Taiwan IT Leadership Sample

7/24/2019 Taiwan IT Leadership Sample

1/166

NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

UMI

roduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.


2/166roduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.


3/166

THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ON

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND JOB SATISFACTION IN TAIWANSINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY

By

Chien-Liang Liu

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to

H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship

Nova Southeastern University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

2005



4/166

UMI Number: 3222256

Copyright 2006 by

Liu, Chien-Liang

Al l rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is depende nt upon the q uality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adv ersely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete m anuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMIUMI Microform 3222256

Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. Th is microform ed ition is protected agains t

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346

Ann Arbor, Ml 4810 6-1346



5/166

A Dissertation

Entitled


ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND JOB SATISFACTION IN TAIWANSINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY

By

Chien-Liang Liu

We hereby certify that this Dissertation submitted by Chien-Liang Liu conforms to acceptable

standards, and as such is fully adequate in scope and quality. It is therefore approved as the

fulfillment of the Dissertation requirements for the Degree o f Doctorate o f Business

Administration.

6

Sabrina Segal, D.B.A. Date

Chairperson

/ O'CP iM if ' 6~//2/ecPedro F. Pellet, Ph.D. Date

Committee Member

1XA^At3,bert C. PreziosiTl) P.A. ^ DateRobert

Committee Member

Russell Abratt, Ph.CT^ Date

Chair, Doctoral Programs

_______ - L

J./ffi&ten Jones, Date (Associate Dean, H. Wayne Huizenga School

An Business and Entrepreneurship

Nova Southeastern University

2005



6/166

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is

set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used the

language, ideas, expressions or writings of another.

Signed

Chien-



7/166

ABSTRACT


ORGANIZAITONAL COMMITMENT AND JOB SATISFACTION IN TAIWANSINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY

by

Chien-Liang Liu

The research model of the study herein has been developed to gain a better understanding ofthe predictability of organizational commitment and job satisfaction based on transformational

leadership in Taiwans IT industry. According to previous studies, survey questionnaires areincluding three major instruments: MLQ (Bass & Avoilo, 2000), TCM (Allen & Meyer, 1991),

and JSS (Spector, 1985). The total of 224 employees who work at Taiwans IT industryresponded the survey. All participants were selected randomly at IT industries in Taiwan and

completed the above three sets of self-reported questionnaires. Survey data was collected by

SPSS 11.5. The statistical methods used include descriptive statistics, simple regression analysis,and correlation analysis. The statistical results from these measures were used to test the 16

hypotheses and determine whether Taiwans IT industry performs the transformational leadershipcharacteristics. The findings conformed to previous studies and supported all hypotheses in this

study. Therefore, transformational leadership has significant effects on organizationalcommitment and job satisfaction in Taiwans IT industry.



8/166

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is long and tough process to accomplish this dissertation. First, I would like to thank my

Chairperson of Committees, Dr. Sabrina Segal. Without her guidance, encouragement, and

instruction, I would not make this study proceed in a right track. And I would express thanks to

my Reader of Committees, Dr. Pedro F. Pellet and Dr. Robert C. Preziosi. Their suggestions and

advices helped me to pass through the questions.

I would like to acknowledge all the participants who did the survey, which provided

valuable data to this dissertation. Also, I want to thank Jamson Lin, Steve Hsieh, Huihua Hsieh,

and friends, who help me to dispatch the survey in Taiwan. Without their assisted, I cannot

collect the data so quickly.

Furthermore, I would like to thank all of professors and classmates. They shared experience

and information with me in the classes, which widened my mind and improved my knowledge.

In addition, I would like to thank Lan Yang Institute of Technology for giving me a chance to

study on this program in the beginning, especially the professors of Department of Information

Management.

Finally, I want to provide the best appreciation to my parents. They always stand by me and

give me the mental inspiration, financial support, and unfailing sacrifices. Without them, I can

not study here and finish the degree. I would use my whole life to pay back their love. In

addition, I would like to thank my family members for their support and encourage. This

dissertation is dedicated to all of you.



9/166


10/166

Data Collection................................................................................................................. 51Methods of Data Analysis................................................................................................ 52

Research Questions......................................................................................................... 53

Working Hypotheses....................................................................................................... 53

Values and Key limits......................................................................................................

60Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 60

IV. ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FIDING

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 62

Pilot Test............................................................................................................................ 62Return Rate of Survey....................................................................................................... 66Description of the Demographic of the Sample............................................................. 67

Testing and Analyzing the Hypotheses............................................................................ 70

Finding Regarding the Research Question...................................................................... 87

Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 94

V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

Introduction..................................................................................................................... 97

Objective of Study....................................................................................................... 97Connection to Related Literature..................................................................................... 97

Research Methodology................................................................................................... 99

Connection to Model........................................................................................................ 100Practical Implications....................................................................................................... 102Future Research................................................................................................................. 103

REFERENCES..................................................................................... !................ 106

APPENDICES

A. Permission Letter of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire....................................120B. Permission Letter ofTCM Employee Commitment Survey.................................. 122C. Permission Letter of Job Satisfaction Survey........................................................ 124

D. Packet of the Survey Questionnaires in English Version.........................................126

E. Packet of the Survey Questionnaires in Chinese Version........................................ 132F. Table for Determining Sample Size from a Given Population.............................. 138

G Pilot Test Results....................................................................................................

140H. Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis of Survey.............................................. 146I. Descriptive Statistics of Each Variable.................................................................. 151

vii



11/166


12/166

Leadership............................................................................................................. 91

Table 4-28 Correlations among Organizational Commitment and TransformationalLeadership............................................................................................................ 92

Table 4-29 Correlations among Overall Job Satisfaction and Transformational

Leadership........................................................................................................... 94

ix



13/166

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 3-1 The Conceptual Framework................................................................................... 39

Figure 3-2 Hypotheses between Transformational Leadershipand Organizational Commitment............................................................................ 54

Figure 3-3 Hypotheses between Transformational leadershipand Job Satisfaction.................................................................................................. 57

Figure 4-1 The Flow of Survey Scale Purification................................................................. 63Figure 5-1 The Result of Correlation Analysis....................................................................... 102

x



14/166

1

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Background o f the Problem

The information highway and electronic commerce have emphasized the growing overlap

among telecommunication, computer hardware/software, content in the new digital economy and

the demand for new skills and knowledge (Cukier, Shortt, & Devine, 2002). Information

Technology (IT) plays an essential role in helping organizations achieve profitable results and

maintain a competitive edge. IT includes all materials concerned with the advancement of

computer science and technology, and with the design, development, installation, and

implementation of information systems and applications.

The information technology industry involves the creation, production, distribution,

purchase and sale of IT components, products, and accessories. It also involves packaged

solutions in the areas o f communication, memory, multimedia, networking, storage, computer

hardware, software, systems, semiconductor, intelligent archive and peripherals, and a host of

other support and electronic services (i.e. electronic commerce). New technologies and products

developed by the IT industry are changing the way we live and do business, making our work

more efficient, and communication more effective.

