101
LEADERSHIP CHANGE AND EMPLOYEE
COMMITMENT:AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF
TRANSFORMATIONAL AND
TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP STYLE
IN A UNIVERSITY
Justice Ngwama
Crawford University, Nigeria
Joshua Ogaga-Oghene
Crawford University, Nigeria
Received: April 7, 2022 Accepted: June 8, 2022 Online Published: July 10, 2022
Abstract
Lack of employee commitment may be a critical threat to organizational survival and
growth. Private Christian mission owned universities seem to be grappling with survival
and growth threats associated with a lack of employee commitment, which is likely to be
causing inefficient daily operations, delay tasks completion, fostering customer
dissatisfaction, and sabotaging revenue generation initiatives. The study examined the
extent to which transformational and transactional leadership styles influence employee
commitment in a Nigerian private Christian mission university. Survey research design
was used for the study. The target population was 774 full-time employees of the University.
The sample size of 89 respondents consisted of faculty and non-teaching staff and was
determined using the Taro Yamane formula. The Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire (OCQ) and Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) were employed
as data collection instruments. The study employed proportional and simple random
sampling methods to allocate and distribute the questionnaires to respondents. Correlation
coefficient and simple regression analysis were used to analyse data. The findings
suggested that transformational and transactional leadership styles significantly affected
employee commitment. The findings implied that the social and economic exchange
relationship fostered by transformational and transactional leadership behaviours in
organizations promote employee emotional attachment and inspires them to be dedicated
to its goals. The study recommended that organizations' leaders should consciously create
work environments that promote employee trust, responsible, and productivity behaviours.
International Journal of Economic Behavior, vol. 12 n. 1, 2022, 101-121.
https://doi.org/10.14276/2285-0430.3382
102
Keywords: Transactional leadership; Transformational leadership; Employee
commitment; Affective commitment; Inspirational motivation.
1. Introduction
Lack of employee commitment may be a critical threat to an organization's survival and
growth. It is likely to hinder efficient daily operations, task completion, foster customer
dissatisfaction, and rupture the organizational bottom line. Perhaps, the 21st-century role of
human resource managers to motivate and retain a productive workforce is increasingly
complex. The globalization of the workforce may have created difficulties for managers in
attracting and retaining talented employees and fostering an enabling organizational
climate where employees can make meaningful contributions to organizational goals as
long-term competitive resources. Employee commitment is believed to be a vital resource
for achieving corporate objectives considering that employees may be instrumental to the
efficient and effective combination of the organization's resources in its quest to improve
organizational effectiveness (Gberevbie, Joshua, Excellence-Oluye, & Oyeyemi, 2017;
Shuck, Reio & Rocco, 2011; Ugochukwu & Egwuatu, 2021; Zareiea & Navimipour, 2016).
Employee commitment is conceptualized as an employee’s passionate affection for the
organization expressed in his devotion to help it achieve its objectives continually (Ongori,
2007). Expressed differently, it is a prevailing devoted relationship between employees and
an organization reflected in employees' resolve to identify with the mission and vision of
the organization they serve by productively remaining in its employment (Karami,
Farokhzadian, & Foroughameri, 2017; Loor-Zambrano, Santos-Roldán, & Palacios-
Florencio, 2022). According to Sharma, et al. (2021), employee commitment refers to the
intention to behave beneficially to the organization, which may be demonstrated by going
beyond the call of duty to show that they are proud to work for the organization.
Perhaps, the prevailing functional environment of organizations is very dynamic.
Potentially, internal and external forces such as strategic vision, technological changes,
globalization, expanding customer expectations, economic, political, and regulatory
conditions may create an unstable business environment. The continuous environmental
changes may be responsible for constant operational reviews and changes in organizational
structure, processes, management team, and leadership style changes.
Interestingly, despite the belief that employees are a vital organizational resource to
accomplish organizational effectiveness, many public and private organizations appear to
ignore employee work-related attitudinal responses when contemplating and implementing
management team changes and the aftermath of the change in leadership style. According
to Cook, Hunsaker, Coffey (2001, p.491), leadership is the act of providing direction and
energizing others by obtaining their voluntary commitment to the vision of an organization.
It is a process by which a person at the helm of affairs of an organization influences
subordinates to accomplish organizational objectives and directs the organization in a way
that makes it more cohesive and coherent (Acar, 2012).
However, leadership style is described as the behaviour used by a leader to motivate
the subordinates to strive to achieve the organization’s objectives (Mwaura, Thinguri, &
Mwangi, 2014). The leadership literature presents a plethora of leadership styles which
includes transformational and transactional leadership styles. Transformational leadership
seeks to encourage employees to develop their full potentials, moralities, and motivation
(Bass & Avolio, 1994; Ismail, Mohamed, Sulaiman, Mohamad, & Yusuf, 2011).
103
Transactional leadership style refers to behaviors where the leader rewards employees for
high effort and good performance or sanction them if their work results are unsatisfactory
(Bass, 1985). Thus, incentive structures are used to increase employees’ attainment of
organizational goals in a transactional leadership setting.
The scholarly claim that organizational effectiveness may be an outcome of the link
between employee commitment and leadership styles has elicited several empirical studies.
Generally, the contexts of most studies were in typical business organizations including
some of the few studies conducted in Nigeria (Acar, 2012; Asgari, 2014; Alemayehu &
Batisa, 2020; Awoyemi, 2018; Fasola, Adeyemi, & Olowe, 2013; Ugochukwu & Egwuatu,
2021). Besides, studies based on Nigerian higher education institutions are rare, and the
few did not focus on private universities, especially universities operated by religious
organizations (Nweke, Okoye, & Dike-Aghanya, 2021). Considering the presence of
ecclesiastical footprints in the work environment of universities run by religious
organizations and the increasing roles and significance of private universities to national
manpower development, private universities will be a veritable setting for new insights on
the link between employee commitment and leadership styles. Johns (2006) avers that
context affects organizational behavior and the neglect of contextual influence can affect
research outcomes. Also, scholars seem to have unresolved tension on the leadership style
and employee commitment link arising from the conflicting findings of extant studies
(Alemayehu & Batisa, 2020: Mclaggan, 2013).
Thus, this paper’s objective is to examine what is the extent to which transformational
and transactional leadership styles affect employee commitment in a private Christian
mission university. It also aims to fill the seeming contextual neglect of ecclesiastical-
owned private universities in extant studies and empirically account for the likely
implications of a leadership change on organizational employee commitment.
Additionally, we respond to the need for more studies to resolve the ongoing scholarly
tension on the relationship between leadership styles and employee commitment.
Hence, the following research questions guide the study:
RQ1. What is the effect of idealized influence on affective commitment in in a
private Christian Mission University?
RQ2. What is the effect of inspirational motivation on continuance commitment
in a private Christian Mission University?
RQ3. What is the effect of contingent reward on affective commitment in a
private Christian Mission University?
