized,

(ii) data could be collected quickly, inexpensively and efficiently, and (iii) a large

number of participants could be reached in a short span of time.

A small-scale piloting was conducted prior to distribution of the

questionnaires. Several important aspects were checked (see Oppenheim, 2004, pp.

47-50), which resulted mostly in changes in the layout of the questionnaire. For the

electronic version of the questionnaire, participants were asked to mark “x” in the

appropriate yellow-colored boxes, rather than circling the responses. This is to ease

the respondents’ work and to reduce non-response rates. Overall, the

wording/phrasing of the questions were preserved to maintain the measurements’

integrity.

32

A copy of the questionnaire (both manual and electronic versions) is appended

in Appendix 1.

Questionnaires were distributed via e-mail and personally-administered by

hand to 400 participants consisting of Malaysian UM MBA part-time students and the

researcher’s working peers. This non-probability convenience sampling was chosen

for convenience and for time- and cost-effectiveness for the research.

Approximately 70 percent of the questionnaires were distributed among MBA

students, while the remaining 30 percent were handed to the researcher’s working

peers. A total of 238 usable responses was received, giving a response rate of 59.5%.

The response rates were roughly equal among MBA students and the researcher’s

working peers.

It is anticipated that there are no differences between the responses from the

MBA students and the working peers. This is because the MBA students comprise of

working people from various career backgrounds who, in the course of their work,

encounter different leadership behaviours and organizational cultures, and experience

different states of commitment, performance and job satisfaction – which is similar to

the researcher’s own work colleagues. Hence, they are in a position to give

meaningful responses to the questionnaires as the researcher’s working peers.

Moreover, it was not the intention of this research to compare any differences

between these two groups of subjects. Therefore, any distinction between these two

groups of subjects were not identified in the questionnaires that were handed out.

A very small number of returned questionnaires had missing data in one or

more sections, but these are taken into account to make full use of the available data,

e.g. by using “exclude cases pairwise” option when assessing normality using the

SPSS program.

33

3.4. Data analysis techniques

Descriptive statistics such as frequency distributions, means, standard

deviations and tests for normality are used to develop a profile of the respondents and

to summarize the variables. Factor analyses are used to confirm that the concepts of

each variable have been correctly measured. Reliability statistics (Cronbach Alpha)

are also computed to assess the reliability of measurements for each variable.

To better understand the relationship among the variables, Pearson correlation

analysis is performed to generate the correlation matrix. And finally, to test the

research hypotheses, hierarchical multiple regression analysis is used. This method

was selected as the order in which independent variables are entered into the

regression equation were known, and were based on logical or theoretical

considerations (Kamarul Zaman Ahmad, 2001; Tabachnick and Fidell, 1983).

34

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, a summary of the respondents’ statistics is first presented,

followed by analyses of the selected measures. The hypotheses will then be tested and

a summary of the results from the research are described.

4.1. Summary statistics of respondents

Demographic variables of the respondent sample were extracted by asking

questions on age, gender, marital status, job position, number of years worked with

current employer, type and nature of organizations, number of years of establishment

of organizations and size of organizations (number of employees). Table 4.1

summarizes the demographic information of the sample population for this study.

Table 4.1

Summary statistics of respondents

Demographic variable Percentage of sampleAge 20-29 years 43.9 30-39 years 41.4 40-49 years 11.8 50 and above 3.0 Gender Female 51.1 Male 48.9 Education level Secondary 3.8 Diploma 8.0 Degree 57.8 Postgraduate 30.4 Marital status Single 58.9 Married 41.1 Job position Administrative or clerical 6.4 Technician 3.0

35

Executives or senior executive 37.3 Assistant manager 10.6 Managers or senior manager 28.0 Others 14.8 Number of years worked with current employer Less than 3 years 45.6 3-6 years 32.9 7-10 years 11.4 More than 10 years 10.1 Type of organization Manufacturing 11.4 Service 58.6 Others 30.0 Nature of organization Private/proprietary 72.6 Government 5.1 Government-linked (GLC) 16.7 Others 5.6 Number of years of establishment of organization Less than 10 years 23.7 10-15 years 17.8 More than 15 years 58.5 Number of employees in organization Less than 100 34.5 100-300 23.4 301-700 10.6 More than 700 31.5

Majority of the respondents were single and young (aged 20-39 years), of

nearly equal gender distribution, were degree holders and working as executives or

senior executives in their organizations. Most were relatively new employees, having

worked less than 3 years with their current employer.

Many of the respondents worked in private or proprietary organizations that

had been operating for more than 15 years. Most of these organizations were service-

oriented, such as in the sales, banking, education and consultancy lines. The size of

the respondents’ organizations was predominantly small or very large (less than 100

employees, and more than 700 employees, respectively).

36

4.2. Analyses of measures

4.2.1. Descriptive statistics

Table 4.2 shows that the standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis levels are

low, thus showing that the data is robust, representative of the samples, and normal

Hence, parametric analyses techniques are therefore possible in subsequent sections.

The measures of organizational culture, job satisfaction and employee

performance all exhibit mean scores notably above their respective mid-points. In

contrast, the measures of leadership and organizational commitment are notably lower

than their mid-points. Although few inferences can be gained from this analysis,

however, it may be argued that demographics could be an important factor. As an

example, drawing from past literature, the low mean scores of organizational

commitment could be due to the majority of respondents being young, highly-

educated, and having short organizational tenures (DeCotiis and Summers, 1987;

Mathieu and Hamel, 1989; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Michaels, 1994; Mottaz, 1988;

Mowday et al., 1982; Williams and Hazer, 1986).

37

Table 4.2

Descriptive Statistics

Valid Cases Mean1 Std. Dev. Skewness KurtosisBureaucratic Culture 238 3.04 0.56 -0.56 0.48 Innovative Culture 238 2.92 0.59 -0.14 0.94 Supportive Culture 238 2.91 0.52 -0.33 -0.19 Participative Leadership 238 3.35 1.25 0.61 0.08 Supportive Leadership 238 3.62 1.19 0.38 0.17 Directive Leadership 237 3.31 1.28 0.25 -0.51 Organizational Commitment 238 3.65 0.75 -0.20 0.38 Job Satisfaction 235 3.33 0.83 -0.36 0.59 Employee Performance 237 3.75 0.64 -0.22 -0.11 1 The OCI was measured on a four-point scale, resulting in a mid-point of 2.5. Both job satisfaction and employee performance were measured on a five-point scale, hence a mid-point of 3. Leadership behaviour and organizational commitment were measured using seven-point scales, therefore they have a mid-point of 4.

4.2.2. Factor Analysis

From the comprehensive review of the references, it was found that factor

analysis was generally not conducted for items or dimensions in the instruments, as

they were perceived as well-established and possessed well-documented reliability

and validity.

Sampling adequacy was conducted using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)

analysis for all measures. Table 4.3 summarizes the KMO measurements and shows

significant results for Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p = .000), which further supported

sampling adequacy of the data.

38

Table 4.3

KMO and Bartlett’s Test

KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Sig.)

Organizational Culture 0.878 (great) 0.000 Leadership Behaviour 0.904 (superb) 0.000 Organizational Commitment 0.784 (good) 0.000 Employee Performance 0.692 (mediocre) 0.000

Factor analysis was conducted using principal axis factoring extraction

method, and factors with eigenvalues of greater than one were extracted and retained.

In analyzing matrices, factors with loadings below 0.3 were suppressed.

For organizational culture and leadership behaviour, it was expected that the

factors extracted would be independent of one another according to pre-existing

categories demonstrated in the original research by Wallach (1983) and Harris and

Ogbonna (2001), respectively. Hence orthogonal rotation (varimax) was selected to

interpret factor loadings. Analyses results described three factors which can be

extracted for each measurement, hence corresponding exactly to the structure of the

measurements used by Wallach (1983) and Harris and Ogbonna (2001).