The IT industry in Taiwan began in the early 1970s (Amsden & Chu, 2003; Breznitz, 2005;

Hong, 1997; Mathews & Cho, 2000). In 1981, International Business Machines Corporation

(IBM) introduced the first personal computer. IT industry in Taiwan has been prosperous

development. By the year 2000, IT industry in Taiwan had grown to be fourth largest in the

world and for more than two decades now, products labeled Made in Taiwan have been

distributed worldwide allowing Taiwan to establish a strong foothold in the IT industry. Table 1-1



15/166

2

represents the global market share of Taiwans IT industry in 2002.

Table 1-1

Taiwans IT Product: Global Market Share Distribution in 2002

Product Revenue (M* USD) Quantity (K* units) Global Market Share (%)

Notebook PC 13,847 18,380 61

Desktop PC 6,974 24,959 23

Motherboard 5,635 86,554 75

CDT monitor 4,544 42,910 51

LCD monitor 5,646 18,254 61

CD/DVD/RW drives 3,146 79,409 45

Server 1,303 1,468 30

Digital camera 1,003 8,753 39

Source:MTC/TTTS (2 00 3t M*= M illion K* = K ilo-

The IT industry is highly competitive and intense. Technology advances rapidly, and the life

cycles of IT products tend to be short. In addition, global economic competition puts pressure on

IT innovators to develop new products quickly to meet global demand and trends. Taiwans IT

industry has survived the highly competitive environment by managers helping their

organizations move forward.

In general, organizations must respond to change rapidly to survive and thrive amid their

respective economic climates. Fiedler (1967) suggested that leadership is an interpersonal

relation, enabling one individual to direct and control the actions or behaviors of others. He also

mentioned that good leaders are the critical element to organizational success. Leadership theory

has been studied using both qualitative and quantitative methods in many private and public

organizations. People are captivated by the idea o f leadership and try to seek more information



16/166


17/166

4

followers to increase their commitment to the organization, further influencing job satisfaction.

Bass (1985) developed transformational leadership theory to explain the way that leaders

gain extra ordinary commitment (manifested as attitudes, beliefs, and behavior) from their

followers based on leadership styles identified by Bums (1978) and House (1977).

Transformational leadership has also been found to heighten levels of organizational

commitment (Arnold et al., 2001; Barling et al., 1996).

In addition, some researchers (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987;

Howell & Frost 1989) have indicated that transformational leadership behaviors tend to relate

positively to higher performance and greater job satisfaction among employees of business and

industrial organizations. Transformational leadership behavior has been widely linked to positive

consequences for individuals and organizations alike (Bass, 1998).

Although many studies investigate the relationship among transformational leadership,

organizational commitment, and job satisfaction in different areas, little research has adequately

focused on the informational technology area, especially in Taiwan. Therefore, it is important to

recognize how transformational leadership influences organizational commitment and job

satisfaction in Taiwans IT industry.

Purpose o f the Study

Leadership is one of the most important factors that can motivate and enhance the

organizational commitment and job satisfaction of an employee. A number of studies show that

successful transformational leadership can improve employees commitment and job satisfaction

when organizations face change. However, no such research yet focuses on Taiwans IT industry.

Therefore, the major purpose of the study is to determine how transformational leadership affects

organizational commitment and employee job satisfaction in the IT industry in Taiwan.



18/166


19/166


20/166

7

expansion of subordinates needs and wants portfolio. Bass and Avolio (1997) indicated that

transformation leaders possess and display four key characteristics:

1. Idealized influence (charismatic leadership) (i.e. followers idealize and emulate the

behaviors of their trusted leader)

2. Inspirational motivation (i.e. followers are motivated by attainment of a common goal)

3. Intellectual stimulation (i.e. followers are encouraged to break away from old way of

thinking and are encouraged to question their values, beliefs, and expectation)

4. Individualized consideration (i.e. followers needs are addressed both individually and

equitably).

Organizational commitment. This is the measure of the strength of the identification with

and involvement in the goals and values of the organization, and the willingness to work hard for

and maintain membership in an organization. Such commitment can generally be characterized

by at least three factors: (a) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organizations goals and

values, (b) the willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, (c) a definite

desire to maintain organizational membership (Porter, 1974). Meyer and Allen (1991) indicated

that definitions of organizational commitment are the view that commitment is a psychological

state that (a) characterizes the employees relationship with the organization, and (b) has

implications for the decision to continue membership in organization (p. 67).

Job satisfaction.This is general feeling an employee has about his or her job; mostly with

matters of pay, promotion, supervision, co-workers and the work itself (Porter, 1974). Spector

(1997) described job satisfaction as a core variable in research and theory of organizational

phenomena ranging from job design to supervision. He concluded the common facets of job

satisfaction from many familiar job satisfaction instruments such as appreciation, communication,



21/166

8

coworkers, fringe benefits, job conditions, nature of the work itself, organization itself,

organizational policies and procedures, pay, personal growth, promotion opportunities,

recognition, security, and supervision.

Assumptions and Linkages

The following assumptions will be made regarding of the proposed study:

1. The studies assumed that the responses of employees were honest and reflect

completely their impression of their leaders behaviors, and the study also assumed that

employee responses represent their own organizational commitment and job satisfaction.

2. The study assumed that all responses were independent and not influenced by others.

3. The study assumed that all respondents understood the content of the questionnaires.

4. The study assumed that the translator was able to make an exact or near exact

translation of all questionnaires and demographic survey from English to Chinese.

5. The distributions of randomly selected subjects were assumed to be normal and

provide a valid representation of the population of the study.

Limitations

This study includes the following limitations:

1. Participants of this study may not understand the objectives and importance of the

proposed research, and may not reply with accurate and well-thought answers.

2. The size of organization selected in the proposed study may influence the accuracy of

findings of the research.

3. The samples of the study may not adequately represent the population of Taiwans IT

industry.

4. All the disadvantages of the survey technique are recognized.



22/166


23/166

10

According to research questions, the proposed dissertation study explored following 16

research hypotheses, which are presented in both the null and directional formats.

HI: Transformational leadership (idealized influence) would be related to affective

commitment in Taiwans IT industry.

Hlo: Transformational leadership (Idealized Influence) would be not related to affective


H2: Transformational leadership (idealized influence) would be related to continuance


H20: Transformational leadership (Idealized Influence) would be not related to continuance


H3: Transformational leadership (idealized influence) would be related to normative


H3o: Transformational leadership (Idealized Influence) would be not related to normative


H4: Transformational leadership (inspirational motivation) would be related to affective


H4o: Transformational leadership (Inspirational Motivation) would be not related to

affective commitment in Taiwans IT industry.

H5: Transformational leadership (inspirational motivation) would be related to continuance



continuance commitment in Taiwans IT industry.

H6: Transformational leadership (inspirational motivation) would be related to normative



24/166

11



normative commitment in Taiwans IT industry.