RQ4. What is the effect of management by exception on continuance commitment
in a private Christian Mission University?
The subsequent sections of this article review the concepts of employee commitment,
transformational and transactional leadership styles. Also, the theoretical basis of the study
is explained. Next, is a review of prior empirical studies on the relationship between
employee commitment and leadership styles. Afterwards, the research method and data
analysis process are explained. Thereafter, the result of our findings is presented and
104
discussed. Finally, the study’s conclusions, contributions, implications and suggestions for
future research are presented.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Employee Commitment
Research shows that employee commitment has been conceptualised from diverse
perspectives. Akanbi & Itiola (2013) considered employee commitment as the level to
which employees associate with their organization and contribute to organizational efforts
to achieve stipulated goals and objectives. This viewpoint aligns with Mensah, Akuoko &
Ellis (2016), who stated that employee commitment is the level to which an employee is
proud to be identified as an employee of an organization and the amount of enthusiasm
exhibited in fulfilling his job roles. Moreover, Steyrer, Schiffinger & Lang (2008) consider
employee commitment as the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and
involvement in a particular organization.
Aydin, Sarier, & Uysal (2011) explained the characteristics of employee commitment
as an explicit aspiration to retain organizational affiliation, association with the aims and
achievements of the organization. It includes employee loyalty and a disposition to exercise
significant effort towards attaining corporate purposes. Akintayo (2010) avers that
employee commitment is the extent to which workers feel dedicated to serving the interest
of their employers. Ongori (2007) points out that employee commitment is the emotional
attachment or loyalty employees have for the organization. As conceptualized by these
authors, employee commitment suggests that it involves demonstrated employee loyalty
and engrossment in accomplishing assigned tasks towards achieving organizational
objectives.
Perhaps Meyer & Allen (1991, 1997) advanced the most comprehensive concept of
employee commitment and upheld by Meyer, Stanley & Parfyonova (2012). He used a
three-dimensional approach to define employee commitment. In their view, employee
commitment has affective, normative, and continuance elements. The affective aspect of
employee commitment refers to a passionate attachment to and membership of an
organization. Affective commitment is perceived from an employee's unreserved
willingness to remain in the organization's employment and devotion to achieving its goals.
According to Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova, normative commitment is apparent when
employees keep their employment with an organization out of a sense of moral duty and
obligation. This mindset is born out of the employee's belief that the organization expects
him to be loyal, probably because the organization has invested so much in him. Furthering
their discourse on the concept of employee commitment, Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova
avers that continuance commitment is a cognitive attachment of an employee to an
organization because of the individual's perceived costs associated with resigning his
membership of the organization. The foregoing suggests that an organization may face
three variants of employee commitment to manage.
Employee commitment is believed to facilitate service quality improvement because
it engenders employee satisfaction, loyalty, responsible and productive behaviors (Yilmaz
& Çokluk-Bökeoğlu, 2008). It can propel employees to undertake voluntary actions
necessary for organizational life and entrench high standard systems. Besides, employee
commitment may encourage organizational citizenship behavior leading to innovations
105
with competitive advantages (Park, Christie & Sype, 2014). Moreover, it can enhance
knowledge sharing among employees to facilitate adaptation to changing business
environments for long-term success (Demirel & Goc, 2013). In the same vein, Visagie &
Steyn (2011) declared that employee commitment is critical to the success of organizational
change initiatives because of employees' passionate involvement with the organization.
Consequently, because of the bond employees experience with their organization, the
challenges associated with high rate of employee turnover may be reduced. A committed
employee is usually loyal and concerned about the organization's future, making extra
efforts to achieve organizational growth.
2.2. Leadership Styles
The organizational leadership literature suggests that leadership is a critical factor that
determines the success or failure of an organization. According to Rivai (2017), leadership
style is the behavioural disposition of leaders towards subordinates to influence them to
contribute to efforts to achieve organizational effectiveness meaningfully. It entails the art
of inspiring people to bring about beneficial changes in organizations and helps employees
to be responsive to the leaders’ directives and expectations (DuBrin, 2019; Nurani, Samdin,
Nasrul, & Sukotjo, 2021)). Moreover, the literature presents several leadership styles which
impact organizational success. Transformational and transactional leadership styles feature
prominently in the literature as organizational leadership paradigms with significant
potential to influence employee commitment and organizational outcomes.
2.2.1 Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is conceptualised as a leadership style that seeks to encourage
employees to develop their full potentials, moralities, and motivation (Bass & Avolio,
1994; Ismail, Mohamed, Sulaiman, Mohamad, & Yusuf, 2011). It implies that the leader
inspires subordinates to change their perception, behaviour, morals, ideas, interests, and
values to embrace selflessness and be devoted to surpassing prescribed organizational goals
in their job roles. Similarly, Bass & Riggio (2006), cited in Fok-Yew (2015), explained
that transformational leadership involves a leadership disposition to constantly stimulate
and inspire underlings to achieve exceptional outcomes and, in the process, develop their
leadership abilities. It suggests that transformational leadership encourages changes
regarding how organizational goals are accomplished. According to Lee, Cheng, Yeung,
& Lai (2011), transformational leadership entails clear vision articulation, linking
individual and collective interests, and providing subordinates with necessary props to
achieve organizational goals.
There are four significant characteristics associated with transformational leadership.
They are intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, idealized influence, and
inspirational motivation (Bass & Avolio, 1997; Nweke, Okoye, & Dike-Aghanya, 2021).
A leader is deemed intellectually stimulating if his disposition impresses and encourages
subordinates to attempt novel and creative work approaches. It implies the extent to which
a leader inspires associates to challenge prevailing assumptions and engage in risk-taking
actions (Lee, Cheng, Yeung, & Lai, 2011). Leadership behaviour characterised by attentive
coaching or mentoring aimed at developing subordinates' potentials and enabling self-
actualisation is referred to as individualised consideration. It promotes practices that link
employee achievement and growth needs with organizational strategy and goals by
106
assigning more responsibilities (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). Idealised influence
refers to a leader perceived as charismatic, confident, ethical, mission-oriented,
trustworthy, respectable, and exemplary behaviourally (Lee, et al., 2011). Inspirational and
motivating leaders are deemed to be skilful at articulating organizational vision in ways
that motivate employees to buy into the vision and strengthen their resolve to achieve
superior outcomes. Inspirational motivation implies that leaders behave in ways that
motivate and inspire those around them by injecting meaning and challenge into their
followers' tasks (Silva & Mendis, 2017).
In sum, transformational leaders exert considerable efforts to inspire and motivate their
employees by creating vivid pictures of achievable goals. They are perceived as
outstanding role models, and their followers emulate most of their actions. Moreover, they
activate self-confidence in their followers, empowering them to strive for extraordinary
performance in their tasks (Barth-Farkas & Vera, 2014). Transformational leadership is
considered a leadership model with the potential to foster more significant follower
commitment than other models.