For organizational commitment and employee performance, as items were

originally supposed to measure a single variable, therefore it was expected that the

factors extracted would be dependent of one another. Hence oblique rotation (direct

oblimin) was selected to interpret factor loadings. Analyses results showed that three

factors could be extracted for the organizational commitment measurement,

suggesting the possibility of further refinements on Allen and Meyer’s (1990) ACS.

On the other hand, only one factor could be extracted in the employee performance

measurement, which describes accurately the structure of the employee performance

instrument used by Li (2004).

39

4.2.3. Reliability Analysis

Table 4.4 shows that the results in the calculation of Cronbach Alpha

coefficients ranged from 0.709 (for organizational commitment) to 0.921 (for

participative leadership). The Cronbach Alpha coefficients obtained from this study

were found to be relatively similar to reference studies. The high coefficient scores

(more than 0.7) led to the conclusion that the scales were acceptably reliable. No

items were deleted so as to maintain the integrity of these established, original

instruments.

Table 4.4

Reliability Analysis

No. of items Cronbach Alpha (present study)

Cronbach Alpha (reference study)

Bureaucratic Culture 8 0.824 0.861 Innovative Culture 8 0.790 0.701 Supportive Culture 8 0.812 0.971 Participative Leadership 5 0.921 0.92792 Supportive Leadership 4 0.788 0.76932 Directive Leadership 4 0.860 0.66882 Organizational Commitment 11 0.709 0.873

Employee Performance 3 0.774 0.831

1 Referenced from Li (2004) 2 Referenced from Harris and Ogbonna (2001) 3 Referenced from Allen and Meyer (1990)

4.2.4. Correlation Analyses

To study the correlation between variables, Pearson coefficient was selected as

it was designed for interval level or continuous variables. The correlation patterns in

Table 4.5 only partially followed the findings from Li’s (2004) study. That is,

organizational culture was found be significantly and positively correlated to job

40

satisfaction, but not with employee performance. In addition, leadership behaviours

were found to significantly and positively correlate to organizational commitment.

However, the results differ from Li’s (2004) study in a number of aspects.

Organizational culture was found to be either not significantly or significantly

negatively correlated to leadership behaviours. Organizational culture also had

significant negative correlation with organizational commitment. Leadership

behaviours did not affect employee performance significantly, but significantly

affected job satisfaction negatively. Employee performance was found to be

significantly and positively correlated to job satisfaction.

41

42

Table 4.5

Correlation

Bureaucratic Culture

Innovative Culture

Supportive Culture

Participative Leadership

Supportive Leadership

Instrumental Leadership

Employee Performance

Organizational Commitment

Job Satisfaction

Bureaucratic Culture Pearson Correlation 1 .427(**) .307(**) .019 .006 -.125(*) -.065 -.128(*) .146(*)

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .383 .462 .027 .160 .024 .012

N 238 238 238 238 238 237 237 238 235Innovative Culture Pearson Correlation .427(**) 1 .565(**) -.126(*) -.163(**) -.105 -.020 -.375(**) .253(**)

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .026 .006 .054 .378 .000 .000

N 238 238 238 238 238 237 237 238 235Supportive Culture Pearson Correlation .307(**) .565(**) 1 -.406(**) -.401(**) -.208(**) .045 -.454(**) .300(**)

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .244 .000 .000

N 238 238 238 238 238 237 237 238 235Participative Leadership Pearson Correlation .019 -.126(*) -.406(**) 1 .688(**) .452(**) .068 .500(**) -.259(**)

Sig. (1-tailed) .383 .026 .000 .000 .000 .150 .000 .000

N 238 238 238 238 238 237 237 238 235Supportive Leadership Pearson Correlation .006 -.163(**) -.401(**) .688(**) 1 .515(**) .088 .541(**) -.246(**)

Sig. (1-tailed) .462 .006 .000 .000 .000 .089 .000 .000

N 238 238 238 238 238 237 237 238 235Instrumental Leadership Pearson Correlation -.125(*) -.105 -.208(**) .452(**) .515(**) 1 .033 .450(**) -.147(*)

Sig. (1-tailed) .027 .054 .001 .000 .000 .306 .000 .012

N 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 234Employee Performance Pearson Correlation -.065 -.020 .045 .068 .088 .033 1 -.119(*) .305(**)

Sig. (1-tailed) .160 .378 .244 .150 .089 .306 .033 .000

N 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 234Organizational Commitment Pearson Correlation -.128(*) -.375(**) -.454(**) .500(**) .541(**) .450(**) -.119(*) 1 -.423(**)

Sig. (1-tailed) .024 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .033 .000

N 238 238 238 238 238 237 237 238 235Job Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .146(*) .253(**) .300(**) -.259(**) -.246(**) -.147(*) .305(**) -.423(**) 1

Sig. (1-tailed) .012 .000 .000 .000 .000 .012 .000 .000

N 235 235 235 235 235 234 234 235 235

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

43

4.3. Testing of hypotheses

To test the hypotheses using SPSS, hierarchical multiple regression was used

following Coakes et al. (2006, pp. 140-143). This method was selected as the order in

which independent variables are entered into the regression equation were known, and

were based on logical or theoretical considerations (Kamarul Zaman Ahmad, 2001;

Tabachnick and Fidell, 1983). Tables 4.6 to 4.11 show the results of hierarchical

multiple regression analyses.

44

Table 4.6 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Organizational Commitment

on Leadership Behaviours in Bureaucratic Culture Model Summary ANOVAc Coefficientsd

Independent Variables R2 excl.

interactiona R2 incl.

interactionb ∆ R2 Sig. F change F Sig. B Beta t Sig.

Directive Leadership .203 .208 .005 .219 30.742 .000 -.098 -.072 -1.233 .219

Participative Leadership .250 .269 .019 .014 43.212 .000 -.185 -.138 -2.473 .014

Supportive Leadership .293 .310 .017 .016 52.899 .000 -.177 -.132 -2.430 .016 a R2 with Leadership Behaviour and Organizational Culture, but excluding interaction Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture b R2 including interaction term Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture c ANOVA Predictors: (Constant), Leadership Behaviour, Organizational Culture d Coefficients of Organizational Culture in the Model: (Constant), Leadership Behaviour, Organizational Culture

Table 4.7 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Organizational Commitment

on Leadership Behaviours in Innovative Culture Model Summary ANOVAc Coefficientsd Independent

Variables R2 excl. interactiona

R2 incl. interactionb ∆ R2 Sig. F change F Sig. B Beta t Sig.

Directive Leadership .203 .312 .109 .000 52.983 .000 -.421 -.332 -6.081 .000

Participative Leadership .250 .349 .099 .000 62.938 .000 -.402 -.317 -5.976 .000

Supportive Leadership .293 .378 .085 .000 71.330 .000 -.374 -.295 -5.653 .000 a R2 with Leadership Behaviour and Organizational Culture, but excluding interaction Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture b R2 including interaction term Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture c ANOVA Predictors: (Constant), Leadership Behaviour, Organizational Culture d Coefficients of Organizational Culture in the Model: (Constant), Leadership Behaviour, Organizational Culture

Table 4.8 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Organizational Commitment

on Leadership Behaviours in Supportive Culture Model Summary ANOVAc Coefficientsd Independent

Variables R2 excl. interactiona

R2 incl. interactionb ∆ R2 Sig. F change F Sig. B Beta t Sig.

Directive Leadership .203 .339 .136 .000 59.891 .000 -.545 -.377 -6.927 .000

Participative Leadership .250 .325 .075 .000 56.640 .000 -.435 -.300 -5.125 .000

Supportive Leadership .293 .360 .067 .000 66.058 .000 -.408 -.282 -4.951 .000 a R2 with Leadership Behaviour and Organizational Culture, but excluding interaction Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture b R2 including interaction term Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture c ANOVA Predictors: (Constant), Leadership Behaviour, Organizational Culture d Coefficients of Organizational Culture in the Model: (Constant), Leadership Behaviour, Organizational Culture

Table 4.9 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance

on Organizational Commitment in Bureaucratic Culture Model Summary ANOVAc Coefficientsd

Dependent Variables R2 excl.

interactiona R2 incl.

interactionb ∆ R2 Sig. F change F Sig. B Beta t Sig.