H7: Transformational leadership (intellectual simulation) would be related to affective


H7o: Transformational leadership (Intellectual Stimulation) would be not related to affective


H8: Transformational leadership (intellectual simulation) would be related to continuance


H8o: Transformational leadership (Intellectual Stimulation) would be not related to


H9: Transformational leadership (intellectual simulation) would be related to normative


H9o: Transformational leadership (Intellectual Stimulation) would be not related to

normative commitment in Taiwans IT industry.

H10: Transformational leadership (individualized consideration) would be related to


HlOo: Transformational leadership (Individualized Consideration) would be not related to


HI 1: Transformational leadership (individualized consideration) would be related to


H ll0: Transformational leadership (Individualized Consideration) would be not related to




25/166


26/166

13

ultimately turned the countrys economy around. To face the highly competitive IT environment,

Taiwans IT industry has to recognize that leadership is the most important factor for growing an

organizations success. The purpose of the proposed dissertation study is to determine how

transformational leadership affects organizational commitment and employee job satisfaction in

Taiwans IT industry.

Based on the research hypotheses proposed, the study examined the effects of four types of

the transformational leadership style, which influence organizational commitment and job

satisfaction in Taiwans IT industry. The next chapter described leadership, transformational

leadership, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction theories. Also, it discussed the

relationships o f transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction.



27/166

14

CHAPTER II

Review of the Literature

Introduction

The following review of selected sources is needed to justify the purposed of this study. The

literature summarizes previous research relevant to transformational leadership and its

relationships to organizational commitment and subordinate job satisfaction. The chapter below

is divided into several sections including: (a) the broad overview of leadership theory, (b)

description of the previous transformational leadership studies, (c) organizational commitment,

(d) job satisfaction, (e) the relationships between transformational leadership and organizational

commitment, and (f) the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction.

Leadership Theory

Throughout human evolution, humankind has spent countless hours developing a more

thorough understanding of what makes leaders successful. Numerous theories on leadership,

researched and espoused, have appeared in the literature. In general, leaders are challenged with

the task of leading others who are supposed to lead themselves. Leaders influence employees to

voluntarily pursue organizational goals (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2000). Most people are familiar

with the meaning of leadership; however, it can mean different things to different people. As

much as people try to define leadership, they immediately discover its various applications. More

than 40 years ago, Bass (1960) defined leadership with the following passage:

Leadership is the observed effort of one member to change other

members behavior by altering the motivation of other members or bychanging their habits. If the leadership is successful, what is observed is achange in the member accepting the leadership (p. 447).

Studies following the Bass research focused on the objective and scientific approach to

leadership theory. There are more than 65 different classification studies developed to define the



28/166

15

dimension of leadership (Fleishman, et al., 1991). These studies sought to identify different types

of leadership and to relate them to functional demands o f society. Fiedler (1967) defined

leadership as an interpersonal relation, which enables one to direct and control the actions or

behaviors o f others. He also suggested that leader were essential to organizational success.

Bryman (1986) described leadership as a social influence process in which a person steers

members of the group towards a goal (p. 2). Bass (1990a) suggested that some definitions view

leadership as the focus of group processes. From this perspective, the leader is at the center of

group change and activity and embodies the will of the group. Northouse (1998) conceptualized

several components: (a) leadership is a process, (b) leadership involves influence, (c) leadership

occurs within a group context, and (d) leadership involves goal attainment. Based on those

components, he asserted leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of

individuals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 1998, p.3). In general, leadership theory can

be categorized into three areas of research: trait theory, behavioral theory, and contingency

theory.

Trait theory. Stogdill (1981) described that the personal characteristics of the leader must

bear some relevant relationship to characteristics, activities, and goals of followers (p. 67).

Bryman (1986) separated leadership traits into three categories: physical factors, ability

characteristics, and personal features. Physical factors were defined as height, weight, physique,

and appearance. Ability characteristics included intelligence, fluency of speech, scholarship, and

knowledge. Personality features were conservatism, introversion-extroversion, dominance,

self-confidence, and emotional control. According to Bass (1996), traits include capacity,

achievement, responsibility, participation, status, and situation. Yukl (2001) said that trait refers

to a variety of individual attributes, including aspects o f personality, temperament, needs,



29/166

16

motives, and values (p. 175). Based on pervious research, he indicated that traits are adaptable

to situations; alert to social environment; ambitious achievement oriented; assertive; cooperative;

decisive; dependable; dominant; energetic; persistent; self-confident; tolerant of stress; and

willing to assume responsibility (p. 178).

The original theory of leadership sought to identify leadership traits. Leadership traits were

studied to determine what made the person become a great leader. Many researchers believed

that leaders were bom and not made (Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959). In the early stages, research

concentrated on specific traits, which clearly differentiated leaders from followers (Bass, 1990a).

In 1948 and 1974, Stogdill proposed that leadership was not a passive state, but the result of a

working relationship between the leader of the group and other group member. A leaders traits

were positively associated with their ability to lead. The studies marked the beginning of the new

approach to leadership research, which focused on leadership behaviors and leadership situations.

Mann (1959) suggested that personality traits could be used to discriminate leaders from

non-leaders. He identified strong traits o f leaders: intelligence, masculinity, adjustment,

dominance, extroversion, and conservatism. Lord et al. (1968) found that personality traits could

consistently be used to make situational discriminations between leaders and non-leaders. In

addition, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) contended that leadership traits make some people

different from othersan important dynamic in the leadership process.

Traits research has come frill circle as a result of renewed interest on the critical traits of

leaders. Kreitner and Kinicki (2003) described leader traits as the physical or personality

characteristics that can be used to differentiate leaders from followers. Trait theory has an

obvious logic. It seems plausible that iconic leaders, good and bad, must have some things in

common. Woodruffe (2004) re-evaluated and extended the conclusion that leaders were superior



30/166

17

to followers in matter of: intelligence, dominance, self-confidence, energy-activity, and task

relevant knowledge. These traits are characteristics of leaders.

Behavioral theory. Researchers began to shift their focus from the trait theory of

leadership to the behavioral theory of leadership (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 1999). Behavioral

theory emphasized what leaders actually did on their job. There are two foremost studies of

behavioral theory. One is the Ohio State Leadership Studies researched by Ohio State University

(Fleishman, 1953; Halpin & Winer, 1957; Hemphill & Coons, 1957). The result defined two

dimensions of leader behavior: interpersonal relations (consideration) and task objective

(initiating structure). Leaders having consideration, initiative, and structural dimensions, had

higher than average outcomes. The other is the Michigan Leadership Studies developed by

University of Michigan (Katz, & Kahn, 1952; Katz, Maccoby, Gurin, & Floor, 1951; Katz,

Maccoby, & Morse, 1950). They found out three types o f leadership behaviors: (a) task-oriented

behavior, (b) relations-oriented behavior, and (c) participative leadership. These behaviors

differentiate between effective and ineffective leaders.

