Volume 15 Paper 2 Sundu Kaur
AUGMENTING SUBORDINATES’ COMMITMENT: THE ROLE OF
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
HS Sandhu
Kanwaldeep Kaur
ABSTRACT
The paper examines the relationship between transformational leadership behaviour of
Indian bank managers and organizational commitment of their subordinates. It
articulates the role of socio-cultural and organisational context within the dynamics
between transformational leadership and organisational commitment. A sample of 660
bank employees working in public and private sector banks located in northern India
participated in the study. Transformational Leadership Behaviour Inventory (TLI)
developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter (1990), and Organisational
Commitment Scale developed by Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993) were used for data
collection. The data were checked for reliability using Cronbach alpha. Exploratory
factor analysis was performed to validate the factor structure of the measuring
instruments. Results of the hierarchical regression analysis reveal that transformational
leadership behaviour of the superiors significantly augments the affective and normative
organisational commitment of their subordinates. The paper hopes to increase our
understanding of complexities within the dynamics between transformational leadership
and organisational commitment by focusing on two contextual aspects.
Keywords: Transformational leadership, Organisational commitment, Affective
commitment, Continuance commitment, Normative commitment.
INTRODUCTION
Extensive globalization since the 1980s has produced an economic environment that is more
turbulent and volatile than ever before (Parry & Proctor-Thomson 2003). Static, permanent
and traditional organizations working in a predictable world are giving way to flexible,
adaptive and innovative organizations more suited in a new world of change and
transformation.
Globalization has also led to remarkable transformation in Indian economy since 1990. The
1991 government policy of tectonic economic liberalization, coupled with metamorphic
liberalized policy in financial sector in sync with Narasimham Committee’s recommendations
brought structural reforms in Indian economic and banking system (Srivastava & Nigam
2009). The changing scenario calls for revitalizing and transforming organisations to meet
competitive challenges ahead. Quality of leadership represents a valuable source of
organisational improvement and competitive advantage (Singh & Bhandarkar 2002; Parry &
Sinha 2005).
HS Sandhu (Sandhu_hs12@yahoo.com) is with the Dept. of Commerce & Business Management, Guru Nanak Dev
University, Amritsar (Pb.), India; Kanwaldeep Kaur (kkaurhmv@yahoo.co.in) is with the Dept. of Commerce & Business
Management, Hans Raj Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Jalandhar (Pb.) India
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Volume 15 (1), 15-35
© HS Sandhu & K Kaur
ISSN 1440-5377
Sandhu & Kaur
Augmenting Subordinates Commitment: The Role
of Transformational Leadership
This has stimulated interest among researchers in studying transformational leadership in
India (Singh & Bhandarkar 1990, 2002; Srivastava 2003; Devashis 2004). A number of
studies have suggested that transformational leadership style affects many aspects of the
success of a company (e.g., Bycio, Hackett & Allen 1995; Kirkpatrick & Locke 1996), but its
effect on employee commitment is perhaps the most crucial. What motivates employee
commitment can also vary from an emotional attachment, to gratitude, to sheer pragmatism
(Bycio et al. 1995).
Transformational leadership and organisational commitment have been well established to
correlate positively with each other (Allen & Meyer 1996; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch &
Topolnytsky 2002; Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam 1996) in the Western context. Some
studies in India, too, have affirmed this relationship (e. g. Rai & Sinha 2000) in the nonbanking sector. Whether this relationship holds good in the context of Indian commercial
banking sector is the main issue which this study hopes to resolve. The present study attempts
to analyse the dynamics of this relationship with reference to two contexts: 1) Indian sociocultural context, and 2) organisational context.
The next section deals with the review of literature regarding organisational commitment,
transformational leadership, relevance of transformational leadership in the Indian context in
general and commercial banking in particular, and the possibility of linkage between
transformational leadership and organisational commitment in the context of Indian banking
sector.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
Organisational commitment
There is little consensus concerning the definition of the concept of organisational
commitment or its measurement. Most researchers conceive of commitment as involving
some form of psychological bond between people and the organisation. Organisational
commitment has been considered in terms of a single and a multi-dimensional perspective.
The most prominent uni-dimensional approach to organisational commitment is the attitudinal
approach of Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian (1974). Porter et al. (1974, p.604) define
commitment as a ‘strong belief in and acceptance of the organisation’s goals and values, a
willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organisation and a definite desire to
maintain organisational membership.’
The desire to maintain affiliation to the organisation is caused by different factors which
Meyer & Allen (1991) describe as multi-dimensional organisational commitment. Meyer &
Allen (1984) initially proposed that a distinction be made between affective and continuance
commitment. They described ‘affective commitment’ as an emotional attachment to,
identification with, and involvement in the organisation. Drawing on the early works of ‘sidebet’ theory of Becker (1960), they introduced the dimension of continuance commitment to
the already existing dimension of (attitudinal) affective commitment. Continuance
commitment refers to the ‘necessity’ of an individual to stay with the organisation due to the
accumulation of investments like hierarchical position, peer relationships and seniority rights.
Later on they added the third dimension ‘normative commitment’ based on the work of
Weiner (1982) which was defined as the employee’s feelings of obligation to remain with the
organisation. Weiner (1982, p.421) sees commitment as the ‘totality of internal normative
pressure to act in a way that meets organisational goals and interests.’ These components are
16
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
Volume 15 No. 1
not mutually exclusive: an employee can simultaneously be committed to the organisation in
an affective, normative, and continuance sense, at varying levels of intensity. Each component
develops as the result of different experiences and has different implications for on-the-job
behaviour. As different antecedents and consequences are associated with each form of
commitment, so the managers should be aware of the manner in which their employees are
committed to the organisation in order to foster the right kind of commitment in them
(Coleman, Irving & Cooper 1999; Meyer et al. 2002).
Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership is viewed as the most prominent topic in the current research on
leadership because of its qualitatively different approach to motivating followers (Bass 1998;
Gardner & Avolio 1998; Howell & Avolio 1993). Burns (1978) first introduced the concepts
of transformational and transactional leadership in his treatment of political leadership. Bass
(1985) applied the concept of transformational and transactional leadership in organizational
settings. Transactional leadership involves an exchange relationship between leaders and
followers for mutual benefits. Transactional leadership encompasses contingent reward and
management-by-exception (Bass 1985). In contrast, transformational leaders motivate
followers to achieve performance beyond expectations by transforming followers’ attitudes,
beliefs, and values as opposed to simply gaining compliance (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1999). Tichy
& Devanna (1986) suggest that the more successful transformational leaders are able to
‘dumb down’ their vision to grab followers’ interest, attention, and understanding.