2.2.2 Transactional Leadership
According to Aga (2016), transactional leadership is characterised by an exchange practice
predicated on fulfilling contractual obligations. It involves setting objectives, monitoring,
and controlling outcomes. In a transactional leadership context, the leader and follower
agree on what roles and tasks the follower must accomplish. The bargain can include the
material or psychological rewards the leader will provide the follower for completing the
agreed tasks. Humphreys (2001) noted that a reward system is a prominent characteristic
of transactional leadership. The reward system acts as an incentive for employees to
achieve organizational goals. Transactional leaders are prone to appeal to the self-interest
of their workers as a means to stir them towards the pursuit and achievement of set goals.
Leaders who employ the transactional leadership model help their subordinates to take
cognizance of their responsibilities and the prescribed goals to achieve. Also, they motivate
their followers by developing their self-confidence about attaining expected levels of
performance (Lo, Ramayah, Min, & Songan, 2010).
Transactional leadership is described in terms of two characteristics: the use of
contingent rewards and management by exception (Antonakis, Avolio, &
Sivasubramaniam, 2003). They described contingent reward as the leader's reward to
bestow the subordinate once the latter has achieved the predetermined goals. According to
Rawung, Wuryaningrant, & Elvinita, (2015), exception management is a leader’s
corrective or evaluative response to employees on the job mistakes. Thus, transactional
leadership emphasises the task-related exchange of actions and rewards between followers
and leaders. Udayanga (2020) suggests that transactional leadership involves two
significant dimensions, namely task orientation and people orientation. He describes task-
oriented leaders as persons with minor concerns for employee growth or personal
satisfaction. They seem to have a penchant for assigning specific tasks, specifying
procedures, scheduling work and clarifying expectations, encouraging hard work,
emphasising deadlines, driving full capacity utilisation, and closely supervising employees.
Conversely, people-oriented transactional leadership is characterised by a leadership
orientation that creates an environment of emotional support, warmth, friendliness, and
trust.
107
Through the contingent reward mechanisms, transactional leaders can elicit from
employees a significant level of commitment, loyalty, organizational involvement, and
productivity (Awoyemi, 2018; Garg & Ramjee, 2013, Wiza & Hlanganipai, 2014; Silva &
Mendis, 2017). The leader's commitment to fulfilling reward promises such as enhanced
pay, recognition, promotion, bonuses, etc., can facilitate the leader's organizational goals.
Additionally, management by exception enables leaders to monitor and control the quality
of job outputs. In times of relative goal stability, transactional leadership appears to be
more expedient at securing employee commitment (Aga, 2016).
Based on the above, transactional leadership is perceived as a leadership model
involving commensurate employee loyalty and productivity in response to incentives. The
reward is based on predetermined expectations agreed to between leaders and followers.
The individual work-related desires of employees are satisfied in the form of recognition,
pay increase, promotion, and bonuses.
2.3 Theoretical Review
2.3.1 Social Exchange Theory
The social exchange theory professes that a mutual bond is activated as persons who incur
obligations reciprocate in social interaction (Blau, 1964; Mugizi, Bakkabulindi, & Bisaso,
2015). The concept of social exchange theory suggests that when employers and employees
interact, there is a tangible or intangible social exchange that may be more rewarding or
costly to either of the parties. The organization management literature avers that one of the
characteristics of organizations is being a social system comprising people with a defined
purpose to which all members subscribe. Norms and rules regulate the behavior of
organizational members. As organizations make and enforce human resource management-
related rules and practices, employees respond with behaviors that impact corporate
purposes (Marescaux, De Winne, & Sels, 2013). Thus, organizations can motivate
employees to achieve organizational goals through leadership styles that recognize
employees' social exchange-related aspirations.
Doubtlessly, employees play essential roles in the actualization of organizational
purposes, and there are ensuing social exchanges emanating from their roles. From the
standpoint of employee workplace-related behavioral research, social exchange theory
offers a paradigm to evaluate and understand how leadership styles can influence employee
attitude as organizations seek to achieve their objectives. Geetha & Mampilly (2012)
suggest that HRM practices serve as organizations' commitment to employees, reciprocated
with positive work attitudes such as loyalty and trust.
2.4 Empirical Review
2.4.1 Leadership Style and Employee Commitment
Leadership styles and employee commitment has been a subject of interest in the leadership
and management literature. Researchers within diverse contexts have empirically explored
it. Many studies reported a positive relationship, while others found the relationship
negative.
Abasilim, Gberevbie, & Osibanjo (2019) examined the relationship between
leadership styles and employees’ commitment. The study used correlation and regression
analysis to analyse the surveyed data sourced from 97 employees of the Lagos State Civil
Service Commission. The authors reported a positive relationship between leadership
108
styles and employee commitment. Specifically, the report revealed that the association
between transformational leadership style and employee commitment is significantly
positive. However, transactional leadership style is negatively related to employees'
commitment and is insignificant.
Ugochukwu & Egwuatu (2021) used Pearson Product moment correlation to assess
how leadership style affects employee commitment in the banking sector of Anambra State,
Nigeria. The data used for the study was sourced through structured questionnaires
administered to 507 employees. The study’s outcome showed a significant positive
relationship between transactional leadership style and affective commitment, while the
connection between transformational leadership and continuance commitment was
significantly positive.
Dariush, Choobdar, Valadkhani, & Mehrali (2016) studied the relationship between
leadership styles and employee commitment dimensions. Their study was based on a
sample of 223 employees of a government agency in Tehran, Iran. The multi-factorial
leadership questionnaire (MLQ) and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire
(OCQ) were deployed as data collection tools. At the same time, structural equation
modeling and Pearson Correlation Coefficient were used to analyze data. The results
showed that transformational leadership was positively related to affective, normative, and
continuance commitments. Similarly, the results indicated that transactional leadership is
positively and significantly associated with continuance and normative commitments.
Jekelle (2021) explored how leadership styles affect employee commitment. A cross-
sectional survey was conducted of 151 employees at a public sector agency in Abuja,
Nigeria. The research engaged a quantitative approach to collect data using a questionnaire
and analyzed the data with simple regression analysis. The author reported a positive
relationship between transformational leadership and employee commitment. Similarly,
the result of the association for transactional leadership was positive.
Alemayehu & Batisa (2020) analyzed surveyed data of 136 employees of three
transport companies from the Wolita and Dawro zones of Ethiopia using Pearson
Correlation Coefficient and simple regression analysis. The study's objective was to
determine the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership styles and
the three dimensions of employee commitment (affective, continuance, and normative).
The researchers reported that transformational leadership significantly affected affective
and normative commitment, but not continuance commitment. Besides, the effect was more
substantial on affective commitment. Also, transactional leadership positively impacted
affective, continuance, and normative commitments individually.