In addition, Fiedler (1967) defined leadership behavior as the particular acts in which a

leader engages in the course o f directing and coordinating the work of his group members (p.

36). The interest in leadership behaviors aided researchers in classifying the behavior that would

enable leader to effectively influence followers (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1989).

Further research by Bryman (1986) investigated four areas o f leadership behaviors

including participative leadership, reward strategies, motivational strategies, and control

strategies. Participative leadership discussed to what extent leaders encouraged and permitted

their subordinates to play a role in decision-making. Reward strategies indicated the

differentiations between positive and negative leader reward behaviors. Bryman (1986) described



31/166


32/166

19

leadership theory by introducing new dimensions for examination. Leader behavior is classified

into two types: task behavior and relationship behavior. The situational variable in the theory was

the subordinates maturity, which means the ability and willingness of people to take

responsibility for directing their own behavior (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982, p. 151). The

implication was that there is no single best way to influence people. The type of leadership style

most effective on individuals or groups is dependent on the maturity level of the people. Yukl

(1989) identified that situational theory emphasizes important factors such as the leaders

authority and discretion, the nature o f the work performed by the leaders unit, the attributes o f

subordinates, and the nature of the external environment (p. 261).

Because organizations have had to face the economic and competitive pressures formulated

in the mid 20th century, they have been focusing on boosting managements interest in creating

high levels of employee commitment, effort, and willingness to take risks for organizations. This

heightened level of interest has led to an increased focus on leader charisma (Woodruffe, 2004).

Weber (1947) is considered to have best defined charisma. He provided the most well known

definition of charisma as a special personality characteristic that gives a person superhuman or

exceptional powers, and results in the person being treated as a leader. House (1976) suggested

that charismatic leaders perform in unique ways, which have specific charismatic effects on their

followers. He proposed that charismatic leader characteristics include the ability to dominant, a

strong desire to influence others, self-confidence, and a heightened sense of ones own moral

values.

Since the House study (1976) charismatic theory has been extended and revised by Shamir,

House, and Arthur (1993). Together, they postulated that the charismatic theory transforms

followers self-concepts and attempts to link the identity of followers to the collective identity of



33/166

20

an organization. In addition, Behling and McFillen (1996) specified three follower beliefs:

inspiration, awe, and empowerment play integral parts in charismatic leadership. Furthermore,

Woodruffe (2004) indicated that charismatic leadership is based on followers beliefs in the

leaders typical character and encompasses the traits of self-confidence and conviction. In sum,

those studies described similarities between charismatic leadership and transformational

leadership.

Transformation Leadership

The concept of transformational leadership was developed by Bums (1978) in his

exploration of world class leaders. He based the usage of transformational leadership on the

organizations need for change and viewed transformational leadership as a way to not only

recognize the needs of followers, but to raise those needs to a higher level of motivation and

maturity. Bums (1978) described a transformational leader as a normal agent able to empower

followers to envision a common mission, create wholeness, and collect purpose in the process of

its implementation. He also described transformational leadership as when one or more persons

engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers one another to higher levels of

motivation and morality (Bums, 1979, p. 382). This type of leadership focuses on the

identification of leadership behaviors that influence the values and aspirations of followers,

activate the followers higher order needs, and arouse them to transcend their own self interest

for organization advancement. It has since been applied to the workplace, and as such, has

received increasing attention in the industry (Stewart, 1994) and in organizational behavior

literature (Bass, 1990a; 1985).

Based upon Bums theoretical ideas, Bass (1985) suggested that transformational leaders

change the basic values, beliefs, and attitudes of followers with the end result of inspiring



34/166


35/166


36/166


37/166

24

Managers also help employees use reasoning, rationality, and evidence as a mean of supporting

opinion. When employees have such managers, their thinking processes and performance are

enhanced. This type leader also increases followers confidence and responsibility. Basically,

intellectual stimulation leaders will help their subordinates learn to identify and respond to

various needs, problems, and motives (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Avolio and Bass (2002) indicated

that transformational leaders stimulate their followers efforts to be innovative and creative by

questioning assumptions, refraining problems, and approaching old situations in new ways

(Avolio & Bass, 2002, p. 2). Transformational leaders solicit their followers ideas and creative

solutions to problems, thereby including followers in problem solving (Stone, Russell, &

Patterson, 2004). The intellectually stimulating leader encourages followers to try new

approaches, while emphasizing rationality (Bass, 1990b).

Individualized consideration. The transformational leader disburses personal attention to

followers based on the individual follower needs for achievement and growth (Avolio & Bass,

2002). The considerate leader recognizes and demonstrates acceptance o f the followers

individual differences in terms of needs and desires (Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004). Leaders

treat each employee as an individual. They are attentive to the unique concerns of subordinates,

give them personal attention, and consider their individual development and growth needs.

Managers coach employees, through mentoring and training, all the while enhancing their

self-confidence. This leads to subordinates who respect their manager. Managers encourage

followers to propose ideas for projects that lead to organization success. This type of leadership

is attentive to each organizational members needs and interests, subsequently raising their

personal potential (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Individualized consideration is practiced as followers:

New learning opportunities are created along with a supportive climate (Avolio & Bass, 2002, p.



38/166

25

2).

The four dimensions of transformational leadership are theoretically and empirically related

(Bass & Avolio, 1989). More recent theoretical developments suggest that the four dimensions

could be subsumed to one construct (Bass, 1990a). Several studies have found that leaders who

display these four behaviors are able to realign their followers values and norms, promote both

personal and organizational changes, and help followers exceed their initial performance

expectations (Jung & Avolio, 2000). Therefore, studies of the four dimensions were treated as

one underlying construct called transformational leadership.

Some studies have pointed out that transformational leadership is based on followers

emotions. Conger and Kannugo (1988) explained that leadership is a process o f attribution.

Attribution theory suggests that people construct naive theories to explain relations between

phenomena (Kelly & Michela, 1980). Conger and Kannugo (1988) also indicated that people

follow transformational leaders because they attribute to those leaders the capacity to impose

order, security, and direction in an otherwise chaotic and threatening world.

In addition, Kets de Vries (1989) explained transformational leadership in terms o f the

psychoanalytic concept of transference. According to their studies, transformational leadership is

a regressive expression of fantasies and yearnings to a past when people felt protected by strong

authority figures (Popper & Lipshitz, 1993).

Many researchers have indicated that transformational leaders typically engaged in the

following behaviors: (a) articulating a vision for the future of the organization, (b) providing a

model that is consistent with vision at hand, (c) fostering the acceptance of group goals, and (d)

providing individualized support (Yammarino & Bass, 1990a; Yuki, 1989; and others). Moreover,

transformational leadership theories predict followers emotional attachment to the leader and



39/166


40/166

27

Chinese leadership (Bass, 1985; Shieh, et al., 2001).