Job Satisfaction .179 .187 .009 .113 26.760 .000 .141 .095 1.591 .113

Employee Performance .014 .021 .007 .213 2.482 .086 -.093 -.081 -1.248 .213 a R2 with Organizational Commitment and Organizational Culture, but excluding interaction Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture b R2 including interaction term Organizational Commitment * Organizational Culture c ANOVA Predictors: (Constant), Organizational Commitment, Organizational Culture d Coefficients of Organizational Culture in the Model: (Constant), Organizational Commitment, Organizational Culture

45

Table 4.10 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance

on Organizational Commitment in Innovative Culture Model Summary ANOVAc Coefficientsd

Dependent Variables R2 excl.

interactiona R2 incl.

interactionb ∆ R2 Sig. F change F Sig. B Beta t Sig.

Job Satisfaction .179 .189 .011 .082 27.071 .000 .155 .111 1.744 .082

Employee Performance .014 .019 .005 .280 2.288 .104 -.081 -.076 -1.084 .280 a R2 with Organizational Commitment and Organizational Culture, but excluding interaction Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture b R2 including interaction term Organizational Commitment * Organizational Culture c ANOVA Predictors: (Constant), Organizational Commitment, Organizational Culture d Coefficients of Organizational Culture in the Model: (Constant), Organizational Commitment, Organizational Culture

Table 4.11 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance

on Organizational Commitment in Supportive Culture Model Summary ANOVAc Coefficientsd

Independent Variables R2 excl.

interactiona R2 incl.

interactionb ∆ R2 Sig. F change F Sig. B Beta t Sig.

Job Satisfaction .179 .193 .015 .041 27.793 .000 .217 .136 2.056 .041

Employee Performance .014 .014 .000 .877 1.704 .184 -.014 -.011 -.155 -877 a R2 with Organizational Commitment and Organizational Culture, but excluding interaction Leadership Behaviour * Organizational Culture b R2 including interaction term Organizational Commitment * Organizational Culture c ANOVA Predictors: (Constant), Organizational Commitment, Organizational Culture d Coefficients of Organizational Culture in the Model: (Constant), Organizational Commitment, Organizational Culture

46

47

4.3.1. Leadership behaviour, organizational culture and organizational

commitment

H1 stated that a leader’s directive, participative and supportive behaviours

have no significant relationship with organizational commitment. From the analyses,

leadership behaviours explained about 20 to 30 percent of the variance (R2) in

organizational commitment, all of which were significant as indicated by the

respective F-values (p < .05). Based on the R-values and t-values, all three types of

leadership behaviours contributed positively and significantly to the prediction of

organizational commitment (p < .05). Higher scores for each leadership behaviour led

to stronger organizational commitment in the employees. Therefore, the null

hypothesis H1 is rejected, that is, leader’s directive, participative and supportive

behaviours have positive and significant relationship with organizational

commitment.

This finding is consistent with some previous studies (Blau, 1985; Williams

and Hazer, 1986) and lends credibility to the notion that leadership does play an

influential role in generating commitment. Employees who are committed are highly

involved in their organization, and are more willing to put in considerable effort at

work, and possess a strong desire to remain in their organizations.

According to H2, the organizational culture (bureaucratic, innovative and

supportive) has no significant association on the relationship between leadership

behaviour and organizational commitment. From the R2 Change and Sig. F Change

values, both innovative and supportive cultures made significant, unique contributions

of 8.5 to 10.9 percent, and 6.7 to 13.6 percent, respectively, to the variance of

organizational commitment after leadership behaviour had been taken into account (p

< .05). The association was most pronounced with directive leadership, followed by

participative and least of all, supportive leadership styles. The association is less clear

in bureaucratic environments; it did not make any significant contributions to the

variance of organizational commitment under directive leadership, but significantly

increased the variances by nearly 2 percent under participative and supportive

leadership styles.

The negative beta values indicated that higher scores in organizational culture

was associated with lower commitment, with the exception of bureaucratic culture

with directive leadership. Hence, organizational culture was generally found to be a

significant moderator in the relationship between leadership behaviours and

organizational commitment.

Therefore, the null hypothesis H2 is partially rejected. Organizational

culture generally has significant moderating influence on the relationship between

leadership behaviour and organizational commitment, except for the relationship

between directive leadership behaviour and organizational commitment under a

bureaucratic environment.

Bureaucratic, innovative and supportive cultures have significant moderating

influence on the relationship between participative and supportive leadership

behaviours and organizational commitment. The relationship between directive

leadership behaviour and organizational commitment is significantly moderated by

both innovative and supportive cultures; however, bureaucratic culture did not

significantly moderate this relationship.

This finding is in agreement with Li’s (2004) study in that the effect of

different leadership behaviors on organizational commitment is contingent upon

organizational culture. Although all three types of organizational culture moderated

the relationships between directive, participative and supportive leadership behaviours

48

with commitment by negatively impacting them, bureaucratic culture was found to

exert the least influence. Leaders should recognize this as they seek to influence

employees and achieve their organizational goals, of which success can be contingent

upon the type of organizational culture being practiced. Regardless of conditions in

the labor market, committed employees are always a necessary and valuable

organizational resource (Li, 2004).

The finding that directive leadership style is not affected by a bureaucratic

environment in generating commitment contributes further evidence that a particular

leadership style can be effective in one culture, but may not benefit (or become

ineffective) in another culture.

4.3.2. Organizational commitment, organizational culture, job satisfaction

and employee performance

According to H3, organizational commitment is posited to have no significant

relationship with job satisfaction and job performance. From the analyses,

organizational commitment explained 17.9 percent of the variance (R2) in job

satisfaction, which was significant as indicated by the F-value (p < .05). In contrast,

organizational commitment explained 1.4 percent of the variance in employee

performance, which was not significant as indicated by the F-value (p > .05). Based

on the R-values and t-values, organizational commitment is a significant and negative

predictor of job satisfaction (p < .05), but is not a predictor for employee performance

(p > .05). The stronger the commitment, the lower the job satisfaction. Therefore, the

null hypothesis H3 is partially rejected, that is, organizational commitment has a

negative significant relationship with job satisfaction, and has an insignificant

relationship with employee performance.

49

The findings are contrary to the reviewed literature with regards to the

association between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. For instance,

Mathieu and Zajac's (1990) research suggested that affective and continuance

commitment are positively related with job satisfaction, but this was not observed in

this study. One possible reason is that the sample population consists mostly of

young, highly educated persons holding high executive or managerial positions. They

may be involved and be enthusiastic about their work professionally, however, actual

expectations and feelings about their work may differ, which may lead to

dissatisfaction. On the other hand, the findings agree to Lee and Mowday’s (1989)

study, where there is negligible relationship between commitment and employee

performance. There may be other more important factors which impacts performance

and productivity besides organizational commitment. Managers can benefit by

attempting to uncover underlying factors that are critical in determining job

satisfaction and performance levels, as organizational commitment itself may not

contribute as much as previously thought.

H4 stated that organizational culture (bureaucratic, innovative and supportive)

has no significant association on the relationship between organizational commitment

and job satisfaction and job performance. From the R2 Change and Sig. F Change

values, only supportive culture made a significant, unique (albeit weak) contribution

of 1.5 percent to the variance of job satisfaction after organizational commitment (p =

.041). The positive beta (beta = .136) indicated that higher score in supportive culture

was associated with higher job satisfaction. Hence, supportive culture was found to be

a significant moderator in the relationship between organizational commitment and

job satisfaction.

50

Organizational culture was found not to contribute significantly to the variance

of employee performance after organizational commitment (p > .05). Hence, in the

sample population, organizational culture was not a significant moderator in the

relationship between organizational commitment and employee performance.