Transformational leaders articulate a vision of the future of the organization, provide a model
that is consistent with that vision, foster the acceptance of group goals, hold high performance
expectations, and provide individualized support and intellectual stimulation (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1990).
Avolio, Yammarino & Bass (1991) described the characteristics of transformational
leadership as four I’s—idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation,
and individualized consideration, that are similar to behaviours specified in theories of
charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo 1998). Howell & Avolio (1993) posit that
transformational leadership develops followers' thinking about situations (intellectual
stimulation), supports individuals (individualized consideration) and provides inspiration,
faith and respect (charismatic leadership). They are comfortable with taking risk and
challenging the status quo and demonstrate high internal locus of control (Howell & Avolio
1993).
Jung, Chow & Wu (2003) found that leaders who displayed these four behaviours of
transformational leadership were able to realign their followers’ values and norms, promote
both personal and organisational changes, and exceed their initial performance expectations.
Transformational leadership creates an emotional bond between leader and subordinates
through fulfillment and modification of their needs and values which affect the quality of the
subordinates’ relationship towards their organisation by influencing the behaviour and
attitudes of the subordinates.
Relationship between transformational leadership and organisational commitment
Yukl (1994) posits that transformational leader brings major changes in the attitudes and
assumptions of organisational members and builds commitment for the organisation’s
mission, objectives and strategies. Work by Shamir and colleagues (Shamir, House & Arthur
1993; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin & Popper 1998) suggests that transformational leaders create a
17
Sandhu & Kaur
Augmenting Subordinates Commitment: The Role
of Transformational Leadership
higher level of personal commitment on the part of the leader and followers towards a
common vision, mission and organisational goals which, in turn, influence followers’
organisational commitment.
Transformational leaders influence followers’ organisational commitment by using
intellectual stimulation, encouraging followers to think critically through using novel
approaches, involving followers in decision-making processes (Jermier & Berkes 1979;
Rhodes & Steers 1981), inspiring loyalty while recognizing and appreciating the different
needs of each follower to develop his or her personal potential (Avolio 1999; Bass & Avolio
1994, 1997; Walumbwa & Lawler 2003; Yammarino, Sprangler & Bass 1993). They
encourage the followers to take on greater challenges and responsibility, and who, in turn,
reciprocate with extra efforts leading to higher levels of commitment to their organisations
(Wayne, Liden & Sparrowe 2000).
Research studies have confirmed that commitment is influenced by transformational
leadership in a variety of organisational settings and cultures (Avolio, Zhu, Koh & Bhatia
2004; Bono & Judge 2003; Bycio et al. 1995; Goodwin, Wofford & Whittington 2001;
Howell & Avolio 1993; Koh, Steers & Terborg 1995; Lok & Crawford 2004; Walumbwa &
Lawler 2003). Three meta-analytic reviews (e.g. Dumdum, Lowe & Avolio (2002); Fuller,
Peterson, Hester & Stringer (1996); Lowe et al. 1996) have also shown transformational
leadership positively related to work-related outcomes such as satisfaction, commitment and
performance.
In an Indian context, Rai & Sinha (2000) found that the supervisors’ transformational style
had significant relationship with organisational commitment. However, a study by Chandna
and Krishnan (2009) showed varying results in their comparative analysis of IT and non-IT
sector in India. While transformational leadership was found to have a significantly positive
relationship with continuance, as well as normative commitment but significantly negative
relationship with affective commitment in non-IT sector, no significant relationship has been
revealed between transformational leadership and any of the dimensions of organisational
commitment in the IT sector. Ramachandran and Krishnan (2009) in a cross cultural study
reported that transformational leadership was positively related to normative commitment in
India and China but not in the US, while it was positively related to affective commitment in
the U.S. and India but not in China.
Role of context in leadership research
In recent years emphasis has been laid on giving due importance to contextual variables in
leadership research (Lowe & Gardner 2000; Pawar & Eastman 1997; Yukl 1999, 2006).
According to Rousseau & Fried (2001), contextualizing research means ‘linking observations
to a set of relevant facts, events, or points of view’ (p. 1) which may include, among others,
organisational characteristics, work functions, external environmental factors, and
demographic variables, and it determines ‘the variability that we can potentially observe’
(p 3). It has been argued that the context in which leadership is observed can constrain the
types of behaviours that may be considered prototypically effective (John 2001; Lord, Brown,
Harvey & Hall 2001).
Based on arguments regarding the effect of context on the relationship between variables, we
identified two oft cited contextual factors that could theoretically affect the relationship
18
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
Volume 15 No. 1
between transformational leadership behaviour and the organisational commitment: Indian
socio-cultural context, and organisational context (i.e. commercial banking in India).
Indian socio-cultural context
The concept of transformational leadership originated and developed in the individualistic
societies of the West. As far as Indian society is concerned, a number of studies have revealed
that Indian society is characterized by collectivism and hierarchism (Hofstede 1980; Kumar
1997; Sahay & Walsham 1997; Sinha 1995; Walumbwa & Lawler 2003; Walumbwa, Wang,
Lawler & Shi 2004). Indians have also been found to be high on power distance (Hofstede
1980; Mendonca & Kanungo 1996) that seemingly does not support empowering and a
participative style of management.
However, Heller (1985) argued that shifts in the society as a whole, in technology and in
organisational structures are associated with ‘loss’ or ‘erosion’ of authority. On the micro
level of superior-subordinate relations, the loss is evident in a decline in willingness to be
bossed as well as a loss of desire to be the boss (Heller 1985). In a study of leadership styles
of managers of Indian organisations, Singh (1982) found that the dependency prone culture of
India has given way to empowerment and autonomy, questioning has replaced unquestioned
compliance, the power distance between the supervisor and subordinate has narrowed.
Integration of the domestic economies with global economies has also caused diffusion of
ideas and practices among nations (Bass 1997). This has happened in the case of India too.
Moreover, the proportion of population in the working age group of 15-64 years is currently
around 62.9 per cent and is expected to rise to about 70 per cent by 2026 (Srivastva & Nigam
2009). This demographic dividend is expected to extend over the next few decades of this
millennium. This is leading to change in demographics of work force. Younger generation is
better educated and has different values, beliefs, and expectations compared to their older and
senior counterparts. They are more receptive to leadership styles which provide them more
autonomy to think, act and grow. Organisations are also changing their management styles to
accommodate the increased educational level and accompanying higher expectations of their
employees. Sinha & Kanungo (1997) have upheld the co-existence of ‘global’ and ‘local’ in
Indian’s organisational behaviour on the basis of what they call ‘context sensitivity’ and
‘balancing’. Context sensitivity is basically a thinking principle or a mind-set that is cognitive
in nature and it determines the adaptive nature of an idea or behaviour (Sinha & Kanungo
1997, p. 96). Balancing is a behavioural disposition to avoid extremes and to integrate or
accommodate diverse considerations.