Several studies have examined the impact o f transformational leadership in different

professions in Taiwan. For example: Shieh, Mills, and Waltz (2001) examined 11 baccalaureate

degree nursing programs and 10 associate degree nursing programs in Taiwan. The results

indicated that idealized influence and intellectual stimulation were significant and positive

predictors for job satisfaction. They suggested that nursing deans and directors should create

leadership structures that reinforce idealized influence and intellectual stimulation to establish a

satisfied work force.

Jung, Chow and Wu (2003) used Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio,

1997) to investigate 32 companies in Taiwan electronics and telecommunication industry. The

findings support that transformational leadership has significant and positive relations with both

empowerment and an innovation-supporting organizational climate. The result showed that the

leader of each organizational subunit typically has some control over his or her units operation,

and it is reasonable that the individuals leadership behaviors should influence the motivations

and work processes of subordinates. Consequently, transformational leadership also has

significant impacts in Taiwan.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is commonly conceptualized as an affective attachment to an

organization through shared values, a desire to belong to an organization, and a willingness to

exert effort on its behalf (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). It was defined in terms o f the

strengths of an individuals identification and involvement in a particular organization.

Organizational commitment reflects the extent to which an individual identifies with an

organization and is committed to its goals (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003) and success (Mowday et al.,



41/166

28

1982). Such commitment can generally be characterized by at least three factors: (a) a strong

belief and acceptance of the organizations goals and values, (b) a willingness to exert

considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and (c) a definite desire to maintain

organizational membership (Porter et al., 1974).

Numerous studies provided a variety of views on organizational commitment that make

organizational commitment difficult to measure and identify. Meyer and Allen (1991) pointed

that organization commitment has been separated into attitudinal (affective) and behavioral

(continuance) components. They extended the concept of commitment to include desire, need,

and duty to remain in the organization.

Meyer and Allen (1991) added a third distinction- normative commitment. Normative

commitment is rooted in employees sense that they ought to remain with their organization.

Normative commitment results from the internalization pressures exerted on individuals before

entry or following entry (Hackett et al., 1994). As a result, Meyer and Allen (1991) categorized

three components of organizational commitment: affective commitment (they want to),

continuance commitment (they need to), and normative commitment (they ought to).

Affective commitment. Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) defined affective commitment

as an emotional attachment to an organization. They suggested four characteristics of affective

commitment included personal characteristic, structural characteristic, job-related characteristic,

and work experiences. Furthermore, Meyer and Allen (1991) described employees with strong

affective commitment continue employment with the organization because they want to (p. 76).

In addition, employees who have strong affective commitment were found to contribute

more to advancing an organization and less to leave the organization at the same time

(Laschinger et al., 2000). This commitment focuses on the process by which people come to



42/166

29

consider their relationship with the organization.

Continuance commitment. Becker popularized this commitment in 1960. According to his

theory, employees make certain investments (promotions/work relationships) in their

organizations, which reduce the attractiveness of alternative employment. Mowday et al. (1982)

defined that continuance commitment relates to the process by which individuals become

locked into a certain organization and how they deal with this problem (p. 26).

Meyer and Allen (1991) indicated that continuance commitment reflects an employees

awareness of the cost associated with leaving an organization. This means employees need to

weigh the benefits of remaining with the organization against the cost of moving to another

company and starting over. Therefore, commitment is a result of incentives or exchanges

between an individual and an organization. Another way to improve the probability of

continuance commitment would be increasing the promotion aspect of employment within an

organization (Shouksmith, 1994).

Normative Commitment. Gauges an individuals feeling of obligation for remaining with a

particular organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Employees remained in an organization because

they felt they ought to do. Also, employees who perceive exceptionally good treatment by the

organization will have greater normative commitment. Research has posited two dissimilar

processes leading to normative commitment: characterize normative-type attachment to the

organization stem from a non-contingent, personal loyalty norm, and a felt obligation to

reciprocate particularly good treatment (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

Employees exhibiting normative commitment believe loyalty to an organization is the right

thing to do, which is based on internalized loyalty norms developed in early childhood or during

their organizational tenure (Culpepper et al., 2004). According to theory, normative commitment



43/166

30

also arises from a sense of unfulfilled obligation to reciprocate unusually good treatment by the

employer (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

Finally, Meyer and Allen (1997) developed a set of three scales, referred to as

Organizational Commitment Scales (OCS), which measure the three-component model (TCM)

of organizational commitment. These scales provide organizations with an idea of the extent of

employee commitment, and what factors of organizational commitment may need more refining.

The scale o f measurement will be described more clearly in the following chapter.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is the overall feeling an employee has about his or her job. In general, the

dimensions of job satisfaction include satisfaction with pay, promotion, supervision, co-workers,

and the work itself (Porter, 1974). Job satisfaction also is defined as a delightful feeling that

results from the perception that ones job fulfills or allows for the fulfillment of important job

values (Noe et al., 2000). Bass and Avolio (1994) suggested that subordinate satisfaction refers to

two kinds of job satisfaction: one is subordinate satisfactionthe extent to which the job meets

various individual needs, and the other is leadership satisfactionis the employee happy with

the methods used by leadership to motivate workers and accomplish the goals of an organization.

Some studies indicated when employees were paid in accordance with their expectations;

they worked harder, longer, and more efficiently (Siegel & Lane, 1982). Gerhart (1987) found

that pay, status, and job complexity added explanatory power to predicting job satisfaction. He

described salary, status, or job complexity as a component of motivational factors.

Pool (1997) suggested that pay plays a secondary role in job satisfaction, and that

situational or motivational should be the primary factors. Kreitner and Kinicki (1989) pointed

to four major factors such as need fulfillment, discrepancies, value attainment, and equity as



44/166

31

contributing to an employees job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. However, Timmreck (2001)

described that using rewards or money as motivation creates a trap and may fail. Research

indicated that when an employee begins to expect extra ordinary bonuses or commissions and the

rewords fall through, job satisfaction begins to set in.

Job satisfaction is usually measured through interviews or questionnaires. Examples include:

(a) The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967),

(b) The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), (c) The Job Diagnostic

Survey (JDS) (Hackman & Oldham, 1975), and et al. These scales help management understand

what their subordinates are feeling to better understand how to turn a negative situation or

employee into a positive one.

Spector (1997,1985) described job satisfaction as a core variable in research and theory of

organizational phenomena ranging from job design to supervision. He derived common facets of

job satisfaction from several job satisfaction instruments: (a) appreciation, (b) communication, (c)

coworkers, (d) fringe benefits, (e) job conditions, (f) nature o f the work itself, (g) organization

itself, (h) organizational policies and procedures, (i) pay, (j) personal growth, (k) promotion

opportunities, (1) recognition, (m) security, and (n) supervision.

Spector (1985) developed a job satisfaction instrument called Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS)

to fill the need for a measured tool for human services. It was based on previous studies and

called the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). JSS measured nine aspects of job satisfaction: pay,

promotion, supervision, benefits, contingent rewards, operating procedures, coworkers, nature o f

work, and communication. JSS also will be defined more clearly in the following chapter

Transformation Leadership and Organizational Commitment

Many managers believe that their most powerful resources are their personality, and the



45/166

32

trust and commitment of their subordinates (Simons, 1999). Research focusing on organizational

commitment and leadership in business organizations has steadily increased in size and scope

over the years. Based on leadership styles identified by Bums (1978) and House (1977), Bass

(1985) developed transformational leadership theory to explain the way that leaders gain extra

ordinary commitment (manifested as attitudes, beliefs, and behavior) from their followers.