Therefore, the null hypothesis H4 is partially rejected, that is, only

supportive culture has a significant moderating influence on the relationship between

organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Bureaucratic and innovative cultures

did not significantly influence the relationship between organizational commitment

with job satisfaction. In addition, all three types of organizational cultures did not

moderate the relationship between organizational commitment and employee

performance.

This finding is in agreement with past literature, where a trusting, encouraging

and team-oriented environment increased job satisfaction levels. In corporations

where rigid bureaucratic, or challenging, aggressive innovative cultures exist,

Malaysian managers may want to consider introducing softer and more people-

oriented elements into the working environment, so as to increase satisfaction, which

in turn, may benefit productivity, stress levels or turnover rates.

4.4. Summary of research results

The research results are summarized as follows :

Leader’s directive, participative and supportive behaviours have positive and

significant relationship with organizational commitment.

51

Organizational culture generally has significant moderating influence on the

relationship between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment, except for

the relationship between directive leadership behaviour and organizational

commitment under a bureaucratic environment.

Organizational commitment has a negative significant relationship with job

satisfaction, and has an insignificant relationship with employee performance.

Only supportive culture has a significant moderating influence on the relationship

between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Organizational culture did

not moderate the relationship between organizational commitment and employee

performance.

52

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter begins with the summary of findings based on the results from

this study. Suggestions for future research areas are then presented, and lastly

implications from this study are described and at the end of this chapter.

5.1. Summary of findings

The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between different

types of organizational culture and leadership behaviours and organizational

commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance in the Malaysian setting.

To date, little empirical research has been done to investigate the relationships

and organizational outcomes of these constructs. This study, therefore, is unique in

that it has helped to fill this gap in an effort to improve our understanding of the role

of leadership and organizational in the Malaysian environment and beyond. With the

advent of globalization in recent years, greater knowledge of the interactions of these

factors specifically in the multiracial and multicultural Malaysian setting can be

beneficial for assessing the effectiveness of current theory as well as benefiting

practicing leaders and decision makers. Findings from this study can help leaders and

scholars, especially those concerned with Malaysian companies.

By using questionnaires, data was gathered from 238 Malaysian UM MBA

part-time students and the researcher’s working peers. Data on the respondents’

organizational culture and leadership behaviours, and how they affect organizational

commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance, were collected using the

OCI (Wallach, 1983), leadership behaviour questionnaire (Harris and Ogbonna,

53

2001), ACS (Allen and Meyer, 1990), single global rating for job satisfaction

(Robbins, 2005), and overall performance questionnaire (Motowidlo and Van Scotter,

1994), respectively. Descriptive statistics were reported, followed by factor analysis,

reliability analysis, Pearson correlation and hypotheses testing using hierarchical

multiple regression.

In this study, although the correlations were statistically significant (p < 0.05),

the amount of correlation with each variable was relatively small. One of the reasons

could be that there are other, possibly stronger, predictors and dependents for the

variables investigated in this study. For example, there are numerous factors which

influence, or are influenced by job satisfaction, as described by Rad and

Yarmohammadian (2006).

Four hypotheses were developed based on the research objectives and from

the existing literature. The hypotheses were tested and thus, the research objectives

were achieved.

H1 stated that a leader’s directive, participative and supportive behaviours

have no significant relationship with organizational commitment. However, based on

the research results, the null hypothesis H1 is rejected. The leader’s directive,

participative and supportive behaviours were found to have positive and significant

relationship with organizational commitment. These results were consistent with the

pattern found in a number of western studies, as described by Yousef (2000). In his

research on major United Arab Emirates organizations, he found that employees can

be highly committed to their organizations when they perceive their superiors as

adopting consultative or participative leadership behaviours.

54

According to H2, the organizational culture (bureaucratic, innovative and

supportive) is not significantly associated with the relationship between leadership

behaviour and organizational commitment. From the findings, the null hypothesis H2

is partially rejected. Bureaucratic, innovative and supportive cultures have significant

moderating influence on the relationship between participative and supportive

leadership behaviours and organizational commitment. The relationship between

directive leadership behaviour and organizational commitment is significantly

moderated by both innovative and supportive cultures; however, bureaucratic culture

did not significantly moderate this relationship. This finding is somewhat reflected in

previous western studies, where innovative and supportive cultures were found to

exert stronger influence or even enhance employees’ commitment than a bureaucratic

culture (Brewer, 1993; Brewer, 1994; Kratrina, 1990; Wallach, 1983).

According to H3, organizational commitment is posited to have no significant

relationship with job satisfaction and job performance. Following the data analysis,

the null hypothesis H3 is partially rejected. Organizational commitment has a negative

significant relationship with job satisfaction, but has an insignificant relationship with

employee performance. This is contrary to findings from western studies with regards

to the association between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. For

instance, Mathieu and Zajac (1990) found that commitment is positively related with

job satisfaction, but this was not observed in this study. On the other hand, this

study’s findings agree to Lee and Mowday’s (1989), where there is negligible

relationship between commitment and employee performance. This difference could

be explained by the demographics of the study sample - young, highly-educated

workers who may be enthusiastic about their work professionally, however, actual

expectations and feelings about their work may differ, which may lead to

55

dissatisfaction. Their performance could be influenced by other factors aside from

commitment alone.

H4 stated that organizational culture (bureaucratic, innovative and supportive)

is not significantly associated with the relationship between organization commitment

and job satisfaction and job performance. From the analysis, it is concluded that the

null hypothesis H4 is partially rejected. Only supportive culture has a significant

moderating influence on the relationship between organizational commitment and job

satisfaction. Bureaucratic and innovative cultures did not significantly influence the

relationship between organizational commitment with job satisfaction. In addition, all

three types of organizational cultures did not moderate the relationship between

organizational commitment and employee performance. This finding is somewhat in

agreement with previous western studies, where supportive cultures were

predominantly associated with higher levels of job satisfaction and performance,

while bureaucratic cultures did the opposite (Brewer and Clippard, 2002; Krausz et

al., 1995; London and Larsen, 1999; Silverthorne, 2004; Trice and Beyer, 1993).

There exists very few published research work of similar nature conducted in

Malaysia. Findings from this study did not agree with Samad (2005)’s, in that

organizational commitment was found to be negatively related to job satisfaction and

unrelated to employee performance. Hence, the sampled Malaysian employees who

feel attached and involved in their companies did not feel more satisfied with their

jobs, and did not perform better either.

Although no direct comparisons could be made against findings from Rashid

et al. (2003)’s study, it can be loosely concluded that a bureaucratic environment does

not affect organizational commitment and other consequents such as satisfaction and

56

performance in the Malaysian setting. Rashid et al. (2003) found that a consensual

(supportive) culture positively influenced affective commitment, whereas an

entrepreneurial (innovative) culture did otherwise. Such findings were not observed in

this study, however.

5.2. Suggestions for future research

Sampling was one of the limitations identified in this study. The fact that

convenience sampling was used meant that results were not immediately transferable

to the general working population. In addition, the sample subjects in this study were

mostly young executives in the urban Klang Valley area, who worked less than three

years in their companies, and were mostly from the private sector; thus, findings

could not be generalized. Therefore, future research could look into extending the

study population to include collect input from more experienced business managers

and leaders who have better insight of the workings of the corporation. If samples

were drawn from a wider range of demographics, then the results may become more

meaningful. Moreover, if adequate population data can be obtained, probability

sampling methods can be used.

Future research could explore the differences in response towards the

investigated variables among different groups of people of varied backgrounds and

demographics. For example, comparisons can be made between workers from

different industries, ethnicities, or countries.

Another possible future direction is to use a more differentiated measure of job

satisfaction, such as the Job Descriptive Index or Overall Job Satisfaction

questionnaires, provided the benefits of using such lengthier measures outweigh the

57

disadvantages. Such measures can provide a more detailed analysis on the facets of

job satisfaction that are affected by organizational behaviour variables.