Chully & Sandhya (2016) used correlation and simple regression as statistical tools to
analyze data from a sample of 308 faculty members of Bangalore-based higher education
institutions. The authors aimed at determining how the perceived transformational
leadership behavior of departmental heads impact members of faculty's affective
commitment. The study showed a significant positive relationship between perceived
transformational leadership and affective commitment.
Nurani, Samdin, Nasrul, & Sukotjo (2021) empirically examined the effect of
leadership style on employee commitment and employee performance using an Indonesian
institution as context. The sample consisted of 94 respondents, and SEM Smart PLS was
engaged to analyze the data. The study’s outcome showed that leadership style positively
and significantly affected employee commitment. It implies that organizational leadership
is a significant factor in fostering and sustaining employee commitment.
109
Fasola, Adeyemi, & Olowe (2013) undertook a study to ascertain the impact of the
respective dimensions of transformational and transactional leadership styles on employee
commitment. The authors employed correlation coefficient and simple regressions to
examine data derived from their survey of 80 employees of 10 Nigerian banks through the
multi-factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) and organizational commitment
questionnaire (OCQ). The authors reported an insignificant positive relationship between
transformational leadership styles and employee commitment, while the link between
transactional leadership and employee commitment was significantly positive. They noted
that Nigerian bank employees are more responsive to transactional leadership in their
commitment than to the transformational leadership approach.
Shurbagi (2014) showed that the relationship between transformational leadership and
employee commitment is a strong and positive one. The study's outcome was based on
regression analyzed data sourced from a sample of 227 Libya’s national oil corporation
employees using the multi-factor leadership (MLQ) and organizational commitment
questionnaires (OCQ). The study also revealed that idealized influence and normative
commitment recorded the highest correlation among the various dimensions of
transformational leadership and employee commitment. Comparatively, intellectual
stimulation and affective commitment recorded the weakest relationship.
Wiza & Hlanganipai (2014) employed surveyed data of 160 university academic staff
of South African-based institutions to investigate the effect of leadership styles on
employees' commitment. The data were analyzed using Spearman correlation analysis. The
study's findings revealed that affective and continuance employee commitment dimensions
were significantly and positively impacted by transformational leadership style.
Conversely, normative commitment was significantly and positively affected by
transactional leadership style.
Garg & Ramjee (2013) employed the multi-factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) and
the organizational commitment questionnaire (OCQ) to collect data from 197 employees
of selected South African public agencies. Their study examined the relationship between
leadership style and employee commitment using the two-tailed Pearson analysis to make
inferences from the data collected. Garg and Ramjee showed that the effect of
transformational leadership on affective, normative, and continuance commitment is weak
positively and significantly so. However, transactional leadership had a weak but
significant positive correlation with normative commitment.
Overall, findings from available empirical literature suggest that leadership styles
significantly influence the various dimensions of employee commitment.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design, Sample, and Data Collection
The study employed a survey research design to establish a causal relationship between
variables. The study's population consisted of 440 faculty and 334 non-teaching staff of a
private university in the South West of Nigeria. The sample size of 89 was determined
using the Yamane (1967) formula on sample size determination with a 10% level of
precision. The Yamane sample calculation is a way to determine the sample size for a study.
It is an ideal method to use for survey research and when the population is finite (Uakarn,
Chaokromthong, & Sintao, 2021). The Yamane sample size states that:
110
n = 𝑁𝑁
1+𝑁𝑁 (𝑒𝑒)2
(1)
Where:
n = Sample Size
N = Population = 774
e = Allowable error = 0.10
Hence, 774
1 + 774 (0.10)2
n = 88.56
n = 89 respondents
Primary data was generated using the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire
(OCQ) (Meyer & Allen, 1997) and the Multifactor Leadership Style Questionnaire (MLQ)
(Bass & Avolio, 1997). Both questionnaires were adopted because they have been widely
used and recommended for their sound psychometric properties (Fasola, Adeyemi, &
Olowe, 2013; Shurbagi, 2014). The results of prior evaluative studies (Cronbach alpha and
confirmatory factor analysis) of both research instruments were used to assess the
reliability and validity of both instruments. The OCQ's composite Cronbach alpha was
0.91. At the same time, the construct validity, namely RMR, GFI, TLI, CFI, and RMSEA,
indicated models fit (Jonathan, 2020). The composite Cronbach alpha of the MLQ was
0.82, and the validity indices showed models fit (Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2008; Ugu &
Okojie, 2016). Consequently, Ugu & Okojie (2016) avers thus: “…in sum, the MLQ (Form
5X) developed by Bass and Avolio (1997), has proven successful in adequately capturing
the full leadership factor constructs of transformational and transactional leadership
theory… the coefficient alpha of reliability were generally significant and above the
minimum target of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978), and the correlation of the construct showed that
the instrument was robust, reliable and valid for assessing the leadership style in Nigeria.”
Both questionnaires employed a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1= strongly
disagree; to 5= strongly agree) to measure the study's variables. Employee commitment
was measured using two elements of the OCQ (affective and continuance) commitment,
respectively. Transformational leadership was measured through two dimensions of the
leadership approach (idealized influence and inspirational motivation), while transactional
leadership was measured through contingent reward and management by exception. Three
indicators of the respective measuring instruments adopted were utilised to gauge
respondents' perceptions of each of the study's variables. Table 1 shows the sources of the
constructs and indicators.
Table 1 − Sources of constructs and indicators
Variables Construct Source
Employee
commitment
Affective commitment
continuance commitment
Adopted from Meyer & Allen
(1997)
Transformational
leadership
Idealized influence inspirational
motivation
Adopted from Bass & Avolio
(1997)
Transactional
leadership
Contingent reward management
by exception
Adopted from Bass & Avolio
(1997)
The study adopted proportional and simple random sampling technique in the selection
of respondents. The faculty and non-teaching staff of a private university in the South West
111
of Nigeria were classified as distinct groups, according to the University’s employee
classification. Subsequent to the stratification of the target population, simple random
sampling technique was used to select a representative sample from the respective groups.
The proportionate size of their respective population was the bases for the distribution of
the research instrument to each employee category (Kassa &Raju, 2014; Kothari 2010).
Table 2 shows the proportionate allocation of the data collection instrument.
Table 2 − Proportional Distribution of Research Questionnaire
S/N Employee Group Number Proportion % Allocated Questionnaire
1. Faculty 440 57* 51*
2. Non-teaching 334 43** 38**
Total 774 100 89
* 440/774 x 100 = 57%. * 57/100 x 89 = 51.
** 334/774 x 100 = 43%. ** 43/100 x 89 = 38.
The researcher personally administered the survey instruments to 51 teaching and 38
non-teaching employees of a private university in the South West of Nigeria using
proportional and simple random sampling methods. The field survey lasted for a period of
two months and the response rate was 85% (76 returned questionnaires). Table 3 shows
respondent’s demographic data.