Transformational leadership has been found to lead to higher levels o f organizational

commitment (Arnold et al., 2001; Barling et al., 1996), and has consistently proven advantageous

on a range o f individual and organizational outcomes (Bass, 1998). For example, Barling et al.

(1996) found that followers organizational commitment was positively correlated with the

transformational leadership of their supervisors.

The relationship between transformational leadership behavior and organizational

commitment seems logical. Leaders foster the strong emotional attachment to followers through

transformational leadership (Bass, 1985). Bycio, Hackett, and Allen (1995) examined the

relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment suggested by

Meyer and Allen (1991). They found that the relationships between transformational leadership

and three forms of commitment were significant.

Furthermore, Kent and Chelladurai (2001) indicated that transformational leaders led to

enhance loyalty and commitment within an organization, particularly in affective and normative

commitment. They found when both charisma and individualized consideration affected

normative commitment, charismatic leadership had a great impact on the feeling of emotional

attachment of employees. Kent and Chelladurai (2001) also noted that transformational

leadership had a higher correlation with affective commitment than with normative commitment.

Transformational leadership is often identified as a process whereby the leader enhances the



46/166

33

affective commitment of an organization members by getting them to profoundly alter their

attitudes and assumptions about work (Yukl, 1989), similar to organizational affective

commitment (Connel, Ferres, & Travaglione, 2003; Cook & Wall, 1980; Tan & Tan, 2000).

Affective commitment has been shown to be an outcome of transformational leadership.

Correlations have been dawn, however, between transformational leadership and continuance

commitment as well (Connell et al., 2003; Freund, 1995). Allen and Meyer (1990) indicated that

employees with a strong affective commitment remain at an organization because they want to,

while those with strong continuance commitment are said to remain because they need to.

In addition, McNeese-Smith (1995) found that inspiring a shared vision had the highest

correlation with employee job satisfaction, productivity and organizational commitment.

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996) pointed out that individualized consideration, and

inspiring a shared vision had a significant impact on trust and commitment of employees toward

the organization and supervisors. Agarwal, DeCarlo, and Vyas (1999) also concluded

consideration was significantly related to organizational commitment in both the United States

and India. Otherwise, Beaulieu, Shamian, Donnerm and Pringle (1997) showed that employees

with job-related empowerment were more committed to their organization.

Because of the linkage between empowerment and commitment, supervisors may be able to

increase the commitment of subordinates by sharing control with them. By increasing followers

awareness of the value of the jobs and their importance to the organization, transformational

leaders activate subordinates high order needs, and encourage substitution of company needs for

personal need. The result is a more committed, motivated and satisfied subordinate (Russ,

McNeilly, & Comer, 1996).

Transformation Leadership and Job Satisfaction



47/166

34

Leadership and job satisfaction are recognized as fundamental elements influencing the

overall effectiveness of an organization (Kennerly, 1989). Numerous studies have shown that the

leadership style of the supervisor is related to the job satisfaction of subordinates. Early

leadership studies are concerned with transactional leadership, but recently, there are more

studies that focus on transformational leadership (Medley & Larochelle, 1995).

In 1988, Hater and Bass indicated that transformational leadership, when compared with

transactional leadership, encourages lower turnover rates, higher productivity, and higher

employee satisfaction. Delgua (1988) presented that idealized influence, inspirational motivation,

individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation leadership styles were significant and

positive to job satisfaction.

Research conducted on the transformational leadership model by several authors such as

Avolio and Bass (1988), Bass, Avolio, and Goodheim (1987), and Howell and Frost (1989) has

demonstrated that transformational leader behaviors tend to be positively related to higher

performance and greater job satisfaction among employees of business and industrial

organizations. Transformational leadership behavior has been widely linked to positive

individual and organizational consequences (Bass, 1998). Normally, transformational leadership

correlates with high job, leader, and organizational satisfaction of employees (Bycio et al., 1995;

Manning, 2002; Niehoff et al., 1990). In other words, high transformational leaders were

believed to focus on high ideals that contribute to high level of job satisfaction (Wallance &

Weese, 1995).

Medley and Larochelle (1995) indicated that in determining the strength of the relationship

between supervisors and staff, job satisfaction scores of staff correlated with the transformational

factor scores of supervisors. At the individual level, transformational leadership had positive



48/166


49/166

36

The second section presented the concept of transformational leadership developed by

Bums in 1978. According to Bass and Avolio (1994,1990) previous research uncovered four key

characteristics: idealized influence (charismatic leadership), inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation, and individualized consideration. They also developed the instrument called

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ).

The MLQ has been widely disseminated for more than 15 years both domestically and

internationally in field and laboratory scenarios within both public and private organizations to

examine a full range of transformational leadership styles (Bass & Avolio, 1997). The MLQ also

has been used to demonstrate a significant relationship between subordinate ratings of leader

effectiveness and satisfaction with the leader. In addition, this section discussed the significant

influence of transformational leadership within organizations, and provided research, which

examined the effects o f transformational leadership in different professions in Taiwan.

The third section showed important research on organizational commitment by Meyer and

Allen (1991). They pointed out three components o f organizational commitment including

affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Affective

commitment involved personal emotion to the organization. Continuance commitment occurred

when people felt it more beneficial to stay with an organization than to leave. Normative

commitment occurred when employees felt obligated to remain with an organization for reasons

of moral or social norms.

Furthermore, Meyer and Allen (1997) developed a set of three scales, which can measure

the three-components of organizational commitment, called Organizational Commitment Scales

(OCS) or TCM Employee Commitment Survey. These scales provide organization with an idea

of how committed employees are to the organization and what factors of organizational



50/166

37

commitment may need more refining.

The fourth section described job satisfaction as the feelings employees have about the job in

general, including satisfaction with pay, promotion, supervision, co-workers and the work itself

(Porter, 1974). Spector (1985) developed a job satisfaction instrument called Job Satisfaction

Survey (JSS) presented in this section as well. JSS measured nine aspects of job satisfaction: pay;

promotion; supervision; benefits; contingent rewards; operating procedures; coworkers; nature of

work; and communication. JSS measures job satisfaction in term of human services.

The last two sections discussed the relationship between transformational leadership and

organizational commitment, and transformational leadership and job satisfaction. The result

indicated that transformational leadership within an organization significantly affects both

commitment and job satisfaction. The next chapter will describe the methodology that is used to

accomplish the proposed dissertation study.