Organisational context
Various researchers (Bryman 1992; Conger & Kanungo 1998; Pettigrew 1987) have
emphasized the need for giving due attention to the relationship between transformational
leadership and organisational context. While transformational leadership is potentially
applicable to most organisational situations, it is not equally applicable to all situations.
Organisational contexts can be linked to transformational leadership through three forms of
relationship (Pawar 2003). First, different types of organisational contexts can create different
degrees of need for transformational leadership (Bass 1998). Second, organisational contexts
can influence the degree to which transformational leadership’s operations will be supported
or opposed (Pawar & Eastman 1997). Third, organisational contexts can influence the nature
of transformational leadership behaviour that emerge and operate in an organisation.
19
Sandhu & Kaur
Augmenting Subordinates Commitment: The Role
of Transformational Leadership
Addressing these issues is important because it will facilitate predicting and explaining the
effectiveness of transformational leadership in the Indian banking sector.
The banking sector in India has been subjected to structural reforms since 1991 by easing the
internal as well as external constraints in the working of the banks. The diversification of
ownership of banking institutions has enabled private shareholding in public sector banks.
The increasing presence of private sector domestic and foreign banks has led to an
unprecedented increase in competition in the banking sector, offering tremendous
opportunities of business expansion and diversification nationally as well as globally along
with threats from the emergence of new players in the industry. Acute competition with the
advent of new generation private sector banks and foreign banks bringing in latest technology
has resulted in putting greater focus on product innovation backed by IT advancement and
thrust on customization of products. High average age of staff in public sector banks has been
toned down by offering voluntary retirement scheme. The banks are on hiring spree recruiting
younger persons with good educational background and IT skills to manage their expansion
plans. Effective leadership is viewed as a key factor in attracting, motivating, and maintaining
employees in organisations undergoing change and transformation. Therefore, the conditions
in such type of organisations provide an ideal test of the relationship between transformational
leadership and followers’ commitment (Bass & Avolio 1997; Cropanzano, Rupp & Byrme
2003).
The internal and external environment characterizing organisations undergoing transformation
alters prototypical expectations of leadership (Brown & Lord 2001; Keller 1999; Lord,
Brown, Harvey & Hall 2001; Lowe et al. 1996). Pawar & Eastman (1997) argue that
organisations are more receptive to transformational leadership during adaptation rather than
during efficiency orientation. Shamir & Howell (1999) asserted that charismatic leaders are
more likely to emerge under conditions of turbulence and crisis than under conditions of
stability and continuity. It is also more effective in dynamic organisational environments that
require and enable the introduction of new strategies, markets, products, and technologies.
Such organisations have been called dominant boundary-spanning units by Pawar & Eastman
(1997) and they are considered to be more receptive to transformational leadership than the
organisations with dominant technical cores (Pawar & Eastman 1997). Transformational
leadership is more likely to emerge and be effective when the tasks of organisational members
are challenging, complex and require individual and group initiative, responsibility, creativity
and intense effort. The foregoing discussion leads us to predict that banking sector in
contemporary India provides an organisational context conducive for the emergence of
effective transformational leadership.
Leadership studies in India
Researchers such as Meade (1967), Meade and Whittake (1967), and Murphy (1953) asserted
that because Indian culture, by and large is authoritarian, it is the authoritarian leadership
which would promote organisational productivity in the Indian set-up. Sinha & Sinha (1974)
expressed doubts about the appropriateness of the authoritarian (F) style in Indian culture.
They identified a few socio-cultural values such as, preference for aram (rest or relaxation
without being tired), dependence proneness (Chattopadhyay 1975; Sinha 1970), readily
accepting the authority of the superior (Kakar 1971), lack of commitment, cultivating
personalized relationship with the superior (De 1974; Sinha & Sinha 1974), and lack of teamorientation- some of which, of course, seem to share the rubric of authoritarianism. Due to
these characteristics typical of Indian subordinates, Sinha (1980, p. 55) proposed the
20
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
Volume 15 No. 1
Nurturant-task (NT) style as an alternative model suited to the Indian culture. The NT leader
according to Sinha (1980) ‘cares for his subordinates, shows affection, takes personal interest
in their well-being and, above all, is committed to their growth subject to the subordinate’s
task accomplishment. Some empirical evidence (e.g. Ansari 1981, 1986, 1987; Ansari and
Shukla 1987; Jain 2000) establishes that NT leaders earn more favorable ratings on the
evaluation of the leader and attributions of leadership than the participative leaders. The
transition towards transformational leadership in the Indian context has been reflected in later
period studies (Devashis 2004; Krishnan, 1990; Rai & Sinha 2000; Singh & Bhandarkar 1990,
2002; Srivastava 2003).
Most of the studies relating to leadership in banking sector in India have focused on Taskoriented/ Relationship-oriented styles (e.g. Brar, 2009; Punj 1978; Prakasam 1980; Misra &
Srivastava 1992). Vishalli & Kumar (2004) in a study of leadership styles of the regional
managers of a public sector bank in India reported that there was no significant association
demonstrable between transactional leadership style and most of the behavioural
competencies of subordinates while most of the competencies had a significant relationship
with transformational leadership style. Brar (2009) in an exploratory study of leadership styles
of managers in Indian banking industry found that the ‘consideration’ dimension of LBDQ
had a positive, relatively high and significant effect on organisational commitment whereas
‘initiating structure’ had an insignificant and inverse effect on organisational commitment.
Based on the review of extant literature, our analysis upholds that socio-cultural and
organisational contexts in Indian banking industry are conducive for emergence of
transformational leadership style which is likely to have a significantly positive influence on
organisational commitment. The following hypotheses are formulated in this regard:
Hypothesis 1: The degree of transformational leadership behaviour in Indian bank managers
is moderate.
Hypothesis 2: The transformational leadership behaviour of the Indian bank managers
significantly predicts affective, continuance, and normative organisational
commitment of their subordinates.
Hypothesis 3: The transformational leadership behaviour has the strongest influence on
affective commitment.
DATABASE AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Sample description
Data collection from a total of 660 bank employees was undertaken from April to September,
2009. The subjects included managerial and clerical staff working in different branches and
administrative offices of public and private sector banks located in the state of Punjab. The
average age of the respondents was 40 years. Only 22 percent of the total sample consisted of
women. Of the respondents, 79 percent were married; 43 percent of the respondents were
postgraduates and 57 percent were graduates.