Table 3 − The Socio-Demographic Data of Respondents
Description Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 51 67.1
Female 25 32.9
Age
21-30 8 10.5
31-40 14 18.4
41-50 36 47.4
51-60 17 22.4
61 and above 1 1.3
Respondents’ highest education
PhD 47 61.8
Masters 19 25.0
PGD 3 4.0
BSc/HND 7 9.2
Respondents’ educational background
Business Administration 11 14.5
Sciences 19 25.0
Humanities/Arts 9 11.8
Engineering 15 19.7
Social Sciences 22 29.0
Respondents’ length of employment (years)
1-5 12 15.8
6-10 18 23.7
11-15 27 35.5
16-20 19 25.0
112
3.2 Data Analysis Method
The dependent variable for this study was employee commitment measured as affective
and continuance commitment. Independent variables were transformational (idealized
influence and inspirational motivation) and transactional (contingent reward and
management by exception) leadership styles. Based on the study's objectives, the collected
data was analysed with simple linear regression to determine the level of influence
independent variables have on dependent variables. The fitness test of the regression model
was conducted with SPSS 23.0. The model fitness was estimated using the coefficient of
determination, which helped explain how closely the predictor variables explain the
variations in the dependent variable. A p-value of 5 percent significance level was
determined as a basis for deciding on the directional relationship of independent and
dependent variables.
3.3 Model Specification
Y = f(x)
Y is the dependent variable, i.e., Employee Commitment
Hence Y = (y1, y2)
X is the independent variable i.e. transformational leadership and transactional leadership
Hence X = (x1, x2, x3, x4)
Where:
y1 = Affective Commitment (AC)
y2 = Continuance Commitment (CC)
x1 = Idealized Influence (IF)
x2 = Inspirational Motivation (IM)
x3 = Contingent Reward (CR)
x4 = Management by Exception (ME)
a0 = is the intercept or constant in the equation
β1 = regression co-efficient of x1
β2 = regression co-efficient of x2
β3 = regression co-efficient of x3
β4= regression co-efficient of x4
ei = error term
Expressed in its functional form:
AC = a0+β1IF+ei (i)
CC = a0+β2IM+ei (ii)
AC = a0+β3CR+ei (iii)
CC = a0+β4ME+ei (iv)
4. Result and Discussion
4.1 Results
4.1.1 Idealized Influence and Affective Commitment
The result in Table 4 (R-squared = 0.905) emanating from the model summary of the
relationship between idealized influence and employees' affective commitment indicated
that variations in the perceived idealized influence of leadership accounted for 90.5 percent
113
of the observable changes in affective employees' commitment. It connotes a very high-
level positive correlation (R= 0.952) between this approach to leadership and its outcome
on employee commitment level. From the analysis of the variance result (Table 5), it was
seen that the estimated model of affective commitment was found to be statistically
significant (F-statistics= 2163.9; P-value = 0.00) at 1 percent and thus provides statistical
validation for the result of the relationship between idealized influence and affective
employee commitment.
The analysis of the coefficient estimates of the relationship between idealized
influence and affective commitment in Table 6 portrayed a significant direct impact of this
element of transformational leadership style on employees' affective commitment. The
detailed analysis of the effect of idealized influence on employees' affective commitment
(Beta = 0.952; T-statistics= 46.5; P-value =0.000) showed that 95.2 percent of affective
employees' commitment was traceable to idealized influence. The result demonstrated that
transformational leadership style influences employees' commitment level towards
actualizing organizational objectives.
Table 4 − Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
.952a .905 .905 .387
a. Predictor: (constant), idealized influence
Table 5 − ANOVAa
Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 324.571 1 324.571 2163.884 .000b
Residual 33.899 226 .150
Total 358.469 227
a. Dependent Variable: affective commitment
b. Predictor: (constant, idealized influence
Table 6 − Coefficients
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std.
Error
Beta
1
(Constant) -.439 .083 -5.314 .000
Idealized influence 1.102 .024 .952 46.518 .000
a. Dependent Variable: affective commitment
4.1.2 Inspirational Motivation and Continuance Commitment
The result of the model summary (R-Square=0.633) in Table 7 showed that 63.3 percent of
the changes in continuance commitment as a gauge of employees’ commitment was
attributed to inspirational motivation as a measure of transformational leadership style. The
correlation (R=0.795) implied a significant positive relationship between inspirational
motivation and continuance commitment.
114
The ANOVA result (Table 8) indicated that the estimated model of continuance
commitment was statistically significant (F-statistic=389.4; P-value<0.01) at a 1 percent
significance level. The result implied a significant positive relationship between
inspirational motivation as a dimension of transformational leadership style and
continuance commitment as a measure of employees’ commitment. The analysis of the
coefficients (Table 9) showed a positive impact of (T-statistics =19.733; Beta coefficient
=0.795; P-value= 0.000) 79.5 percent of inspirational motivation on continuance
commitment. Hence, through the inspirational motivation of employees, the evel of
employees' continuance commitment is significantly enhanced. The result showed that
transformational leadership style could be considered a significant factor that boosts
employees' workplace commitment.
Table 7 − Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .795a .633 .631 .773
a. Predictor: (constant), inspirational motivation
Table 8 − ANOVAa
Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 232.684 1 232.684 389.391 .000
b
Residual 135.048 226 .598
Total 367.732 227
a. Dependent Variable: continuance commitment
b. Predictor: (constant, inspirational motivation
Table 9 − Coefficients
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) -1.270 .210 -6.034 .000
Inspirational motivation 1.109 .056 .795 19.733 .000
a. Dependent Variable: continuance commitment
4.1.3 Contingency Reward and Affective Commitment
The model result in Table 10 showed a strong correlation between contingency reward and
affective commitment. It is further seen that 89.8 percent of the changes in affective
commitment were traceable to contingency reward. The ANOVA (Table 11) result showed
that the strong correlation between contingency reward and affective commitment is
statistically valid at a 1 percent level of significance (F-statistic =1997.1; P-value =0.000).
The analysis of the coefficient results in Table 12 showed a significant impact of 94.8
percent of contingency reward on affective commitment (Beta coefficient = 0.948; t-
statistics = 44.68; P-value<0.01). Hence, utilizing more contingency rewards as a
leadership style will significantly enhance affective commitment in an organization.
115
Table 10 − Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .948a .898 .898 .402
a. Predictor: (constant), contingency reward
Table 11 − ANOVAa
Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 322.027 1 322.027 1997.074 .000
b
Residual 36.442 226 .161
Total 358.469 227
a. Dependent Variable: affective commitment
b. Predictor: (constant), contingency reward
Table 12 − Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) -.305 .083 -3.669 .000
Contingency reward 1.030 .023 .948 44.689 .000
a. Dependent Variable: affective commitment
4.1.4 Management by Exception and Continuance Commitment
The model summary results in Table 13 indicated a strong positive relationship between
management by exception and continuance commitment. The result of the correlation
coefficient (R=0.813) showed the existence of a strong correlation between management
by exception and continuance commitment.