5.3. Implications

There can be a number of implications for Malaysian corporate leaders,

managers and supervisors from this study. Leaders need to realize the impact of their

personal leadership styles upon their employees' commitment to the workplace, and

that the success of their endeavours is dependent on the shared values and norms

within the organization. Hence, to enhance their effectiveness, leaders could consider

changing their leadership style to synergize with the organization's culture, or initiate

changes to the culture itself. In addition, this further reaffirms the use of the

contingency approach in conceptualizing leadership styles and behaviours.

For example, in Malaysia there are many bureaucratic organizations such as

government institutions, large manufacturing plants, and traditional family-owned

companies. In these organizations, directive leadership is still quite prevalent where

supervisors continue to direct and plan work for employees, and rigid rules and

policies are enforced. Such organizations continue to thrive today as demonstrated by

years of continued financial success. Working conditions in such bureaucratic cultures

may not immediately favour supportive leadership styles; where efficiency and strict

adherence to rules are valued, a manager adopting a softer, caring approach risks

losing respect from older employees, and gaining lazy workers who take advantage of

the open, friendly atmosphere. Therefore, the supportive manager needs to change his

leading style, perhaps by adopting a more directive leadership approach.

Malaysian leaders should also realize that contrary to common belief,

committed employees may not automatically equate to satisfied and high-performing

58

workers in the organization, even if a favourable environment exists for the

employees. There could be other, more significant underlying reasons for an

employee's commitment, which could subsequently affect other critical bottom-lines,

such as absenteeism, turnover, profitability and productivity. Leaders need to

investigate and find out what exactly keeps their employees happy and working hard.

As an example, in Malaysia the sales and marketing divisions of many fast-

moving industries, such as telecommunications, electronics, consumer goods and

healthcare products, employ young people who are enthusiastic, driven and possess

high-performing qualities. They are committed to their organizations, often bearing

hopes of finding an ideal working environment, rewarding salary package and

promotion opportunities, and an exciting job. However, it is also true that turnover

among new recruits in sales teams and marketing departments in such industries is

high, and targets are not always met. Managers should perhaps look into what affects

their subordinates’ job satisfaction and performance, such as too much stress or

inadequate training.

59

REFERENCES

Ahmad, K. (2001). “Corporate leadership and workplace motivation in Malaysia”,

International Journal of Commerce & Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 82-101.

Al-Gattan, A. R. A (1983), “The path-goal theory of leadership: an empirical and

longitudinal analysis”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.

Al-Meer, A. R. A. (1989), “Organizational commitment: A comparison of westerners,

Asians, and Saudis”, International Studies of Management & Organization, vol. 19

no. 2, pp. 74-84.

Allen, N. and Meyer, J. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective,

normative and continuance commitment to the organization”, Journal of

Occupational Psychology, vol. 63, pp. 1-18.

Anonymous (1998, October 26), “What makes a company great?”, Fortune, vol. 138

no. 8, pp. 218-9.

Appelbaum, S., Bartolomucci, N., Beaumier, E., Boulanger, J., Corrigan, R., Dore, I.,

Girard, C. and Serroni, C. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behaviour: A case study

of culture, leadership and trust”, Management Decision, vol. 42 no. 1/2, pp. 13-40.

Barnes, J. H., Daswar, A. K. and Gilbert, F. W. (1994), “Number of factors obtained

by chance: a situation study”, in Wilson, K. J. and Black, W. (eds), Developments in

Marketing Science, vol. XVII, Academy of Marketing Science, Nashville, TN.

Baugh, S. G. and Roberts, R. M. (1994), “Professional and organizational

commitment among engineers: Conflicting or complementary?”, IEEE Transactions

on Engineering Management, vol. 41 no. 2, pp. 108-14.

Begley, T. M. and Czajka, J. M. (1993), “Panel analysis of the moderating effects of

commitment on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organizational

change”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 78 no. 4, pp. 552-6.

60

Benkhoff, B. (1997), “Disentangling organizational commitment: The changes of the

OCQ for research and policy”, Personnel Review, vol. 26 no. 1, pp. 114-20.

Bhuian, S. N. and Islam, M. S. (1996), “Continuance commitment and extrinsic job

satisfaction among a novel multicultural expatriate workforce”, The Mid-Atlantic

Journal of Business, vol. 32 no. 1, pp. 35-46.

Blau, G. (1985), “The measurement and prediction of career commitment”, Journal of

Occupational Psychology, vol. 58, pp. 277-88.

Becker, H. S. (1960), “Notes on the Concept of Commitment”, American Journal of

Sociology, 66, pp. 32-42.

Brett, J. F., Cron, W. L. and Slocum Jr, J. W. (1995), “Economic dependency on

work: a moderator of the relationship between organizational commitment and

performance”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 38 no. 1, pp. 261-71.

Brewer, A. (1993), Managing for Employee Commitment, Longman, London.

Brewer, A. (1994), The Responsive Employee, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Brewer, E. W. and Clippard, L. F. (2002), “Burnout and job satisfaction among

Student Support Services personnel”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol.

13 no. 2, pp. 169-86.

Brunetto, Y. and Farr-Wharton, R. (2003), “The commitment and satisfaction of

lower-ranked police officers: Lessons for management”, Policing: An International

Journal of Police Strategies & Management, vol. 26 no. 1, pp. 43-63.

Cameron, K. S. and Freeman, S. J. (1991), “Cultural congruence, strength, and type:

relationships to effectiveness”, Research in Organizational Change and Development,

vol. 5, pp. 23-58.

61

Caykoylu, S., Egri, C. P. and Havlovic, S. (2007), “Organizational commitment

across different employee groups”, The Business Review, Cambridge, vol. 8 no. 1, pp.

191-7.

Chang, T. Z., Polsa, P. and Chen, S. J. (2003), “Manufacturer channel management

behaviour and retailors' performance: An empirical investigation of automotive

channel”, Supply Chain Management, vol. 8 no. 2, pp. 132-9.

Chen, Y. J. (2007),”Relationships among service orientation, job satisfaction, and

organizational commitment in the international tourist hotel industry”, Journal of

American Academy of Business, Cambridge, vol. 11 no. 2, pp. 71-82.

Churchill, G. A. (1991), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, The

Dryden Press, London.

Coakes, S. J., Steed, L. and Dzidic, P. (2006), SPSS version 13.0 for Windows:

analysis without anguish, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

Cole, C. L. (2000), “Building Loyalty”, Workforce, 79 (8), pp. 42-48.

Daft, R. L. (2005), The Leadership Experience, 3rd ed., Thomson-Southwestern,

Canada.

Deal, T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. (1982), Corporate Cultures, Addison-Wesley,

Reading, MA.

DeCotiis, T., and Summers, T. (1987), “A path analysis of a model of the antecedents

and consequences of organizational commitment”, Human Relations, vol. 40 no. 7,

pp. 445-70.

Downey, H. K., Sheridan, J. E. and Slocum Jr., J. W. (1975), “Analysis of

relationships among leader behaviour, subordinate job performance and satisfaction:

A path-goal approach”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 18 no. 2, pp. 253-62.

62

Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A. and Castenada, M. B. (1994), “Organizational

commitment: the utility of an integrative definition”, Journal of Applied Psychology,

vol. 79 no. 3, pp. 370-80.

Earle, V. (1996, November), “Motivational leadership”, Executive Excellence, vol. 13

no. 11, pp. 16-7.

Fleishman, E. A. (1957), “A leadership behaviour description for industry”, in

Stogdill, R. M. and Coons, A.E. (eds), Leader Behaviour: Its Description and

Measurement, The Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, Columbus,

OH.

Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (1998), The Character of a Corporation: How Your

Company’s Culture Can Make or Break Your Business, Harper Business, London.

Goffin, R. D. and Gellatly, I. E. (2001), “A multi-rater assessment of organizational

commitment: Are self-report measures biased?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,

vol. 22 no. 4, pg. 437-51.