Data collection procedure and response rate
Originally the questionnaire was planned to be sent through post and telephonic contacts in
order to save time, but the response was poor and even with repeated requests not much
success was achieved. Finally, we personally contacted the respondents on site and got the
questionnaire filled in after public dealing hours. Respondents were explained the purpose of
the study and the nature of the battery of tests. Their doubts regarding understanding the
21
Sandhu & Kaur
Augmenting Subordinates Commitment: The Role
of Transformational Leadership
statements were cleared. Therefore, the problem of non-response or occurrence of missing
values in the data could not arise.
Research instruments
Transformational Leadership Behaviour Inventory (TLI)
Leadership Behaviour Inventory (TLI) developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) has been used for
collecting ratings on leadership behaviour. It consists of 23 question items, which are
designed to measure the employees’ perceptions of transformational leadership behaviour of
their managers on six dimensions – a) articulating a vision (five items, coded AV1 to AV5),
b) providing an appropriate model (three items coded, RM1 to RM3), c) acceptance of group
goals (four items, coded AG1 to AG4), d) high performance expectations (three items, coded
HP1 to HP3), e) intellectual stimulation (four items, coded IST1 to IST4), and f)
individualized support (four items, coded IS1 to IS4). Respondents were asked to answer the
TLI by judging how intensely their manager displayed the behaviours described in the
questionnaire, using a seven-point scale (1=minimum extent, and 7= maximum extent).
Organisational Commitment Scale
Organisational Commitment Scale developed by Meyer et al. (1993) has been used to
measure affective, continuance, and normative organisational commitment. The scale has 18
items, with six items for each of the three factors- affective (items coded as AC 1 to AC 6),
continuance (items coded as CC 1 to CC 6), and normative (items coded as NC 1 to NC 6)
organisational commitment. Responses to each item were made on a 7-point scale with
anchors labeled (1=strongly disagree, and 7=strongly agree). The psychometric properties of
the instrument have been validated in number of studies (Meyer & Allen 1997). The scores
for the six items in each scale provided a total, and a mean score for each one of the scales
indicated the level of affective, continuance, and normative organisational commitment.
Control variables
Prior studies have demonstrated that demographic variables are potential predictors of
organisational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac 1990; Meyer et al. 2002). Based on prior
studies, we controlled for age, gender, marital status, educational level, and positional tenure
in the hierarchical multiple regression analysis. To avoid multicollinearity, organisational
tenure which was another demographic variable affecting commitment was dropped from the
analysis by us because it correlated highly with age.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Internal consistency and validity
The internal consistency reliability coefficient of the instrument (TLI) was assessed using
Cronbach alpha. Cronbach alpha for factor individualized support was found to be 0.54. As it
was below 0.60 criterion which, according to Nunnally & Bersnstein (1994) is an acceptable
level of reliability for social sciences, the factor ‘individualized support’ was dropped from
the scale. The internal consistency reliability coefficient of the instrument for other five
factors ranged between 0.85 and 0.91.
The alpha coefficients for the Organisational Commitment Construct in this study showed
values 0.89 for affective commitment, 0.70 for continuance commitment, and 0.81 for
normative commitment scale. However, alpha in case of continuance commitment scale could
improve to 0.83 by deleting one item from it. So to get a more refined scale, this item i.e. ‘if I
22
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
Volume 15 No. 1
had not put so much of myself into this bank, I might consider working elsewhere’ was
deleted. The reliability coefficients for all the dimensions of Organisational Commitment
Scale exceeded 0.60 criterion of acceptable level of reliability
Factor analysis was performed to establish the discriminant validity of the Transformational
Leadership, and Organisational Commitment constructs. Table 1 presents the results of factor
analysis.
Table 1: Transformational Leadership and Organisational Commitment Constructs:
Principal Component Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation
Variables
AV1
AV2
AV3
AV4
AV5
RM1
RM2
RM3
AG1
AG2
AG3
AG4
HP1
HP2
HP3
IST1
IST2
IST3
IST4
AC1
AC2
AC3
AC4
AC5
AC6
CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
NC1
NC2
NC3
NC4
NC5
NC6
Eigen Value
Variance Explained
Factor1
.714
.728
.759
.780
.814
.781
.762
.759
.776
.772
.785
.777
.641
.644
.625
.719
.732
.735
.753
. 404
. 431
.322
.346
.355
.321
.077
.113
.074
.004
.053
.109
.137
.177
.214
.194
.190
15.19
42.19%
Factor 2
.300
.300
.282
.201
.187
.269
.264
.240
.276
.264
.257
.142
.136
.188
.122
.110
.112
.097
.129
.627
.605
.775
.738
.599
.698
.118
-.013
-.072
.035
.045
.272
.199
.062
.091
.102
.214
3.01
8.39%
Factor 3
.179
.136
.140
.190
.155
.084
.100
.171
.098
.094
.186
.151
.175
.153
.212
.183
.138
.192
.161
.333
.219
.148
.191
.240
.239
.014
.060
.077
.030
.106
.627
.565
.802
.687
.761
.593
2.47
6.87%
Factor 4
.005
.045
.064
.105
.110
.090
.088
.077
.030
.008
.034
.001
-.026
.016
.020
.064
.067
.062
.017
.094
.053
.008
-.018
.073
-.054
.803
.854
.790
.701
.617
.004
-.103
.087
.122
.059
.110
1.47
4.11%
23
Sandhu & Kaur
Augmenting Subordinates Commitment: The Role
of Transformational Leadership
Principal component analysis was selected in order to avoid assumptions regarding an
underlying causal model (Nunnally 1978). A scree test (Cattell 1966) of the varimax rotated
factor structure indicated a 4-factor solution which accounted for 61.5% of the total variance.
A minimum factor loading of 0.30 (Nunnally 1978) was used as a yardstick for considering an
item to load on a particular factor. As may be observed from Table 1, there was minimal
problem with double loading of items which clearly attest to the discriminant validity of the
variables. However, all items of TLI had very high loadings on a single transformational
scale, indicating the inability of the instrument to distinguish between different factors of
transformational leadership.
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations and the pattern of correlations between
variables in the study.
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix.