51/166

38

CHAPTER III

Methodology

Introduction

The following chapter defined the samples, instruments, research design, and procedures for

examining the relationships among different transformational leadership styles, organizational

commitment, and job satisfaction in Taiwans Information Technology industry. The following

sections include (a) the conceptual framework, (b) population and sample, (c) variables, (d)

operational definition, (e) research questions, (f) working hypotheses, (g) survey instruments, (h)

reliability and validity, (i) data collection, (j)methods of data analysis, and (k) value and limit of

the study.

Conceptual Framework o f the Study

The purpose of the proposed study was examining the transformational leadership that

exists between organizational commitment and job satisfaction to determine what direct and

indirect impact transformational leadership has on each of them. To determine how

transformational leadership affects organizational commitment and employee job satisfaction in

Taiwan's IT industry, the conceptual framework of the study is listed below (Figure 3-1). The

study discussed how the four types of transformational leadership intervene with organizational

commitment and overall job satisfaction.



52/166


53/166

40

a given population (see Appendix F). The population size of subject (N) is more than 450,000.

Looking at Appendix F, the appropriate sample size should be 384. To achieve the high validity,

the sample size for this study is a total of 400 employees, randomly selected from 464 firms.

The Variables

The independent variable measured in the study is transformational leadership, which

encompasses idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and

individualized consideration. The dependent variables to be used in the study are organizational

commitment and overall job satisfaction. Organizational commitment is characterized as

affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Components of

overall job satisfaction include pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards,

operating procedures, coworkers, nature o f work, and communication.

Operational Definition

Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership (Bass, 1985) is a process by

which leaders motivate subordinates to do more than they had originally expected to do.

Leaders do so by raising subordinates awareness of the importance of the value in the outcome,

getting subordinates to transcend self-interests for the sake of the organization and expanding

subordinates portfolio of needs and wants. Bass and Avolio (1989) indicated that transformation

leaders possess and display four key characteristics: idealized influence (charismatic leadership),

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

Idealized influence. This is when leaders display conviction; emphasize trust; take stands

on difficult issues; present their most important values; and emphasize the importance o f purpose,

commitment, and the ethical consequences of decision. Such leaders are admired as role models;

they generate pride, loyalty, confidence, and alignment around a shared purpose (Bass & Avolio,



54/166

41

2000).

Inspirational motivation. Leaders articulate an appealing vision of the future, challenge

followers with high standards, talk optimistically and with enthusiasm, and provide

encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done (Bass & Avolio, 2000).

Intellectual stimulation. Leaders question old assumptions, traditions, and beliefs. They

stimulate new perspectives and methodologies in others and encourage the expression of ideas

and reasons (Bass & Avolio, 2000).

Individualized consideration. Leaders deal with subordinates as individuals by

considering their individual needs, abilities, and aspirations. This is done by listening attentively,

by furthering their professional development, and by advising and coaching them appropriately

(Bass & Avolio, 2000).

Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment is the measure of employee

strength of the identification with and involvement in the goals and values o f an organization,

and the willingness to work hard for and maintain membership in an organization. Meyer and

Allen (1991) noted that definitions of organizational commitment are the view that commitment

is a psychological state that (a) characterizes the employees relationship with the organization,

and (b) has implications for the decision to continue membership in organization (p. 67).

Consequently, Meyer and Allen (1991) concluded three components of organizational

commitment: affective commitment (they want to), continuance commitment (they need to), and

normative commitment (they ought to).

Affective commitment. Affective commitment refers to employees identification with,

involvement in, and emotional attachment to an organization. Employees with strong affective

commitment prolong employment with an organization because they want to do so (Allen &



55/166

42

Meyer, 1991)

Continuance commitment. Continuance commitment refers to commitment based in the

employees recognition o f the costs associated with leaving the organization. The perceived costs

of leaving an organization comprise the continuance conceptualization o f organizational

commitment. This conceptualization is characterized by the exertion of effort on behalf of the

organization to gain rewards or minimize cost. Employees who have strong continuance

commitment would expand their energy on behalf of the organization because they feel they need

to do so (Allen & Meyer, 1996).

Normative commitment. Normative commitment refers to an individuals sense of

obligation toward the organization. This conceptualization is characterized by the exertion of

effort as a result of loyalty. Employees with strong normative commitment expand their energy

on behalf of the organization because they feel they ought to do so (Allen & Meyer, 1996).

Job satisfaction. Spector (1997) described job satisfaction as a core variable in research

and theory of organizational phenomena ranging from job design to supervision. He concluded

the common facets of job satisfaction from many well-know job satisfaction instruments. They

include appreciation, communication, coworkers, fringe benefits, job conditions, nature of the

work itself, organization itself, organizational policies and procedures, pay, personal growth,

promotion opportunities, recognition, security, and supervision. The definitions of job

satisfaction characteristics are summarized as Table 3-1.



56/166

43

Table 3-1

Definitions ofJSS Characteristics

Scale Description

Pay Pay and remuneration

Promotion Promotion opportunities

Supervision Immediate supervisor

Fringe Benefits Monetary and non-monetary fringe benefits

Contingent Rewards Appreciation, recognition, and rewards for good work

Operating Procedures Operating policies and procedures

Coworkers People you work with

Nature o f Work Job tasks themselves

Communication Communication within the organization

Resource from:Paul E. Spectors JSS Overview (2005)

Survey Instruments

In this study, the three sets of instruments that were selected to collect data from the samples

are Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), TCM Employee Commitment Survey (TCM),

and Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). Instruments were developed through previous studies and

tested for supported validity and demonstrated reliability. The study measured transformational

leadership by using Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X) (MLQ-5X) developed by

Bass and Avolio (1997). The four dimensions of transformation leadership include idealized

influence, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

The second instrument is the TCM Employee Commitment Survey developed by Meyer and

Allen (1991,1997) and characterizes the three forms of commitment: affective, continuance, and

normative. The third instrument is the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) developed by Spector



57/166


58/166


59/166

46

1991), the TCM Employee Commitment Survey measures three forms o f employee commitment

to an organization: desire-based (affective commitment); cost-based (continuance commitment);

and obligation-based (normative commitment). The survey includes three well-validated

subscales: (a) affective commitment scale (ACS), (b) normative commitment scale (NCS), and (c)

continuance commitment scale (CCS).

There are two versions of the TCM Commitment Survey - original and revised. Each

version is designed to measure three forms o f employee commitment to an organization.

Employees respond to a series of statements pertaining to their relationship with the organization

and their reason for staying. In the original version of the survey, there are eight statements for

each of three commitment subscales. In the revised version there are six statements for each form

of commitment. Thus, the scale contained 24 items originally, but was revised to 18 items. Meyer

and Allen have given the permission to utilize their three-component commitment scales for the

proposed study (see Appendix B).

The questionnaire was modified by Cheng (2003) and translated from English to Chinese.

She modified the three-component commitment scales and ascertained the subjects perceptions

regarding their loyalty toward the organization, their willingness to exert a great deal of effort to

achieve organizational goals, and their acceptance of the organizations values. There are six

items for each of the three subscales: affective commitment, continuance commitment, and

normative commitment. Based on Chengs (2003) research, the questionnaires used in the study

will be modified. Each item represents a statement to which the subject responds on a 5-point

Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. The respondents choices associated with these scales are: 1 =

Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither disagree nor agree; 4 = Agree; 5 =

Strongly agree.