Goulet, L. R. and Singh, P. (2002), ”Career commitment: A reexamination and an

extension”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, vol. 61, pp. 73–91.

Gregersen, H. B. and Black, J. S. (1992), “Antecedents to commitment to a parent

company and a foreign operation”, Academy of Managerial Journal, vol. 35 no. 1, pp.

65-90.

Hackett, R. D., Lapierre and L. M., Hausdorf, P. A. (2001), “Understanding the links

between work commitment constructs”, Journal of Vocational Behaviours, vol. 58,

pp. 392-413.

Harris, L. C. and Ogbonna, E. (2001), “Leadership style and market orientation: An

empirical study”, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 35 no. 5/6, pp. 744-64.

63

Hickman, C. and Silva, M. (1984), Creating Excellence: Managing Culture and

Change in the New Age, New American Library, New York, NY.

House, R. J. (1971), “A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness”, Administrative

Science Quarterly, vol. 16, pp. 321-38.

House, R. J. and Dessler, G. (1974), “The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post

hoc and a priori tests”, in Hunt, J. G. and Larson, L. L. (eds), Contingency

Approaches to Leadership, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.

Iverson, R. D. and Roy, P. (1994), “A causal model of behavioural commitment:

evidence from a study of Australian blue-collar employees”, Journal of Management,

vol. 20 no. 1, pp. 15-41.

Jernigan, I. E., Beggs, J. M. and Kohut, G. F. (2002), “Dimensions of work

satisfaction as predictors of commitment type”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,

vol. 17 no. 7, pp. 564-79.

Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J. and Avolio, B. J. (1997), “Effects of leadership style and

problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting

system environment”, Personnel Psychology, vol. 50 no. 1, pp. 121-46.

Kalleberg, A. L. and Marden, P. V. (1995), “Organizational commitment and job

performance in the US labor force”, Research in the Sociology of Work, vol. 5, pp.

235-57.

Kamarul Zaman Ahmad (2001), “The association between person, work environment,

job satisfaction and performance : a study in light manufacturing assembly plants”,

University of Manchester, Ph. D. Thesis.

Kim, S. (2002), “Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for

management leadership”, Public Administration Review, vol. 62 no. 2, pp. 231-41.

64

Kirchmeyer, C. (1995), “Managing the work-nonwork boundary: An assessment of

organizational responses”, Human Relations, vol. 48 no. 5, pp. 515–36.

Ko, J. W., Price, J. L. and Mueller, C. W. (1997), “Assessment of Meyer and Allen’s

3 Component Model of Organizational Commitment in South Korea”, Journal of

Applied Psychology, vol. 82 no. 6, pp. 961-73.

Kratrina, S. (1990), “Organizational culture and head nurse leadership: The

relationship to nurses' job satisfaction and turnover in hospital settings”, unpublished

PhD thesis, College of Education, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.

Krausz, M., Koslowsky, M., Shalon, N. and Elyakim, N. (1995), “Predictors of

intention to leave the ward, the hospital and the nursing profession: A longitudinal

study”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, vol. 16, pp. 277-88.

Lee, T. W. and Mowday, R. T. (1989), “Voluntary leaving an organization: An

empitical investigation of Steers and Mowdays's Model of Turnover”, Academy of

Management Journal, vol. 30, pp. 721-43.

Leong, C. S., Furnham, A. and Cooper, C. L. (1996), “The moderating effect of

organizational commitment on the occupational stress outcome relationship”, Human

Relations, vol. 49 no. 10, pp. 1345-63.

Leong, S. M., Randoll, D. N. and Cote, J. A. (1994), “Exploring the organizational

commitment-performance”, Journal of Business Research, vol. 29 no. 1, pp. 57-63.

Li, Y. C. (2004), “Examining the effect of organization culture and leadership

behaviours on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance at

small and middle-sized firms of Taiwan”, Journal of American Academy of Business,

vol. 5 no. 1/2, pp. 432-8.

Lim, B. (1995), “Examining the organizational culture and organizational

performance link”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol. 16, pp.

16-21.

65

Liu, C. M. (2007), “The early employment influences of sales representatives on the

development of organizational commitment”, Employee Relations, vol. 29 no. 1, pp.

5-15.

Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (1999), “The relationship between commitment and

organizational culture, subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in

organizational change and development”, Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, vol. 20 no. 7, pp, 365-73.

Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (2001), “Antecedents of organizational commitment and the

mediating role of job satisfaction”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 16 no.

7/8, pp. 594-613.

Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (2004), “The effect of organizational culture and leadership

style on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A cross-national

comparison”, Journal of Management Development, vol. 23 no. 4, pp. 321-38.

London, M. and Larsen, H. (1999), “Relationships between feedback and self-

development”, Group and Organization Management, vol. 24 no. 1, pp. 5-27.

Madsen, S. R., Miller, D. and John, C. R. (2005), “Readiness for organizational

change: Do organizational commitment and social relationships in the workplace

make a difference?”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 16 no. 2, pp. 213-

33.

Malhotra, N. K. (1993), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, Prentice-Hall

International, London.

Mathieu, J. and Hamel, D. (1989), “A cause model of the antecedents of

organizational commitment among professionals and non-professionals”, Journal of

Vocational Behaviour, vol. 34, pp. 299-317.

66

Mathieu, J. and Zajac, D. (1990), “A review of meta-analysis of the antecedents,

correlates and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin,

vol. 108 no. 2, pp. 171-94.

Mayer, R. C. and Schoorm, F. C. (1992), “Predicting participation and production

outcomes through a two-dimensional model of organizational commitment”, Academy

of Management Journal, vol. 35 no. 3, pp. 671-84.

McCaul, H. S., Hinsz, V. B. and McCaul, K. D. (1995), “Assessing organizational

commitment: An employee's global attitude towards the organization”, Journal of

Applied Behavioural Science, vol. 31 no. 1, pp. 80-90.

Mehta, R., Dubinsky, A. J. and Anderson, R. E. (2003), “Leadership style, motivation

and performance in international marketing channels: An empirical investigation of

the USA, Finland and Poland”, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 37 no. 1/2, pp.

50-85.

Mehta, R., Larsen, T. and Rosenbloom, B. (1996), “The influence of leadership style

on co-operation in channels of distribution”, International Journal of Physical

Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 26 no. 6, pg. 32.

Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gettatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D. and Jackson, D. N. (1989),

“Organizational commitment and job performance: it’s the nature of the commitment

that counts”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 74 no. 1, pp. 152-6.

Michaels, P. (1994), “An expanded conceptual framework on organizational

commitment and job satisfaction for salesforce management”, Journal of Business

and Society, vol. 7 no. 1, pp. 42-67.

Motowidlo, S. J. and Van Scotter, J. R. (1994), “Evidence that task performance

should be distinguished from contextual performance”, Journal of Applied

Psychology, vol. 79, pp. 475-80.

67

Mottaz, C. (1988), “Determinants of organizational commitments”, Human Relations,

vol. 41 no. 6, pp. 467-82.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. M. and Dubin, R. (1974), “Unit performance, situational

factors and employee attitudes in spatially separated work units”, Organizational

Behaviour and Human Performance, vol. 12, pp. 231-48.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. M. and Steer, R. M. (1982), Employee-Organization

Linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover, Academic Press,

New York.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M. and Porter, L. W. (1979), The measurement of

organizational commitment, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, vol. 14, pp. 224-47.

Oppenheim, A. N. (2004), Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude

Measurement, New Edition, Continuum, New York, NY.

Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Harper and Row, New

York, NY.

Pool, S. W. (1997), “The relationship of job satisfaction with substitutes of leadership,

leadership behaviour, and work motivation”, The Journal of Psychology, vol. 13 no.

3, pp. 271-83.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. and Boulian, P. V. (1974),

“Organisational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric

technicians”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 59 no. 5, pp. 603-9.