Variables
Mean
S.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. Age
40.30
11.75
-
2. Gender
1.22
.41
-35**
-
3. MS
1.79
.41
.63**
-37**
-
4. Edu.
1.61
.78
-25**
.14**
-.18**
-
5. Pos. Ten.
7.25
8.23
.52**
-.10**
.33**
-.12**
-
6. AC
4.91
1.15
.24**
-.08*
.09*
-.16**
.05
-
7. CC
4.74
1.02
.25**
-.10**
.17**
-.08*
.05
.10**
-
8. NC
4.94
1.09
.44**
-.07
.22**
-.23**
.17**
.54**
.16**
-
9. TL
4.91
1.16
.25**
-.06
.07*
-.18**
.08*
.69**
.17**
.47**
** p
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
HS Sandhu
Kanwaldeep Kaur
ABSTRACT
The paper examines the relationship between transformational leadership behaviour of
Indian bank managers and organizational commitment of their subordinates. It
articulates the role of socio-cultural and organisational context within the dynamics
between transformational leadership and organisational commitment. A sample of 660
bank employees working in public and private sector banks located in northern India
participated in the study. Transformational Leadership Behaviour Inventory (TLI)
developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter (1990), and Organisational
Commitment Scale developed by Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993) were used for data
collection. The data were checked for reliability using Cronbach alpha. Exploratory
factor analysis was performed to validate the factor structure of the measuring
instruments. Results of the hierarchical regression analysis reveal that transformational
leadership behaviour of the superiors significantly augments the affective and normative
organisational commitment of their subordinates. The paper hopes to increase our
understanding of complexities within the dynamics between transformational leadership
and organisational commitment by focusing on two contextual aspects.
Keywords: Transformational leadership, Organisational commitment, Affective
commitment, Continuance commitment, Normative commitment.
INTRODUCTION
Extensive globalization since the 1980s has produced an economic environment that is more
turbulent and volatile than ever before (Parry & Proctor-Thomson 2003). Static, permanent
and traditional organizations working in a predictable world are giving way to flexible,
adaptive and innovative organizations more suited in a new world of change and
transformation.
Globalization has also led to remarkable transformation in Indian economy since 1990. The
1991 government policy of tectonic economic liberalization, coupled with metamorphic
liberalized policy in financial sector in sync with Narasimham Committee’s recommendations
brought structural reforms in Indian economic and banking system (Srivastava & Nigam
2009). The changing scenario calls for revitalizing and transforming organisations to meet
competitive challenges ahead. Quality of leadership represents a valuable source of
organisational improvement and competitive advantage (Singh & Bhandarkar 2002; Parry &
Sinha 2005).
HS Sandhu (Sandhu_hs12@yahoo.com) is with the Dept. of Commerce & Business Management, Guru Nanak Dev
University, Amritsar (Pb.), India; Kanwaldeep Kaur (kkaurhmv@yahoo.co.in) is with the Dept. of Commerce & Business
Management, Hans Raj Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Jalandhar (Pb.) India
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Volume 15 (1), 15-35
© HS Sandhu & K Kaur
ISSN 1440-5377
Sandhu & Kaur
Augmenting Subordinates Commitment: The Role
of Transformational Leadership
This has stimulated interest among researchers in studying transformational leadership in
India (Singh & Bhandarkar 1990, 2002; Srivastava 2003; Devashis 2004). A number of
studies have suggested that transformational leadership style affects many aspects of the
success of a company (e.g., Bycio, Hackett & Allen 1995; Kirkpatrick & Locke 1996), but its
effect on employee commitment is perhaps the most crucial. What motivates employee
commitment can also vary from an emotional attachment, to gratitude, to sheer pragmatism
(Bycio et al. 1995).
Transformational leadership and organisational commitment have been well established to
correlate positively with each other (Allen & Meyer 1996; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch &
Topolnytsky 2002; Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam 1996) in the Western context. Some
studies in India, too, have affirmed this relationship (e. g. Rai & Sinha 2000) in the nonbanking sector. Whether this relationship holds good in the context of Indian commercial
banking sector is the main issue which this study hopes to resolve. The present study attempts
to analyse the dynamics of this relationship with reference to two contexts: 1) Indian sociocultural context, and 2) organisational context.
The next section deals with the review of literature regarding organisational commitment,
transformational leadership, relevance of transformational leadership in the Indian context in
general and commercial banking in particular, and the possibility of linkage between
transformational leadership and organisational commitment in the context of Indian banking
sector.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
Organisational commitment
There is little consensus concerning the definition of the concept of organisational
commitment or its measurement. Most researchers conceive of commitment as involving
some form of psychological bond between people and the organisation. Organisational
commitment has been considered in terms of a single and a multi-dimensional perspective.
The most prominent uni-dimensional approach to organisational commitment is the attitudinal
approach of Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian (1974). Porter et al. (1974, p.604) define
commitment as a ‘strong belief in and acceptance of the organisation’s goals and values, a
willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organisation and a definite desire to
maintain organisational membership.’
The desire to maintain affiliation to the organisation is caused by different factors which
Meyer & Allen (1991) describe as multi-dimensional organisational commitment. Meyer &
Allen (1984) initially proposed that a distinction be made between affective and continuance
commitment. They described ‘affective commitment’ as an emotional attachment to,
identification with, and involvement in the organisation. Drawing on the early works of ‘sidebet’ theory of Becker (1960), they introduced the dimension of continuance commitment to
the already existing dimension of (attitudinal) affective commitment. Continuance
commitment refers to the ‘necessity’ of an individual to stay with the organisation due to the
accumulation of investments like hierarchical position, peer relationships and seniority rights.
Later on they added the third dimension ‘normative commitment’ based on the work of
Weiner (1982) which was defined as the employee’s feelings of obligation to remain with the
organisation. Weiner (1982, p.421) sees commitment as the ‘totality of internal normative
pressure to act in a way that meets organisational goals and interests.’ These components are
16
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
Volume 15 No. 1
not mutually exclusive: an employee can simultaneously be committed to the organisation in
an affective, normative, and continuance sense, at varying levels of intensity. Each component
develops as the result of different experiences and has different implications for on-the-job
behaviour. As different antecedents and consequences are associated with each form of
commitment, so the managers should be aware of the manner in which their employees are
committed to the organisation in order to foster the right kind of commitment in them
(Coleman, Irving & Cooper 1999; Meyer et al. 2002).
Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership is viewed as the most prominent topic in the current research on
leadership because of its qualitatively different approach to motivating followers (Bass 1998;
Gardner & Avolio 1998; Howell & Avolio 1993). Burns (1978) first introduced the concepts
of transformational and transactional leadership in his treatment of political leadership. Bass
(1985) applied the concept of transformational and transactional leadership in organizational
settings. Transactional leadership involves an exchange relationship between leaders and
followers for mutual benefits. Transactional leadership encompasses contingent reward and
management-by-exception (Bass 1985). In contrast, transformational leaders motivate
followers to achieve performance beyond expectations by transforming followers’ attitudes,
beliefs, and values as opposed to simply gaining compliance (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1999). Tichy
& Devanna (1986) suggest that the more successful transformational leaders are able to
‘dumb down’ their vision to grab followers’ interest, attention, and understanding.
Transformational leaders articulate a vision of the future of the organization, provide a model
that is consistent with that vision, foster the acceptance of group goals, hold high performance
expectations, and provide individualized support and intellectual stimulation (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1990).