60/166

47

The wording of four of the statements was reversed in an attempt to assure that participants

actually read the questions fully, three questions regarding affective commitment and one

question regarding normative commitment. The reverse question should reverse the scored. For

example, in reversed question, i f the scored is 2, it means 4; i f the scored is 5, it means 1. Table

3-3 indicates the items related to each subscale.

Table 3-3

Items o fEach Subscale o f Organizational Commitment

Subscale Items

AffectiveCommitment

1 (ACS01), 2 (ACS02), 3r (ACS03), 4r (ACS04), 5 (ACS05), 6r (ACS06)

Continuance

Commitment7 (CCS01), 8(CCS02), 9 (CCS03), 10 (CCS04), 11 (CCS05), 12 (CCS06)

NormativeCommitment

13r (NCS01), 14 (NCS02), 15 (NCS03), 16 (NCS04), 17 (NCS05), 18 (NCS06)

Note: Items followed by r should be reverse-scored.

Job satisfaction scale (JSS). In 1985, Spector developed the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS)

to measure employees job satisfaction. This scale originally consisted of 36 items with nine

subscales: pay, promotion, supervisor, benefits, contingent rewards (performance based rewards),

operating procedures (required rules and procedures), coworkers, nature of work, and

communication. Each of them contains four items, with a total satisfaction score computed by

combining all of them. The higher the overall score is the greater the indication of job

satisfaction (Spector, 1997). The survey was developed for human service, public, and non-profit

sectoral organizations, but may be applicable to others as well (Spector, 1985). The permission

for using JSS has been given by Dr. Spector, the author o f JSS (see Appendix C).



61/166

48

Based on original English version and Lin (2003) research, the survey was modified and

translated from English to Chinese. Each item represents a statement to which the subject

responds on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. The respondents choices associated with

these scales are: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither disagree nor agree; 4 =

Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. Table 3-4 indicates the items related to each subscales. The

wording of 18 of the questions was reversed.

Table 3-4

Items o fEach Subscale o fJob Satisfaction

Subscale Items

Pay 1 (JSS01), 2r (JSS02), 3r (JSS03), 4 (JSS04)

Promotion 5r (JSS05), 6(JSS06), 7 (JSS07), 8(JSS08)

Supervisor 9 (JSS09), lto(JSSlO), l l r (JSS11), 12 (JSS 12)

Fringe benefits 13r (JSS 13), 14 (JSS 14), 15 (JSS 15), 16r (JSS16)

Contingent rewards 17 (JSS 17), 18r (JSS18), 19r (JSS 19), 20r (JSS20)

Operating conditions 21r (JSS21), 22 (JSS22), 23r (JSS23), 24r (JSS24)

Coworkers 25 (JSS25), 26 (JSS26), 27 (JSS27), 28r (JSS28)

Nature of work 29r (JSS29), 30 (JSS30), 31 (JSS31), 32 (JSS32)

Communication 33 (JSS33), 34r (JSS34), 35r (JSS35), 36r (JSS36)

Note:Items followed by r should be reverse-scored

Survey Instruments Translation

The original version of three instruments, MLQ-5X, TCM, and JSS, are English (see

Appendix D). For the Taiwan survey, these instruments were translated from English to Chinese

(see Appendix E). The Mind Garden Incorporation provided a Chinese version of Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X) as well. The TCM Employee Commitment Survey (TCM)



62/166

49

and Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS) were translated into Chinese by researchers, Chung (2001),

Cheng (2003), and Lin (2003). Based on their findings, the translated version of TCM and JSS

were validated independently by several language professors who serve as experts in

Chinese-English translation at universities throughout Taiwan. The reliability and validity o f

Chinese version instruments were described in the next section.

Reliability and Validity

Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ). Transformational leadership behaviors were

measured by the MLQ-5X with the permission of Mind Garden Incorporation. Through

extensive examination of this instrument, the developers ascertained the reliabilities for the total

items and for each leadership factors scale ranged from .74 to .94 (Bass & Avolio, 1995). All o f

the scales reliability was generally high (a > .77).

However, the reliabilities within each data set generally indicated the instrument was

reliably measuring each of leadership variables across the data sets, with some minor deviations

(Bass & Avolio, 2002). The positive correlations among the transformational leadership scales

are consistent with previous studies obtained by Bass and Avolio (1990). The average

intercorrelation among the transformational leadership scales is .83. Discriminant validity

measures for all dimensions of the MLQ-5X were determined to range from .46 to .68 ; these

generally exceeded the cut-off recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio, 2002).

Lin (2003) tested the Chinese version of MLQ-5X. All items of MLQ-5X were retained for

reliability test and analysis. Furthermore, Lin (2003) used Cronbachs Alpha (a) internal

consistency reliability for MLQ-5X. Average Cronbachs alpha values of transformational

leadership styles were .9132, which is greater than the recommended .50 level (Nummally, 1978).

The result supports the internal consistency of the responses to the MLQ-5X items.



63/166

50

Consequentially, the Chinese version of MLQ 5X should have sufficient content reliability and

construct validity for the proposed study.

TCM Employee Commitment Survey. According to Allen and Meyer (1990), the reliability

for the affective commitment scale (ACS) is .87; continuance commitment scale (CCS) is .75;

and normative commitment scale (NCS) is .79. In a study of an examination of construct validity

of TCM, Allen and Meyer (1997) further examined the substantial body of evidence relevant to

the construct validation of the ACS, CCS, and NCS. In the internal consistency, according to

Allen and Meyer (1997), the median reliabilities are .85, .79, and .73 for ACS, CCS, and NCS

respectively.

Cheng (2003) used the Chinese version o f TCM for research. She indicated that the

standardized coefficient of ACS is .68(p = .01); CCS is .83 (p = .03); and NCS is .86(p = .00).

This consequence indicated that all the indicators could validly reflect the construct of

organization commitment. In addition, the construct reliability of TCM is .78, larger than .60.

This means organizational commitment is a reliable construct. In sum, the construct of the

Chinese version of TCM is valid and reliable, and fit measure for this study.

Job satisfaction survey (JSS). According to Spector (1997), from a sample 2,870 who

completed the JSS, the coefficient alphas ranged from .60 for the coworkers subscale, to .91 for

the total scale. He presented the data of test-retest reliability for JSS. The reliabilities ranged

from .37 to .74. Spector (1997) also indicated that validity evidence for JSS is provided by

studies that compared different scales with one another on the same employees. These

correlations ranged from .61 for coworkers to .80 for supervisors

Lin (2003) tested Chinese version of JSS and proposed Cronbachs alpha coefficient of pay

was .7739, promotion was .7821, supervision was .7026, coworkers was .7829, and nature of


Taiwan IT Leadership Sample

Documents