Price, J. and Mueller, C. (1981), Professional Turnover: The Case of Nurses, Medical

and Scientific Books, New York, NY.

Poh, F. F. (2002), “The relationship between employee intention to leave with job

satisfaction and organizational commitment”, Faculty of Business and Accountancy,

Universiti Malaya, Dissertation (M.B.A.).

68

Putti, J. M., Aryee, S. and Phua, J. (1990), “Communication relationship satisfaction

and organizational commitment”, Group & Organization Studies, vol. 15 no. 1, pp.

44-52.

Quinn, R. E. and Cameron, K. (1983), “Organizational life cycles and sifting criteria

of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence”, Management Science, vol. 29, pp. 33-

51.

Quinn, R. E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983), “A spatial model of effectiveness criteria:

Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis”, Management

Science, vol. 29, pp. 363-77.

Rad, A. M. M. and Yarmohammadian, M. H. (2006), “A study of relationship

between managers’ leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction”, Leadership in

Health Services, vol. 19 no. 2, pp. 11-28.

Randall, D. M., Fedor, D. B. and Longenecker, C. O. (1990), “The behavioral

expression of organizational commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 36

no. 2, pp. 210-24.

Rashid, M. Z. A., Sambasivan, M. and Johari, J. (2003), “The influence of corporate

culture and organizational commitment on performance”, Journal of Management

Development, vol. 22 no. 8, pp. 708-28.

Rashid, M. Z. A., Sambasivan, M. and Rahman, A. A. (2004), “The influence of

organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change”, Leadership &

Organizational Development Journal, vol. 25 no. 2, pp. 161-79.

Robbins, S. P. (2005), Organizational Behaviour, 11th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall,

New Jersey.

69

Russ, F. A. and McNeilly, K. M. (1995), “Links among satisfaction, commitment, and

turnover intentions: The moderating effect of experience, gender and performance”,

Journal of Business Research, vol. 34 no. 1, pp. 57-65.

Samad, S. (2005), “Unraveling the organizational commitment and job performance

relationship: Exploring the moderating effect of job satisfaction”, The Business

Review, Cambridge, vol. 4 no. 2, pp. 79-84.

Savery, L. K. (1994), “Attitudes to work: The influence of perceived style of

leadership on a group of workers”, Leadership and Organization Development

Journal, vol. 15 no. 4, pp. 12-18.

Scarpello, V. and Campbell, J. P. (1983), “Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there?”,

Personal Psychology, vol. 36, pp. 557-600.

Schein, E. (1985), “How culture forms, develops and change”, in Kilman, P. H.,

Saxton, M. J., Serpa, R. and Associates (eds.), Gaining Control of the Corporate

Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Sergiovanni, T. and Corbally, J. (1984), Leadership and Organizational Culture,

University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Shadur, M. A., Kienzle, R. and Rodwell, J. J. (1999), “The relationship between

organizational climate and employee perceptions of involvement: The importance of

support”, Group & Organization Management, vol. 24 no. 4, pp. 479-503.

Silverthorne, C. (2001), “A test of the path-goal leadership theory in Taiwan”,

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 22 no. 4, pp. 151-8.

Silverthorne, C. (2004), “The impact of organizational culture and person-

organization fit on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan”, The

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 25 no. 7, pp. 592-9.

70

Smircich, L. (1983), “Concepts of culture and organizational effectiveness”,

Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 28 no. 3, pp. 339-58.

Smith, P. B. and Peterson, M. F. (1988), Leadership, Organizations and Culture: An

Event Management Model. Sage, London.

Stevens, J. M., Beyer, J. M. and Trice, H. M. (1978), “Assessing personal role and

organizational predictors of managerial commitment”, Academy of Management

Journal, vol. 21, pp. 380-96.

Stogdill, R. M. (1963), Manual for Leadership Description Questionnaire Form XII,

The Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, Columbus, OH.

Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (1983), Using Multivariate Statistics, Harper &

Row Publishers, New York.

Tan, W. L. (2005), “A partial test of path-goal theory of leadership in the domain of

Malaysia”, Faculty of Business and Accountancy, Universiti Malaya, Dissertation

(M.B.A.).

Taunton, R., Kramptiz, S. and Wood, C. (1989), “Manager impact on retention of

hospital staff, Part 1”, Journal of Nursing Administration, vol. 19 no. 3, pp. 14-9.

Tichy, N. and Cohen, E. (1997), The Leadership Engine, Harper Business, New York,

NY.

Trice, H. and Beyer, J. M. (1993), The Cultures of Work Organization, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Wallach, E. J. (1983, February), “Individuals and organizations: The cultural match.”

Training and Development Journal, vol. 37, pp. 29-36.

Wanous, J., Reicher, A. E. and Hudy, M. (1987), “Overall job satisfaction : How good

are single-item measures?“, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 82, pp. 247-52.

71

Ward, E. A. and Davis, E. (1995), “The effect of benefit satisfaction on organization

commitment”, Compensation & Benefits Management, vol. 11 no. 3, pp. 35-40.

Williams, L. J. and Hazer, J. T. (1986), “Antecedents and consequences of

satisfaction and commitment in turnover models: A re-analysis using latent variable

structural equation methods”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71 no. 2, pp. 219-

31.

Wright, T. A. (1997), “Job performance and organizational commitment”, Perceptual

and Motor Skills, vol. 85 no. 2, pp. 447-50.

Young, M. and Dulewicz, V. (2007), “Relationships between emotional and

congruent self-awareness and performance in the British Royal Navy”, Journal of

Managerial Psychology, vol. 22 no. 5, pp. 465-78.

Yousef, D. A. (2000), “Organizational commitment: A mediator of the relationships

of leadership behaviour with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western

country”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 15 no. 1, pp. 6-28.

Yousef, D. A. (2001), “Islamic work ethic: A moderator between organizational

commitment and job satisfaction in a cross-cultural context”, Personnel Review, vol.

30 no. 2, pp. 152-69.

72

1

APPENDIX 1

UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA

The Faculty of Business and Accountancy Master of Business Administration

Examining the association between organization culture and leadership behaviour and organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance – a Malaysian perspective.

Dear Sir/Madam, This survey is conducted as part of an MBA Research Project, which shall be submitted in part completion of the Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Malaya. The general purpose of this study is to examine the association between organization culture and leadership behaviour and organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance from a Malaysian perspective. I would like to invite your participation in this survey by filling up the attached questionnaire. The said questionnaire is constructed in a straightforward manner and easy to answer, which should take not more than 10 minutes of your valuable time. Please be assured that all information will be treated with the strictest confidentiality and only the aggregate data will be analyzed. Please answer all the questions in the worksheet and return the completed questionnaire. Thank you for your valuable assistance in participating in the survey. Yours sincerely, Lee Huey Yiing Supervised by, Dr. Kamarul Zaman bin Ahmad Department of Business Strategy and Policy Faculty of Business & Accountancy University of Malaya

1

1. ORGANIZATION CULTURE Please circle the score which most closely corresponds with how you see your organization : Does not

describe my organization

Describe my organization a little

Describes my organization a fair amount

Describes my organization most of the time

a) risk taking 1 2 3 4

b) collaborative 1 2 3 4

c) hierarchical 1 2 3 4

d) procedural 1 2 3 4

e) relationships-oriented 1 2 3 4

f) results-oriented 1 2 3 4

g) creative 1 2 3 4

h) encouraging 1 2 3 4

i) sociable 1 2 3 4

j) structured 1 2 3 4

k) pressurized 1 2 3 4

l) ordered 1 2 3 4

m) stimulating 1 2 3 4

n) regulated 1 2 3 4

o) personal freedom 1 2 3 4

p) equitable 1 2 3 4

q) safe 1 2 3 4

r) challenging 1 2 3 4

s) enterprising 1 2 3 4

t) established, solid 1 2 3 4

u) cautious 1 2 3 4

v) trusting 1 2 3 4

w) driving 1 2 3 4

x) power-oriented 1 2 3 4

2. JOB SATISFACTION Please circle the score that most describes yourself : All things considered, how satisfied are you with your job?