Avolio, Yammarino & Bass (1991) described the characteristics of transformational
leadership as four I’s—idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation,
and individualized consideration, that are similar to behaviours specified in theories of
charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo 1998). Howell & Avolio (1993) posit that
transformational leadership develops followers' thinking about situations (intellectual
stimulation), supports individuals (individualized consideration) and provides inspiration,
faith and respect (charismatic leadership). They are comfortable with taking risk and
challenging the status quo and demonstrate high internal locus of control (Howell & Avolio
1993).
Jung, Chow & Wu (2003) found that leaders who displayed these four behaviours of
transformational leadership were able to realign their followers’ values and norms, promote
both personal and organisational changes, and exceed their initial performance expectations.
Transformational leadership creates an emotional bond between leader and subordinates
through fulfillment and modification of their needs and values which affect the quality of the
subordinates’ relationship towards their organisation by influencing the behaviour and
attitudes of the subordinates.
Relationship between transformational leadership and organisational commitment
Yukl (1994) posits that transformational leader brings major changes in the attitudes and
assumptions of organisational members and builds commitment for the organisation’s
mission, objectives and strategies. Work by Shamir and colleagues (Shamir, House & Arthur
1993; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin & Popper 1998) suggests that transformational leaders create a
17
Sandhu & Kaur
Augmenting Subordinates Commitment: The Role
of Transformational Leadership
higher level of personal commitment on the part of the leader and followers towards a
common vision, mission and organisational goals which, in turn, influence followers’
organisational commitment.
Transformational leaders influence followers’ organisational commitment by using
intellectual stimulation, encouraging followers to think critically through using novel
approaches, involving followers in decision-making processes (Jermier & Berkes 1979;
Rhodes & Steers 1981), inspiring loyalty while recognizing and appreciating the different
needs of each follower to develop his or her personal potential (Avolio 1999; Bass & Avolio
1994, 1997; Walumbwa & Lawler 2003; Yammarino, Sprangler & Bass 1993). They
encourage the followers to take on greater challenges and responsibility, and who, in turn,
reciprocate with extra efforts leading to higher levels of commitment to their organisations
(Wayne, Liden & Sparrowe 2000).
Research studies have confirmed that commitment is influenced by transformational
leadership in a variety of organisational settings and cultures (Avolio, Zhu, Koh & Bhatia
2004; Bono & Judge 2003; Bycio et al. 1995; Goodwin, Wofford & Whittington 2001;
Howell & Avolio 1993; Koh, Steers & Terborg 1995; Lok & Crawford 2004; Walumbwa &
Lawler 2003). Three meta-analytic reviews (e.g. Dumdum, Lowe & Avolio (2002); Fuller,
Peterson, Hester & Stringer (1996); Lowe et al. 1996) have also shown transformational
leadership positively related to work-related outcomes such as satisfaction, commitment and
performance.
In an Indian context, Rai & Sinha (2000) found that the supervisors’ transformational style
had significant relationship with organisational commitment. However, a study by Chandna
and Krishnan (2009) showed varying results in their comparative analysis of IT and non-IT
sector in India. While transformational leadership was found to have a significantly positive
relationship with continuance, as well as normative commitment but significantly negative
relationship with affective commitment in non-IT sector, no significant relationship has been
revealed between transformational leadership and any of the dimensions of organisational
commitment in the IT sector. Ramachandran and Krishnan (2009) in a cross cultural study
reported that transformational leadership was positively related to normative commitment in
India and China but not in the US, while it was positively related to affective commitment in
the U.S. and India but not in China.
Role of context in leadership research
In recent years emphasis has been laid on giving due importance to contextual variables in
leadership research (Lowe & Gardner 2000; Pawar & Eastman 1997; Yukl 1999, 2006).
According to Rousseau & Fried (2001), contextualizing research means ‘linking observations
to a set of relevant facts, events, or points of view’ (p. 1) which may include, among others,
organisational characteristics, work functions, external environmental factors, and
demographic variables, and it determines ‘the variability that we can potentially observe’
(p 3). It has been argued that the context in which leadership is observed can constrain the
types of behaviours that may be considered prototypically effective (John 2001; Lord, Brown,
Harvey & Hall 2001).
Based on arguments regarding the effect of context on the relationship between variables, we
identified two oft cited contextual factors that could theoretically affect the relationship
18
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
Volume 15 No. 1
between transformational leadership behaviour and the organisational commitment: Indian
socio-cultural context, and organisational context (i.e. commercial banking in India).
Indian socio-cultural context
The concept of transformational leadership originated and developed in the individualistic
societies of the West. As far as Indian society is concerned, a number of studies have revealed
that Indian society is characterized by collectivism and hierarchism (Hofstede 1980; Kumar
1997; Sahay & Walsham 1997; Sinha 1995; Walumbwa & Lawler 2003; Walumbwa, Wang,
Lawler & Shi 2004). Indians have also been found to be high on power distance (Hofstede
1980; Mendonca & Kanungo 1996) that seemingly does not support empowering and a
participative style of management.
However, Heller (1985) argued that shifts in the society as a whole, in technology and in
organisational structures are associated with ‘loss’ or ‘erosion’ of authority. On the micro
level of superior-subordinate relations, the loss is evident in a decline in willingness to be
bossed as well as a loss of desire to be the boss (Heller 1985). In a study of leadership styles
of managers of Indian organisations, Singh (1982) found that the dependency prone culture of
India has given way to empowerment and autonomy, questioning has replaced unquestioned
compliance, the power distance between the supervisor and subordinate has narrowed.
Integration of the domestic economies with global economies has also caused diffusion of
ideas and practices among nations (Bass 1997). This has happened in the case of India too.
Moreover, the proportion of population in the working age group of 15-64 years is currently
around 62.9 per cent and is expected to rise to about 70 per cent by 2026 (Srivastva & Nigam
2009). This demographic dividend is expected to extend over the next few decades of this
millennium. This is leading to change in demographics of work force. Younger generation is
better educated and has different values, beliefs, and expectations compared to their older and
senior counterparts. They are more receptive to leadership styles which provide them more
autonomy to think, act and grow. Organisations are also changing their management styles to
accommodate the increased educational level and accompanying higher expectations of their
employees. Sinha & Kanungo (1997) have upheld the co-existence of ‘global’ and ‘local’ in
Indian’s organisational behaviour on the basis of what they call ‘context sensitivity’ and
‘balancing’. Context sensitivity is basically a thinking principle or a mind-set that is cognitive
in nature and it determines the adaptive nature of an idea or behaviour (Sinha & Kanungo
1997, p. 96). Balancing is a behavioural disposition to avoid extremes and to integrate or
accommodate diverse considerations.