The statistical significance of the model (F-statistics = 441.6; P-value<0.01) at 1
percent level of significance in Table 14 suggested that the strong positive relationship
between management by exception and continuance commitment was statistically
confirmed. The coefficient estimates of the relationship between management by exception
and continuance commitment are shown in Table 15. The result indicated a significant
impact of 81.3 percent change in continuance commitment that was attributable to
management by exception (Beta coefficient = 0.813; T-statistic = 21.0; P-value <0.01) at
significant level of 1 percent. The result, therefore, suggested that management by
exception could be considered a significant leadership style that affects the continuance
commitment of employees in an organization.
Table 13 − Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .813a .661 .660 .742
a. Predictor: (constant), management by exception
116
Table 14 − ANOVAa
Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 243.236 1 243.236 441.551 .000b
Residual 124.496 226 .551
Total 367.732 227
a. Dependent Variable: continuance commitment
b. Predictor: (constant, management by exception
Table 15 − Coefficients
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) -.719 .173 -4.166 .000
Management by exception .927 .044 .813 21.013 .000
a. Dependent Variable: continuance commitment
4.2 Discussion
The regression results showed that idealized influence and inspirational motivation, which
are elements of transformational leadership, have a significant positive effect on affective
and continuance employee commitments. It reflects empirical persuasions that when
subordinates perceive a leader as a role model and a source of motivation, employees tend
to be emotionally attached to the organization and are inspired to give their devotion to its
goals. It implies that infusing challenges and meaning into job roles would ultimately
improve organizational effectiveness due to enhanced employee productivity and lower
absenteeism and turnover rates. The literature on leadership styles suggests that
transformational leadership styles affect employee commitment levels with implications
on organizational outcomes.
This study's result is consistent with Wiza & Hlanganipai (2014), whose findings
revealed that affective and continuance employee commitment was significantly and
positively impacted by transformational leadership style. Similarly, Jekelle (2021) reported
a significant positive relationship between transformational leadership style and employee
commitment. Nevertheless, to some extent, this study's result was inconsistent with the
findings of Alemayehu & Batisa (2020). They reported that transformational leadership
positively affected affective commitment but negatively related to continuance
commitment. The divergence in outcomes may be attributed to contextual and
methodological factors.
Furthermore, the analysed data for this study indicated that contingent reward is
positively related to affective commitment and significantly so. Also, the result showed
that management by exception has a significant positive relationship with continuance
commitment. This finding implies that transactional leadership facilitates positive work
attitudes and high performance by provoking employees to set and realize diverse work
targets, such as timely and efficient task completion, promotion, and salary upgrade.
Besides, the result suggests that the social and economic exchange relationship fostered by
transactional leadership behaviours such as the leader's clarification of the role and task
117
requirements for subordinates as well as the performance criteria and the rewards upon
accomplishing desired goals, promotes employees' emotional attachment to the
organization.
The findings agree with Xenikou (2017), which showed that employee affective
identification with an organization is influenced by evaluating the resources and rewards
that the organization offers to its employees through the transactional style of leadership.
Ugochukwu & Egwuatu (2021) and Alemayehu & Batisa (2020) also demonstrated a
positive link between transactional leadership and employee commitment. However, the
findings of Abasilim et al. (2019) showed that transactional leadership style is negatively
related to employees' commitment and is insignificant. Possible reasons for their differing
results may be the study's settings, methodological approach, and population
characteristics. Fasola, Adeyemi, & Olowe (2013) demonstrated that Nigerian bank
employees are more responsive to transactional leadership in their commitment than to the
transformational leadership approach.
5. Conclusion
We investigated the relationship between leadership styles and employee commitment by
examining sampled data of a higher education institution in Nigeria. The result suggested
that leadership style is positively related to employee commitment, particularly
transformational and transactional leadership styles. The overall findings indicated that
transformational and transactional leadership are complementary leadership approaches
facilitating organizational effectiveness. While transformational leadership behaviours
activate self-confidence in employees, empowering them to strive for extraordinary
performance in their tasks, transactional leadership helps to clarify employee roles, task
requirements, performance criteria, and the rewards upon accomplishing desired goals.
These leadership attributes promote employees' emotional attachment to the organization
leading to more positive work attitudes, extra effort, and higher employee performance.
The current study provides fresh insights into the literature on employee workplace
behaviour and the leadership paradigm. It contextually demonstrated that transformational
and transactional leadership styles encourage employees to identify with an organization
emotionally, fostering long-term positive work behaviours. The study's finding helped
resolve the prevailing tension on the leadership style and employee commitment link
arising from the conflicting results of extant studies by reinforcing empirical convictions
that there is a significant positive relationship between the variables. Also, the result
demonstrated that change in leadership style associated with changes in an organization’s
leadership can significantly affect employees’ devotion to the organization. Besides, the
study's outcome reaffirmed the social exchange theoretical postulations, which argued that
a mutual bond is activated when persons who incur obligations reciprocate in social
interaction.
The ensuing recommendation from this study's findings is that organizational leaders
should make conscious efforts to establish human resource policies and practices that foster
employee trust, responsible, and productive behaviours. The agreed exchanges between the
organization's leaders and subordinates should be fairly implemented as a means to
establish employee emotional attachment to the organization.
118
While this study has provided new insights into the nexus of leadership style and
employee commitment, future studies should address its limitations. First, limiting the
contextual scope to one ecclesiastical-owned university may constrain a general application
of the findings. Therefore, future studies may consider using several church-owned
universities as context. In the same vein, future studies may benefit from comparative
studies between church-owned and government-owned universities regarding leadership
styles and employee commitment relationships. Second, the study focused on two out of
the three perceived dimensions of employee commitment and two out of the four professed
dimensions of transformational leadership. Therefore, interpretation of the result may be
limited to the relationships regarding the examined dimensions.
Consequently, future studies may consider a comprehensive model involving all
dimensions of employee commitment, transformational leadership, and transactional
leadership. Finally, we used a survey approach for the data collected that was analyzed to
determine the directional relationship between the variables. The response bias associated
with the questionnaire as a data collection instrument possibly limited the general
application of the findings. However, the reliability and validity assessment of the data
collection instrument mitigated the occurrence of response bias.
References
1. Abasilim, U. D., Gberevbie, D. E., & Osibanjo, O. A. (2019). Leadership styles and
employees' commitment: Empirical evidence from Nigeria. SAGE Open, July-
September, 1–15.
2. Acar, A.Z. (2012). Organizational culture, leadership styles and organizational
commitment in Turkish logistics industry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
58, 217– 226.
3. Aga, D.A. (2016). Transactional leadership and project success: the moderating role
of goal clarity. Procedia Computer Science, 100, 517 – 525.
4. Akanbi, P. A. & Itiola, K. A. (2013). Exploring the relationship between job
satisfaction and organisational commitment among health workers in Ekiti State.