1 2 3 4 5 Not

satisfied Moderately

satisfied Very

satisfied

2

3. LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR Please circle the score which most closely describes your immediate supervisor : Strongly agree

Very true Strongly disagree

Very unlikely

1) Before making decisions, he/she considers what his/her subordinates have to say

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2) Before taking action he/she consults with subordinates

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3) When faced with a problem, he/she consults with subordinates

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4) He/she asks subordinates for their suggestions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5) He/she listens to subordinate's advice on which assignments should be made

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6) He/she helps people to make working on their tasks more pleasant

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7) He/she looks out for the personal welfare of group members

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8) He/she does little things to make things pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9) He/she treats all group members as equals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10) He/she explains the way tasks should be carried out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11) He/she decides what and how things shall be done 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12) He/she maintains definite standards of performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13) He/she schedules the work to be done 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. PERFORMANCE Please circle the score that most describes yourself : 1) My standard of job performance :

1 2 3 4 5 Does not meet

standard Meets standard Exceeds standard

2) Compared to another person of the same rank, I would rate my performance as :

1 2 3 4 5 Low level Moderate level High level

3) Compared to other members of my department/team, I would rate my contribution to the organization as :

1 2 3 4 5 Less contribution Enough contribution More contribution

3

5. ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT Please circle the score that most describes yourself and your opinions of your organization : Strongly agree

Very true Strongly disagree

Very unlikely

1) In general, the work I am given to do at my organization is challenging and exciting

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2) This organization always makes clear what is expected of me

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3) In my organization, I often find myself working on assignments without a clear understanding of what it is I am supposed to be doing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4) The requirements of my job are not particularly demanding

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5) The top management people in my organization pay attention to ideas brought to them by other employees

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6) Among the people in this organization there are few close relationships

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7) I feel I can trust this organization to do what it says it will do

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8) There are people in this organization who are getting much more than they deserve and others who are getting much less

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9) In this organization you are encouraged to feel that the work you do makes important contributions to the larger aims of the organization

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10) I am rarely given feedback concerning my performance on the job

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11) In my organization, I am allowed to participate in decisions regarding my workload and performance standards

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4

6. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Please tick the response that describes yourself and your organization : 1. Age:

20 – 29 years 30 – 39 years

40 – 49 years 50 and above

2. Gender:

Female Male

3. Education level:

Secondary Diploma Degree Post Graduate

4. Marital status:

Single Married

5. Current job position:

Administrative/Clerical Assistant Manager

Technician Manager/Senior Manager

Executive/Senior Exec Other – please specify

6. How many years have you worked for your current employer?

Less than 3 years 3 – 6 years

7 – 10 years More than 10 years

7. What is the type of business of your organization?

Manufacturing (e.g. production, assembly, etc.)

Service (e.g. sales, banking, education, consultancy, etc.)

Other – please specify

8. What is the nature of your organization?

Private/Proprietary Government

Government-linked (GLC) Other – please specify

9. How many years of establishment is your organization?

Less than 10 years 10 – 15 years More than 15 years

10. How many employees work in your organization?

Less than 100 100 – 300

301 - 700 More than 700

5

UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA

The Faculty of Business and Accountancy Master of Business Administration

Examining the association between organization culture and leadership behaviour and organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance – a Malaysian perspective.

Dear Sir/Madam, This survey is conducted as part of an MBA Research Project, which shall be submitted in part completion of the Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Malaya. The general purpose of this study is to examine the association between organization culture and leadership behaviour and organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance from a Malaysian perspective. I would like to invite your participation in this survey by filling up the attached questionnaire. The said questionnaire is constructed in a straightforward manner and easy to answer, which should take not more than 10 minutes of your valuable time. Please be assured that all information will be treated with the strictest confidentiality and only the aggregate data will be analyzed. Please answer all the questions by typing “x” in the yellow boxes that correspond to your responses. I would really appreciate if you could return the completed questionnaire to lhyresearch@gmail.com Thank you for your valuable assistance in participating in the survey. Yours sincerely, Lee Huey Yiing Supervised by, Dr. Kamarul Zaman bin Ahmad Department of Business Strategy and Policy Faculty of Business & Accountancy University of Malaya

1

2

1. ORGANIZATION CULTURE Please type “x” in the box that most closely corresponds with how you see your organization : Does not

describe my organization

Describe my organization a little

Describes my organization a fair amount

Describes my organization most of the time

a) risk taking

b) collaborative

c) hierarchical

d) procedural

e) relationships-oriented

f) results-oriented

g) creative

h) encouraging

i) sociable

j) structured

k) pressurized

l) ordered

m) stimulating

n) regulated

o) personal freedom

p) equitable

q) safe

r) challenging

s) enterprising

t) established, solid

u) cautious

v) trusting

w) driving

x) power-oriented

2. JOB SATISFACTION Please type “x” in the box which that most describes yourself : All things considered, how satisfied are you with your job?

Not

satisfied Moderately

satisfied Very

satisfied

3

3. LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR Please type “x” in the box which most closely describes your immediate supervisor : Strongly agree

Very true Strongly disagree

Very unlikely

1) Before making decisions, he/she considers what his/her subordinates have to say

2) Before taking action he/she consults with subordinates

3) When faced with a problem, he/she consults with subordinates

4) He/she asks subordinates for their suggestions

5) He/she listens to subordinate's advice on which assignments should be made

6) He/she helps people to make working on their tasks more pleasant

7) He/she looks out for the personal welfare of group members

8) He/she does little things to make things pleasant

9) He/she treats all group members as equals

10) He/she explains the way tasks should be carried out

11) He/she decides what and how things shall be done

12) He/she maintains definite standards of performance

13) He/she schedules the work to be done

4. PERFORMANCE Please type “x” in the box that most describes yourself : 1) My standard of job performance :

Does not meet standard Meets standard Exceeds standard 2) Compared to another person of the same rank, I would rate my performance as :

Low level Moderate level High level 3) Compared to other members of my department/team, I would rate my contribution to the organization as :

Less contribution Enough contribution More contribution

4

5. ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT Please type “x” in the box that most describes yourself and your opinions of your organization : Strongly agree

Very true Strongly disagree

Very unlikely

1) In general, the work I am given to do at my organization is challenging and exciting

2) This organization always makes clear what is expected of me

3) In my organization, I often find myself working on assignments without a clear understanding of what it is I am supposed to be doing

4) The requirements of my job are not particularly demanding

5) The top management people in my organization pay attention to ideas brought to them by other employees

6) Among the people in this organization there are few close relationships

7) I feel I can trust this organization to do what it says it will do

8) There are people in this organization who are getting much more than they deserve and others who are getting much less

9) In this organization you are encouraged to feel that the work you do makes important contributions to the larger aims of the organization

10) I am rarely given feedback concerning my performance on the job

11) In my organization, I am allowed to participate in decisions regarding my workload and performance standards

6. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Please type “x” in the box that describes yourself and your organization : 1. Age:

20 – 29 years 30 – 39 years 40 – 49 years 50 and above

2. Gender: Female Male

3. Education level: Secondary Diploma Degree Post Graduate

4. Marital status: Single Married

5. Current job position: Administrative/Clerical Assistant Manager Technician Manager/Senior Manager Executive/Senior Exec Other – please specify

6. How many years have you worked for your current employer? Less than 3 years 3 – 6 years 7 – 10 years More than 10 years

7. What is the type of business of your organization? Manufacturing (e.g. production, assembly, etc.) Service (e.g. sales, banking, education, consultancy, etc.) Other – please specify

8. What is the nature of your organization? Private/Proprietary Government Government-linked (GLC) Other – please specify

9. How many years of establishment is your organization? Less than 10 years 10 – 15 years More than 15 years

10. How many employees work in your organization? Less than 100 100 – 300 301 - 700 More than 700

5