Organisational context
Various researchers (Bryman 1992; Conger & Kanungo 1998; Pettigrew 1987) have
emphasized the need for giving due attention to the relationship between transformational
leadership and organisational context. While transformational leadership is potentially
applicable to most organisational situations, it is not equally applicable to all situations.
Organisational contexts can be linked to transformational leadership through three forms of
relationship (Pawar 2003). First, different types of organisational contexts can create different
degrees of need for transformational leadership (Bass 1998). Second, organisational contexts
can influence the degree to which transformational leadership’s operations will be supported
or opposed (Pawar & Eastman 1997). Third, organisational contexts can influence the nature
of transformational leadership behaviour that emerge and operate in an organisation.
19
Sandhu & Kaur
Augmenting Subordinates Commitment: The Role
of Transformational Leadership
Addressing these issues is important because it will facilitate predicting and explaining the
effectiveness of transformational leadership in the Indian banking sector.
The banking sector in India has been subjected to structural reforms since 1991 by easing the
internal as well as external constraints in the working of the banks. The diversification of
ownership of banking institutions has enabled private shareholding in public sector banks.
The increasing presence of private sector domestic and foreign banks has led to an
unprecedented increase in competition in the banking sector, offering tremendous
opportunities of business expansion and diversification nationally as well as globally along
with threats from the emergence of new players in the industry. Acute competition with the
advent of new generation private sector banks and foreign banks bringing in latest technology
has resulted in putting greater focus on product innovation backed by IT advancement and
thrust on customization of products. High average age of staff in public sector banks has been
toned down by offering voluntary retirement scheme. The banks are on hiring spree recruiting
younger persons with good educational background and IT skills to manage their expansion
plans. Effective leadership is viewed as a key factor in attracting, motivating, and maintaining
employees in organisations undergoing change and transformation. Therefore, the conditions
in such type of organisations provide an ideal test of the relationship between transformational
leadership and followers’ commitment (Bass & Avolio 1997; Cropanzano, Rupp & Byrme
2003).
The internal and external environment characterizing organisations undergoing transformation
alters prototypical expectations of leadership (Brown & Lord 2001; Keller 1999; Lord,
Brown, Harvey & Hall 2001; Lowe et al. 1996). Pawar & Eastman (1997) argue that
organisations are more receptive to transformational leadership during adaptation rather than
during efficiency orientation. Shamir & Howell (1999) asserted that charismatic leaders are
more likely to emerge under conditions of turbulence and crisis than under conditions of
stability and continuity. It is also more effective in dynamic organisational environments that
require and enable the introduction of new strategies, markets, products, and technologies.
Such organisations have been called dominant boundary-spanning units by Pawar & Eastman
(1997) and they are considered to be more receptive to transformational leadership than the
organisations with dominant technical cores (Pawar & Eastman 1997). Transformational
leadership is more likely to emerge and be effective when the tasks of organisational members
are challenging, complex and require individual and group initiative, responsibility, creativity
and intense effort. The foregoing discussion leads us to predict that banking sector in
contemporary India provides an organisational context conducive for the emergence of
effective transformational leadership.
Leadership studies in India
Researchers such as Meade (1967), Meade and Whittake (1967), and Murphy (1953) asserted
that because Indian culture, by and large is authoritarian, it is the authoritarian leadership
which would promote organisational productivity in the Indian set-up. Sinha & Sinha (1974)
expressed doubts about the appropriateness of the authoritarian (F) style in Indian culture.
They identified a few socio-cultural values such as, preference for aram (rest or relaxation
without being tired), dependence proneness (Chattopadhyay 1975; Sinha 1970), readily
accepting the authority of the superior (Kakar 1971), lack of commitment, cultivating
personalized relationship with the superior (De 1974; Sinha & Sinha 1974), and lack of teamorientation- some of which, of course, seem to share the rubric of authoritarianism. Due to
these characteristics typical of Indian subordinates, Sinha (1980, p. 55) proposed the
20
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
Volume 15 No. 1
Nurturant-task (NT) style as an alternative model suited to the Indian culture. The NT leader
according to Sinha (1980) ‘cares for his subordinates, shows affection, takes personal interest
in their well-being and, above all, is committed to their growth subject to the subordinate’s
task accomplishment. Some empirical evidence (e.g. Ansari 1981, 1986, 1987; Ansari and
Shukla 1987; Jain 2000) establishes that NT leaders earn more favorable ratings on the
evaluation of the leader and attributions of leadership than the participative leaders. The
transition towards transformational leadership in the Indian context has been reflected in later
period studies (Devashis 2004; Krishnan, 1990; Rai & Sinha 2000; Singh & Bhandarkar 1990,
2002; Srivastava 2003).
Most of the studies relating to leadership in banking sector in India have focused on Taskoriented/ Relationship-oriented styles (e.g. Brar, 2009; Punj 1978; Prakasam 1980; Misra &
Srivastava 1992). Vishalli & Kumar (2004) in a study of leadership styles of the regional
managers of a public sector bank in India reported that there was no significant association
demonstrable between transactional leadership style and most of the behavioural
competencies of subordinates while most of the competencies had a significant relationship
with transformational leadership style. Brar (2009) in an exploratory study of leadership styles
of managers in Indian banking industry found that the ‘consideration’ dimension of LBDQ
had a positive, relatively high and significant effect on organisational commitment whereas
‘initiating structure’ had an insignificant and inverse effect on organisational commitment.
Based on the review of extant literature, our analysis upholds that socio-cultural and
organisational contexts in Indian banking industry are conducive for emergence of
transformational leadership style which is likely to have a significantly positive influence on
organisational commitment. The following hypotheses are formulated in this regard:
Hypothesis 1: The degree of transformational leadership behaviour in Indian bank managers
is moderate.
Hypothesis 2: The transformational leadership behaviour of the Indian bank managers
significantly predicts affective, continuance, and normative organisational
commitment of their subordinates.
Hypothesis 3: The transformational leadership behaviour has the strongest influence on
affective commitment.
DATABASE AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Sample description
Data collection from a total of 660 bank employees was undertaken from April to September,
2009. The subjects included managerial and clerical staff working in different branches and
administrative offices of public and private sector banks located in the state of Punjab. The
average age of the respondents was 40 years. Only 22 percent of the total sample consisted of
women. Of the respondents, 79 percent were married; 43 percent of the respondents were
postgraduates and 57 percent were graduates.