Nigeria Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 1(2), 18-22.
5. Akintayo, D. I. (2010). Work-Family Role Conflict and Organisation Commitment
Among Industrial Workers in Nigeria. Journal of Psychology and Counselling, 2(1),
1-8.
6. Alemayehu, A. & Batisa, S. (2020). The effect of leadership style on employee’s
organizational commitment: The case of Wolaita and Dawro zone transport private
limited companies. International Journal of Research in Business Studies and
Management, 7(1), 12-21.
7. Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership:
an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261–295.
8. Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and
moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8),
951–968.
9. Awoyemi, S. O. (2018). Leadership styles and employees’ organizational commitment
in the Nigerian banking sector: A study of commercial banks in Ekiti State. Journal of
Sociology, Psychology and Anthropology in Practice, 9(2), 65-82.
119
10. Aydin, A., Sarier, Y. & Uysal, S, (2011). The effect of gender on organizational
commitment of teachers: A meta analytic analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory
and Practice, 11(2), 628-632.
11. Barth-Farkas, F. & Vera, A. (2014). Power and transformational leadership in public
organizations. International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 10(4), 217-232.
12. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York,
NY: Free Press.
13. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for
the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mindgarden.
14. Chully, A.A. & Sandhya, N. (2016). Relationship between perceived transformational
behaviors of leaders and emotional connect to the organization of faculty members in
the Indian higher education context. International Journal of Engineering and
Management Research, 6(2), 256-262.
15. Cook, C.W., Hunsaker, P.L., & Coffey, R.E. (2001). Management and organizational
behavior (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
16. Dariush, L., Choobdar, G., Valadkhani, P., & Mehrali, E. (2016). Leadership styles
facilitating organizational commitment of employees. International Journal of
Economics, Commerce and Management, IV(5), 640-655.
17. Demirel, Y., & Goc, K. (2013). The impact of organizational commitment on
knowledge sharing. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 9(19).
18. DuBrin, A. J. (2019). Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills. USA:
Academic Media Solutions.
19. Fasola, O. S., Adeyemi, M. A., Olowe, F. T. (2013). Exploring the relationship
between transformational, transactional leadership style and organisational
commitment among Nigerian banks employees. International Journal of Academic
Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 2(6), 96-107.
20. Fok-Yew, O. (2015). The relationship between transformational leadership and
followers’ work characteristics and task performance. International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 5(6).
21. Garg, A. K., Ramjee, D. (2013). The relationship between leadership styles and
employee commitment at a parastatal company in South Africa. International Business
and Economics Research Journal, 12, 1411-1436.
22. Geetha, J., & Mampilly, S. R. (2012). Satisfaction with HR practices and employee
engagement: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Economics and Behavioural
Studies, 4 (7), 423-430.
23. Halder Yandry Loor-Zambrano, H.Y., Santos-Roldán, L. & Palacios-Florencio, B.
(2022). Relationship CSR and employee commitment: Mediating effects of internal
motivation and trust. European Research on Management and Business Economics,
28(2), 1-11.
24. Humphreys, J. (2001). Transformational and transactional leader behavior. Journal of
Management Research, 1(3), 149-159.
25. Islam, M.R. (2018). Sample size and its role in central limit theorem (CLT).
Computational and Applied Mathematics Journal, 4( 1), 1-7.
26. Ismail, A., Mohamed, H.A., Sulaiman, A.Z., Mohamad, M.H., & Yusuf, M.H. (2011).
An empirical study of the relationship between transformational leadership,
empowerment and organizational commitment. Business and Economics Research
Journal, 2(1), 89-107.
120
27. Jekelle, H.E. (2021). Leadership styles dimensions and organizational commitment
nexus: Evidence from a public sector in Nigeria. Journal of Economics and Business,
4(1), 255-271.
28. Jonathan, H. (2020). Organizational commitment scale validation in Tanzanian
context. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(22), 70-86.
29. Lee, P.K.C., Cheng, T.C.E., Yeung, A. C.L., & Lai, K. (2011). An empirical study of
transformational leadership, team performance and service quality in retail banks.
Omega, 39, 690–701.
30. Lo, M. C., Ramayah, T., Min, H. & Songan, P. (2010). Relationship between
leadership styles and organizational commitment in Malaysia: Role of leader-member
exchange. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(1-2), 79-104.
31. Loor-Zambrano, H.Y., Santos-Roldan, L., & Palacios-Florencio, B. (2022).
Relationship CSR and employee commitment: Mediating effects of internal
motivation and trust. European research on management and business economics 28,
1-11.
32. Marescaux, E., De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2013). HR practices and HRM outcomes:
The role of basic need satisfaction. Personnel Review, 42(1), 4-27.
33. Mensah, H. K., Akuoko, K. O., & Ellis, F. (2016). An empirical assessment of health
workers’ organisational commitment in Ghana: A comparative analysis. International
Journal of Business and Management, 11, 183-192.
34. Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Theory, research and
application. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
35. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, L. J., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2012). Employee commitment in
context: The nature and implication of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, 80(1), 1-16.
36. Muenjohn, N & Armstrong, A. (2008). Evaluating the structural validity of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of
transformational- transactional leadership. Contemporary Management Research,
4(1), 3-14.
37. Mugizi, W., Bakkabulindi, F.E.K. & Bisaso, R. (2015). Framework for the study of
employee commitment. Makerere Journal of Higher Education, 7(2), 15–47.
38. Mwaura, W.W., Thinguri, R., & Mwangi, P.W. (2014). A theoretical and empirical
review of the relationship between head teachers’ leadership styles and KCPE
performance in public primary schools in Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice,
5(25). 123-129.
39. Nurani, D.W., Samdin, S., Nasrul, N., & Sukotjo, E. (2021). The effect of leadership
style on organizational commitment and employee performance: An empirical study
from Indonesia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(12), 141–151.
40. Nweke, K.O, Okoye, P.V.C., & Dike-Aghanya, A.A. (2021). Effects of perceived
leadership style and organizational commitment on job satisfaction among non-
teaching employees of federal universities in South-East Nigeria. International
Journal of Research in Education and Sustainable Development, 1(5), 1-18.
41. Ongori, H. (2007). A review of the literature on employee turnover. African Journal
of Business Management, 49-54.
42. Park, H.Y., Christie, R.L., & Sype, G.E. (2014). Organizational commitment and
turnover intention in union and non- union firms. Sage Open, 1–11.
43. Rawung, F.H., Wuryaningrat, N.F., & Elvinita, L.E. (2015). The influence of
transformational and transactional leadership on knowledge sharing: An empirical
121
study on small and medium businesses in Indonesia. Asian Academy of Management
Journal, 20(1), 123–145.
44. Rivai, A. (2017). Personnel performance analysis: Leadership, work discipline, and
organizational commitment: A study of KODAM transportation unit personnel I/Bukit
Barisan. Saudi Journal of Business and Management Studies, 2(11), 957–966.