Data collection procedure and response rate
Originally the questionnaire was planned to be sent through post and telephonic contacts in
order to save time, but the response was poor and even with repeated requests not much
success was achieved. Finally, we personally contacted the respondents on site and got the
questionnaire filled in after public dealing hours. Respondents were explained the purpose of
the study and the nature of the battery of tests. Their doubts regarding understanding the
21
Sandhu & Kaur
Augmenting Subordinates Commitment: The Role
of Transformational Leadership
statements were cleared. Therefore, the problem of non-response or occurrence of missing
values in the data could not arise.
Research instruments
Transformational Leadership Behaviour Inventory (TLI)
Leadership Behaviour Inventory (TLI) developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) has been used for
collecting ratings on leadership behaviour. It consists of 23 question items, which are
designed to measure the employees’ perceptions of transformational leadership behaviour of
their managers on six dimensions – a) articulating a vision (five items, coded AV1 to AV5),
b) providing an appropriate model (three items coded, RM1 to RM3), c) acceptance of group
goals (four items, coded AG1 to AG4), d) high performance expectations (three items, coded
HP1 to HP3), e) intellectual stimulation (four items, coded IST1 to IST4), and f)
individualized support (four items, coded IS1 to IS4). Respondents were asked to answer the
TLI by judging how intensely their manager displayed the behaviours described in the
questionnaire, using a seven-point scale (1=minimum extent, and 7= maximum extent).
Organisational Commitment Scale
Organisational Commitment Scale developed by Meyer et al. (1993) has been used to
measure affective, continuance, and normative organisational commitment. The scale has 18
items, with six items for each of the three factors- affective (items coded as AC 1 to AC 6),
continuance (items coded as CC 1 to CC 6), and normative (items coded as NC 1 to NC 6)
organisational commitment. Responses to each item were made on a 7-point scale with
anchors labeled (1=strongly disagree, and 7=strongly agree). The psychometric properties of
the instrument have been validated in number of studies (Meyer & Allen 1997). The scores
for the six items in each scale provided a total, and a mean score for each one of the scales
indicated the level of affective, continuance, and normative organisational commitment.
Control variables
Prior studies have demonstrated that demographic variables are potential predictors of
organisational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac 1990; Meyer et al. 2002). Based on prior
studies, we controlled for age, gender, marital status, educational level, and positional tenure
in the hierarchical multiple regression analysis. To avoid multicollinearity, organisational
tenure which was another demographic variable affecting commitment was dropped from the
analysis by us because it correlated highly with age.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Internal consistency and validity
The internal consistency reliability coefficient of the instrument (TLI) was assessed using
Cronbach alpha. Cronbach alpha for factor individualized support was found to be 0.54. As it
was below 0.60 criterion which, according to Nunnally & Bersnstein (1994) is an acceptable
level of reliability for social sciences, the factor ‘individualized support’ was dropped from
the scale. The internal consistency reliability coefficient of the instrument for other five
factors ranged between 0.85 and 0.91.
The alpha coefficients for the Organisational Commitment Construct in this study showed
values 0.89 for affective commitment, 0.70 for continuance commitment, and 0.81 for
normative commitment scale. However, alpha in case of continuance commitment scale could
improve to 0.83 by deleting one item from it. So to get a more refined scale, this item i.e. ‘if I
22
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
Volume 15 No. 1
had not put so much of myself into this bank, I might consider working elsewhere’ was
deleted. The reliability coefficients for all the dimensions of Organisational Commitment
Scale exceeded 0.60 criterion of acceptable level of reliability
Factor analysis was performed to establish the discriminant validity of the Transformational
Leadership, and Organisational Commitment constructs. Table 1 presents the results of factor
analysis.
Table 1: Transformational Leadership and Organisational Commitment Constructs:
Principal Component Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation
Variables
AV1
AV2
AV3
AV4
AV5
RM1
RM2
RM3
AG1
AG2
AG3
AG4
HP1
HP2
HP3
IST1
IST2
IST3
IST4
AC1
AC2
AC3
AC4
AC5
AC6
CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
NC1
NC2
NC3
NC4
NC5
NC6
Eigen Value
Variance Explained
Factor1
.714
.728
.759
.780
.814
.781
.762
.759
.776
.772
.785
.777
.641
.644
.625
.719
.732
.735
.753
. 404
. 431
.322
.346
.355
.321
.077
.113
.074
.004
.053
.109
.137
.177
.214
.194
.190
15.19
42.19%
Factor 2
.300
.300
.282
.201
.187
.269
.264
.240
.276
.264
.257
.142
.136
.188
.122
.110
.112
.097
.129
.627
.605
.775
.738
.599
.698
.118
-.013
-.072
.035
.045
.272
.199
.062
.091
.102
.214
3.01
8.39%
Factor 3
.179
.136
.140
.190
.155
.084
.100
.171
.098
.094
.186
.151
.175
.153
.212
.183
.138
.192
.161
.333
.219
.148
.191
.240
.239
.014
.060
.077
.030
.106
.627
.565
.802
.687
.761
.593
2.47
6.87%
Factor 4
.005
.045
.064
.105
.110
.090
.088
.077
.030
.008
.034
.001
-.026
.016
.020
.064
.067
.062
.017
.094
.053
.008
-.018
.073
-.054
.803
.854
.790
.701
.617
.004
-.103
.087
.122
.059
.110
1.47
4.11%
23
Sandhu & Kaur
Augmenting Subordinates Commitment: The Role
of Transformational Leadership
Principal component analysis was selected in order to avoid assumptions regarding an
underlying causal model (Nunnally 1978). A scree test (Cattell 1966) of the varimax rotated
factor structure indicated a 4-factor solution which accounted for 61.5% of the total variance.
A minimum factor loading of 0.30 (Nunnally 1978) was used as a yardstick for considering an
item to load on a particular factor. As may be observed from Table 1, there was minimal
problem with double loading of items which clearly attest to the discriminant validity of the
variables. However, all items of TLI had very high loadings on a single transformational
scale, indicating the inability of the instrument to distinguish between different factors of
transformational leadership.
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations and the pattern of correlations between
variables in the study.
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix.
Variables
Mean
S.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. Age
40.30
11.75
-
2. Gender
1.22
.41
-35**
-
3. MS
1.79
.41
.63**
-37**
-
4. Edu.
1.61
.78
-25**
.14**
-.18**
-
5. Pos. Ten.
7.25
8.23
.52**
-.10**
.33**
-.12**
-
6. AC
4.91
1.15
.24**
-.08*
.09*
-.16**
.05
-
7. CC
4.74
1.02
.25**
-.10**
.17**
-.08*
.05
.10**
-
8. NC
4.94
1.09
.44**
-.07
.22**
-.23**
.17**
.54**
.16**
-
9. TL
4.91
1.16
.25**
-.06
.07*
-.18**
.08*
.69**
.17**
.47**
** p