45. Sharma, S., Prakash,G., Kumar, A.,Mussada, E.K., Antony, J., & Luthra, S.(2021).
Analysing the relationship of adaption of green culture, innovation, green performance
for achieving sustainability: Mediating role of employee commitment. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 303, 1-11.
46. Shurbagi, A.M.A. (2014). The relationship between transformational leadership style
job satisfaction and the effect of organizational commitment. International Business
Research, 7(11), 126-138.
47. Silva, DACS. & Mendis, BAKM (2017). Relationship between transformational,
transaction and laissez-faire leadership styles and employee commitment. European
Journal of Business and Management, 9(7), 13-31.
48. Steyrer, J., Schiffinger, M., & Lang, R. (2008). Organizational commitment a missing
link between leadership behavior and organizational performance? Scandavian
Journal of Management, 24, 364-374.
49. Uakarn, C., Chaokromthong, K., & Sintao, N. (2021). Sample size estimation using
Yamane and Cochran and Krejcie and Morgan and Green formulas and Cohen
statistical power analysis by G*power and comparisons. Apheit International Journal,
76-88.
50. Udayanga, M.V. (2020). The impact of the transactional leadership on organizational
productivity: A monographic study. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and
Current Educational Research 2(5), 297-309.
51. Ugochukwu, P. O. & Egwuatu, E I. (2021). Effect of leadership style and employee
commitment in banking industries Anambra State, Nigeria. International Journal of
Innovative Social Sciences & Humanities Research, 9(3), 52-65.
52. Ugwu, C.C. & Okojie, JO (2016). Adaptation of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ Form-5X) in Nigeria. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
Reviews, 6(4),10-21.
53. Visagie, C.M. & Steyn, C. (2011). Organisational commitment and responses to
planned organisational change: An exploratory study. Southern African Business
Review, 15(3).
54. Wiza, M., Hlanganipai, N. (2014). The impact of leadership styles on employee
organisational commitment in higher learning institutions. Mediterranean Journal of
Social Sciences, 5, 135-143.
55. Xenikou, A. (2017). Transformational leadership, transactional contingent reward, and
organizational identification: The mediating effect of perceived innovation and goal
culture orientations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1754), 1-13.
56. Yilmaz, K. & Cokluk-Bokeoglu O. (2008). Organizational citizenship behaviors and
organizational commitment in Turkish primary schools. World Applied Science
Journal, 3, 775-780.
57. Zareiea, B. & Navimipour, N.J. (2016). The effect of electronic learning systems on
the employee's commitment. The International Journal of Management Education,
14(2), 167-175.
122
58. Musso F. (1997), “The Changing Role of Trade Co-operation in Regional Economies:
A Case Study”, 37th European Regional Science Association Congress, Roma,
Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata", Facoltà di Economia, August 26-29.
59. Musso F. (2013), "Is Industrial Districts Logistics suitable for Industrial Parks?", Acta
Universitatis Danubius. Œconomica, Vol 9, No 4, pp. 221-233.
60. Angioni M., Musso F. (2020) “New perspectives from technology adoption in senior
cohousing facilities”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 32, n. 4, pp. pp. 761-777.
61. Pepe C., Musso F. (1999), “Imprese distrettuali e rapporto col mercato: potenzialità e
limiti dei processi di internazionalizzazione del distretto pesarese del mobile”, Atti del
Convegno: Il futuro dei distretti, Vicenza, 4 giugno.
62. Musso F., Risso M. (2006), “Responsabilità sociale d'impresa nelle filiere
internazionali della grande distribuzione”, Symphonya: Emerging Issues in
Management, n. 1, pp. 91-107.
63. Musso F., Risso M., (2013) "CSR for retailers' led channel relationships: Evidence
from Italian SME manufacturers", International Journal of Information Systems and
Social Change (IJISSC), Vol. 4, n. 1, January-March, pp.21-36
64. Musso F. (2004), “Il sistema distributivo cinese fra tradizione e modernizzazione”,
China News, n. 1, Milano, Franco Angeli, pp. 11-31.
65. Musso F. (2010), “Le nuove frontiere del marketing internazionale fra approccio
strategico, contestualizzazione e interculturalità”, Mercati e competitività, n. 4/2010,
pp. 15-19. doi: 10.3280/MC2010-004002.
66. Palmeira, M., & Musso, F. (2020). 3Rs of Sustainability Values for Retailing
Customers as Factors of Influence on Consumer Behavior. In F. Musso, & E. Druica
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Retailing Techniques for Optimal Consumer
Engagement and Experiences (pp. 421-444). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1412-2.ch019.
67. Pepe C., Musso F., Risso M. (2010), “The social responsibility of retailers and small
and medium suppliers in international supply chains”, Finanza, Marketing e
Produzione, n. 3, pp. 32-61.
68. Sansone, M., Musso, F., Colamatteo, A. and Pagnanelli, M.A. (2021), "Factors
affecting the purchase of private label food products", British Food Journal, Vol. 123,
n. 3, pp. 1207-1222. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-01-2020-0048.
69. Musso F. (2011), “Relational Dynamics within Vertical Business Networks: The Need
for a Transdiscplinary Approach”, Analele Universitatii Bucuresti. Seria Stiinte
Economice si Administrative, Annals of the University of Bucharest: Economic and
Administrative Series, Issue 5, pp. 131-148.
70. Musso, F., & Adam, R. (2020). Retailing 4.0 and Technology-Driven Innovation: A
Literature Review. In F. Musso, & E. Druica (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Retailing Techniques for Optimal Consumer Engagement and Experiences, pp. 338-
354. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1412-2.ch015.
71. Fortuna F., Risso M., Musso F. (2021), “Omnichannelling and the Predominance of
Big Retailers in the Post-Covid Era”, Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management, n.
2, pp. 142-157. doi: 10.4468/2021.2.11fortuna.risso.musso.
72. Angioni, M., Musso, F., (2020). Website Adoption for Agritourism Companies: Key
Features and Perceptions of Customers. In Information Resources Management
Association (USA) (Ed.) Destination Management and Marketing: Breakthroughs in
Research and Practice, pp. 345-362. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.2. Leadership Styles
2.2.1 Transformational Leadership
2.2.2 Transactional Leadership
2.3 Theoretical Review
2.3.1 Social Exchange Theory
2.4 Empirical Review
2.4.1 Leadership Style and Employee Commitment
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design, Sample, and Data Collection
3.2 Data Analysis Method
3.3 Model Specification
4. Result and Discussion
4.1 Results
4.1.1 Idealized Influence and Affective Commitment
4.1.2 Inspirational Motivation and Continuance Commitment
4.1.3 Contingency Reward and Affective Commitment
4.1.4 Management by Exception and Continuance Commitment
4.2 Discussion
5. Conclusion
References